U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

51–915 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–48] 

THE MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM: 

HEALTH AFFAIRS/TRICARE MANAGEMENT 

ACTIVITY ORGANIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 29, 2009 
(II) 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

DAVID KILDEE, Professional Staff Member 

JEANETTE JAMES, Professional Staff Member 

ROSELLEN KIM, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, April 29, 2009, The Military Health System: Health Affairs/ 

TRICARE Management Activity Organization .................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 ..................................................................................... 31 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2009 

THE MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM: HEALTH AFFAIRS/TRICARE 

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY ORGANIZATION 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Chairwoman, Military Personnel Subcommittee ............................................................................. 1 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Ranking Member, 

Military Personnel Subcommittee ...................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Embrey, Ellen P., Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health Affairs .......... 5 

Granger, Maj. Gen. Elder, USA, Deputy Director, TRICARE Management 

Activity (TMA) ...................................................................................................... 13 

McGinn, Gail H., Acting Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness ........................................................................................................................ 4 

Robinson, Vice Adm. Adam, USN, Surgeon General, U.S. Navy ......................... 9 

Roudebush, Lt. Gen. James G., USAF, Surgeon General, U.S. Air Force .......... 11 

Schoomaker, Lt. Gen. Eric, USA, Commanding General, U.S. Army Medical 

Command, The Surgeon General, U.S. Army .................................................... 7 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 35 

Embrey, Ellen P. ............................................................................................... 44 

Granger, Maj. Gen. Elder ................................................................................ 79 

McGinn, Gail H. ................................................................................................ 38 

Robinson, Vice Adm. Adam .............................................................................. 65 

Roudebush, Lt. Gen. James G. ........................................................................ 70 

Schoomaker, Lt. Gen. Eric ............................................................................... 56 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 37 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

TRICARE Behavioral Health Resources ........................................................ 87 

TRICARE Mental Health Expenditures and Utilization Trends, FY 2002– 

08 .................................................................................................................... 97 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 103 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING—Continued 

Ms. Fallin and Mrs. Davis ............................................................................... 103 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 107 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 110 
(1) 

THE MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM: HEALTH AFFAIRS/ 

TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY ORGANIZATION 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 29, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan A. Davis (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRWOMAN, MILITARY 

PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mrs. DAVIS. Good morning. It is good to have you all here. The 

meeting will come to order. 

Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will hold a hearing 

on the organization of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. It is important to note that the Office of 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs has a unique 

organization within the Department of Defense. It is the only merger of an Assistant Secretary’s Office and the defense activity or 

agency, in this case the TRICARE Management Activity. In every 

other instance we can find, a defense agency or activity is a standalone entity, usually with a three-star or Senior Executive Service 

(SES) director and a two-star SES deputy or vice director. 

The agency or activity falls under the Office of Secretary of Defense Office and the director reports to the OSD official such as an 

under secretary, an assistant secretary or deputy under secretary. 

But the two staffs in all those instances are separate and distinct. 

In Health Affairs (HA), however, the assistant secretary is also the 

director of the TRICARE Management Activity. Each of the Health 

Affairs deputy assistant secretaries are also dual-hatted as the 

TRICARE Management Activity division chiefs. 

And, finally, if we have confused everybody by now, finally, last 

year, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs was also designated as the Principal Deputy Director of the TRICARE Management Activity. 

This new position actually has no corollary in other defense 

agencies or activities; and, frankly, its role has not yet been fully 

explained. So, as a result, the role of the two-star deputy director 

of the TRICARE Management Activity to many people is not exactly clear, and we are here to have you explain that to us. 

In all of the other Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) offices 

that have a defense agency or activity underneath them, the under 

or assistant secretary staff develops policy and provides oversight, 
2 

while the agency or activity staff is responsible for executing that 

policy. This structure is the result of hard lessons learned with 

built-in checks and balances. 

In Health Affairs, one set of people is responsible for both sets 

of functions; and, in fact, few refer colloquially to either Health Affairs or the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), separately. 

They are simply known as the Health Affairs slash TRICARE Management Activity, or HA/TMA. So, with HA/TMA, we are clearly 

dealing with a different model from the rest of the Department; 

and we do not know if that is a good different, if it is a bad different or just different. It is therefore important for us to examine 

exactly how the HA/TMA is organized and operates today and then, 

most significantly, how that impacts the care we provide to our 

men and women in uniform. And isn’t that really the bottom line 

here that we are seeking? 

Our hearing will seek to answer the following questions: 

What is the current organizational structure of Health Affairs/ 

TRICARE Management Activity? What are the current roles and 

responsibilities of Health Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity? 

And is this unique structure that we have referred to appropriate 

to the roles and responsibilities of the office? What is the organizational relationship between HA/TMA and the services? Does that 

current organizational structure support the requirements of the 

services, most significantly? And are there any plans to reorganize 

HA/TMA; and, if so, what would that new organization look like? 

How does the Department plan to deal with the joint medical command headquarters Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendation? 

For our witness panel today, we have all the key players from 

the Military Health System (MHS). 

First is the individual to whom Health Affairs reports, the Acting 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Ms. Gail 

McGinn. Ms. McGinn has been the Acting Under Secretary for just 

a few weeks now, so we understand the difficulty of being here 

today. But we appreciate it very much, and we look forward to the 

discussion with you. 

Next is the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Ms. Ellen Embrey; and this is actually Ms. Embrey’s first day 

as the Acting Assistant Secretary. So congratulations to you. You 

may not be feeling that way afterwards. But we are very happy to 

have you with us as well. I understand that you will be testifying 

also this afternoon before our counterpart subcommittee in the 

Senate. 

We also have all of the service Surgeons General here today. And 

we certainly welcome you again, and we know that we have had 

an opportunity to meet with you in the past: Lieutenant General 

James Roudebush from the Air Force, Vice Admiral Adam Robinson from the Navy, Lieutenant General Eric Schoomaker from the 

Army, to get the service perspectives on the current HA/TMA organizational structure. And, finally, we are very delighted and fortunate to have the Deputy Director of the TRICARE Management Activity, Major General Granger here today as well. 

General, I understand that this is your last week—we have a few 

milestones here today—your last week as the Deputy Director and 
3 

that you will be returning shortly, after several decades in uniform, 

to the private sector. And we certainly wish you well in your service moving forward; and we thank you very, very much for your 

contribution to our country. 

So that is my introduction and, I want to turn to my colleague, 

Mr. Wilson who wants to welcome you as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Wilson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

SOUTH CAROLINA, RANKING MEMBER, MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Today, the subcommittee meets to hear testimony from the Department of Defense and the service medical leadership regarding 

the current organizational structure of the Military Health System, 

MHS. I want to welcome our witnesses, and I look forward to their 

testimony. 

A robust military medical system is essential to the health and 

well-being of our Armed Forces. General George Washington and 

the Continental Congress understood the necessity of good medical 

care during the fight for our independence. After suffering a sizeable number of casualties from disease, the Continental Congress 

established the Medical Department of the Army in July 1775. 

Washington then appointed the first director general and chief physician of the hospital of the Army. Since that time, our military 

medical system has provided care for the sick and injured during 

times of war and maintained the medical readiness of service members in peacetime. America expects nothing less. 

With that being said, I want to make sure that the Military 

Health System is structured and organized to continue to provide 

world-class health care today and in the future. I am interested in 

hearing from our witnesses today on how the Military Health System is organized to carry out its multiple health care missions of 

maintaining medical readiness capabilities, providing peacetime 

health care to eligible beneficiaries, providing battlefield medicine 

to our brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Global 

War on Terrorism, and caring for those brave men and women 

through the long recovery process when they become injured or 

wounded. 

I am personally interested as the grateful father of four sons currently serving in the military today, including one of my sons, who 

is a Navy doctor, Admiral, so I am particularly proud of what you 

all are doing and what you are achieving for the young people who 

have the opportunity to serve in the military. 

Is there a better way to structure the system as we look to the 

future? Are there opportunities to build on initiatives such as the 

joint task force capital medicine that was established to implement 

the base realignment and closure requirements in the National 

Capital Region? 

I look forward to hearing from the uniformed leadership with us 

today, how they view the organization and structure of the MHS 
4 

and if it helps or hinders their ability to carry out their responsibility to provide medical care to all of our beneficiaries. 

Before I close, I would like to recognize and congratulate Major 

General Elder Granger on his upcoming retirement from the Army. 

General Granger has served this Nation and our service members 

with distinction for over 32 years, and I was happy to point out to 

him he topped me by a year. I was in 31. So I am very, very grateful for your service. 

Also, I want to alert you that we do have a condominium at Hilton Head. There is one left, and so you would be welcome to come 

to South Carolina. 

I sincerely thank you for your service and wish you the best in 

your future endeavors. God bless you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

And now, Ms. McGinn, would you please begin. And then we will 

go right down the line. 

And we are—I think we have told you that you have five minutes. We hope you can stick to that, since we have a large panel, 

and we certainly have a number of questions. Thank you very 

much. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL H. MCGINN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE, PERSONNEL AND READINESS 

Ms. MCGINN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the 

committee and thank you for the opportunity to be with you today 

to discuss the Military Health System organization. I have submitted a written statement for the record. 

Health care, of course, plays a pivotal role in sustaining the AllVolunteer Force and its readiness. As we continue to respond to the 

realities of the post 9/11 world, the Department remains firmly focused on the health and well-being of our forces and their families, 

particularly the wounded, ill and injured, and to ensuring that all 

Department of Defense (DOD) beneficiaries receive the highest 

quality, most accessible and cost-effective health services available. 

As you noticed, I am here performing the duties of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. But the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness exercises authority, direction and control over the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Health Affairs. He or she develops policies, plans and programs 

for health and medical affairs to provide health services and support to members of the Armed Forces, their families and others entitled to or determined eligible for Department of Defense care. The 

under secretary also ensures that policies and programs are designed and managed to improve standards of performance, economy 

and efficiency and that service providers are responsive to the requirements of their organizational customers. 

Among other things, in exercising these responsibilities, the 

under secretary reviews the overall status of the Military Health 

System, chairs the Military Health System Executive Review, 

which is the Department’s senior health care advisory body which 
5 

represents the stakeholder perspective; and he or she also chairs 

the congressionally mandated Joint Medical Readiness Council. 

Over the last five years, Congress has enacted many new programs, has directed BRAC implementation and expanded our requirements to care for wounded warriors. At the same time, the 

Department has been asked to reduce health care costs, while increasing efficiencies. 

In response, the Department has taken significant steps to improve unity of effort. For example, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

established a joint command for the national capital area. Joint 

Task Force Capital Medical, JTF CapMed, achieved full operating 

capability on 30 September, 2008, and is meeting BRAC milestones 

for the creation of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center at Bethesda. 

For health care delivery in the San Antonio multi-service market, 

all governance decisions are accomplished in a joint collaborative 

manner to further enhance a culture of increased jointness and 

interoperability. Brooke Army Medical Center and the Air Force’s 

Wilford Hall Medical Center have already completed an in-patient 

business plan for the new San Antonio Military Medical Center 

and are currently reviewing their integrated manpower needs and 

synchronizing construction with their transition schedule. 

The Department is also standing up the joint medical education 

and training campus in San Antonio, Texas, to improve the quality 

and consistency of training of all enlisted personnel. 

Under the Base Realignment and Closure Act, the Department 

is proceeding with plans to collocate the medical headquarters activities of Health Affairs, TRICARE Management Activity, the 

Army Medical Command, the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Air 

Force Medical Service. This collocation will increase unity of effort 

in policy, strategy and financial programming and yield greater 

consistency across the services in program execution, we believe. 

Madam Chairwoman, the ultimate goal for the Under Secretary 

of Personnel and Readiness is to ensure a predictable, reliable, robust, effective, superior quality and readily accessible health care 

benefit for the DOD population. The testimony you will hear from 

my colleagues, Ms. Ellen Embrey and the Deputy Director of 

TRICARE Management Activity, will provide greater detail about 

their roles and responsibilities in these areas. Together, we continue to do all we can to improve the lives and health of those in 

our care. 

We thank you for your generous support of military men and 

women and their families, and we look forward to your questions. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinn can be found in the Appendix on page 38.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Please, Ms. Embrey. 

STATEMENT OF ELLEN P. EMBREY, ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, HEALTH AFFAIRS 

Ms. EMBREY. Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to respond to your request for information and to present the current Military Health System’s organizational and governance structure. 
6 

Title 10 of the U.S. Code defines the key leadership roles and responsibilities of the organizations that comprise the Military 

Health System. Most of the organizations are represented here 

today. Ms. McGinn, Major General Granger and I represent the organizations from within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

When I arrived in Health Affairs in January of 2002 at a lower 

level, I was one of the four deputy assistant secretaries in Health 

Affairs. At that time, there was a clear division of role and responsibility between the Office of Health Affairs and the supporting activity, TRICARE Management Activity. 

Those structures were established in the late 1990s as an outcome of defense reform initiatives to control the rising cost of 

health care services, to improve access to care for the beneficiary 

population and to increase the consistency and quality of health 

care across the Department. The initiatives capped the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense and service headquarters staffs and realigned 

the majority of the former Health Affairs staff into the newly 

formed TRICARE Management Activity. 

Today, Health Affairs staff remains capped at 42 military and civilian personnel. Its primary responsibility is to advise the Secretary of Defense on all health matters and to develop Departmentwide policies and programs consistent with the Department’s 

health care and medical readiness needs. 

TRICARE’s primary responsibility is to execute defense-wide programs, services and contracts that improve access, quality and consistency of health care services and to enable the Services to perform. Today’s TRICARE workforce numbers more than 1,350 personnel worldwide. 

The military Surgeons General lead and manage organizations 

and facilities that develop, enhance and execute the services’ medical programs; and they guide joint operating programs in a lead 

or executive agent role. 

The Joint Staff and the geographic and functional combatant 

commanders also have Surgeons General who advise them on contingency operations health planning, patient movement and tracking and theater health delivery services in commands around the 

globe. 

Since September 11, 2001, the Department has had to adapt to 

several new environmental drivers and very much expanded requirements, including increased national security threats and force 

health protection needs and six years of continuous concurrent 

military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with all of the medical 

force protection and other services that those operations entail. 

Some 95,000 military medical personnel have deployed to support U.S. warfighters, in addition to providing mandatory health 

deployment assessments and reassessments, increased psychological health programs and services, expanded research and treatment protocols to address traumatic injuries, as well as wounded 

warrior rehabilitation and recovery programs, a new theater trauma registry and management program, and expanding and improving the electronic health systems. 

Further, we have also engaged in the development, testing and 

implementation of common cognitive assessment tools for field and 

baseline assessments. 
7 

We also established a new defense center of excellence for psychological health and traumatic brain injury, to address that and 

other areas of urgent concern. We have conducted multiple global 

stabilization and reconstruction operations in response to catastrophic natural disasters at home and abroad. We have plans to 

address a strategically imminent threat of a global pandemic. We 

have promulgated and participated in international health regulations to address the threats of bioterrorism. We have implemented 

new BRAC and Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) recommendations during that time frame to consolidate and align common functions. And we help support the medical aspects and development 

of the new Africa Command with a global health mission. 

We have taken on other new and expanded areas of responsibility which are detailed in my testimony that has been submitted 

for the record. 

So we have had a lot of stuff we have been managing in chaos 

for many years now. In order to address that, an updated charter 

for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs was published in June of 2008. It recognized the need to organize to help 

manage an MHS which grew from $20 billion in 2002 to a $45 billion program in 2009. 

Madam Chairwoman, the world has changed dramatically since 

September 11th; and the MHS has had to evolve to meet its changing requirements. We do take a collaborative leadership approach 

in making those governance decisions. We work hard to develop 

win-win positions with our colleagues here at the table, and we engage on an ongoing basis on how to improve our focus for patientcentered care. 

We believe we have improved the efficiency and effectiveness of 

the Military Health System as an enterprise; and with your help 

and continuing support, we hope we will continue to do the same. 

Thank you very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Embrey can be found in the Appendix on page 44.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Schoomaker. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. ERIC SCHOOMAKER, USA, COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND, THE 

SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. ARMY 

General SCHOOMAKER. Madam Chairwoman, Representative Wilson, distinguished members of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the organization of the Military Health System. 

First, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the 

Honorable Dr. S. Ward Casscells for his years of principled, passionate service as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. We bid farewell to Dr. Casscells last night. He is a friend; he 

is a mentor whom I greatly respect. His compassion and commitment to our service members and our families has been unparalleled. He is really one of my—one of our heroes at this table, and 

I don’t say that lightly. His team in Health Affairs and the 

TRICARE Management Agency are hard-working and dedicated individuals, and I salute their service to the Nation. 
8 

Although the title of this hearing addresses the organization of 

Health Affairs and TMA, HA/TMA, I am not really so interested in 

organizational structure. I am—as you cited, Madam Chairwoman, 

in your opening comments and addressed in one of your questions, 

I am far more concerned about the nature of the functional relationships between and among the stakeholders in the Military 

Health System, the MHS. 

To be more effective, form should always follow function. The 

function of the Military Health System must be first and foremost 

to support the warfighter on the battlefield. We must have trained 

and competent health care professionals delivering timely, effective 

and not just acceptable but truly world-class, cutting-edge care on 

the battlefield. 

In order to recruit and retain these professionals, to acculturate 

them in the service of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines and the Joint Medical Force and maintain their skills in 

peacetime and wartime, we maintain what we call a direct care 

system of military hospitals, health centers and clinics. The direct 

care system delivers a robust health care benefit to active duty soldiers, family members and retirees who live within a reasonable 

commuting distance to our military treatment facilities. 

For an Army at war, care of our families is critical. The warrior 

must know that his or her family is safe and is being cared for, and 

the warrior and their families must be confident that if that warrior is injured or ill in the course of their duties that they are going 

to survive, they are going to return home, and they will have the 

best chance at full recovery and an active or productive life, either 

in uniform or out. 

Each service maintains responsibility for operating and managing our portion of the direct care system. Our military clinics and 

hospitals, our graduate medical education programs and graduate 

programs in general, our medic training platforms are all the cornerstone of Army medicine’s three-pronged mission to, first, promote, sustain and enhance soldier health; train, develop and equip 

a medical force that supports full spectrum operations; deliver leading-edge health services to our warriors and military family to optimize the clinical outcomes for those events. 

For those health care services not available in a military treatment facility and for those beneficiaries who don’t live near a military treatment facility (MTF), we have established contractual relationships with civilian health care providers to fill those gaps. This 

part of the benefit is what we call the private sector care, or PSC; 

and it is managed by the TRICARE Management Agency, or TMA. 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, as you pointed out, sits above the direct care system and the 

private sector care, providing oversight and policy development. 

In a nutshell, the MHS exists to support warfighters on the battlefield. The direct care system exists to deliver medical readiness. 

Private sector care supports and fills the gaps in the direct care 

system. If form is to follow function, then the MHS should be optimally organized to support the direct care system. 

I don’t believe this is always the case. For example, in the budgeting process, private sector care forecasts are considered ‘‘must 

pay’’, while direct care system estimates are considered ‘‘unfunded’’ 
9 

requirements. The Department’s priority has been to fund the private sector care at 100 percent of projected requirements, while 

many of our direct care system needs are not addressed until year 

end when overforecasted PSC funding becomes available for distribution to the direct care system. 

Since private sector care is often overprogrammed, they return 

money to the MHS, and they are seen as cost containing. Our direct care system health care bills are always after the fact and are 

seen as cost overruns. This resourcing construct appears to 

prioritize private sector care over the direct care system. 

I believe that Health Affairs, TMA and the service Surgeons 

General need to take a holistic look at the MHS to ensure that our 

functional relationships such as those for resourcing, adoption of 

shared, evidence-based practices between the direct care system 

and the purchased care system, optimal documentation in exchange 

of clinical and other information are all oriented toward support of 

the direct care system and that the organizational structure of the 

MHS follows accordingly. 

In closing, I would like to take this last opportunity to possibly 

publicly recognize my friend and colleague, Major General Elder 

Granger. He is a respected, gifted leader and clinician. He is a soldier/medic par excellence. It has truly been a privilege to serve 

with Elder, to be mentored by him. The Nation is truly richer for 

his service. 

Thank you for holding this hearing, ma’am. I look forward to 

your questions. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Schoomaker can be found in 

the Appendix on page 56.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Admiral Robinson. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADM. ADAM ROBINSON, USN, SURGEON 

GENERAL, U.S. NAVY 

Admiral ROBINSON. Good morning. 

Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member Wilson, distinguished 

members of the committee, I am grateful to have the opportunity 

to share Navy medicine’s opinion about the current organization of 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs and the 

TRICARE Management Activity organization. 

Navy medicine is focused on meeting current operational and humanitarian mission requirements while proactively planning to 

meet the future health care needs of the Navy and the Marine 

Corps. These two distinct services have different needs, missions 

and operational requirements which require us to develop unique 

enhancements to our strategic ability, operational reach and tactical flexibility. 

Much has been accomplished between Navy medicine and the 

MHS, yet exigencies within the current environment require us to 

reexamine these organizations and the working relationships responsible for providing health care for wounded service members 

and their families. 

The experiences throughout my entire Navy career over 30 years, 

including a tour at Health Affairs, have shaped my position on our 

relationship with OSD(HA) and TMA. Given that background, I am 
10 

increasingly concerned that the lines between policy and execution 

have become blurred and may be compromising the effectiveness of 

this combined health care organization. 

As Ms. Embrey mentions in her testimony, the deputy assistant 

secretaries are dual-hatted in developing policy at HA and in executing that policy at TMA. Having one controlling activity and authority over MHS policy and execution means that checks and balances can be compromised. These conflicting roles create challenges 

for the services since they blur execution decisions that then become policy decisions that may compromise care to our operational 

forces and our beneficiaries. 

This structure also further divides the delivery of the benefit into 

two parts, in-house and network care, as General Schoomaker has 

outlined. What should be a collaborative process oftentimes becomes a competitive process. 

HA/TMA’s oversight of the network assets available through the 

TRICARE managed care support contracts limits Navy medicine 

from leveraging those network providers at their disposal. Navy 

medicine supports a regionalized government governance plan with 

a flag officer or a general officer providing oversight for direct and 

purchased care services that is controlling the network assets. 

Each of the services would lead one region, a model similar to what 

is currently in place with the leadership of the TRICARE regional 

offices. This model provides the tools at the regional level to integrate direct and private sector care with the goal of optimizing care 

within the medical treatment facilities. 

Also, the ability to use network providers within the medical 

treatment facility may decrease the reliance of MTFs on contract 

support brought in to fill vacancies created by operational requirements. 

I have also grown increasingly concerned about the way ahead 

in relationship to the JTF CapMed organization and the San Antonio regional military medical center. It is unclear to me why these 

two organizations are being organized differently if the intent, as 

stated in Dr. Chu’s memo from June of 2007, suggests that in both 

organizations the services would retain operational control of individual MTFs and all deployable personnel. 

The advisory role the services currently play in the policymaking 

process limits their ability to effectively impact the process. This 

limited role results in concerns and/or challenges not always being 

addressed when the final policy is disseminated. 

The services must be afforded a more active and influential role 

in the process. It is difficult for the services to have the responsibility to execute a policy and to be held accountable for said execution without the ability to affect and/or influence the policy. 

Chairwoman Davis, I am proud to say that Navy medicine is 

built on a solid foundation of traditions and a remarkable legacy 

of force health protection. We are committed to preparing healthy 

and fit sailors and marines to protect our Nation and to be ready 

to deploy at any time. We could not accomplish our diverse mission 

on our own, so our relationship with Health Affairs and with the 

TRICARE Management Activity is critical to our success. 

I hope my testimony provides you with the examples of how 

strengthening the relationship between HA/TMA and Navy medi-
11 

cine and, for that matter, the service medical departments through 

increased cooperation directly benefits our sailors, airmen, soldiers, 

marines and their families. 

Thank you very much. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Robinson can be found in 

the Appendix on page 65.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. General Roudebush. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JAMES G. ROUDEBUSH, USAF, 

SURGEON GENERAL, U.S. AIR FORCE 

General ROUDEBUSH. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Davis, 

Ranking Member Wilson, distinguished members. Thank you very 

much for this opportunity to share our thoughts with you this 

morning regarding this very important subject. 

Before I begin, I would like to join my colleagues in recognizing 

the extraordinary service of Dr. Ward Casscells, who has been a 

key member of this organization, a key member of our team for the 

last two years. I think his contributions are certainly something 

that I have appreciated. I have learned, we have worked together, 

and I think we have all profited from his presence. 

Likewise, General Granger has been an extraordinary ally and 

partner in meeting some very demanding circumstances; and I 

could not be more pleased to have the chance to simply say thank 

you for the record for General Granger and his service. 

As we meet this morning, Madam Chairwoman, I think it is important to understand that we operate as a team. Each one of us 

has a role. But in order to execute effectively, we have to execute 

as a team. And in order to meet the critically important and very 

demanding military health care mission, we must, we must operate 

as that team. 

And on the team we each have roles. For Health Affairs, the role 

is policy, oversight, guidance, coordination, setting that strategic 

vector, and as we always work for our civilian leadership to give 

us the lead in terms of many of our activities. 

TMA has their role, to manage and execute the defense health 

program which is a challenging construct, somewhat different than 

you will find in other departments and agencies but an activity 

that very much drives a good bit of our energy and focus in making 

sure that we get that particular aspect of resourcing correct. 

And, of course, TMA is our executive agency that oversees the 

managed care support contract, our private sector care allies and 

partners in delivering the full and comprehensive benefit to our active duty men and women and their family members, our retirees, 

those who have fought the fight and their family members as well. 

For the services, we have, as our role, a multifaceted responsibility. 

First, we support our Chief and our Secretary in providing them 

a healthy, fit force and supporting their title 10 mission in executing our national military strategy. 

Secondly, we support our separate service missions. For us in the 

Air Force, we support the Air Force mission here in the United 

States and globally, again, serving our Nation. 
12 

Thirdly, we support our combatant commanders’ requirements, 

meeting their mission around the world in a variety of very challenging contingencies. 

And lastly, of course, each medical service has organizational, 

training and equipping responsibility to be sure that the medics of 

today are able to meet that mission as well as the medics of tomorrow. 

So the services have a role, TMA has a role, HA has a role, and 

if we each execute those roles properly, the end result will be effective health care to the men and women so richly deserving that. 

I came into my position as the Deputy Surgeon one month before 

9/11. I served as Deputy Surgeon until I assumed the role of Surgeon General in 2006. So I have some experience as a member of 

this team. 

Over that time, I have seen good men and women working hard 

to meet a very challenging mission. And we must never forget that. 

As I watched this team execute, I observed over that time, as we 

all are aware today and has been pointed out, that Health Affairs 

began to take on more execution responsibilities by merging with 

the TRICARE Management Activity and with an increasing focus 

on the execution within the direct care system. 

Now, we all work hard to execute our responsibilities, but we 

each have our lane, our roles responsibilities, and we need to be 

able to move within that lane to effectively accomplish those responsibilities. As we fast forward to this point in time, our direct 

care system, the service military medical system, Army, Navy and 

Air Force, is heavily tasked in meeting our critically important mission of providing that healthy, fit force, caring for our families and 

meeting the needs of our combatant commanders and our 

warfighters. We are doing it well, but it is a heavily tasked construct, and there is stress within the system. 

Adding to that stress are challenges in recruiting and retention 

as well as recapitalizing aging infrastructure that was designed to 

meet the mission of the past and not necessarily designed to meet 

the mission of today. And, at the same time, we are working hard 

to be cost effective, because we understand that military health 

care is becoming an ever-increasing large part of the Department 

of Defense budget, and we each have the responsibility to be great 

stewards of that health care and providing the best return on every 

dollar. So I believe now is the right time to ensure that we are 

properly aligned as a team to meet this function. 

HA focused on policy oversight and guidance; the services focused 

on those title 10 requirements, meeting our service missions, meeting the combatant commanders’ mission; and I would suggest TMA 

focus on managing the defense health program, as they have in the 

past, but really honing in on the managed care support contract to 

leverage the direct care system, as very strongly recommended by 

the Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care, to be sure 

that the direct care system is the focus of our system, that its capacity is fully utilized, that its capabilities are fully leveraged and 

that it is, in fact, fully maintained and optimized to meet the very 

challenging mission. 

So, in short, I believe the time is right. We owe this to every man 

and woman who raises their right hand and swears to support and 
13 

defend. We owe them the very best health care today, tomorrow, 

10 years from now, 30 years from now; and we owe them that 

health care in these demanding places where they go in harm’s 

way such that we will, in fact, save their life, bring them home 

safely to their family member, if that is at all possible, and ensure 

them that their health care needs will be met and will be our priority. We will earn that trust today, tomorrow and every day coming with your support. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Roudebush can be found in 

the Appendix on page 70.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Major General Granger; and, once again, thank you 

very much for your service. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ELDER GRANGER, USA, DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY (TMA) 

General GRANGER. Thank you. 

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member 

Wilson, other members of the committee and to my distinguished 

colleagues to my right here. I want to thank you for your kind compliments. 

I have really enjoyed my 32 years of active service and total of 

36 years, including my time where I started off in Arkansas National Guard. I have had the awesome responsibility of serving as 

the Deputy Director of TRICARE Management Activity, and in this 

role my responsibility has been working with my colleagues to integrate the program for 9.4 million men and women around the 

world. 

We have done a number of things through your help and support. 

We have been able to put in a very aggressive, robust disease management program that has reached over 150,000 and netted a cost 

avoidance of about $30 million. In addition to that, we have had 

a heavy focus on meeting the needs of men and women in our 

Guard and Reserve in remote areas by working with our colleagues 

to my right as well as reaching out to those family members in 

terms of mental health support, having a toll-free number where 

they can get help anytime, 7 days a week, 365 a year. 

In addition to that, thanks to you all, we have been able to focus 

on prevention. Through your help, we will be able to put in place 

a very robust prevention program with no co-pays or deductibles 

designed to eliminate some of those barriers that we need to get 

good health care in this Nation. 

Last but not least, we have been ranked for six years in a row 

the number one health plan in the Nation. That in itself is due to 

the complement of all of us working together, focusing totally on 

the mission of taking care of the men and women in our uniform 

services. 

Last but not least, as I take off the uniform, it has truly been 

my honor to serve my colleagues for many, many years. 

I look forward to your questions, Madam Chairman and Ranking 

Member Wilson. Those conclude my brief statement. Thank you 

very much, and God bless you all. 
14 

[The prepared statement of General Granger can be found in the 

Appendix on page 79.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. We appreciate all of your testimony here today. 

I think there are a number of things that you have really identified, and one is the proper relationship between Health Affairs and 

TMA. I want to zero in for a second, General Schoomaker, on one 

of your statements; and I know that others will want to weigh in 

as well. 

You described private sector care as a gap filler. But since the 

purchased care budget is roughly double that of the direct care 

budget, hasn’t private sector care then really become the main effort or at least in terms of the budget? How has that impacted care 

and does there need to be a shift back towards the direct care system? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Well, ma’am, there is no question as we 

have continued in this war, as we have continued to mobilize National Guard and Reserves, as we have continued to employ the 

private sector care to close the gaps in the so-called white space of 

America where care needs to be delivered and we don’t have facilities, we see more private sector dollars being spent out there. 

And I don’t dispute the fact—I mean, the figures speak for themselves—that more and more money is going in that direction. But 

I started off my comments and I was gratified to hear that my colleagues are all in agreement with this, that at the end of this, we 

have to always remember that the centerpiece for the Military 

Health System is the direct care system and our ability to fully employ each one of our military treatment facilities in whatever form 

that exists to the fullest extent possible—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Could you and others paint a picture of how you 

think that relationship might be better developed? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Well, ma’am, I think in those catchment 

areas—and the Army experimented with this very early in the 

course of the transitioning to a comprehensive managed care, the 

primary care based managed care system, placing military commanders in those communities, in catchment areas, in the control 

of and responsible for both the direct care and the purchased care 

system; and then on a regional basis, like my colleague, Admiral 

Robinson, has pointed out, having a military commander responsible for both execution of the direct care dollar and care as well 

as the purchased care dollar and building seamlessness not only in 

terms of where money is spent but also in terms of practices and 

exchange of clinical information. I am firmly one who believes that 

our future in cost containment is going to reside around our ability 

to embrace outcomes-focused, evidence-based practices; and I think 

that is done best in concert and through the military commander. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Do others want to comment? Do you think that the 

fact that that relationship perhaps doesn’t exist today, that that is 

not where the balance is, that that gets in the way of doing what 

do you think is best? 

Admiral ROBINSON. I think that the relationship does exist today. 

But I think the emphasis is not on the relationship of trying to 

bring the direct care system and the managed care system, the network, together. There is a system that keeps us in parallel, but we 
15 

are like two parallel railroad tracks. What we need to do—and this 

is the task force of the future of military health care—the number 

one recommendation was to bring together the direct care system, 

that is the uniform side, and the managed care side into the same 

system. 

Instead of taking our patients and sending them to the network, 

the network is our network. We need to bring our networks to our 

MTFs. We need to bring—we need to merge a lot of the activities 

that are occurring in parallel in our system. But, in fact, very often 

the direct care side, that is the MTF commanders, really don’t have 

visibility on what is occurring on the network side. I am not suggesting that they don’t understand what the policies for accessing 

the network are or how to do that. I am suggesting that we don’t 

really have a system that leverages our networks so that it can 

help us on the direct care side. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Before we go on to the next member, I just wanted— 

Ms. Embrey, could you weigh in on this question a little bit? Because you have said that, basically, under title 10 that the Secretary defines roles and responsibilities. And I think there is some 

question whether or not that is actually really not quite as you 

characterized it. Could you please weigh in on that issue? 

Ms. EMBREY. I think that the segregation has to do a little bit 

with how money is segregated. We have to budget, and there is a 

firewall between what we can—we have to budget for, what our 

beneficiary population seeks in the way of care in our network, and 

we also have to budget for what we believe the performance and 

productivity and demand signals in our military treatment facilities. And there is a firewall. We can’t move money back and forth 

easily without a reprogramming request. 

So I think part of it is artificial, institutional, and part of it is 

we attempted, I believe, to establish TRICARE regional offices, and 

when we originally established them from 11 regional areas to 

three, we asked each of the service Surgeons General to identify 

uniformed flag officers to manage that so that we could get to that 

uniformed integration of and support in a regional area, that kind 

of integration that was testified to. To date, the Navy has been the 

only one consistently providing that uniformed officer. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I know that we are going to come back 

to that issue. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Again, thank you all for being here; and I want to congratulate 

you. I believe that military medicine is leading the world in technology, research. 

It is so inspiring to me to know what you are doing in advancing—and I have visited the medical facilities with prosthetics, with 

head injury, trauma injury. What helps the military will also be so 

helpful to the civilian population, and I want to thank you for what 

you have done. 

Specifically, as a veteran and a parent, I this month visited the 

Air Force Hospital there at Balad; and it was really encouraging 

to me to know that there is a 98 percent survival rate of our troops 

who are medivac’d to that hospital. I just think that is so reas-
16 

suring. And the American people need to know the quality of care 

that is provided. 

Specifically, prior to establishing the defense health program, 

funding—and this is for our service Surgeons General—funding for 

health care provided by the military services was included in the 

overall military service budget managed by the service secretary. 

Consequently, the Surgeons General had to compete with other 

programs within their service for resources. 

Now that you have had several years of experience with the defense health program (DHP), what method do you prefer? In light 

of the current health care demands within DOD, what is the most 

appropriate mechanism for allocating resources between the direct 

care and purchased care system? 

General ROUDEBUSH. Sir, as we have had experience with the 

DHP, we have two streams of resources. We have the dollars coming through the DHP, and we have the manpower which comes 

through our service secretaries. We have, I believe, established a 

system which in the main serves our purposes but does create some 

tension in terms of allocating resources. 

I will tell you that my view is I think there is some rationale 

with the DHP in terms of looking at health care resources writ 

large, with across three services and a very large Military Health 

System. I will tell you that the countervailing pressure on that, 

though, is my Chief and my Secretary, who view the health of their 

men and women, our airmen and their families as very much their 

responsibility within their title 10 responsibilities. So I feel very 

well supported by my line in terms of competing for resources and 

properly allocating those very scarce resources across my activities. 

The DHP is a balancing construct to a certain extent, and it does 

allow us to get the larger costs potentially of the private sector care 

which goes across services. That is not necessarily a simply servicespecific issue, although with encatchment areas it can get very 

local. But, in the main, in being able to manage very large contracts, we do need to do that strategically from a corporate standpoint; and I think the DHP gives us the opportunity to do that. 

I agree with my colleagues, however, that balancing between the 

direct care system and private sector care is very challenging. 

The direct care system, to your point, Madam Chairwoman, is in 

fact the centerpiece and does actually three things: It helps us provide that healthy, fit force, it allows us to provide the benefit to all 

our beneficiaries to the full extent that we can, but it is also our 

training platform for our military medical personnel. 

So the direct care system needs to be robust and the centerpiece. 

Now, the private sector care wraparound to that needs to be in 

balance. And I agree with my colleagues that the direct care system needs to be trumped with private sector care being used to leverage the direct care system and also to leverage the capacity. Because the direct care system in many regards has sunk costs. So 

the greater capacity we have within the direct care system, the 

more cost effective our system is overall. So I think the DHP in the 

main allows us to get at that. 

There is some tension with that. However, my chief, my secretary paid very close attention to that balance and that tension 
17 

which I think helps us keep some rationality and balance within 

it. But it does create tension. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And General Schoomaker may want to comment, too. 

General SCHOOMAKER. I will just say very quickly, sir, unequivocally, from my perspective, the creation of the DHP by the Atwood 

memorandum was a good thing. And to go back through the door 

of breaking health care costs among the services I think would be 

a backward step to take. It has allowed us to see, to develop a level 

playing field to the best of our ability across services. It has allowed us to raise to a much higher level of visibility the needs of 

our beneficiaries for care and for all of the even deployment-related 

issues that we have. 

I think what you are hearing, and I can completely agree with 

General Roudebush, is you are hearing a series of tensions. One, 

the tension between the direct care system and the purchased care 

system and where that should be balanced, and the other is the 

balance between oversight and policy development by Health Affairs and execution by the services. Increasingly, we are seeing 

Health Affairs take on the role of execution; and doing that I think 

it erodes some of the goodness of the DHP. 

Admiral ROBINSON. I, too, agree with my colleagues on the DHP. 

It would be wrong. I think it would be a major mistake to go back 

to any other system other than the DHP. Service input into how 

the DHP, how that DOD program is, in fact, executed is the tension that I think I would like to just comment on. 

The services need to have some direct input into the processes 

of how the DHP is executed. In recent years that hasn’t always 

been as clearly demonstrated to me. I am not suggesting it hasn’t 

occurred. I just haven’t been able to clearly see the occurrence of 

it. 

So I think that is where we should look at it. But I would not 

change the system that we have developed. No. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. Very encouraging. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Snyder. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for being 

here. 

I want to direct my questions to the three of you that hold the 

title of Surgeon General (SG). I am phrasing it that way because 

I don’t think if the plural is Surgeons General or Surgeon Generals. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Surgeons General. 

Dr. SNYDER. This is one of those discussions this morning that 

is probably a very, very important one to a lot of our men and 

women in uniform and their families. It is just—it is one of these 

discussions which, while important, can give government a bad 

name. Because it comes across as a bunch of gobbledygook that 

most of us don’t understand. 

I appreciate you for being as forthcoming as you are in trying to 

sort it out and make recommendations, but I want to try to give 

you a couple of theoreticals and little anecdotal things. 

Have you, the three of you, if you would walk me through how 

you—this tension that you all are describing, how it may impact 

on patient care. I will throw out a couple of examples, and you can 
18 

tell me if it doesn’t have anything to do with it or examples of what 

you are talking about. 

The first example is the special needs kids I think some of us 

have talked about before. General Schoomaker, you talked about 

supporting our warfighters overseas; and I think nothing creates 

more heartache for our folks overseas than if they have a special 

needs child and the child is not getting the kind of care that they 

think they need while at a military facility someplace. So let’s take 

a child with insulin dependent diabetes or autism or something 

that requires a fairly intensive amount of help. 

And the second example might be I think a lot of us have run 

into over the last several years, would be somebody in the Reserve 

Component who is mobilized for active duty for a period of 18 

months or so. Their family then goes into the military health care 

system but may geographically be living in a place not near a base, 

not near providers who are used to dealing with TRICARE. 

So what I would like each of you to do—and just tell me if I am 

off base and maybe the tensions we are talking about or you all are 

discussing have nothing to do with these examples—but how does 

what you are talking about relate specifically to our men and 

women and the care that they give? And if these are a couple of 

examples where it may give you an opportunity to describe how the 

tension may relate to the actual care that men and women and 

their families get. 

General SCHOOMAKER. Well, candidly, sir, from my perspective, 

both of the cases—I will be interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say—both of those cases I think are not necessarily 

confounded by the tensions that we are creating here. I think both 

of them, in many cases, are attributed to the farsightedness and 

the vision of setting up a TRICARE system as we did 15 years ago 

or so. 

In the case of special needs kids, we have an extraordinarily generous benefit which is fairly uniformly applied; and, in fact, I think 

it has resulted in the military health care system being one of the 

elements of families’ decision with a special needs child to stay in 

uniform. 

So I would have to say that that doesn’t necessarily—I don’t see 

my role in executing these programs as being interfered with in 

any way, shape or form in taking care of special needs kids. 

I would have to say the same about the mobilized Reserve Component, the National Guard and Reserves, many of whom come 

from places in this country where we don’t have a robust direct 

care system. In central Idaho, parts of Montana, Wyoming, we 

don’t have large, robust medical centers and health service systems. 

And so, having an effective purchase care system and a managed 

care support contractor that is reaching out and providing care to 

those families I think, again, reflects the farsightedness of a wellexecuted TRICARE program. I am not taking away from any of 

that part of it. 

Admiral ROBINSON. I would connect this a little differently. I 

don’t completely disagree with General Schoomaker, but I think 

that the autism and the insulin-dependent diabetic do come into 
19 

play in this regard. First of all, the private-sector care, the network 

care, and the direct care can both play here. 

Let’s take Twentynine Palms; I will just take a Marine Corps 

base in southern California. Very remote location, I am not going 

to be able to get network care there. It is going to have to be direct 

care. It is going to have to be uniform care. 

Now, when I say I can’t get it, there are people that will go there, 

but that is very difficult. So I have places in this country that are 

very difficult to, in fact, get network care. That means I need it in 

uniform. 

However, very often there has also been—and I don’t want to get 

caught in the mire of the gobbledygook, but there are also thoughts 

that very often we on the direct care side in uniform should be 

there for very specialized war-fighting activities that make us incredibly essential for the battle and for the things that the military 

system in fact was built to do. But, in fact, in 2009, we have taken 

on added responsibilities, which include garrison and family care. 

So my question then is, I need pediatric endocrinologists as much 

as I need trauma surgeons, but it may be difficult sometimes to, 

in fact, get there because of how we have, in fact, looked at what 

we think we should get from the war-fighting versus the non-warfighting situation. 

Now, I am not suggesting to you that anyone is denying the 

Navy or the other services pediatric endocrinologists. I am just simply saying that there is a tension that does exist because of some 

thoughts and some assumptions made as to how we really should, 

in fact, divvy up our uniformed versus our network. 

I would like to add just one other thing. I am not going to comment on the Reserve Component. I think that General 

Schoomaker’s answer would be mine also. I would only like to say, 

overseas, with our EDIS, Educational and Developmental Intervention Services programs, and also our Exceptional Family Member 

programs, this is also the case. Because overseas we are not able 

to, in fact, engage network care. So if I don’t have it, if I can’t either contract it to bring it or if I don’t have it in uniform, it is 

much more difficult to get. 

And those are just challenges that I must look at. I am not suggesting that anyone is keeping me from getting there, but these are 

the challenges from an SG’s perspective that I must look at. 

General ROUDEBUSH. Congressman, I think you raise a point 

that really brings out the essence of what we are talking about this 

morning. There is a role and relationship, and it is not ‘‘either/or,’’ 

it is ‘‘and.’’ 

For us in uniform, there are, in fact, places where we are going 

to need to have in uniform specialty capabilities for family members, because family care is mission impact. When our men and 

women are in harm’s way, if they are not confident their families 

are fully cared for, they will not be focused on what is in front of 

them. And that has mission impact. So family care plays directly 

into the mission. 

For us, TRICARE gives us that wraparound in those circumstances where we may not have the capability readily available 

for our Reserves in areas where we don’t have a facility available, 

for example. Or for special needs youngsters, we may not have that 
20 

readily available within the uniformed service. TRICARE gives us 

that wraparound capability. 

And, quite frankly, when you get to specialty care for our youngsters, that is rather expensive to make and sustain in uniform. And 

the more cost-effective solution and clinically effective solution, in 

many circumstances, is, in fact, to contract for that capability and 

that care through the private-sector TRICARE. 

So it is not ‘‘either/or,’’ it is ‘‘and,’’ and finding the right balance, 

each of us within our roles, to get that mission accomplished. So 

I think you do raise an intersection that is critically important for 

us to get right. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I am going to move on to Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

I am enjoying this testimony. And I have to say, much of this is, 

as a new Member, relatively new Member, much of it is very new 

to me. 

I have to say, many years ago, as a child of the Air Force, I needed very delicate eye surgery. And I was in an Air Force hospital 

at Langley Air Base and then subsequently at Tachikawa Air Base, 

and I received remarkable care. And, again, I was with Congressman Wilson in Balad, where we did see the remarkable work that 

you are doing. 

But, obviously, we are in a time and an era when health care is 

far more complicated and far more expensive. And it is clear that 

you are wrestling with both on multiple layers. 

My question, slightly different, though, is we have representatives of the different services, and you obviously have different cultures, sometimes very different needs, as a result of the roles you 

play. And I am just curious how this plays itself out, given the different tensions that you all have described. Is it another layer to 

it, or is it really not particularly significant? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Well, I will speak for the Army. I think, 

ma’am, it is very significant. And I think it is why we, not for parochialism or not because we are looking to build duplication or 

triplication within the defense health system, why we insist on executing our programs within each one of our services. 

Each one of the services, for very, very good reasons, has important differences in how it fights war and how its military health 

care uniformed members support the deployed force. And that is 

not to say that there aren’t commonalities and, in some large metropolitan areas like in the national capital region or San Antonio, 

we can’t find shared platforms where we can retain common skills, 

where we can share the opportunities in the greater Washington 

area where we have 36 or 37 different health care facilities across 

the three services, from Pennsylvania down to Quantico and as far 

west as Fort Belvoir. We have plenty of opportunities to share 

those platforms for caring for about a half-million beneficiaries. 

But when it comes down to ships at sea and brigades in battle, 

some of the remote sites that General Roudebush and I in the 

Army have to service, the service cultures are very, very much a 

part of this. And it is why we, as service surgeons general and commanders of our medical forces, want to have a very firm grasp on 

the execution of these programs. 
21 

Admiral ROBINSON. Each service has a concept of care. I think 

that, as the long war has continued in both Iraq and Afghanistan, 

our concepts of care have actually become much closer together; 

they have merged. 

From the Navy’s perspective—I am not speaking now for the 

Army or the Air Force, but I don’t think they are much different— 

patient- and family-centered care is our concept. It is what we 

think is important in order to make sure that we can meet the mission, both the operational—that is, the war mission—as well as the 

family and the garrison care mission, because we can’t separate 

them out any longer. 

Since people on the battlefield, men and women, can now e-mail 

and text message family members during an intense encounter, it 

is no longer the case that I can, in fact, not take care of families 

as I am also taking care of men and women on the battlefield. We 

have moved into another era of communication, of technology, and 

of the insistence by the people that are our beneficiaries that we, 

in fact, care for them in a very organized and meaningful way. 

And that is what I think all three services do, but we all do it 

differently, leveraging those things that our service chiefs and the 

equities of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps must have in 

order to meet their missions and, at the same time, making sure 

that we leave no patient, no family, and no member behind. 

Ms. TSONGAS. And do the Health Affairs and TRICARE management acknowledge this, in your relationships? Or is it yet one more 

of those things that, again, is a source of tension? 

Admiral ROBINSON. I think that Health Affairs does acknowledge 

that. I think that they do, in fact, understand the differences in the 

services and how to meet them. 

I also think that, very often, the concept of what is important 

from a patient perspective can sometimes get clouded or get shaded 

in relationship to the business perspective of efficiencies and effectiveness. Now, that is the world that we live in, so I am not complaining to you about that, because everyone has to look at costs 

and has to look at the bottom line that we are trying to get done. 

The key here in medicine is that patients usually, when they are 

coming to you and they need something to save their lives, they 

need something that they think is going to be absolutely essential 

to their wellbeing, are not interested in hearing the business rules 

involved in doing that. My job is to, in fact, take that into account 

and to balance that out with the needs of the patient. 

Mrs. DAVIS. General, do you want to comment? 

General ROUDEBUSH. Just very quickly. 

At times, folks will talk about culture and say, well, culture is 

interesting. I would suggest to you that culture is a significant part 

of what we do. 

We have an All-Volunteer Force. Every soldier joins the Army because he or she is attracted to the mission and the culture. Likewise, every sailor, Marine, and airman joins that service because 

they are attracted to the culture and the mission. Their families 

are wrapped in that culture. We care for our servicemen and their 

families within that culture and within that mission ethos. 

So culture is a big part. And, particularly when these men and 

women are injured or ill, that culture wraps around them and sup-
22 

ports them, helps them through that recovery, rehabilitation. So it 

does play a role. 

And while many of the clinical activities are certainly the same 

in the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, that wraparound, that family, that team that is caring for them is an important part of the 

construct. And I think that can’t be lost in the discussion. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. 

And I regret that I was not here for your opening statements, but 

I do appreciate what you are doing. This is a very difficult time for 

our men and women in uniform, certainly a very difficult time for 

our Nation. And, certainly, health care for the private sector, as 

well as the military sector, is at the forefront of many discussions 

here in Washington, as well as debates. 

Admiral Robinson, I want to thank you. You and your staff did 

a very excellent job of responding to a question I had about autism 

and autism programs down at Camp Lejeune. And I was very much 

appreciative of the information and the work that you all are doing, 

quite frankly. 

And, as I have heard many from each services talking about the 

fact that the world is becoming more complicated, looks like we are 

going to be in Afghanistan for a long period of time—I hope not, 

but it looks that way—and, therefore, there is going to be more 

stress and pressure on the military families. And, in a response— 

and this is not a criticism, but you realize that, as a Member of 

Congress, we have our districts, we have people in our districts, 

both military and nonmilitary, that have questions about services 

and programs for families. And I, again, was very pleased and satisfied with the response that you gave me to the questions that we 

asked on behalf of parents down at Camp Lejeune. 

But the only point I want to make and ask you this question— 

and I know you don’t have this before you, but we asked the question, ‘‘How many of the above dependents are enrolled in the 

TRICARE Extended Care Health Option (ECHO) program as of 12/ 

31/08? Please break down your response by location, Camp Lejeune 

and San Diego.’’ I won’t go through your response; I want to get 

to the question. 

Then you gave me that answer with the numbers, which was 

helpful, because obviously there are more children in that San 

Diego area, with the Navy base and Camp Pendleton, than there 

would be at Camp Lejeune. But still we have children with autism 

at Camp Lejeune. 

So the next question was, ‘‘How many of the above dependents 

are receiving applied behavior analysis (ABA) services under the 

TRICARE Enhanced Autism Service Demonstration as of 12/31/08? 

Please break down your response by location.’’ The response was, 

‘‘There are 118 dependents receiving applied behavior analysis 

services, 68 Navy families and 50 Marine families, for the San 

Diego and Camp Pendleton catchment area. There are no dependents receiving ABA services under the TRICARE Enhancement Autism Service Demonstration in Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune, 

Naval Health Clinic Cherry Point, and Marine Corps Air Station 

New River.’’ 
23 

So then the next question—now I am going to get to the final— 

‘‘How many ABA therapist providers are serving military families 

in Camp Lejeune catchment area under the Autism Service Demonstration Project? How many providers have signed on in the San 

Diego area?’’ This is the question I was trying to get to. ‘‘There are 

no ABA network providers in the Naval Hospital Camp Lejeune 

area. There are 10 ABA supervisors and 82 ABA tutors serving 

military families in the San Diego area.’’ 

I am not being critical, because, again, we all know what the 

numbers game is. I mean, we are all under stress here in Congress, 

as well as you in the military. But my point would be, though, realizing there are more children in that San Diego area, the fact that 

we have none at Camp Lejeune, can that be re-evaluated? 

And, I mean, not saying that we need to have the equal numbers 

of the professionals at Camp Lejeune that we have at San Diego 

or Camp Pendleton, but to say that we have none is somewhat of 

concern, not only to the parents down there, but to myself. 

Is that something that can be reviewed to see if the justification, 

realizing the restraints that you are under—but is there any way 

we could see if we could get some of those professionals at the 

Navy Hospital at Camp Lejeune? 

Admiral ROBINSON. Well, Mr. Jones, thank you very much for 

your compliments and also the fact that we have been working 

with your staff on some of these issues for a while, and I appreciate 

that. 

The answer is, yes, it can be reviewed. 

The second answer is that the fact that there are none may not 

tell the complete story, because there may be other sources of that 

type—— 

Mr. JONES. Right, that is true. 

Admiral ROBINSON [continuing]. Of therapy that the children can 

receive. 

Thirdly, the amount of contractors and people who will go and 

who will actually stop in Jacksonville, North Carolina, vice San 

Diego, California. So the geographic area does make a difference. 

Bottom line, though, sir, to you is that we in Navy Medicine and, 

actually, we in the Military Health System are absolutely committed to children wherever they may be, no matter what their location. So we will revisit that and look at that. 

I happen to know that the system that we have in Camp Lejeune 

is more complicated than the numbers you suggest because of differences in the network emphasis on certain of the behavioral 

health assets; how we are, in fact, deciding who can deliver that 

ABA care; who is involved. There are a number of facets to that 

particular question. But, yes, sir, we can look at that again, and 

we will, in fact. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Admiral. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Ms. Fallin. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Appreciate all that you do for our Nation in delivery of medical 

care to our service men and women. I know it is tough under lim-
24 

ited financial constraints that you have and so many different regions of the world that you have to deliver care. 

I was just curious about—because we have had so many men and 

women serving, probably more than ever, in deployments across 

the world, and with the events after 9/11 and the fight on terrorism 

and the large numbers of men and women who have been called 

up, when they start to come back home to the United States, you 

are going to have a lot of veterans and a lot of soldiers who will 

be going into the health care system for many different reasons, 

whether it is just regular care from injuries or regular medical care 

or post-traumatic stress syndrome, whatever it might be. 

What type of plans have we made? And do you have the resources you need to meet all the large numbers of people that will 

be coming home over the next many years? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Well, ma’am, I mean, therein lies probably the biggest question we are all facing. 

And, first of all, starting with what the estimates are of the 

kinds and types of illnesses and injuries that we are going to be 

seeing, I mean, the vast majority of wounds of war, quite frankly, 

are not visible wounds. And one of the major efforts that is undergoing right now within the Department of Defense is to get a grasp 

on what the state of current science and understanding of all of the 

neuropsychiatric injuries, whether they are physical injuries to the 

brain from concussion or whether they are psychological consequences of deployment and the exposure to war and the like. 

We have conducted in the Military Health System, through epidemiologists out of the Walter Reed Institute of Research, over the 

last six years a recurring, fairly tight scientific study called, for the 

Army and Marine Corps, a Mental Health Advisory Team, which 

has done estimates of what the volume of problems is and what the 

nature of those problems are and when they emerge. And that has 

helped us. 

We worked very closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) and our TRICARE managed care support contractors to ensure that we have the network of care available, both within the 

Federal system and within the private care system. But I think 

this is something that keeps all of us up at night. 

Ms. FALLIN. Do you feel like your proposal on your system, the 

changes that you are talking about in your hearing today will move 

you closer to that goal? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Well, ma’am, this kind of overlaps with 

the question that Congresswoman Tsongas had about the acknowledgment of the cultural differences and the challenges to each of 

the services. 

Frankly, at my level of command, acknowledgment is represented in dollars. And, as I said in my opening statement earlier, 

when I find my budget not programmable in a predictable way but 

private-sector care programmable, then I have a very difficult time 

developing a stable business platform for my medical treatment facilities, which I am compelled to give a lot of my family and soldier 

care around. And that is a great deal of the tension that we have 

talked about here this morning. 

Ms. FALLIN. One of the concerns I hear in my community and in 

the State of Oklahoma is how we don’t have enough people to han-
25 

dle post-traumatic stress syndrome, as far as counseling and diagnosis and psychiatry, whatever level of care it might be, that we 

don’t have those people on board yet, and there is a shortage, and 

it is hard to get that care in the local states. 

And what are we going to do to address those things? Is it a matter of funding? 

Ms. EMBREY. The Department has recognized that there is a national shortage to the citizens of America and not just the military, 

although the military certainly has a high demand for those services. And we have been given a fair amount of resources from Congress to assist us in expanding that capability. 

And we are leveraging many different approaches, to include 

bringing in social workers and other folks and tiering the capabilities so that we assure that the assets that have the certifications 

and capabilities are dealing with those that need those services and 

that we distribute the other services to sometimes nonclinical but 

certainly qualified individuals to aid in early intervention and then 

referral to appropriate higher-level care. 

Ms. FALLIN. Ms. Chairman, if I can just finish one last question, 

someone had mentioned to me yesterday about some new research 

being done with—and I hope I am saying this right; you are the 

physicians—hyperbaric chambers, when it comes to the treatment 

of post-traumatic stress syndrome. Have you seen any type of research that might indicate it would be helpful? 

General ROUDEBUSH. Ma’am, I believe what you are referring to 

is focused, at least for the moment, on traumatic brain injury and 

hyperbaric oxygen. And that, in fact, is being very aggressively 

pursued with the Defense Centers of Excellence on Psychological 

Health and Traumatic Brain Injury to really be sure that science 

is applied to that, to assure that we have the best therapeutic modalities positioned for the men and women, and that we are able 

to apply those therapies to the best outcome. 

So, yes, ma’am, that is in the center of the scope and is being 

very aggressively pursued for all three services, as we have all individuals in harm’s way with that particular outcome as a risk for 

these men and women. 

Ms. FALLIN. Okay. 

Thank you, Ms. Chairman. 

General GRANGER. Madam Chairman, can I comment on that 

statement for a second? 

In reference to the families, we have stood up with our managed 

care support contractor partners toll-free numbers they could call. 

And based upon data in the last three years, the number of family 

members using our mental health capability in our network has increased significantly. We would be glad to share that data with you 

for the record. 

Thank you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 103.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate the question, because I think that we could certainly have a hearing focused solely on mental health care and what is happening to support the services that are out there, the kind of research and development that is being done, to be certain that we don’t have 
26 

wholespread duplication, and, at the same time, what we are doing 

to really help the families be able to move through this problem 

that they are all having. And very, very important, so I appreciate 

some focus on that. 

I wanted to—now, see, we have a vote coming up, and I don’t 

know whether folks can come back. We can try and have two more 

questions, and then we will make a decision about whether to ask 

you to wait here. That may be it. 

I just wanted to get back a second to the oversight question, because I understand the tension and the balance that we are talking 

about. I think, General Roudebush, you mentioned in your statement that, in many ways, TMA’s current level of—the current level 

that you mentioned of the oversight over the military treatment facility is fairly extensive and somewhat excessive, as well. 

And I just wonder if you could talk to us more about what you 

think the right structure then for Health Affairs for TMA would be 

to better provide oversight to the services? 

General ROUDEBUSH. Yes, ma’am. It is a collaborative relationship. It really is an ‘‘and.’’ 

Health Affairs, my view, my experience, is most effective and, in 

fact, has and continues to be very effective at providing that strategic policy guidance, the coordinating oversight to assure that we 

are leveraging capabilities across all three services, taking efficiencies where those are certainly available to make the best return on every taxpayer’s dollar. 

But in terms of how that translates into the facilities, if you look 

at how we have operated in the past, responsibilities have been 

given to the service, in executive agencies, for example, to perform 

particular functions. Some of those executive agencies have been 

migrated into the TRICARE Management Activity. Now, I won’t 

say that is uniformly good or uniformly bad. However, those kinds 

of responsibilities have been migrated away from the services. And 

I think we need to examine very closely the activities that are resident within TMA and resident within the services. 

My strategic construct is that TMA is absolutely essential in 

managing the DHP to make sure that we have the right tension 

and balance across competing resources; and in managing the managed care support contracts, to be sure that the direct care system 

is the centerpiece and that our private-sector care is leveraged toward that. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Where do you see that discussion taking place? Are 

you saying that you don’t think that you are able to have a strong 

enough voice, that all of you are able to have a strong enough voice 

in that discussion, and that decisions are made perhaps irregardless of some of those wishes? 

General ROUDEBUSH. I think perhaps the latter. There are times 

that decisions are made that we don’t have full visibility and/or 

perhaps the coordination or input that we might prefer in some of 

those discussions. 

And I would certainly welcome comments from my colleagues relative to that particular aspect. 

General SCHOOMAKER. I would have to agree. I mean, candidly, 

I think all too often a lack of complete unanimity opinion among 

the three services when it comes to allocation of resources or pro-
27 

gramming resources translates into Health Affairs making a decision on their own. And that is an area where I don’t think it is a 

function of structure per se; it is a function of allocating to us a 

certain authority to be complete partners in this process. 

And it keeps coming back, for me, to this struggle that I have 

and my service has in developing a stable business platform for all 

of my hospitals, when many of our needs are relegated to unfunded 

requirements until the very late part of the fiscal year in the budget year. It is a tough way to run a business. 

Admiral ROBINSON. I would have to agree with that. I think that 

I can give you—I can go down into the interstices of this, which I 

am not going to do because it would not be helpful, but I agree 

with both colleagues. I think that the Surgeons General need to 

have a say that is meaningful, and the services need to have a say 

that is meaningful. 

The services do not run nor is the DHP their account. They are 

all three responsible for that DHP account. And, therefore, they 

need to have some visibility of how it is executed. And that is absolutely important. Often, that has not occurred, in my tenure as 

Surgeon General. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Major General, could you comment? Is that by design? Or what gets in the way of that? 

General GRANGER. Let me tell you what gets in the way, ma’am. 

I would concur with my colleagues. What we are dealing with is 

policy at the Health Affairs level. We are talking about execution 

at their level, oversight, Health Affairs, and then having a feedback 

loop on how we work in a very collaborative way. The lines are 

blurred in terms of what is policy, what is execution, and what is 

feedback. And we don’t—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Is it because of the reporting process? Is that part 

of it? 

General GRANGER. In my opinion, it is because of the reporting 

process. It is not exactly what is what, because when you say 

HAVMA, that could be all of us or none of us. That is my understanding. 

So you need to separate what is policy oversight, execution by 

the services, what is the oversight of how they execute that, and 

what is the feedback loop we all get to make sure we are fulfilling 

the needs of our men and women in our uniformed services. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Ms. Embrey or Ms. McGinn, would you like to comment? 

Ms. EMBREY. I would like to comment, yes. I think—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. And quickly. I am sorry, we just have a few minutes. 

You can write us more about that, too. Go ahead. 

Ms. EMBREY. Okay. I will tell you more in writing. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 103.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. If you would rather do that. 

Mr. Wilson, did you—— 

Ms. EMBREY. I thought you wanted me to stop. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Wilson, did you have a question, briefly? 

Mr. WILSON. One brief question, to conclude. 

The Office of the Assistant—this is for our DOD officials here— 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Health Affairs 
28 

sets the policy for the MHS. The TRICARE Management Activity 

implements the policies of the MHS. However, the leadership of the 

two organizations are the same. 

What would be the checks and balances in such an organization? 

Ms. EMBREY. The checks and balances are a series of governing 

councils where we engage all of the principal leaders of the Department at various levels. Each person who is double-hatted has an 

integrating council, which involves representation from the service 

surgeons generals as well as the joint staff and the combatant commands when appropriate. 

We engage with them on the issues and discuss how the current 

policies aren’t working and how to implement new policies or programs, whether they are directed by Congress in law, whether report guidance, or whether or not it is the Administration itself who 

says we need do something differently. 

When we have a change in direction, as many as we have had 

over the last six years, we have had to leverage those integrating 

councils to understand what the problem is, get a common vision 

on the way forward, and to get consensus on the way to approach 

solving the problem in near term. And that is the way we have approached that over time. 

We did not have available resources to be able to hire new SESs 

in the TMA structure as well as the HA structure. And so we double-hatted many individuals to ensure that the form followed the 

function, that the policy understood what the problems were, set up 

the programs to do it, and then set up the program evaluation and 

quality assurance programs necessary to make sure that, when 

they were implemented and executed in the services, that they 

were accomplished in a way that they were intended. 

So I believe it has been a collaborative process all along. And 

that is my personal opinion. 

Ms. MCGINN. And if I could add a 10-second check and balance 

to that, you do have an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness who has responsibility to oversee the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and, I think, also to look at the issues 

brought forward by the stakeholders. 

As I said, he or she chairs the Military Health System Executive 

Review. Issues can be brought to that review from the stakeholders 

and discussed in that forum. 

So there is an oversight responsibility there, as well. 

Mr. WILSON. Fine. Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

I think there is obviously some difference of opinion, and I think 

part of what we are interested in is trying to make certain that everybody does have an opportunity to express that. And we would 

certainly look forward to working with all of you as we try to, you 

know, sort all this out. 

The bottom line, as we said, is the care of the men and women 

who serve our country and their families. And we want to be certain that we are doing this in the most efficient way, that looks at 

costs, looks at access and care, care in a larger fashion of how people feel valued within the system. 
29 

And so we appreciate all of your remarks today. This is the beginning of this conversation, in many ways. We intend to look further at it. And we certainly appreciate your concern. 

Members have an opportunity to submit their questions for the 

record. 

And we wish you the best today. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 29, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 29, 2009 

(35) 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 29, 2009 

(87) 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

APRIL 29, 2009 

(103) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Ms. EMBREY. Health Affairs believes all leaders in the Military Health System are 

afforded numerous opportunities for their voices to be heard through our corporate 

governance structure. Today, Military Health System enterprise-wide deliberations 

follow the tenets of a March 2006 Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) 

memorandum, ‘‘Policy on Military Health System Decision Making Process.’’ The 

Services’ Surgeons General play a critical role in this oversight process. Health Affairs, TRICARE Management Activity, the Services’ Surgeons General and their 

staffs engage from the level of subject matter experts to the level of the senior principals. 

The Military Health System is governed through ongoing collaboration, consensus, 

and compromise. We achieve this through a governance structure which engages 

key stakeholders on a weekly basis. We use the same structure and collaborative 

leadership process to determine outcome performance measures for which all Military Health System components are held accountable. This process provides a 

framework to achieve agreement and approval on what is in the best interest of the 

Military Health System. The process also provides a weekly venue in which all 

voices have an opportunity to be heard. 

A critical part of this framework is the use of integrating councils. Each Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Health Affairs and the Deputy Director, 

TRICARE Management Activity chairs an integrating council to ensure functional 

integration of complex issues. Each week, at the subject matter expert level (typically O-6 level), functional steering groups work through key decision issues in 

areas such as clinical policy, force health protection and readiness, health plan operations, and financial management. Decision recommendations from these working 

groups roll-up to the two-star integrating councils, in which the Deputy Surgeons 

General participate. Finally, each week the Senior Military Medical Advisory Council—chaired by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) and including the 

Services’ Surgeons General—meets to review informational and decision briefings. 

Four-star level Military Department officials (i.e., senior civilian leadership) and 

Service line leaders are also formally engaged in the decision making process 

through the Military Health System Executive Review. 

Beyond these formal and institutionalized informational and decision forums, informal communication, collaboration, and coordination occur at all levels nearly 

daily among Health Affairs, TRICARE Management Activity, and the Services— 

from action officers to the most senior officials. [See page 27.] 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. FALLIN AND MRS. 

DAVIS 

General GRANGER. We have stood up toll-free numbers that our beneficiaries can 

call. These resources are provided by TRICARE region in the attached documents. 

Additionally, regarding the trend in family member utilization of network mental 

health capability, the TRICARE Management Activity recently completed its annual 

assessment of expenditure and utilization trends for mental health services in both 

direct care (military treatment facility) and purchased care venues. The update 

added data for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 to those previously gathered for the FY 2002- 

2007. Substantial year-over-year percentage increases continue in mental health 

care expenditures and workload for TRICARE beneficiaries, with the bulk of the increase directed to care for our Active Duty and Reserve warriors, as well as for their 

families. From FY 2007-2008, expenditures increased by 15 percent. Inpatient days 

grew by 16 percent, and outpatient visits grew by 15 percent. The private sector has 

displayed an impressive capacity to accommodate increases in demand for mental 

health services for TRICARE beneficiaries. Over the period FY 2002-2008, purchased care inpatient days increased by 97 percent, and outpatient visits increased 

133 percent. Corresponding changes in direct care workload were a decrease of 19 

percent (inpatient days) and an increase of 25 percent (outpatient visits). Please 

refer to the attached slides for details. [See page 25.] 

[The slides referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 87.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

APRIL 29, 2009 

(107) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

Mrs. DAVIS. Under what authority has the ASD(HA) dual-hatted himself (herself) 

as the Director of TMA? 

Ms. EMBREY. The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) 

(USD(P&R)) is chartered under Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, 

dated June 23, 2008, as the Principal Staff Advisor to the Secretary of Defense for, 

among other responsibilities, health affairs. In this capacity, the USD(P&R) exercises authority over the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) (ASD(HA)) 

and develops policies, plans, and programs for health and medical affairs. The 

USD(P&R) is charged to ‘‘ensure that P&R policies and programs are designed and 

managed to improve standards of performance, economy, and efficiency, and that all 

Defense Agencies and DoD Field Activities under the authority, direction, and control of the USD(P&R) are attentive and responsive to the requirements of their organizational customers, both internal and external to the Department of Defense 

(DoD).’’ 

The ASD(HA) is chartered under DoDD 5136.01, dated June 4, 2008, as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the USD(P&R) for all DoD health policies, programs, and force health protection activities. The ASD(HA) is charged to ensure the effective execution of the Department’s medical mission, providing and 

maintaining readiness for medical services and support. The ASD(HA) exercises authority, direction, and control over the DoD medical and dental personnel authorizations and policy, facilities, programs, funding, and other resources in DoD. In this 

regard, the ASD(HA) serves as program manager for all DoD health and medical 

resources, and prepares and submits the DoD Unified Medical Program budget to 

provide resources for the Military Health System. 

The TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) was established through Defense Reform Initiative Directive #14, signed on January 5, 1998 by then-Deputy Secretary 

of Defense Hamre. TMA is a field operating activity operating under the direction 

of the USD(P&R). Per DoDD 5136.12, the mission of TMA is to (1) manage 

TRICARE; (2) manage and execute the Defense Health Program (DHP) Appropriation and the DoD Unified Medical Program; and (3) support the Uniformed Services 

in implementation of the TRICARE Program. 

The Unified Medical Program has grown at an increasing rate over the past decade due to a number of factors, to include medical inflation, increased number of 

users, enhanced benefits, and addition of benefits for the over-65 population. The 

Military Health System leadership has sought ways to ensure movement toward integrated health care delivery during this period of increasing system complexity 

(i.e., better integration among OSD policy, TRICARE health plan management and 

contract oversight, and the Services’ health care delivery operations). In 2002, the 

USD(P&R) in concert with the ASD(HA) made a management decision to flatten the 

senior management layer of Health Affairs and the TRICARE Management Activity 

by designating the ASD(HA) with the additional responsibility of Director, TMA. 

This action is consistent with exercising the responsibilities outlined in DoDD 

5124.02 and DoDD 5136.01, enabling singular leadership focus on ensuring health 

policy and health plan operations operate in a congruent manner. 

Mrs. DAVIS. The jobs/functions of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health 

Affairs and Director of the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA) seem to be different. How are you able to maintain separate accounting of these distinct functions? When the TMA was created, wasn’t there a separate Director? Did that not 

work? 

Ms. EMBREY. TMA was formed under Defense Reform Initiative Directive #14, 

January 5, 1998, from the consolidation of the TRICARE Support Office, the Defense Medical Programs Activity, and the integration of the health management programs previously located in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health 

Affairs)—OASD(HA). 

The ASD(HA) is charged to execute the longitudinal array of the Department’s 

medical mission, which is to provide and maintain readiness, to provide medical 

services and support to members of the Armed Forces during military operations, 

and provide medical services and support to members of the Armed Forces, their 
108 

dependents, and others entitled to DoD medical care. These ASD(HA) duties range 

from policy formulation to serving as the program manager for TRICARE health 

and medical resources, supervising and administering TRICARE programs, funding, 

and other resources within the Department of Defense. 

The Military Health System (MHS) leadership’s goals include further integration 

between the direct care setting (predominantly Army, Navy, and Air Force military 

treatment facilities) and the purchased care component as the model for health care 

delivery in the Department of Defense. To effect this continued transition and better 

integrate MHS components, the ASD(HA), upon consultation with the USD(P&R), 

accepted the additional responsibility of Director, TMA in 2002, to exercise more direct control in addressing system-wide policy and operational issues inherent in 

managing a complex and expanding Unified Medical Program. Thus, the ASD(HA), 

who also serves as Director, TMA, brings together policy and operational issues in 

planning at the Department level. The Deputy Director, TMA oversees the day-today management activities of TMA (notably, guiding the health plan and purchased 

care component of the MHS). In doing so, the Director and the Deputy Director, 

TMA work in concert to administer DoD medical and dental programs authorized 

under Title 10, and oversee program direction for the execution of policy within the 

MHS. 

Mrs. DAVIS. How many more SESs are needed in HA? Why are they needed? How 

many more are needed in TMA and why? 

Ms. EMBREY. Senior Executive Service (SES) employees provide the top level executive leadership in the Department of Defense. This leadership is imperative within 

Personnel and Readiness, Health Affairs, and TRICARE Management Activity 

(TMA) to manage the Department’s dynamic $47 billion Unified Medical Program 

and to effectively interface within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and 

with the Joint Staff and Service senior officials (noncareer appointees, SESs, and 

General/Flag Officers). At the same time, we remain cognizant that SES requirements are greater than existing SES resources; thus, it is imperative that leadership within the Department continue their efforts to balance competing needs for 

these valuable resources. 

Specifically related to HA and TMA requirements, Section 717 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 established the qualifications for the 

three CONUS TRICARE Regional Office Directors as Flag Officers or SESs; accordingly, we have recently added permanent SES leadership to two of the three 

TRICARE Regions (South and North, with a Flag Officer serving in the West). Additionally, to manage the complex MHS portfolio, we have identified a future requirement for four additional SES positions in Health Affairs and one additional SES position in the TMA. 

Health Affairs: 

1. Deputy Chief, Clinical and Program Policy Integration—this position would 

work for the noncareer Deputy Assistant Secretary for Clinical and Program 

Policy as a career Senior Medical Officer, providing policy and oversight for direct and purchased care systems and all other functions. 

2. Deputy Director, Force Health Protection and Readiness—this position would 

work under the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection, providing policy and oversight for research, vaccine, surveillance, surveys, 

deployment assessments, and epidemiology 

3. Deputy Director, Medical RDT&E—this position would work for the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection, providing policy and 

oversight to annual $3 billion medical research program. 

4. Chief, Health Program Communication and External Affairs—this position 

would integrate the interagency and communications portfolio to ensure consistency of messaging and unified effort within the interagency efforts (e.g., 

VA/DoD Program Office), with Congress, and with other external audiences. 

TRICARE Management Activity 

1. Deputy CIO for Operations and Electronic Health Record (EHR)—this position 

would direct requirements for development and integration of programs for 

$1B annual medical EHR efforts across the MHS, supporting all Military Services and health care delivery to our 9.4 million beneficiaries. 

Mrs. DAVIS. There is some perception of the fox watching the henhouse. Do you 

think this structure could lead to lack of strong oversight, when the policy making 

staff in turn executes the policies? How is this conflict prevented? 

Ms. EMBREY. In 2002, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness) 

and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) leveraged the Assistant Sec-
109 

retary’s authority to ensure effective execution of the Department’s medical mission, 

consistent with Department of Defense Directive 5136.01, through the management 

decision to provide additional responsibilities to key Health Affairs leaders. This action ensured alignment of policy and program execution strategies with a focus on 

enhanced support to the Military Departments. The ‘‘dual hatted’’ positions are: 1) 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) is also the Director, TRICARE 

Management Activity (TMA); 2) the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Health Affairs) is also the Principal Deputy Director of TMA; and 3) each Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) is also a TMA Functional Chief to manage 

execution of related support programs and services to the Military Departments 

(Chief Medical Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief of Force Health Protection 

and Readiness Programs). 

This is not a case of the ‘‘fox watching the henhouse.’’ In their Health Affairs 

roles, the DASDs are policy developers, whereas in their TMA roles, these same 

Functional Chiefs, who have separate staffs, serve the entire Military Health System as implementers. This is similar to the Service Surgeons General who have 

health care policy and execution roles (for example, the Army Surgeon General also 

serves as Commander, Army Medical Command). 

The Health Affairs/TMA positions continue to perform in a dual DASD-Functional 

Chief status and are a very efficient way to ensure new policies and programs are 

supported and executed in a timely manner. This role complements the Military Departments execution responsibilities as outlined in Title 10, United States Code. 

To prevent the ‘‘fox watching the henhouse,’’ the Military Health System employs 

an inclusive oversight processes. This governance structure enables enterprise-wide 

deliberations of key issues. Governance follows the tenets of a March 2006 Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) memorandum, ‘‘Policy on Military Health System Decision Making Process.’’ The Services’ Surgeons General were involved in the 

development of this oversight process. Health Affairs, TMA, and the Services’ Surgeons General and their staffs engage from the subject matter expert level to the 

level of the senior principals through weekly Integrating Councils and the Senior 

Military Medical Advisory Council. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Has the Department of Defense Inspector General looked into this organizational structure? 

Ms. EMBREY. The Department of Defense Inspector General has not looked into 

this organizational structure. 

Mrs. DAVIS. The OSD staff, of which the OASD(HA) is a part, is funded by a separate appropriation from TMA, which is funded by the Defense Health Program 

(DHP). It appears that this dual-hatting relationship could result in the augmentation of the OSD appropriations by the DHP. I understand TMA provides office 

space, contract support, people, video equipment, gym membership, Blackberries, 

conference support with meals, cell phones, etc. to HA. Is that true? What legal authorities have been consulted to allow this? I understand the ASD(HA) requested 

the appropriations committees expand the use of the DHP for purposes other than 

health care for uniform personnel and their families and retirees: An example cited 

last year was the need for the DHP to pay for HA administrative support items. 

This year it is for humanitarian and other reasons. Can you explain the rationale 

for this? 

Ms. EMBREY. The Department remains vigilant about the issue you have raised 

regarding the dual-hatting relationship and the need to ensure that there is no augmentation of funds. The Department reviews all appropriations made which involve 

the dual-hatted function to ensure the funding supports the Chapter 55 of Title 10 

(Defense Health Program—DHP) mission and is in accordance with appropriations 

law. When a question is identified, we consult with the TRICARE Management Activity and DoD Offices of General Counsel as appropriate. 

Recently, we have been doing an in depth review of all activities involving dualhatting to ensure that any existing errors are corrected and prevented from occurring in the future. For instance, we completed a review of all cell phones and Blackberries and any that were not clearly for dual-hatted personnel are now funded with 

OSD appropriations. Additionally, we have been carefully reviewing conferences (including meals) to ensure that the funds expended are consistent with the mission 

of the DHP. With regard to contract personnel support, only those that directly support the DHP mission are funded with DHP dollars. While some of these are housed 

in OSD funded space, the rationale is to co-locate these personnel with the dualhatted individual whom they support. We also recently reviewed the contract for 

gym membership and determined that it would be more appropriate for HA staff 

(non dual-hatted) to be funded with OSD dollars. 

With regard to the question about expanding the use of the DHP—we have attempted to identify programs that are consistent with, and supportive of, larger de-
110 

partmental initiatives where we believe the DHP may have a role. However, we 

would only expend funds for these additional missions with Congressional approval. 

The Department agrees that the dual-hatting does require extra vigilance to ensure that there is no augmentation of funds. However, the intent behind the dualhatting is sound and has provided for a strong and consistent connection between 

policy and operations as intended. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Please explain the differences between the Principal Deputy Director 

of TMA and the Deputy Director of TMA? These two positions seem redundant. 

Ms. EMBREY. These two positions have distinct executive level roles and responsibilities. Consistent with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)— 

ASD(HA)—who carries the additional responsibility of Director, TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (HA)— 

PDASD(HA)—also carries the additional responsibility of Principal Deputy Director, 

TMA—PDD(TMA). In this capacity, the PDD(TMA) performs the role of Chief Operating Officer of the Military Health System Headquarters, assisting the ASD(HA)/ 

Director, TMA in all matters. The PDD(TMA) assists the ASD(HA)/Director, TMA 

in fulfilling responsibilities for the effective execution of the Department’s medical 

mission—to provide, and to maintain readiness to provide health services and support to members of the Armed Forces during military operations, and to provide 

health services and support to members of the Armed Forces, their family members, 

and others entitled to DoD health care. The PDD(TMA) may also discharge all duties in the absence of the ASD(HA), except those that qualify as ‘‘statutory.’’ To 

carry out this portfolio of duties in support of the HA mission, the PDD(TMA) participates as a member of executive level Military Health System committees (e.g., 

Senior Military Medical Oversight Committee) to assist in formulation of OASD(HA) 

policies. 

The PDD(TMA) has a specific portfolio of responsibilities related to interagency, 

planning, government relations, and communications activities. Specifically, the 

PDD(TMA) maintains the portfolio for external relationships with Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, beneficiary organizations, and the media. All matters pertaining to the Department of 

Veterans Affairs are also coordinated through the PDD(TMA). The PDD(TMA) also 

has overall responsibility for strategic planning within the Office of the ASD(HA). 

The Deputy Director, TMA, serving under the Director, TMA, is the program executive for TRICARE health and medical resources. The Deputy Director is the principal advisor to the ASD(HA) on health plan management and Defense health contracting matters. The Deputy Director supervises and administers the TRICARE 

program and manages and executes the purchased care portion of the Defense 

Health Program consistent with guidance from the ASD(HA). The Deputy Director 

directs and manages daily operations of the TMA, to include oversight of the functioning of TMA divisions (for example, pharmacy operations, health plan operations), the three TRICARE Regional Offices in the Continental United States, and 

TRICARE Area Offices outside the Continental United States. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. General Schoomaker, Admiral Robinson and General Roudebush: In 

each of your witness statements you express your concern regarding the blurring 

of the line between Health Affairs (HA) and the TRICARE Management Activity 

(TMA) or in other words policy and execution. What are some examples of how the 

current structure affects your ability to execute the responsibilities given to you by 

your service leadership and meet customer expectation? 

General SCHOOMAKER. Health Affairs (HA) is best suited as a policy-making organization providing oversight, leadership, and policy integration to the Service Medical Departments and the TRICARE Management Activity (TMA). HA has been increasingly assuming roles and responsibilities that are more suited to the operational or execution level. I am concerned that this trend will diminish the roles of 

the Services and the viability of the direct care system. I offer the following examples: 

EXAMPLE #1—The Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health (PH) 

and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Funds for TBI/PH programs were appropriated 

in 2007 at which time TMA established a ‘‘Red Cell’’ to establish a program and 

approve Service requests for funding. This limited the Services’ flexibility to react 

to changing requirements and created extensive delays in our ability to execute. As 

a result, the majority of the funding was not executed until nearly 15 months after 

being appropriated. Congress has directed the establishment of other Centers of Excellence such as for Hearing and for Vision. Responsibility for executing these Cen-
111 

ters of Excellence has thus far remained with HA, but I believe execution would be 

managed more appropriately by one of the Services. 

EXAMPLE #2—Military Health System Support Initiatives (MHSSI) program. 

TMA established this program to enable Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) to obtain private sector care funding to invest in direct care initiatives that generate savings in the private sector. The program requires MTFs to provide detailed business 

cases and extensive justification to TMA and the TRICARE Regional Offices for relatively small amounts of funding. MTF commanders do not have the authority to 

move funding between direct and private sector to meet the needs of their market. 

EXAMPLE #3—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Funding. The Army was to receive $220M from the ARRA for medical facility renovation and modernization. TMA assumed centralized management of these projects and funding 

rather than allowing the Services to use their established processes with the Corps 

of Engineers. This centralized management has caused delays—Army projects that 

were ready to be funded in April remain unfunded. 

Admiral ROBINSON. The structure of the Military Health System, comprised of 

HA, TMA, and the Services, can be cumbersome. The structure generates tension 

as parties struggle to balance the support of the operational forces and the operation 

of an integrated health care system that provides patient and family-centered health 

care to beneficiaries both within Medical Treatment Facilities (MTFs) and the Managed Care Support Contractor (MCSC) network. The ability of the Services to influence this balancing act is somewhat limited since HA/TMA controls the majority of 

the funding and how it is allocated. While HA/TMA leads in policy development and 

execution, the Services are ultimately accountable to ensure the needs of their beneficiaries are met and that personnel are ready to deploy. 

The challenges presented by the current structure are evident at the local and regional levels of health care delivery. While Navy Medicine is ultimately responsible 

to ensure that all our beneficiaries receive safe, effective and accessible care, our 

MTF Commanders/Commanding Officers have a specific responsibility for the beneficiaries enrolled to their MTFs and for ensuring the continuity of their care as they 

receive health care services both within the MTF and within the MCSC network. 

However, MTF Commanders/Commanding Officers have no direct command and 

control over the actions or performance of the MCSC at the local level that would 

enhance their ability to operate an integrated health care system. The MCSCs answer to TMA via its TRICARE Regional Offices. For example, the lack of a referral 

management process that includes the Services, for care provided by the MCSCs, 

shifts tremendous amounts of workload to MTFs as they attempt to obtain consult 

results generated by network providers. 

These challenges are also manifest in the health information management systems that are funded, designed, developed, and maintained by HA/TMA. These systems have consistently been plagued by performance and technical shortcomings. 

Issues have not been resolved in a timely manner or on an agreed upon schedule. 

Products are either not delivered at all, delivered years late, delivered with multiple 

defects, or delivered incomplete. This often requires that Navy Medicine develop interim solutions by expending its own resources, both time and money, because many 

issues simply cannot wait for an adequate solution to be provided by HA/TMA. Additionally, HA/TMA has failed to recognize the need for decision support tools in areas 

such as patient and staff scheduling, discharge management, patient and room management, and the implementation of evidence-based practice. Future system development needs to more heavily engage the Services who will actually utilize these 

products in their MTFs and ensure that systems are developed and deployed with 

the needed expertise, an in modern, flexible electronic architecture. 

Challenges also exist in the area of performance measurement, as HA/TMA 

metrics are insufficient to measure the cost, quality, and effectiveness of the care 

provided to our beneficiaries, whether in the private sector or the direct care system. 

Current HA/TMA policy and management, as it relates to facility planning, does 

not result in facility projects that meet the future needs of our system. Current policy is based on historical workload and assumes that the care provided was appropriate, effective, and efficient. 

HA/TMA has not met the health services research needs of Navy Medicine. While 

HA/TMA is well positioned to implement a health services research program that 

would improve the effectiveness of the care provided by Navy Medicine and the military health system as a whole, it has not done so. 

Lastly, HA/TMA’s current approach to financial management does not meet the 

needs of Navy Medicine. The current budget allocation process, the Prospective Payment System, misaligns financial resources and creates incentives for the over-utili-
112 

zation of health services. The cost accounting system, Medical Expense & Performance Reporting System, fails to help managers understand whether health care resources are being appropriately utilized. The current budget process, based on annual appropriations, also creates a cumbersome, inefficient means for financing a 

health care entitlement program. 

General ROUDEBUSH. As I stated in my recent testimony, the current structure 

of HA is generally conducive to its role in developing policies, crafting strategic 

plans, aligning financial plans, and integrating Military Health System (MHS) functions to create synergistic effects. Our concern continues to be with the growth in 

HA and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD-HA) ‘‘dual-hat’’ responsibilities to include oversight of selected execution activities within TMA and the broadened TMA role in budget execution oversight of Military Treatment Facility (MTF) 

Business Plans and Readiness. We believe this broadened role has distracted TMA 

from the mission of managing the cost growth in Private Sector Care (PSC). Some 

examples of how TMA’s current organizational structure impact Service Title X responsibilities include: 

EXAMPLE #1: Approximately 5 years ago, TMA implemented the Prospective 

Payment System (PPS) which directs a performance-based budgeting system to 

incentivize MTF efficiencies. PPS is intended to provide military treatment facilities 

budgets based on actual direct care workload produced such as hospital admissions, 

prescriptions filled, and clinic visits instead of historic resources levels. For each 

service to be successful in PPS, the military treatment facilities must adopt a workload based or ‘‘fee for service’’ approach to healthcare versus one that focuses on 

medical outcomes and improving patients’ health. Also, PPS does not complement 

how resources are appropriated since ‘‘incentive’’ funds may be redistributed 8 

months after the fact. 

EXAMPLE #2: HA/TMA issuance of operational guidance to MTFs without complete coordination with the Services and other DoD agencies. An example is authorizing the use of Defense Health Program funds from PSC dollars for civilian care 

rendered to active duty members within a theater of operations rather than using 

GWOT/Overseas Contingency Operations funds. This involvement by HA/TMA and 

lack of complete coordination diminishes the role of the Services and the viability 

of the Direct Care System. 

EXAMPLE #3: From a systems perspective, TMA’s organizational construct has 

increased the potential for duplication of effort. Specifically, an example is TMA’s 

decision to remove funding from AHLTA’s (DoD’s Electronic Health Record) inpatient functionality without an interim or long-term solution. As a result of these decisions, the Air Force Medical Service and other Services had to pull funds from existing priorities within the Direct Care System to pay for a solution. 

In conclusion, we believe HA/TMA can be organized to effectively address MHS 

policy issues and strategic direction. Additionally, the focus of TMA should be on 

reducing PSC cost growth and managing the TRICARE Health Plan. Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide our Service perspective. 

Mr. WILSON. In your discussion of a human capital management strategy your 

testimony states ‘‘Having a one-size-fits-each-service policy is too constrictive...’’ 

What do you mean by that statement? What are examples of the policy being too 

constrictive? 

General SCHOOMAKER. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 

(ASD-HA) controls all health professions special pays within the Department. Incentive and retention pay is established with ‘‘Service consent’’ by a majority vote. 

These pays are equivalent across Services with only a few variations. Each Service 

has the opportunity to implement or not implement a specific bonus package, but 

we do not have the ability to change it. As such, any time we identify a needed 

change, we must seek concurrence with all the Services. 

For accession pay, ASD-HA allows the Services latitude by establishing a cap and 

giving the Services flexibility within that cap. Under the new consolidation of special pay authorized in the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, Health Affairs 

still directs what will happen—the Services have no authority. 

Ultimately, I would like the ability to customize bonus packages to meet the needs 

of the recipient. Our competitors in the civilian market can offer financial, education, reimbursements, and other forms of compensation to suit each need. The Department is currently limited to financial compensation only. 

Mr. WILSON. In your written testimony you indicate that the Department is considering some minor adjustments of personnel reporting relationships within TMA. 

In November 2006, the then Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England directed 

the Military Health System to reorganize. In August 2008, Dr. Casscells directed 
113 

another reorganization effective October 1, 2008. What is the purpose of all of these 

reorganizations? Please describe the adjustments you plan to make in detail. Why 

is it necessary to make these adjustments now? 

Ms. EMBREY. Prior to his departure, the former Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Health Affairs)—ASD(HA)—signed but did not issue a memorandum, which when 

implemented, would have formally realigned certain functions into the portfolio of 

the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)— 

PDASD(HA)—who also serves as the Principal Deputy Director, TRICARE Management Activity—PDD(TMA). These functions are: Program Integration, Office of 

Strategy Management, Military Health System (MHS) Strategic Communications, 

and DoD/VA Program Coordination Office. The realignment was intended to align 

functions and staff to achieve unity of effort and consistency of message. 

Whereas these functions are within the manning structure of TMA, they perform 

the essential role enabling the ASD(HA) to set a strategic direction for the MHS, 

engage in the interagency arena and with Congress, and ensure consistent messaging internally and externally. Thus, aligning these functions into the portfolio of 

the PDASD(HA)/PDD(TMA) would have strengthened the ability of the ASD(HA)/ 

Director, TMA to present a unified voice for the MHS and Unified Medical Program. 

That notwithstanding, I reassessed the appropriateness of this action’s timing and 

subsequently rescinded the memorandum signed by the former ASD(HA). Realignment decisions will be deferred until a new Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness and a new ASD(HA) are confirmed, and have the opportunity 

to assess the issue and to consider alternative courses of action. 

Æ