U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

98–277 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–72] 

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON MILITARY 

HEALTH CARE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

DECEMBER 3, 2015 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey, Vice 

Chair 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

PAUL COOK, California 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

JEANETTE JAMES, Professional Staff Member 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

COLIN BOSSE, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Heck, Hon. Joseph J., a Representative from Nevada, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel .................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Bousum, Scott, Legislative Director, Enlisted Association of the National 

Guard of the United States ................................................................................. 3 

Raezer, Joyce, Executive Director, National Military Family Association ......... 6 

Ryan, VADM Norbert R., Jr., USN (Ret.), President and CEO, Military Officers Association of America ................................................................................. 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Bousum, Scott ................................................................................................... 28 

Heck, Hon. Joseph J. ........................................................................................ 27 

Raezer, Joyce .................................................................................................... 71 

Ryan, VADM Norbert R., Jr. ........................................................................... 47 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Slide displayed by VADM Ryan ...................................................................... 102 

Statement of the National Association of Chain Drug Stores ...................... 95 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. MacArthur .................................................................................................. 105 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Walz ............................................................................................................ 109 

(1) 

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS ON MILITARY HEALTH CARE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Thursday, December 3, 2015. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:37 a.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph J. Heck (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH J. HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Dr. HECK. Okay. I would like to call the hearing of the Military 

Personnel Subcommittee to order. I want to welcome everyone to 

the hearing. 

I thank the witnesses for their flexibility. 

Just to say at the outset, we are probably going to have another 

vote series at 12:30, which will be a one-vote vote series. So my 

plan is that when the bell rings whoever is speaking will finish 

what they are saying, we will depart, go vote that one vote, and 

come immediately back if we have not yet concluded the hearing. 

So again, I want to thank everyone for coming to the subcommittee hearing to get the stakeholder views on proposed military health care reforms. This hearing is part of the committee’s 

ongoing project to comprehensively review the current state of the 

Military Health System and military health care and, based on this 

information, identify areas that need improvement. 

I want to be clear that this process is not being driven by budgetary concerns. We are using the same format that we used in the 

successful review of the military retirement changes, which were 

not driven by budget but driven by what will produce the best possible benefit to be able to recruit and retain the best and brightest 

into our All-Volunteer Force. 

The overarching goal of the project is to ensure the Military 

Health System can sustain trained and ready health care providers 

to support the readiness of the force while providing a quality 

health care benefit that is valued by beneficiaries. To that end, the 

committee has heard from several experts, including current and 

former Surgeons General, the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs, and civilian health care programs, regarding the 

current and future challenges of providing health care. 

Today we look forward to building on the knowledge by hearing 

from military service organizations regarding their members’ views 

on military health care. These incredibly important perspectives 

are crucial to understanding this multifaceted and complex issue. 
2 

Our purpose today is to discuss both what works and what needs 

to be fixed in the military health care system. 

We are keenly aware that military health care is an extremely 

important benefit and any reforms must be thoroughly analyzed 

from multiple perspectives and structured to prevent unintended 

consequences. Our discussion today is an integral part of that process. 

Before I introduce our panel, let me offer the ranking member, 

Congresswoman Davis, an opportunity to make her opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Heck can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I also want to welcome, of course, all of you to this hearing. 

Your perspective and your views have always been very important 

to us, and particularly as we have been engaged in the health care 

reform discussion. 

And, Admiral Ryan, I understand you will be stepping down. Is 

that correct? Yes—as President and CEO [Chief Executive Officer] 

of MOAA [Military Officers Association of America], and we just 

want to thank you so much for your service. I know that everyone 

in the organization feels the same and we appreciate very much 

the work that you have done. 

We have had the opportunity to hear from some of you this past 

spring as we began working through many of the recommendations 

of the commission, and you know that we did address retirement 

reform as well as several other commission recommendations in the 

NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act]. And we have made 

progress in health care reform by instituting a pilot program on urgent care requiring the DOD [Department of Defense] to publicly 

post access standards and requiring DOD to improve TRICARE enrollment during duty station changes. 

And I think we can all agree that there are areas of the health 

care system that work very, very well. And yet, there are some 

areas that we can improve. And so that is the challenge before us, 

I think, to try and make these improvements while maintaining a 

superior standard of care. 

I know each of your organizations represent particular constituencies and particular concerns, so we are eager to have your insight and your thoughts. Thank you so much, again, for being here. 

And I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe with the votes 

kind of got us off schedule that I may need to leave in the middle. 

But I am hoping that we will be able to hear from all of you before that, and even some of the questions. 

Thank you so much. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

We are joined again today by an outstanding panel. We will give 

each witness the opportunity to present his or her testimony and 

each member an opportunity to question the witnesses. 
3 

Respectfully remind the witnesses to summarize, to the greatest 

extent possible, the high points of your written testimony in 5 minutes or less. Your written comments and statements will be made 

part of the hearing record. 

Let me welcome our panel: Mr. Scott Bousum, Legislative Director of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United 

States [EANGUS]; Vice Admiral (Retired) Norbert Ryan, President 

and CEO of the Military Officers Association of America; and Ms. 

Joyce Raezer, Executive Director, National Military Family Association [NMFA]. 

I also ask unanimous consent to enter a statement from the National Association of Chain Drug Stores into the record. 

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

page 95.] 

Dr. HECK. Without objection, so ordered. 

Who is going to go first? 

Mr. Bousum. Okay. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BOUSUM, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL GUARD OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Mr. BOUSUM. Well, Chairman Heck, Ranking Member Davis, esteemed subcommittee members, my opening statement is part of 

my written testimony, and since we have a—kind of a tight schedule with votes I am willing to just submit it for the record and not 

read. 

Dr. HECK. Well, can you give us a quick summary in 5 minutes 

of what your statement says so we can move forward, so everybody 

has an opportunity that made not have read your—— 

Mr. BOUSUM. Sure. 

Dr. HECK [continuing]. Statement in advance—— 

Mr. BOUSUM. Absolutely. Yes, no problem. 

Well, on behalf of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, 

it is a pleasure to testify on the critical issue of health care reform. 

Our membership represents over 414,000 enlisted men and women 

of the Army and Air National Guard, their families and survivors, 

and the tens of thousands of National Guard retirees. 

Each and every year one of them is affected by health care when 

the Guard mobilizes in support of our country or when they fulfill 

their strategic missions. We welcome this opportunity to submit 

testimony for the record. 

Our members appreciate the countless hours that you and your 

staff have devoted to ensure that our service members receive the 

best care. 

Under committee leadership, the National Defense Authorization 

Act committed the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission [MCRMC]. 

The commissioners made recommendations to ensure—or to Congress on how to improve health care access that would eliminate 

problems currently encountered by Guard and Reserve members 

and families. We encourage the committee to consider the commission’s final recommendations as they explore health care reform. 

From the Guard’s perspective, it is difficult to discuss health care 

without addressing the complexity of our duty statuses. The mili-
4 

tary’s complex personnel system directly affects Guard pay, health 

care, and even burial rights, based on what duty status orders are 

published under. 

The focus of today’s discussion does not include National Guard 

duty status reform, but I suggest that the type of health care coverage members receive should be separated from whether or not 

they are on Active or Inactive Duty military orders. 

Service members and their families should have one health care 

program regardless of duty status. Separating the two would fix 

the continuity of care issue creating problems for members of the 

Guard and their families. 

As you consider changes next year, please keep in mind that access is a problem because most members of the National Guard do 

not live on or near military installations. As a result, many of our 

members drive hundreds of miles for appointments, only to be referred to a specialist who may or may not be available under 

TRICARE. 

Additionally, their frustration is compounded because appointments may not be scheduled in what you or I would consider a reasonable timeframe. 

This association, in conjunction with the Reserve Officers Association [ROA] and the National Guard Association of the United 

States [NGAUS], circulated a health care satisfaction survey to our 

members. The results of the survey are enclosed with my written 

testimony. After reviewing the survey results, I am not prepared 

to say that TRICARE is broken. 

I want to recognize Reserve Officers Association and the National 

Guard Association of the United States for their input in today’s 

testimony. Together, our membership makes up the entirety of the 

Reserve Component, officers and enlisted, and all over 1.1 million 

members, which includes every mobilization category. 

So thank you again for hosting this hearing. As the discussion 

continues, we look forward to working closely with you and your 

staff as you look at military health care reform. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bousum can be found in the Appendix on page 28.] 

Dr. HECK. Admiral Ryan. 

STATEMENT OF VADM NORBERT R. RYAN, JR., USN (RET.), 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA 

Admiral RYAN. Chairman Heck, Madam Ranking Member Davis, 

Congressman Coffman, Congressman MacArthur, Congressman 

O’Rourke, thank you. Good morning. 

First, from my humble perspective as the president of MOAA for 

the past 13 years, this committee’s actions have been the driving 

force, I believe, in sustaining the All-Volunteer Force while the Nation has been at war. Leaders make a difference. You all have 

made a real difference. Thank you. 

As for today’s subject of military health care, MOAA’s first guiding principle is to do no harm. We think it is important to preserve 

what is working and fix what is not working. 

In a category of what is working we would include: combat casualty care; the overall quality of military health care once it is de-
5 

livered; TRICARE for Life; pharmacy programs, including the mailorder pharmacy; and TRICARE Standard, for the most part. On 

the latter score, MOAA’s recent survey of more than 30,000 beneficiaries found Standard participants had a higher satisfaction rate 

and significantly lower dissatisfaction than Prime beneficiaries. 

In the list of things that are not working, MOAA would include, 

first and foremost, the fundamental inefficiency of a system built 

around three separate military service programs with no single 

budget and oversight authority. We fight wars jointly, thanks to 

Congress’ insistence in the 1980s, over the objection of all the Joint 

Chiefs. 

Why can’t we do the same in medical? In layman’s terms, there 

are simply too many cooks in the kitchen. 

As a result of our survey, it confirmed serious shortcomings in 

the TRICARE Prime appointing and referral system; the Guard 

and Reserve TRICARE coverage, as Scott alluded to; the patient 

load in military treatment facilities where military providers see 

far fewer patients per week than civilian providers; and inadequate 

case management of the higher cost for at-risk health care users. 

One of the biggest problems is a serious disconnect between rhetoric and reality on DOD health care costs. Every year some defense 

officials offer dire budget projections of health care costs they say 

are out of—spiraling out of control. But recent history shows these 

projections have been consistently wrong. 

Slide, please? I don’t know if you are going to be able to put it 

up there. 

The chart displayed reflects the reality: DOD health costs have 

been flat or declining for the past 5 years. Figures through fiscal 

year 2014 are actual expenditures; fiscal years 2015 and 2016 are 

projections in the latest DOD report and the fiscal year 2016 budget. 

As you can see, TRICARE for Life costs have dropped significantly and purchased-care costs have been flat or declining. A 

prime source of cost increases has been in-house military care, 

which is mainly a factor of medical readiness and system inefficiency. 

[The slide referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 102.] 

Admiral RYAN. In assessing what changes should be pursued, our 

statement for the record offers a number of guiding principles. Four 

key ones include: First, means testing is inappropriate for military 

health benefits. Reducing benefits for longer and more successful 

service has very negative career retention effects. 

Second, readiness costs should not be passed on to beneficiaries. 

When military providers are deployed or military facilities are inefficient and more beneficiaries are pushed into the private care, that 

is a cost of doing military business, not a personnel benefit. 

Third, the military health benefit should be the gold standard: a 

top-tier program that is substantially better than those offered by 

the best civilian employers. 

And lastly, each similar group of eligibles should be provided 

similar coverage. We are not in favor of an FEHBP [Federal Employees Health Benefits Program]-style system that means those 

with more income can buy better coverage. 
6 

Finally, our written statement offers 12 specific recommendations, but in the interest of my time and your time and the colleagues’ time, I will not address those now. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing I can assure the entire committee that 

MOAA stands ready to assist you and your staff in any way that 

would be beneficial. We all want to get this right. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Ryan can be found in the 

Appendix on page 47.] 

Dr. HECK. Ms. Raezer. 

STATEMENT OF JOYCE RAEZER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION 

Ms. RAEZER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Davis, and other members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to 

speak today on behalf of the National Military Family Association 

and the families we serve about what is working and what is not 

working with military health care for families. 

Our written statement submitted for the record contains a summary of what we hear most often from currently serving military 

families about their experiences, good and not so good, in accessing 

care and the quality of the care they receive. 

We appreciate the provisions that you included in the recent 

NDAA as a step in addressing some of those issues about access 

and quality, but it has been more than 20 years since TRICARE 

was created. It is time for a holistic examination of TRICARE and 

the Military Health System, not tweaks around the edges. 

But we remain committed to the concept that the reform discussion must start with how to build and deliver the best benefit possible for our military families—which I think I heard from you, Mr. 

Chairman—not on how much families should pay for that benefit. 

Military health care must meet the unique needs of military families, such as frequent moves and deployments, as well as address 

the concerns of families in remote locations, individuals with complex health care needs, wounded service members, and our National Guard and Reserve members and their families. Service 

members must get the care they need to be medically ready. 

Above all, coverage, access, quality, and cost should acknowledge 

the value of the service and sacrifice of troops and their families. 

As Admiral Ryan said, our military families deserve nothing less 

than the best possible health care coverage and care. 

We do know that many of our families remain satisfied with 

TRICARE—the care they receive and the low cost of that care. Our 

concern for these families centers on what could happen to their 

care if financial pressures take a greater toll on military hospitals 

or the TRICARE benefit over time. 

When we asked for families’ input about their health care experiences, they routinely cite difficulty in obtaining timely appointments; bureaucratic hassles to obtain referrals; lack of continuity 

of care; difficulties in navigating the system, especially when moving from one military community to another; a lack of coverage for 

certain services; and poor customer service. 

While most families rate ‘‘poor access’’ as their number one 

health care quality issue, some do tell us of experiences of less than 
7 

satisfactory care—examples similar to what was found in the 2014 

Military Health System Review conducted by the Department of 

Defense. 

But we do know there are models of timely access and quality 

improvements in pockets of the direct care system. But there 

doesn’t seem to be a single entity with the power to drive implementation of those improvements across the system and hold those 

in need of improvement accountable. 

Based on what we hear from military families, here is what we 

would like you to look at as you begin your review of TRICARE. 

Changes in and enforcement of access, quality, and customer 

service standards must apply across the entire Military Health 

System, direct care and what is purchased from the private sector. 

Before initiating additional recapture efforts to bring more beneficiaries into the military hospital, military hospitals should be required to certify they are meeting appointment access standards for 

current patients. 

Reconsider the concept of a unified medical command to provide 

a single entity responsible for ensuring consistency and quality accountability across the system. Ask how private sector coverage options, patient engagement efforts, and quality standards can inform 

TRICARE reform. 

Consider the demographics of military families today in updating 

the TRICARE benefit and in managing the balance between meeting the readiness mission and delivering an employer-provided 

health care benefit to families. A Medicare-based reimbursement 

system and a focus on troop and provider readiness for war don’t 

easily translate into a model of coverage and care for a population 

of young families with kids. Here is a statistic for you: Of the 1.1 

million children of Active Duty service members, almost 50 percent 

are age 6 or younger. 

Questions about any proposed changes to TRICARE should also 

be asked about the current system. How does this structure promote military readiness? How does it ensure timely access and 

quality care at the best possible price for both beneficiaries and the 

government? 

In an era of budget constraints when military families see any 

proposed change in their benefits as just another attempt to cut 

costs, it is important to rebuild their trust and to show them their 

service is valued. We hope this hearing is only the beginning of a 

thorough discussion of how to deliver the best care benefit to military families. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Raezer can be found in the Appendix on page 71.] 

Dr. HECK. Thank you. I appreciate all of your testimony. 

And since, Mrs. Davis, you may have to leave soon I will defer 

my time and give you the first 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

And again, thank you all for being here. 

Ms. Raezer, maybe I will—wanted to ask you really just to follow 

up, I think, on some of the discussion, because one of the concerns 

that you stated, and I think has been stated often, is about access 

standards. And what we know is that there isn’t a whole lot of 
8 

awareness sometimes of what those DOD standards are, which the 

awareness may be low but the standards are high in a number of 

cases, and yet that is not something that I think is—people are 

able to relate to within the service that they are getting. 

And so how would you do that? What are we missing? What is 

not happening to increase the standard so people really can, I 

think, demand, in many ways, that they get the care that they— 

that actually has been developed for them? 

Ms. RAEZER. You are absolutely right. There isn’t a lot of awareness about the standards. And unfortunately, it is not just on the 

military family side; it’s on—and this is mostly in the direct care 

system, where there aren’t the same kind of accountabilities that 

are in the purchased-care contracts—there’s not a whole lot of 

awareness on the—among the people who are charged with giving 

military families an appointment. 

So if a military family member, even if they—who knows about 

an access standard calls for an appointment for a sick child and 

said, ‘‘This is urgent care; the access standard is 24 hours,’’ typically they are going to get the response, ‘‘Sorry, there are no appointments.’’ 

‘‘Well, can you send me out for urgent care?’’ 

‘‘Sorry, we are not doing that right now,’’ which is why we are 

so grateful for the pilot. 

A military treatment facility’s response to beating access standards shouldn’t be to tell a military family with a sick child, ‘‘Go to 

the emergency room and wait for 9 hours,’’ and that’s what is happening. So there is an awareness needed on the military hospital 

side across the culture and a commitment to meeting those access 

standards. 

We don’t hear a lot from DOD about access standards lately. We 

really did a lot when TRICARE was first created, and that was the 

promise of TRICARE Prime: ‘‘You give up some control over your 

care and we will guarantee low cost and access.’’ The low cost is 

still there but the access isn’t. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. 

Any others—do you have a sense, Admiral, about how do we—— 

Admiral RYAN. Yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS [continuing]. Make that better? 

Admiral RYAN. I couldn’t agree more. 

What our survey of over 30,000 folks says is that it all—that the 

real issue is with TRICARE Prime. The greatest dissatisfaction 

was meeting the appointment timelines or getting specialty appointments. And it is double the dissatisfaction rate in TRICARE 

Prime, and specifically in the military treatment facilities is where 

the—rather than the purchased-care part of TRICARE Prime. 

So it is 15 to 19 percent dissatisfaction with the appointment— 

getting the timely appointment or getting a specialty appointment. 

It’s half of that in TRICARE Standard and even less in TRICARE 

for Life. 

And so the figures show it, exactly what Ms. Raezer was talking 

about. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Because there are some reports that would indicate that the MTFs [military treatment facilities] are actually 

meeting this standard. But that is—— 
9 

Admiral RYAN. Well, we have had discussions with DOD—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Why this disconnect? 

Admiral RYAN. Yes. 

Ms. RAEZER. We have had numerous discussions with the Department on how do they measure access. If I call and ask for an 

appointment for a sick child and I am told, ‘‘Call back tomorrow,’’ 

or, ‘‘Go to the emergency room,’’ how does that get recorded in the 

system? How does that response, ‘‘Call back tomorrow,’’ get recorded in the system as meeting or not meeting access standards? 

And what we were hearing from the Department is they weren’t 

really sure. And that was one of the things that came out in the 

Military Health System Review is that there were a lot of questions 

about how the military was measuring access. 

Admiral RYAN. One of the principal problems—and I know that 

the health care providers and MTFs are really professional—consummate professionals and want to do a good job, but when you 

look at the number of appointments that they have in a day versus 

what you have in the purchased care, it’s not even close to what 

is in the purchased care. 

Now, that may not be the fault of any of the health care providers. Dr. Heck has been in the system. It may be the administrative requirements that are placed on them; it may be the lack of 

administrative support so they end up doing clerical stuff as well. 

But that is an area, if we could fix one thing it would break a 

lot of this dissatisfaction, I think. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Well. Okay. Yes. Thank you. 

Mr. Bousum, did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. BOUSUM. I was just going to interject quickly—I am running 

on a little time here—when guardsmen go onto TRICARE Prime 

and they are called to Active Duty and there is a switch in this 

continuity of care, the—our members are now deployed and their 

family members are left to work this convoluted nightmare with 

them, you know, now thinking of their family and it affects readiness, so—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. HECK. Thanks. 

So, you know, one of the approaches that we are trying to look 

at from the subcommittee perspective as we tackle this is, you 

know, from the 30,000-foot view, what is the primary purpose of 

the military health care system? What is the primary reason that 

we have a military health care system? And then from there, try 

to bring it all the way down to the tactical: How do we provide that 

care? 

So I would ask each one of you, on behalf of your association: To 

your association, what is the primary purpose of the military 

health care system? 

Mr. Bousum. 

Mr. BOUSUM. Well, I would say—and in our case it’s not this way 

but it should be this way, that a guardsman should have the same 

health care regardless of their duty status, that it should be something that fits the needs of the service member and their family, 

and that it is something that they have 365 days a year until they 
10 

maybe opt to change that. But it shouldn’t change at any point 

regardless of what happens during that year. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. 

Admiral. 

Admiral RYAN. Well, I think you said it in—both of you and 

Madam Ranking Member said it in your opening statement. It is 

readiness. 

But we think an important part of readiness is making sure that 

you can also take care of the family. And so the way you phrased 

it’s the right way. 

And that is why when the commission came out with this 

FEHBP proposal we could not see how military—the military 

MTFs could sustain their readiness with that proposal. And that’s 

why we would rather—you can’t evolve this system; it has to be reformed. And it can’t be piecemeal. 

But it has got to start with the readiness and making sure that 

all of those MTFs have people that are qualified to do what you 

have done, to deploy and take care of our troops. But an important 

segment of that readiness, as Scott pointed out, is when somebody 

goes over the horizon they want to know that their family is being 

taken care of and seen. 

Thank you. 

Dr. HECK. All right. 

Ms. Raezer. 

Ms. RAEZER. I agree with Admiral Ryan. It is readiness first. The 

system has to ensure that service members are medically ready to 

deploy, that they—and that they have the best possible care when 

they are deployed. 

We don’t want to mess with the successes that we have seen in 

combatant care. But that’s prime important—of prime importance 

to families, as well. They want to know that their service member 

is well taken care of when put in harm’s way. 

But the Department of Defense also has an obligation to provide 

a high-quality employer-sponsored benefit, and where we are seeing—so there really—it is a dual-purpose, and what we are seeing 

is the conflict between those two goals in the Military Health System. 

Too much emphasis on readiness leaves families without appointments. And pressure on readiness dollars leaves families and sometimes service members without care. 

So I think the challenge for you as you do this work is saying, 

‘‘How do we get rid of that conflict between those two missions of 

the Military Health System?’’ 

Dr. HECK. Great. Thank you. I will save my second question for 

the next round since it is going to take longer than a minute and 

a half. 

Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am more familiar with the VA [Veteran Affairs] health care 

system—I have been on the VA Committee for 3 years and on this 

committee for almost a year—than I am the TRICARE and DOD 

system. But you mentioned something that caught my attention because we have heard it so often on the VA side, which is access 

standards and accuracy in measuring access standards. 
11 

In the VA it was wait times. And, you know, we were told with 

all certainty by the VA 2 years ago that we were seeing everybody 

within 14 days, and there was a—the infamous wait-time scandal 

in Phoenix. 

So I would love for you to expand on that a little bit and tell me 

what your members are seeing, or what the concerns are, or what 

your recommendations are for assuring that we are meeting the 

standards and that we are measuring those accurately. 

In our case in El Paso we bypassed the VA and just asked veterans directly and did a survey of veterans in El Paso to find out 

what their real wait times were. And instead of 14 days we found 

for primary care it was 81 days on average; for mental health care, 

74 days. 

So that, and then the second question for you and then anyone 

else who would like to address it, one of the MCRMC’s recommendations was having greater interoperability between VA and 

DOD. And there is the DOD/VA Joint Executive Committee to 

standardize and enforce collaboration, so any thoughts on that 

would be appreciated. 

And I will start with you, Ms. Raezer. 

Ms. RAEZER. Yes. I will start with the access question. We 

haven’t heard of families having the same length of wait as what 

some of the worst stories that came out of the VA are. 

But that said, we are hearing from families who not only are 

being told they have to wait for care, where there is no mention 

of an access standard, but there is also what I term as ‘‘silly 

rules’’—processes and procedures at military hospitals and clinics 

that vary but that put barriers up between a patient and the provider in accessing care from that provider, rules about when you 

are transitioning on a military move from one installation to another, what do you—you know, the enrollment process from 

TRICARE contractor to TRICARE contractor is pretty seamless. 

Where our families are having problems is getting that first appointment with a primary care manager in a military hospital. Or 

if you have come in with an existing health condition, we—one of 

the examples we referenced in our written statement was a spouse 

late term—late in her pregnancy who moved from one military 

community to another, and even though she was obviously pregnant, had her records with her showing she was high-risk, was told 

she had to take a pregnancy test before she could get an appointment with an OB [obstetrician]. 

She came at 28 weeks, didn’t see the doctor until 36 weeks. 

That’s just wrong. 

And we hear that—we have heard that from other military families, that the process they have to go through when they move creates a barrier between them and care that doesn’t show up readily 

on access standards. 

Just a bit on the other—on your issue about interoperability between DOD and the VA, our families who are going through transitions say the process has to be seamless. Especially if you have a 

wounded service member it is—there are still too many unmanaged 

processes for that individual, too many different case managers, too 

many barriers. 
12 

You are fixing some with the drug formulary, for example, but 

there’s still some other ways that that could be made better. So we 

agreed with the commission on that. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Too many different systems. 

Ms. RAEZER. Yes. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Admiral Ryan. 

Admiral RYAN. Well, I go back to the President’s first term. He 

cared enough about this that he called about six of us into a room, 

major VSOs [veteran service organizations], and said, ‘‘This is important if we get this joint DOD–VA medical record, and I want it 

to be a medical record.’’ He called the Secretary of Defense and the 

Secretary of VA out of separate meetings to be there to look everybody in the eye and said, ‘‘We need to get this done.’’ 

Unfortunately, there has been—it’s been well documented that 

leader after leader on both sides have not been over—able to overcome the intransigence of the bureaucrats over there. You all have 

wasted a lot of money on this, and the latest is now they are publicizing that you can look at the other person’s record, but it’s really 

an embarrassment. 

And I see well-intentioned people at the top say, ‘‘We are going 

to be involved in this,’’ but they get overtaken by events and I 

think they leave it to other folks and they don’t have the clout to 

get it done. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Yes. 

Unfortunately I am out of time, but I would love to get your 

thoughts either offline or on the record. 

And with that, I’ll yield back to the chair. Thank you. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you for being here. 

We got a lot of hearings now on this subject. We have met with 

the commission, active and retired members of the services and the 

DOD, the Surgeons General, the private sector, the public sector, 

and now stakeholder groups. And I am reminded that the purpose 

of walking is to get somewhere, and we are getting to that point 

where I think we need to come to some kind of a landing, and that 

is what we are working on. 

And as I think about our objectives, it’s clearly readiness and it’s 

clearly keeping our end of the bargain—family care and providing 

for people. And I think those two are front and center to me. 

Rather than asking you detailed questions, I’d actually like to lay 

out a broad framework that is beginning to gel in my mind and I 

would like you to react to it. And that framework is a couple of 

changes to the current system. 

One would be a consolidation of the medical health system into 

a consolidated command, rather than having each service run their 

own hospitals. And then the Surgeons General would focus on 

training, equipping, and supporting, not running a system. 

Two would be granting broad authority to this central command 

to change plans, to change delivery within broad cost constraints 

that we would define here. 

Three would be investing in centers—military centers in areas of 

concentration of troops and families and increasing—in other areas 

where there is less concentration, increasing access to private 

health care. 
13 

And then lastly would be ensuring a vibrant military health Reserve system so that we can make use of health care professionals 

in the private sector who agree to be on Reserve status and go 

wherever whenever. 

Could you each take—I have only got 3 minutes left. Could you 

each take a few moments to talk about pros and cons to that 

framework? 

Admiral RYAN. You didn’t get a chance to talk, so—— 

Mr. BOUSUM. So actually, a part of the—my written testimony, 

my organization would actually support the basically FEHBP plan 

and bringing everything over to OPM [Office of Personnel Management]. They manage for Federal employees, and that there could 

be a structure in place that they could support that for service 

members. 

In terms of access—you know, better access to private care, we 

would—from a readiness perspective we would have to ensure that 

doctors understand readiness levels for the different services. There 

are different standards for every service member, and so in order 

to do that, that is asking more—putting the onus on them. So if 

a service member comes in, perhaps, with the flu but they look to 

be overweight, then a doctor would say, ‘‘Okay, you know, I am 

taking care of, you know, your flu symptoms but, you know, I also 

am now responsible for reporting this.’’ 

One thing, and this is, you know, as you are looking at reform 

this is somewhat outside the box, but in order to, you know, in 

order to go that route, perhaps a cost offset for that doctor would 

be that the Federal Government reimburse some portion of their 

Federal student loans. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. I am going to stop you there because I want 

the—— 

Mr. BOUSUM. Okay. 

Mr. MACARTHUR [continuing]. Other two—I would invite written 

responses to this, as well. But let me hear from the other two of 

you briefly. 

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

page 105.] 

Admiral RYAN. Well, thank you, Congressman. 

We would definitely like to explore this with you and the committee. Actually, as you know, you were very supportive of a unified command and a single budgeting authority. We think that 

makes imminent sense. 

Consolidation, I think, would have to be under DOD. We would 

get nervous if it went—our association—if it went to OPM. I am 

sure they are fine people; they do a good job for civil servants. But 

as Joyce said, we think DOD has the responsibility there. 

Access is going to be a problem for everybody. We see it in the 

private sector now, too. It is a big deal. We think getting the military treatment facilities more efficient would really help with the 

access. 

And then having a much more collaborative relationship between 

the MTFs, the managed care, and the purchased care. It is almost 

nonexistent now. It is at arm’s length. We waste a lot. 

Ms. RAEZER. Yes. I agree. I think I would make one point. I 

would love to talk to you more about the idea of investing more ca-
14 

pacity in military centers where large populations are and doing 

that better coordination in other areas. I think military hospitals—— 

Admiral RYAN. Your mike—— 

Ms. RAEZER. Oh, sorry. 

I think military hospitals should be staffed not just based on 

readiness needs but the—what the community capacity is or isn’t. 

So if you are sending a lot of military families with their service 

member to a remote location then maybe the military does have to 

put in a few more family practice docs and pediatricians than they 

would other places. 

But and so it is not just on, ‘‘We’ll let the private sector do what 

the military can’t,’’ but how does the private sector work with the 

military facility in that location to build that capacity in the community? 

Mr. MACARTHUR. I thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. HECK. Thanks. 

So I was going to—my follow-on question was going to be, you 

know, how we kind of look at the three ups and three downs of the 

system. What are the three things you think they are doing well? 

What are the three things, if you could wave a wand, you would 

want to improve? 

Actually, Admiral Norbert, I think you did that, actually, in your 

opening statement, and if I had them right you kind of said the ups 

were combat casualty care, TRICARE for Life, pharmacy benefits, 

TRICARE Standard, and the quality of care. 

Admiral RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HECK. And the three downs were inefficiencies of three separate programs, TRICARE Prime, and TRICARE Reserve Select. 

Admiral RYAN. Yes—— 

Dr. HECK. Do you have anything else that you would add to either of those two columns? 

Admiral RYAN. I would just say, in relation to Scott, what he 

said, that we think one of the recommendations we have in there 

is if you want to actually look at an FEHB-type of program, doing 

it with the Guard and Reserve might not be a bad idea because 

right now it is so—lack of continuity, disjointed, they don’t get 

equal treatment. So that is one of our thoughts. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. 

So, Ms. Raezer, what would be your three ups and three downs? 

Ms. RAEZER. I think my three ups would start with the combat 

care. This has been a success story. 

I think the military families say they want to go to a military 

hospital because they believe the providers understand their life, so 

that cultural competency. And I think for military families—for 

currently serving military families, the cost of the care to—it’s important for our very young military families to have that low, low 

predictable cost. 

I think the three downs, it is access, inconsistency, and access. 

If you can’t get an appointment, everything else is a problem. 

Dr. HECK. Right. 

And, Mr. Bousum. 
15 

Mr. BOUSUM. Yes. I honestly, for the most part I echo that sentiment. I have an example from the previous line of questioning. 

I have a member filled out our survey. There was room for additional comments. They had a torn ACL [anterior cruciate ligament]. 

Took 5 months. Ended up having to do it at a, you know, at an outside hospital, a civilian hospital. 

In fact, the doctor—this was someone in the National Capital Region, obviously, because a doctor at Fort Belvoir actually said, 

‘‘With your age being 64 years old, you should just wait till closer 

to 70 and have your knee replaced.’’ I mean, that is not something 

that is said. 

Dr. HECK. And then, you know, in one of the previous panels we 

had the former Surgeons General, one of which was Admiral 

Cowan. And, you know, he talked about, you know, obviously his 

longitudinal perspective that he has had from being involved for so 

long that, you know, when TRICARE was originally envisioned, 

you know, the idea was that all of the health care actually would 

be provided in MTFs until the military staffing in that MTF had 

to deploy, and then the care would go to, you know, out into the 

community until those returning physicians, nurses, medics were 

coming back to the MTF. 

And he had this idea, or his thought was that we should try 

harder within DOD to recapture more of the care that we’ve let go 

outside the gate via TRICARE back into the MTFs. 

Now, I understand the point that you brought up, Ms. Raezer, 

that, hey, if there are no appointments to take care of the current 

beneficiaries, how are they going to provide appointments for those 

outside the gate? But assuming that could be fixed—that is a big 

assumption, but let’s say assuming that could be fixed—what degree of reticence do you believe there would be amongst your beneficiaries, your members, of wanting to come back into the gate? 

I mean, would they need to be incentivized to come back in if 

they have been getting care outside the gate? Or how do you think 

we would be able to accomplish that, to get them to understand or 

want to come back into the MTF? 

Ms. Raezer. 

Ms. RAEZER. Well, I think it is important to remember that most 

of our Active Duty families are already in the MTF to varying degrees. Air Force has downsized a lot of facilities to clinics, so there 

is a lot more care out in the purchased side for Air Force families 

in many locations. 

I think our Active Duty families look to the military for care. 

They believe this is something they have earned. As I said, these 

are providers who supposedly understand their life. But you have 

to convince them. 

We have also heard from a lot of military families that they are 

making the switch to Standard because they want more control, 

they want more access, and so the military hospitals are going to 

have to convince them that they offer the care that they need. That 

includes things like after-hours care; that includes other options 

than waiting with a sick child in the emergency room; that includes 

getting rid of some of these silly rules. 

So I think our military families can be convinced, but it is up to 

the military hospitals to show they understand what families need. 
16 

Dr. HECK. When you talk about cultural competency and the providers understanding the life of the duty member, do your members 

talk about hospitals or military health care facilities that are primarily staffed with civilian contractors nowadays, versus actually 

Active Duty health care professionals? 

Ms. RAEZER. They actually like the places that have more civilian 

providers because generally hours are better and there—it is easier 

to get an appointment. 

Admiral RYAN. I think we are rowing up the stream and it is 

going to be very difficult. Our survey of over 30,000 indicates that 

with TRICARE for Life, which retirees are very important, 84 percent say it is not very important to go to a military hospital; Standard, 90 percent say not very important; and then Prime, 61 percent 

not very important, including currently serving. 

As Joyce said, they’re most interested in access and choice. So it 

is not something that is working well right now, and it is not going 

in the right direction. 

Admiral Cowan is a great American, but you know, Dr. Heck, 

and even in your area that purchased care provides 58 percent of 

the care on the west and only 42 percent is done in the MTFs. So 

it’s a big hurdle. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. O’Rourke, another question? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Ryan, I just want to tell you that your comments are 

spot on in terms of the need to force interoperability between DOD 

and VA And it is really encouraging, actually, the anecdote that 

you told us of the President calling in the two secretaries responsible, and yet deeply disheartening that as we enter the final year 

of his term nothing’s happened. And he really is the only person 

who can referee this dispute. 

But I would love to join my colleagues on this committee to do 

everything we can from a legislative perspective to try to force this. 

However, as you probably know, that there has been legislation requiring this, mandating it, that the administration, for lack of a 

better word, has just refused to implement. 

And there is no excuse for it. And it is, in your words, very embarrassing. And the consequence is that you have wasted taxpayer 

resources and you’re not maximizing the health systems—the two 

largest health systems in this country. 

And just one last anecdote: We had a hearing on this with the 

Government Oversight Committee couple months back and the excuse from DOD’s perspective for not doing this is that their systems need to work on a submarine, which, you know, to me makes 

no sense. We can have it work on a submarine; we can have it 

work in a VA clinic. 

But, Mr. Bousum, you didn’t get a chance to answer that question on access and interoperability between DOD and VA and 

where you see some opportunities, so I’d love to give you a chance 

to respond. 

Mr. BOUSUM. Well, the point I was going to make was actually 

about that ACL surgery, so I was able to work it into another answer. 

As far as interoperability goes—and the comment was made that 

I think that there are decisions being made at high levels that 
17 

don’t actually make it down to the people who end up, you know, 

at the base level, so that’s a particular problem that we are seeing. 

I would say that as far as—it is unfortunate that there are numerous members of the Guard and their families that aren’t allowed to use an MTF, and so I think that that should be acrossthe-board access. And I think that our members would welcome 

that because it is a one-stop shop, it is—they are around other 

service members, they are—they would be more willing to go, and 

they feel more comfortable and they would like their primary care 

provider. And so, yes. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Let me ask Ms. Raezer a question, and this is 

slightly dangerous because it is based on anecdote. But my sister 

is an ER [emergency room] nurse in El Paso, and we have William 

Beaumont Army Medical Center, which is an excellent Army medical center, and they are just completing a $1 billion new William 

Beaumont Army Medical Center 9 miles east. And she said it really 

struck her the number of military families who showed up at the 

ER to get primary care for non-emergencies that I assume 

TRICARE is paying for, despite there being a world-class Army 

medical facility on base. 

Any thoughts on that, in terms of reforms that could address 

that? If true, it doesn’t seem like, perhaps, the best use of resources 

and love to get your thoughts. 

Ms. RAEZER. Well, I think it’s—when one new hospital that I am 

not going to mention opened, military families who went there said, 

‘‘Beautiful new building; same old military customer service.’’ 

Mr. O’ROURKE. So it is the access—— 

Ms. RAEZER. It becomes an access issue. 

So the question for me is how late are Beaumont’s primary care 

clinics, pediatric clinics open? Do they have after-hours? What’s the 

provider workload? Do they—how are they augmenting military 

staff with civilian staff to help promote access? 

But if she’s seeing military families for primary care in a civilian 

ER, those families are probably there because they didn’t feel they 

had any other options. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. That makes sense. And great questions for me to 

ask of William Beaumont, in terms of their hours and availability. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. HECK. Mr. MacArthur. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Admiral, I had a follow-up question for you. 

You mentioned that you thought consolidation should be under the 

DOD, not OPM. I agree with that, but I am wondering, briefly, 

what your reasons for that are. 

Admiral RYAN. Well, because, first of all, with the All-Volunteer 

Force, the people that should have ownership of retention should 

be DOD. And so we start out—we are an officer association, but we 

start out concerned most about what about the E–5, 10 years of 

service, combat experience, sitting around a table, family of four— 

what do they think of this or that? And I just think that that member, when they go over the horizon, he or she, they want to know 

that somebody’s got their back, and that has got to be DOD with 

the All-Volunteer Force. 

OPM does a great job with the civil service, but DOD ought to 

be responding to DOD. 
18 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Okay. Thank you. And I think there are meaningful cultural changes between the two population groups. 

Admiral RYAN. Yes. One of the things that we have found, and 

it is in regard to the chairman’s question too, about what should 

we do in the MTFs, we did a study with UnitedHealthcare called 

‘‘Ready to Serve,’’ and that was done by RAND [Corporation], and 

it shows that the families really do have concerns about do the people understand us. 

But guess what? The practitioners have even more concern, particularly in the mental health area, that they don’t feel that they 

are qualified to help somebody coming from a military situation if 

they come in for a mental health issue. 

So a lot of people are trying to work on that. Some States are 

doing a better job. It is not only the concern of the family, but the 

providers themselves, they are split between the 1 percent and the 

99 percent. They want to do the right thing but they are worried 

that they don’t know what that right thing is if that patient comes 

to see them as a civilian. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Yes. 

My other question was for Ms. Raezer and then Mr. Bousum. 

The admiral—admiral, excuse me, mentioned that you polled very 

high—your members polled very high on access and choice being 

the highest priorities. I think that was you that said that. 

And it seems to me as I’m listening that training of physicians 

and other health care professionals is vital on the readiness side 

of the objective, and access and choice is vital on the family care 

side, and how do we balance those two? 

I wondered if your members would—if you have polled them, do 

you think they would poll as high—or maybe you have already 

done that work and you can answer—would they be in the 80 percentile, as well, that access and choice are the highest priorities? 

Ms. RAEZER. I think for currently serving—and we are in the 

process of polling. We also sent families to MOAA’s survey to fill 

that out, and we are in the process of polling a larger sample of 

military spouses. 

What we hear from military spouses is access. If they can’t get 

access then choice becomes important, and that’s why we are hearing of families who are making the choice to assume more out-ofpocket costs for their health care so that they have more options 

under TRICARE Standard. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. I thank you. 

And, Mr. Bousum. 

Mr. BOUSUM. So I am flipping through here. Our poll shows that, 

‘‘Does TRICARE Reserve provide health care in a quick and timely 

manner?’’ 

‘‘All the time’’ is 46 percent, and ‘‘very little of the time’’ is about 

5 percent. 

And then, let’s see, ‘‘Does TRICARE provide a good selection of 

network providers to meet medical needs?’’ This one’s really across 

the board. It just depends on when it works as advertised, which 

some of our members say, ‘‘TRICARE works and it is great when 

I get it, but otherwise no,’’ so I’m happy. It should be in front of 

you on, let’s see, it’s about the fourth question. 

Mr. MACARTHUR. Okay. 
19 

Since I have a moment, Admiral, I’d like to say that your representatives in southern New Jersey, which is what I represent, 

have done a superb job of making me aware of the issues that matter to your members. Whether it is concurrent receipts or other 

things, they really have been very, very effective in being in front 

of me on those. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back with that. 

Dr. HECK. Well, I am going to keep going because we have got 

you here and I want to totally exploit the opportunity to get your 

perspective. 

So again, as we have been working through this—and, you know, 

this has been a very iterative process. Each time we get another 

panel before us we pick up another pearl, or at least I pick up another pearl that sometimes changes the entire calculus that I had 

before that committee hearing. 

I was impressed that each of you said that, you know, the primary goal is to maintain combat casualty care, right, as the primary goal of the military health care system. And I would certainly 

agree with that, certainly when we look at the advances we’ve 

made over the last 14, 15 years. 

So here’s, I am throwing out—and I probably shouldn’t do this 

on the record, but I am throwing out a concept, okay? So I don’t 

want this—you know, this shouldn’t be publicized in any newspaper article that that’s my idea, but a concept. Too late. Otherwise 

my phones are going to start lighting up already. 

So with the idea of trying to maintain combat casualty care, 

right, which basically comes into the idea you need a health care 

provider force that’s ready to be able to provide that care, and you 

need a medically ready force to be able to deploy. It would seem 

that the—and that comes at cost—readiness comes at a cost, and 

I think that is one of the things that DOD fails to recognize. Well, 

they recognize it when they write the check, but they don’t realize 

that if you want to be ready you have got to spend money to do 

it. 

And I use the analogy of like a civilian trauma center. Civilian 

trauma centers know that they are going to lose money. It is because, you know, you have got to have all those resources ready to 

go at the flip of a switch 24/7, whether you are using them or not, 

and that comes at a cost. 

So if we want to say that the primary goal is to have that medically ready force, medically trained and ready providers, and maintain combat casualty care, that perhaps, as Mr. MacArthur said, 

we focus providing that at centers of—military medical centers of 

excellence. That would be the full impatient capability MTF, and 

those would be located in areas of high troop concentration, right? 

If we downscale other facilities, then, to let’s say outpatient clinics with no inpatient capability and we want to—well, the—I 

should go back. To do that we need to recapture all the care in 

those areas into those facilities so that those medical health care 

providers can get the training that they need, not just on combat 

casualty care but, you know, we do humanitarian missions. It is delivering babies, taking care of pediatric patients, taking care of, you 

know, asthmatics and everything—heart failure and heart attacks. 
20 

If I’m hearing correctly, in order to do that we’ve got to increase 

access, which is the hours of operations, the number of appointment slots, and the staffing and the specialists available within the 

MTF. 

Outside of those areas of concentration, then, perhaps more of 

the care is provided through military outpatient clinics—so on a 

post, base, or camp there would be an outpatient clinic with no inpatient capability and inpatient services would be provided on the 

economy. 

And then to address the Guard and Reserve issue that perhaps— 

so that there’s not an issue with changing in duty status, that they 

are allowed to enroll in FEHB or FEHB-type equivalent. Honestly, 

I mean, previously—actually right now the law says that if you are 

eligible for FEHB you are not allowed to enroll in TRICARE Reserve Select. 

So perhaps, you know, as a broad framework—and again, I know 

there are a lot of holes in that, but give me your first, you know, 

response to a system that would look potentially like that. 

Ms. Raezer. 

Ms. RAEZER. I think there’s some merit in it. I would have just 

a couple questions. 

My first would be even if you concentrated a lot of that readiness 

care in a few locations, would our population still be big enough on 

its own to allow military medical providers to get the skills they 

need to remain combat-ready? And there is a lot of discussion 

about—and there is a model in San Antonio where the military facility is a level-one trauma center, helping, you know, supporting 

the community as well as the military. So I think that is one question that would have to be considered. 

The other would be, as I said earlier, in designing where those 

smaller facilities, what’s the interaction between the military system and the civilian provider network? Would there be enough civilian capability in the providers and the specialties that our families would need to meet the demand from the military folks? 

So I think that would be my caution in designing that is making 

sure that capacities and access is still there in those smaller facilities. But and then the other is the bigger question. I mean, what 

will it take to keep our providers ready and trained? 

Dr. HECK. Okay. 

Admiral. 

Admiral RYAN. It is a very interesting concept and we would like 

to talk to your staff about it some more. 

One big thought: You know, the VA has their polytrauma centers 

at the different geographical areas, and so there is kind of a lesson 

that could be learned maybe about that. Do they get enough inflow 

for the spinal cord and brain injuries and all to stay current while 

they are doing everything else and pulling in the regular patients, 

as you said—not the babies necessarily, unless it is one like Chicago where they do both. So you have got a little bit of something 

here you could get some experience from. 

I think no question, right now the military does an awful impressive job. I would say they are leading the country in this type of 

casualty competency. That part of it is working well right now. 
21 

I wonder going forward if we could really get the trust of the people to come into the thing when you are going to then just deploy 

them when something happens. And so it would have to be—it 

couldn’t be with the three Surgeon Generals the way it is now. 

You would have to have a unified command where it is in the 

plan that we are going to have a much more collaborative—for example, these six areas of concentration right now, they are committees. Nobody has the authority to move the dollars around; nobody 

is really in charge. They try and work together, but you have got 

to have somebody in charge and somebody who can move dollars 

around. 

And then you have got to embrace the community, the purchased 

care, and have, you know, a system where it is visible—the appointment system is visible to everybody that is trying to meet that 

need. 

I think it is doable. You almost have it right now, but what you 

don’t have is the unity of command to make those systems—the incentive for those military systems to be as efficient as the purchased care. 

Dr. HECK. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. Bousum. 

Mr. BOUSUM. Well, you know, we know that this is a multipleyear effort and we know that, you know, you and your staff are 

going out in the field and meeting with service members, Reserve 

Component, and Active Component. What I can say—I don’t really 

want to speculate. What I would say is I will just, you know, continue to work with your staff and to, you know, get a better idea 

of this concept and perhaps tailor the survey we are already sending to our members in a way that could better get results for you. 

Dr. HECK. Right. 

Admiral RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just say based on that, 

our recommendation that 15 other associations in The Military Coalition have supported is try it in one of the major six areas and 

give DHA [Defense Health Agency] the authority to actually move 

the dollars and control it, and do the same thing with the Guard 

and Reserve. Try that. And if it works then, wow. 

Dr. HECK. Okay. And that is perfect timing on that note, as the 

bell has just rung, and since I am the last man standing. 

So I want to, again, thank you all for taking time to be here and 

to offer your insights and opinions. They are very valued and we 

certainly will take them into deep consideration as we move forward. And I am sure you will be back as we start moving forward 

with the actual proposal. 

So again, thank you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

DECEMBER 3, 2015 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

DECEMBER 3, 2015 

(27) 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
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 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

DECEMBER 3, 2015 

(95) 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

DECEMBER 3, 2015 

(105) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MacARTHUR 

Mr. BOUSUM. Consolidation of the military health system. In my opinion, a medic 

is a medic, no matter what color the uniform. Consolidating the military health system into one command makes sense, might provide budgetary efficiencies, and 

would probably be applauded by military members and families alike. And I agree 

with your conclusion about the responsibilities of the surgeons general, although I 

am not convinced that it takes a three star general officer to oversee training, equipping, or supporting. Broad authority. In my opinion, flexibility in TRICARE contracts allows for dynamic changes and not having to wait five to eight contract years 

to react. Military centers. In my opinion, consolidating facilities to provide regional 

coverage for larger concentrations of military troops and families, while extending 

the reach into the private sector for dispersed beneficiariesreservists, or specialty 

care is prudent. Inclusion of VA and other federal medical facilities also makes 

sense—a whole of government approach instead of a parochial Defense Department 

paradigm. Military health reserve system. In my opinion, allowing providers to contractually affiliate with the Department without having a military obligation as an 

added pool of resources may provide an outlet for patriotic service to these providers, or in some cases, allow continued service for those providers with previous 

military or federal service. Modeled after the Individual Mobilization Augmentee 

(IMA) concept (without the military obligation), rotations of civilian providers will 

become a valuable manpower and educational resource for the military treatment 

facility. A concern may be in proper compensation for their service commitment 

based on their specialty (nurse, doctor, or specialist). [See page 13.] 

Admiral RYAN. MOAA has long supported a unified medical command, in the belief that there can be no system efficiency without a single point of responsibility 

for the health care budget, policy and execution. As for giving the command ‘‘broad 

authority to change plans and delivery within broad cost constraints’’, MOAA would 

be reluctant to agree to such a general concept without additional specifics and 

guidelines. One thing we believe would be essential would be to establish a joint 

working group, to include reasonable beneficiary organization participation, to develop, evaluate, and implement proposed changes. This is exactly what was done in 

the implementation of TRICARE For Life. The TRICARE Management Authority 

(predecessor to the Defense Health Agency) provided the working group head and 

a wide variety of agency participants who met weekly with a select group of beneficiary association representatives to exchange perspectives, identify problems, and 

propose and evaluate potential solutions. That process worked exceptionally well, 

with positive outcomes (indeed, better than expected outcomes) for both the Defense 

Department and the beneficiaries. The military health reserve system could pose 

the greatest challenges, simply because of the general shortage of providers. Without more specificity concerning this proposal, it’s difficult to provide substantive 

comments. [See page 13.] 

Ms. RAEZER. Our Association supports a unified medical command in the hope it 

would lead to greater policy consistency across the MHS. Currently, policy adherence varies across the Services and individual MTFs. This makes it hard for military families to navigate the system as they encounter new rules, policies and procedures at each new duty station. 

We are open to the idea of concentrating military medical assets in areas with 

significant military populations. However, we would want to be assured that: 

• Military medical facilities outside of the major medical centers (e.g., outpatient 

clinics on remote installations) would provide high quality care on par with that 

received by families at the major military medical centers 

• There are adequate civilian medical resources in the surrounding community to 

meet military family needs—e.g., are there enough civilian providers in Junction City, Kansas (population 25,388) to provide for the medical needs of Fort 

Riley families (family member population 24,678)? 

• Families living near military medical centers would continue to have options for 

civilian care (e.g., TRICARE Standard)—we would not want military families to 

be ‘‘trapped’’ in an underperforming direct care system should they encounter 

problems with the MTF Ensuring a vibrant military health reserve system uti-
106 

lizing health care professionals in the private sector who agree to be on reserve 

status and go wherever whenever seems like a win from the military perspective. However, we wonder what would happen to civilian medical facility staffing and civilian health care should a large and/or sudden mobilization of health 

care reservists occur. [See page 13.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

DECEMBER 3, 2015 

(109) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALZ 

Mr. WALZ. One of the reasons the commission recommended changing the military 

health care system is because military families and retirees told them they wanted 

choices. Is this the message you hear from your organization members? If your 

members do want more choice, is the Commission’s recommendation what the members of your organization want? Do they believe choice will improve medical care? 

What are your concerns with the recommended change? Are there ways to improve 

the TRICARE program instead? If so how? 

Mr. BOUSUM. The majority of the members of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS) do not believe that TRICARE is broken. When surveyed, EANGUS members are satisfied with the care they receive 

when the system works. Many members of the National Guard struggle with continuity of care when activated to Title 10 and receive health care coverage under 

TRICARE Prime. EANGUS members are interested in the findings of the congressionally mandated Department of Defense assessment to review recommendations 

made by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to 

consolidate duty statuses, section 515 of The National Defense Authorizations Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). As a general principle, EANGUS members believe that health care coverage should not be linked to duty status and that 

all members of the National Guard should be able to stay on the same health care 

plan regardless of orders. 

Mr. WALZ. What are the specific challenges regarding Reserve Component forces 

accessing care? 

Mr. BOUSUM. Members of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the 

United States (EANGUS) recognize that some military service organizations are apprehensive about any Congressional or Department of Defense action to make 

changes to TRICARE. However, members of the National Guard are often located 

in rural areas. Access to quality health care is limited. Access to specialized care 

can be even harder to find, and where it is found, the quality or knowledge base 

of the providers are limited—it’s not the best care; it’s only the best of the available 

care, and this can make a difference in treatment of certain conditions, like autism 

and down syndrome. Since most members of the National Guard do not live on, or 

near, major military installations, EANGUS members believe that the contract requirement for a pre-authorization (i.e. referral) to use urgent care clinics should be 

eliminated. Unlike hospital emergency rooms, urgent care clinics have faster response times and less cost. In rural areas that don’t have urgent care clinics, a simpler process is needed to eliminate the need for Reservists to pay upfront costs of 

emergency room visits and have to seek reimbursement from TRICARE. TRICARE 

should effect payment directly to the hospital before exacting co-payments from the 

member. 

Mr. WALZ. What aspect of health care matters most to your members (ie. Continuity of provider, low cost, flexible appointment scheduling, etc.)? 

Mr. BOUSUM. Members of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the 

United States (EANGUS) care most about continuity of provider. Members of the 

National Guard and their family members often lose access to their primary care 

physicians when activated to Title 10 and receive health care coverage under 

TRICARE Prime. Too few primary care physicians accept TRICARE which is why 

members and their families are forced to change doctors. EANGUS staff recognize 

that the Department of Defense has increased use of 12304b orders to activate 

members of the Guard. 12340b orders provide health care coverage only during deployment, not 90 days before and after deployment as with all other duty status orders. The overuse of 12304b orders makes it so that the family members of the 

members of the National Guard are left to navigate finding a health care provider 

without the servicemember to assist. As a result, forward deployed members of the 

National Guard are concerned for their family members’ stressful situation, particularly in the cases were family members are injured or ill, and focus less on the mission. Readiness suffers as a result. 
110 

Mr. WALZ. One of the reasons the commission recommended changing the military 

health care system is because military families and retirees told them they wanted 

choices. Is this the message you hear from your organization members? 

Admiral RYAN. The message we hear from our members is that those who are dissatisfied with their access to care want another choice that will get them access. 

It’s not that they necessarily want multiple options to pick from, but that they need 

to know they and their families can get access to quality care on a timely basis. 

The issue here is mostly with TRICARE Prime enrollees. And among that group, 

the most dissatisfied are the ones who are enrolled in military treatment facilities. 

That’s where most of the excessive waiting times occur. They want DOD to adhere 

to its own access standards, and if they can’t be seen in the military facilities within 

those standards, they want and need to be referred to a civilian network provider 

within DOD’s timeliness standards. 

Mr. WALZ. If your members do want more choice, is the Commission’s recommendation what the members of your organization want? 

Admiral RYAN. Many members of the Guard and Reserve community would see 

the Commission’s recommendation as an improvement over the widely varying 

TRICARE benefits now offered to them at various stages of their lives. It would also 

provide better continuity of care than TRICARE now provides when transitioning 

to and from active-duty callups, transitioning from Selected Reserve to gray area reserve status and from gray area to retired pay status. 

That said, military technicians—who now are enrolled in FEHBP—have been 

frustrated for years that they are compelled to pay high-cost FEHBP premiums and 

are not authorized to enroll in the much lower-cost TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) 

available to other Reserve component members. So any new option involving an 

FEHBP-style plan should include a significantly more favorable federal subsidy. 

Our survey results did not show any particular indication of interest in the Commission’s plan from the active-duty or retired-pay-eligible population. They simply 

want DOD to meet its own stated standards of timely access, and a strong majority 

expressed the believe that they shouldn’t have to be charged more money to get that 

access. Mr. WALZ. Do they believe choice will improve medical care? 

Admiral RYAN. Our survey of 30,000 beneficiaries showed the significant majority 

are satisfied with the quality of their medical care, once they get access to it. Where 

they are currently having access problems (i.e., mainly in TRICARE Prime and 

mainly in military treatment facilities), they believe they should have an alternative 

option to receive that care in the civilian community, and that improved access 

would effectively mean improved care. 

Mr. WALZ. What are your concerns with the recommended change? 

Admiral RYAN. MOAA believes the MCRMC-recommended change to scrap 

TRICARE and implement an FEHBP-style insurance system through the Office of 

Personnel Management is unnecessary to achieve improved care access, and almost 

certainly would carry its own unintended consequences. 

First, it would turn over DOD’s employer responsibility for this unique population 

over to a civilian personnel agency where the military population would, for all intents and purposes, be treated as civilians. DOD imposes extraordinary hardships 

on this population through frequent relocations, combat deployments, family separations, and more that require unique consideration from the military employer. 

Second, MOAA feels strongly that the military health care benefit is earned by 

arduous military service, and that the same benefit and coverage should apply to 

all, as it does under TRICARE. MOAA believes it would be inappropriate to implement an FEHBP-style system where getting better coverage depends on one’s income level. If choice means having tiered healthcare options where higher-ranking 

people can buy better coverage than lower-ranking people can afford, that’s not the 

kind of choice we think is appropriate for the military healthcare system. 

Third, imposing significantly higher cost shares on uniformed service beneficiaries—nearly as high as those associated with FEHBP—is an inherent part of 

the MCRMC proposal. MOAA agrees with the 70+% of our survey recipients who 

said they should not have to be charged more to get access to quality care. 

Mr. WALZ. Are there ways to improve the TRICARE program instead? If so how? 

Admiral RYAN. There are many ways to improve TRICARE rather than throwing 

it out and imposing a civilian-style insurance system. MOAA’s statement for the 

record lists more than a dozen specific recommendations, some of which include: 

Provider Payments Should Reward Quality Care. MOAA concurs with the 

MCRMC belief that both Medicare and TRICARE need to move to payment systems 

and treatment bundles that reward providers for meeting standards of quality and 

healthy outcomes rather than simply paying them for the number of patient encounters they have. 
111 

Focus on the Causes of Problems, Not the Symptoms. If the real reason behind 

a cost increase is program inefficiency, DOD or service decision-making, the exigencies of national conflict, or arbitrary hiring freezes or other conditions caused by sequestration, that is not any fault of the beneficiary, and raising beneficiary fees is 

not the appropriate response. The solution should be to focus on addressing those 

problems rather than making beneficiaries pay more simply because it’s budgetarily 

or programatically easier. 

Consider Implementing a MCRMC-Style Insurance System for the Guard/Reserve 

(G/R). The current hodgepodge of makeshift healthcare programs for the under-60 

G/R community makes it one program where it actually is possible to start over 

from scratch. The subsidy levels envisioned by the MCRMC would provide a better 

deal for many G/R beneficiaries than they have today—especially ‘‘gray area’’ retirees and those drawing retired pay before age 60 because of deployment credit, who 

now have no subsidized care. Selected Reservists who prefer to keep family coverage 

through an employer should be allowed to retain that coverage upon activation, with 

the premium paid or subsidized by DOD. 

Consider Establishing a Joint HASC/HVAC Subcommittee on DOD/VA Transition. 

If the HASC and HVAC can cooperate in a joint subcommittee—even a temporary 

one—to devise joint policy, program, and budget solutions on such issues as a joint 

interoperable electronic healthcare record, there is a far greater chance this joint resolve can be reflected in DOD and VA programs. 

Require DOD to Implement the MCRMC Recommendation to Expressly Allocate 

Readiness and Benefit Costs. A thoughtful and rational dialogue on beneficiary cost 

sharing absolutely requires an agreement on exactly which expenses are a cost of 

doing national defense business vs. a benefit value delivered primarily for the sake 

of the beneficiaries. 

Seek Some Form of Agreement on the Premium Value of a Service Career. This 

issue is at the crux of every disagreement between DOD and its beneficiaries over 

how much the latter should be expected to pay for their healthcare benefits, and 

why. The legislative history of CHAMPUS, TRICARE Prime, and TRICARE For Life 

allows at least some starting inferences on this thorny topic. A primary reason for 

beneficiary outrage at proposals for steep fee increases are current-year assertions 

that military beneficiaries are somehow undeserving of current benefit levels or that 

their benefits should be more like civilians’. Such arguments fly directly in the face 

of what the military retirees were told in order to induce them to stay for a career 

in uniform and contradict the long history of military healthcare programs provided 

at modest cost in tacit, if not explicit, recognition of the extraordinary, in-kind premiums career service members and families pre-pay in terms of arduous service and 

sacrifice over multiple decades. 

Test the Concept of Unified Budget and Oversight Authority in MSMs. The Defense Health Agency is in an excellent position to oversee establishment of pilot 

project to test the concept of a single budgetary/operations oversight authority in at 

least two of the multi-service market areas (MSMs). Such a test should offer some 

insight into the feasibility and potential savings associated with unified vs. multiple-service oversight of budget, appointing/referral, and other operational and support programs. 

Increase Patient Visits Per Provider in MTFs. Assess and change support staffing 

and other factors that lead military providers to see significantly fewer patients per 

week than their civilian counterparts. If, as defense health officials often assert, it 

is more cost-effective to see beneficiaries in MTFs, it should be worthwhile investing 

in whatever is necessary to promote more comparable numbers of patient visits per 

military provider. This should also substantively ease the appointing and referral 

problems reported by Prime enrollees. 

Require Leadership Oversight/Training on Appointment Timeliness. It is beyond 

understanding that the TRICARE Prime appointment process apparently ignores 

DOD access standards on a routine basis at many facilities. This is in substantial 

measure a leadership problem, in MOAA’s view. It should be made clear to MTF 

commanders and others in leadership positions over appointing offices that it is 

their responsibility to monitor appointment timeliness and take necessary corrective 

action when standards are not being met. 

Focus Managed-Care Outreach Efforts on High-Use/Cost Beneficiaries. Under current rules, priority is given in MTFs to active duty members and families, TRICARE 

Prime enrollees, other under-65 beneficiaries, and TFL-eligibles, in that order. 

MOAA believes much greater priority for managed care or case management should 

be given to beneficiaries with a history of high-cost care and those with chronic conditions that have the greatest potential for incurring high costs in the future. For 

example, a TRICARE Reserve Select family with multiple children requiring complex care would have a high incentive to be seen in a managed-care environment, 
112 

but is not eligible for Prime enrollment. Similarly, certain TFL-eligibles or other 

non-Prime enrollees may have chronic conditions posing long-term cost risks far 

higher than a majority of Prime enrollees. These high-cost care users are readily 

identifiable from existing cost records. Surely there are savings to be realized by 

shifting to include a care-cost factor and creating outreach programs to bring such 

families into a more active managed-care or case management system. 

Pursue Public-Private Partnerships to Reduce TFL and Other Costs. Several innovative cost-saving programs around the country have potential application to military beneficiaries and facilities. MOAA would encourage DOD to investigate the potential for partnerships with civilian contractors to establish TFL-specific Medicare 

Advantage programs in locations where there are large retiree populations and significant military medical facilities. The partnership agreement would establish the 

military facility as the preferred provider for certain surgeries or other conditions 

to help sustain military providers’ readiness skill levels. These programs should include outreach efforts to identify high-cost users and those with chronic conditions 

to bring them into a case management environment. This system would reduce the 

contractor’s cost and allow addition of other program elements (e.g., vision or dental) 

to incentivize TFL-eligibles’ participation. The military facility, in turn, could be reimbursed at some level through the TFL trust fund. This would seem to have a winning potential for the government, DOD, contractors, and beneficiaries alike. Anthem’s Care More program is an exceptional and proven model, and Humana and 

United Healthcare offer similar programs. The MCRMC staff cited another successful model in the Las Vegas area. 

Adopt pediatric-centered payment policies that let providers to make optimal care 

decisions for children. Because TRICARE payment systems are based on Medicare 

systems designed for older people, the systems often don’t work for pediatric care 

and don’t properly reimburse providers for needed and delivered care. Reimbursement should follow appropriate care, not form the basis for care decisions. In situations where emerging technology is clearly providing compelling options for patients 

and families, TRICARE should allow payment to follow the needs of the patient instead of driving the type of care the patient receives. When there is a known issue 

with translation of policy or payment from Medicare to pediatrics, there must be an 

efficient process for resolving the difference. Continued innovation and research will 

ensure this issue is at the forefront in the coming years, with genetic testing, gene 

therapy, and individualized medicine as examples of prevention, intervention, and 

treatments that will need to be covered and reimbursed appropriately. 

Do More to Connect TRICARE Standard Beneficiaries with Providers. One way 

to improve TRICARE Standard beneficiaries’ access to providers is to educate them 

that they are not limited to seeing network providers. It’s preferable if they do, because that saves money for both DOD and the beneficiary. But if a beneficiary is 

having trouble getting an appointment with a network provider, there should be a 

method to put them in touch with a non-network provider who is willing to accept 

non-discounted rates payable under Standard. 

Ease the Cost Burden on TRICARE Young Adult (TYA) Beneficiaries. Unlike civilian insurance programs, which spread the cost of adding children under 26 by raising family premiums slightly across the board, TYA requires each TYA-eligible (or 

the parents) to pay the full individual premium cost of his or her care. With the 

26% (TRICARE Standard) and 47% (Prime) premium increase for 2016, the $2,500 

to nearly $3,700 annual cost of this program is particularly onerous, especially for 

families with more than one qualifying child. MOAA encourages the Subcommittee 

to explore alternative ways to spread this cost across the entire population, in hopes 

that this could be done via a relatively inconsequential increase. As currently implemented, the high individual cost of the coverage deters many beneficiaries from 

using it, which defeats the purpose of the program. 

Mr. WALZ. During the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many retirees 

were transferred from military treatment facility primary care providers to civilian 

treatment facilities. Are there still retirees who would prefer to come back to military treatment facilities, but cannot because of access issues? 

Admiral RYAN. We believe there likely are some who fall in that category, but not 

as many as some would expect. Among the 3,000 TRICARE Prime beneficiaries (the 

significant majority of whom were retired) who responded to MOAA’s survey, 17% 

considered being seen in the military facility as being ‘‘extremely important’’ and another 21% thought it was ‘‘fairly important’’. But even larger numbers reported that 

they were, in fact, being seen in the military facility. While there are some who 

would prefer to be seen there, but are not, it would appear from MOAA’s survey 

sample that most who prefer to be seen in a military facility are being afforded that 

opportunity. We also hear from many retired members and family members that, 
113 

once they start being seen in the civilian community, they are content to remain 

there. 

Mr. WALZ. What aspect of health care matters most to your members (ie. Continuity of provider, low cost, flexible appointment scheduling, etc.)? 

Admiral RYAN. Our survey found a considerable amount of consistency that access 

(which we took to mean ease of making appointments and referrals) was important 

across all ages and categories (TRICARE For Life, TRICARE Prime, and TRICARE 

Standard. But all categories and ages also reported a distinct belief that it would 

not be reasonable to have to pay more in fees. 

Some specific survey results are summarized in the chart below: 

TFL Prime Standard 

How important is picking your provider? 

(% answering ‘‘extremely’’ or ‘‘fairly’’ important) 

99% 93% 99% 

How important is guaranteed access? 

(% answering ‘‘extremely’’ or ‘‘fairly’’ important) 

88% 91% 81% 

Are you willing to pay more for priority access? 

a. Definitely 3% 4% 3% 

b. Probably 20% 22% 16% 

c. Not sure 42% 37% 41% 

d. Probably not 24% 23% 29% 

e. Definitely not 11% 13% 11% 

Do you think it’s reasonable to ask TRICARE beneficiaries to pay 

more? 

f. Definitely 2% 4% 2% 

g. Probably 12% 14% 12% 

h. Not sure 10% 8% 8% 

i. Probably not 20% 19% 22% 

j. Definitely not 54% 54% 56% 

Mr. WALZ. One of the reasons the commission recommended changing the military 

health care system is because military families and retirees told them they wanted 

choices. Is this the message you hear from your organization members? If your 

members do want more choice, is the Commission’s recommendation what the members of your organization want? Do they believe choice will improve medical care? 

What are your concerns with the recommended change? Are there ways to improve 

the TRICARE program instead? If so how? 

Ms. RAEZER. Choice is most important to military families who are dissatisfied 

with the quality of care they currently receive through TRICARE, as well as the 

patient experience and access to care. The top priority for military families is improved access to care. Greater choice, as one possible way to improve access, is 

therefore important to families. There are two main types of access challenges with 

the Military Health System (MHS) that must be addressed with MHS Reform: 

• Direct Care System Appointment Challenges: Approximately 80% of military 

families are TRICARE Prime enrollees and rely on military hospitals and clinics 

for most of their health care. Too often, military families have problems getting 

appointments at military treatment facilities (MTFs) and can’t access the right 

care, at the right time, with the right provider. 

• TRICARE and MTF Policies: Numerous TRICARE referral and coverage policies 

limit or delay military family access to care recommended by their medical providers. TRICARE coverage policy, based on Medicare, isn’t optimal for families 

with young children. It has also failed to keep up with technological innovations 

and evolving standards of care, leaving military families with substandard coverage relative to civilian plans and other government payers. 

While military families don’t currently report widespread access challenges within 

the TRICARE private-sector provider network, our Association fears attempts to reduce purchased care spending will result in erosion of network provider access and 

questionable coverage policies. Provider reimbursement rates will continue to decline, resulting in fewer providers participating in the TRICARE network. Alternatively, providers might further limit the number of TRICARE patients they will 

see due to low reimbursement rates. The result will be diminished access to care 

for military families. As dissatisfaction with access, quality, or the patient experience increases, so will the desire for more health care options increase. 
114 

From our Association’s perspective, the top priority for MHS Reform is addressing 

the variety of access challenges military families currently face as well as future 

threats to health care access posed by continued fiscal constraints on the MHS. 

Will the MCRMC proposal address military family issues with the MHS? Our Association believes the Commission’s proposal has the potential to provide military 

families with a more robust and valuable health care benefit than they have today. 

Offering military families a selection of high quality commercial health plans could 

provide them with better access to high quality care, a more comprehensive set of 

benefits, and the ability to tailor coverage options based on individual family needs. 

We also believe the Commission’s proposal would address health care coverage 

problems the Reserve Component faces. Switching to TRICARE when the service 

member is activated can result in disruptions in care for the National Guard or reserve member’s family, while maintaining the service member’s employer sponsored 

health insurance in order to provide continuity of care can lead to significant outof-pocket costs. We have long advocated giving National Guard and Reserve members more flexibility to maintain employer-sponsored coverage for their families during activation and believe the Commission’s plan is one way to achieve this. 

What are NMFA’s concerns regarding the MCRMC proposal? While our Association supports, in principle, the concept of moving military families to high quality 

commercial health plans, the Commission’s proposal raises several questions and 

areas of concern, including: • Potential for increased out-of-pocket costs. Some segments of the military family 

community will incur significantly higher out-of-pocket costs versus the current 

system. TRICARE Choice’s catastrophic cap is unspecified. Details are sparse 

on the Chronic/Catastrophic Program and we are not convinced it would sufficiently insulate special needs families from high health care costs. We are skeptical the Basic Allowance for Health Care (BAHC) formula would adequately 

cover costs for high quality plans for all types of families. Finally, working age 

retiree premiums and out-of-pocket expenses will be significantly higher versus 

current TRICARE retiree costs. • Beneficiary education and financial planning guidance needed. TRICARE 

Choice would require an unprecedented level of beneficiary communication and 

education to help families choose the right plans. Medical bills are highly variable in amount and timing, requiring more sophisticated budgeting skills and 

additional financial planning training. • Does not address access and quality issues within the MTFs. While we see 

merit to the Commission’s proposal, it is important to note that it does nothing 

to address beneficiary complaints regarding the direct care system other than 

allowing dissatisfied beneficiaries to seek care somewhere else in the hope competition will incentivize the MTFs to improve. • Potential impact on military medical readiness. Even though the MTFs will remain an integral component of military family health care delivery under the 

Commission’s proposal, the report contains few details on the potential effect 

the plan might have on the direct care system. There is no analysis of potential 

impact on MTF caseload or consequences of loss of beneficiary caseload on military medical personnel readiness. 

Are there ways to improve the TRICARE program instead? We are skeptical the 

existing MHS construct can be tweaked to simultaneously achieve cost savings and 

significant improvements to access, quality of care, and the patient experience particularly given the barriers to improving the MHS, including: 

• The current budgetary environment. It is unlikely that we will realize 

TRICARE program improvements during a period of fiscal constraint. 

• Entrenched TRICARE reimbursement policies, governed by statute, which are 

difficult to modernize. It literally takes an Act of Congress to make substantive 

changes to TRICARE coverage policy. While today’s MHS Reform initiative 

might fix current gaps in coverage, new gaps would likely emerge as medicine 

evolves in the future. 

• The Military Health System’s dual readiness and benefit provision missions 

make it difficult to focus on improving the beneficiary health care benefit. 

• Inconsistent policy compliance by the Services and MTFs. There is no measure 

of MTF compliance and no accountability from the MTF to the Service to DOD 

in regard to policy adherence. Without a unified medical command and a cultural change emphasizing policy adherence, we are skeptical that policy improvements would be consistently implemented at the local level. 

• DOD’s demonstrated unwillingness to address known TRICARE problems leads 

us to believe they will continue to resist program changes in the future. 

• Fee for service contracts prevent adoption of innovative reimbursement models. 

As commercial health insurance and other government payers move toward a 
115 

greater emphasis on preventative services and outcomes, TRICARE contracts 

are locked in to the fee for service model. This prevents military families from 

benefitting from innovations in medical care delivery. 

Given the barriers to improving TRICARE and the MHS, we believe now is the 

time for Congress and DOD to consider a fundamental overhaul of military health 

care. 

Mr. WALZ. What aspect of health care matters most to your members (ie. Continuity of provider, low cost, flexible appointment scheduling, etc.)? 

Ms. RAEZER. Given the current state of the Military Health System, military families’ primary concern is access to care. If you can’t get an appointment at the MTF, 

all other factors are largely irrelevant. Once basic access to care problems are addressed, military families will likely be more focused on improving other aspects of 

care. They recognize many aspects of the current system need improvement, but 

their main focus today is improving access. 

Æ