U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

65–590 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–23] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING 

ON

MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM OVERVIEW 

AND DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM 

COST EFFICIENCIES: A BENEFICIARY 

PERSPECTIVE 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 16, 2011 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

JEANETTE JAMES, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, March 16, 2011, Military Health System Overview and Defense 

Health Program Cost Efficiencies: A Beneficiary Perspective .......................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, March 16, 2011 ................................................................................... 29 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011 

MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM OVERVIEW AND DEFENSE HEALTH 

PROGRAM COST EFFICIENCIES: A BENEFICIARY PERSPECTIVE 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

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

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Barnes, MCPO Joseph L., USN (Ret.), National Executive Director, Fleet 

Reserve Association .............................................................................................. 4 

Cooke, Mary H., Vice President, Johns Hopkins U.S. Family Health Plan, 

Chair, U.S. Family Health Plan Alliance ........................................................... 9 

Hanson, CAPT Marshall, USNR (Ret.), Director Of Government Relations, 

Reserve Officers Association ............................................................................... 9 

Holleman, Deirdre Parke, Executive Director, The Retired Enlisted Association ........................................................................................................................ 7 

Jones, Richard A. ‘‘Rick,’’ Director of Government Relations, National Association for Uniformed Services ................................................................................. 5 

Moakler, Kathleen B., Director of Government Relations, National Military 

Family Association ............................................................................................... 8 

Strobridge, Col. Steven P., USAF (Ret.), Director of Government Relations, 

Military Officers Association of America ............................................................ 3 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Barnes, MCPO Joseph L. ................................................................................. 41 

Cooke, Mary H. ................................................................................................. 89 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 34 

Hanson, CAPT Marshall .................................................................................. 78 

Holleman, Deirdre Parke ................................................................................. 59 

Jones, Richard A. ‘‘Rick’’ .................................................................................. 49 

Moakler, Kathleen B. ....................................................................................... 65 

Strobridge, Col. Steven P. ................................................................................ 36 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 33 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

The Association of the United States Navy Statement ................................. 99 

The Combined Statement of the Air Force Association; Air Force Women 

Officers Associated; Army Aviation Association of America; Association 

of Military Surgeons of the United States; Association of the U.S. 

Army; Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health 

Service, Inc.; Chief Warrant & Warrant Officers Association of the 

U.S. Coast Guard; Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the 

United States; Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America; National 

Guard Association of the United States; Society of Medical Consultants 

to the Armed Forces; U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association; and 

U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association ................................... 113 

The Military Coalition Statement ................................................................... 117 

The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Statement ................... 143 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 
(1) 

MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM OVERVIEW AND DEFENSE 

HEALTH PROGRAM COST EFFICIENCIES: A BENEFICIARY PERSPECTIVE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 16, 2011. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:00 a.m. in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for 

being here this morning. I would like to welcome everyone to the 

Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. 

Today we will be hearing from the veterans service organizations 

on behalf of the issue of ‘‘Military Health System Overview and Defense Health Program Cost Efficiencies,’’ and this is the beneficiary 

perspective. 

This morning, the subcommittee meets to hear the testimony on 

the Military Health System and the Department of Defense’s proposed cost-saving initiatives from the beneficiary perspective. 

I understand this is an unusually early time—actually, 7:00 a.m. 

standard time, but thank goodness we have moved ahead—for the 

Military Personnel Subcommittee to hold a hearing. And I appreciate everyone’s willingness to be here this morning to discuss this 

important subject. 

For several years, the Department of Defense has raised concerns about the rising cost of health care and the challenge of 

maintaining the viability of the Military Health System over the 

long term. We must seek reasonable solutions for ensuring the 

availability of world-class health care, not only for our returning 

wounded, and injured, and their families, and veterans, but to future generations of brave young men and women who answer the 

call to serve our Nation. 

The Department of Defense has proposed several measures 

aimed at reducing the cost of providing health care to our 

servicemembers, and their families, and veterans. The plan is a 

more comprehensive approach than previous cost-cutting efforts. 

That being said, these proposals will affect not only beneficiaries, 

they will affect the people who support military health care, such 

as local pharmacists, hospital employees, and contractors. 
2 

We are joined today by an outstanding panel consisting of representatives of several dedicated military service organizations and 

a representative of organizations that support the Military Health 

System. 

I look forward to hearing your views on the Department of Defense proposals. What do you support? What do you oppose? And 

do you recommend alternatives to the proposals that we may consider? 

Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Congresswoman Davis 

an opportunity to make her opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me also welcome our beneficiary representatives today: 

Colonel Steve Strobridge, Mr. Joseph Barnes, Rick Jones, Deirdre 

Parke Holleman—can’t see everybody—and Kathy Moakler, Marshall Hanson. I also wanted to welcome Mary Cooke, who is representing the U.S. Family Health Plan. Thank you for being here. 

As you all know, yesterday, the subcommittee heard from Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Dr. Stanley, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Woodson, and 

the Surgeons General on their views on the status of the military 

health-care system and their efforts to improve the care being provided to our service men and women, retirees, survivors, and their 

families. 

Today, we will hear firsthand from the folks who really make the 

most difference here, from those who are the beneficiaries of the 

system, and the experience that they are having with the military 

health-care system and their thoughts on the health-care proposals 

put forth by the Department of Defense. 

As you all know, our country is facing difficult economic times, 

and we are now faced with making some hard decisions that could 

impact the lives of those who are currently serving and those who 

have served. I know that our beneficiary representatives here today 

understand the challenges that we face, as several have previously 

made sacrifices when they served in uniform or are family members of those serving or who have served. 

We need to work together to find a way forward that will continue to ensure the very, very best quality of care for those serving, 

especially those in harm’s way, and to ensure that the benefit being 

provided remains sustainable into the future. I look forward to a 

productive dialogue this morning on your thoughts on how we can 

move forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 34.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

We have seven witnesses today, which is a large panel. As such, 

I would respectfully remind the witnesses that we desire that you 

summarize, to the greatest extent possible, the high points of your 
3 

written testimony to 2 minutes. I assure you that the written comments and statements will be made part of the hearing record. 

In addition, I ask unanimous consent to issue the following statements into the record: The statement from The Military Coalition; 

the statement from the Association of the United States Navy; the 

statement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; 

and the statement representing the views of the Air Force Association, Air Force Women Officers Associated, Army Aviation Association of America, Association of the United States Army, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, Incorporated, Chief Warrant and Warrant Officers Association of the 

U.S. Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of 

the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, National Guard Association of the United States, Society of Medical 

Consultants to the Armed Forces, the U.S. Army Warrant Officers 

Association, and the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

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

pages 99, 113, 117, and 143.] 

Mr. WILSON. Let us welcome the panel: Mr. Steve Strobridge, director of government relations, Military Officers Association of 

America; Mr. Joe Barnes, the national executive director of the 

Fleet Reserve Association; and returning we have Mr. Rick Jones, 

director of government relations of the National Association for 

Uniformed Services; Mrs. Deirdre Holleman, executive director of 

the Retired Enlisted Association; Mrs. Kathy Moakler, director of 

government relations for the National Military Family Association; 

Mr. Marshall Hanson, director of government relations for the Reserve Officers Association; Ms. Mary Cooke, vice president, Johns 

Hopkins U.S. Family Health Plan, and chair of the U.S. Family 

Health Plan Alliance. 

As we begin today, we will be hearing from each of the witnesses, 

and then the members of the subcommittee will be asking their 

questions. And we will each, beginning with me, be subject to a 5- 

minute rule. And we have someone who is impartial, above repute: 

Jeanette James is going to be the timekeeper and scorekeeper. 

So, with that, we will begin right away with Mr. Strobridge. 

STATEMENT OF COL. STEVEN P. STROBRIDGE, USAF (RET.), DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Davis, members of the subcommittee, I am here representing MOAA [the Military Officers Association of America], but 13 other military associations have asked 

to add their names to our statement. And I have submitted the 

statement for the record, as indicated by the chairman. 

MOAA has not taken the position that fees should never rise, but 

that Congress should establish principles in that regard to explicitly recognize that the bulk of what military people pay for their 

health care is paid upfront in service and sacrifice. We are encouraged that the new DOD [Department of Defense] proposal does a 
4 

far better job of acknowledging that than did those of several years 

ago. 

Our principal objection is to DOD’s plan to index future 

TRICARE Prime increases to some undetermined health-care index 

that they project to rise at 6.2 percent per year. 

In our view, the main problem is that current law leaves much 

of the fee-setting to DOD’s discretion. DOD went years proposing 

no changes, making beneficiaries believe that there wouldn’t be 

any. Then a new Secretary proposed tripling fees, which upset 

beneficiaries and implied that they had not earned their health 

care through their service. 

We have statutory guidelines for setting and adjusting basic pay, 

retired pay, survivor benefits, and most other military compensation elements. We believe strongly that the law should specify several principles on military health care: 

First, it should acknowledge, if only as a sense of Congress, that 

the military retirement and health-care package is the primary offset for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices inherent in a 

multi-decade service career. 

Second, it should acknowledge that those decades of service and 

sacrifice constitute a very large prepaid premium for their health 

care and retirement over and above what they pay in cash. 

Finally, it should explicitly acknowledge that extraordinary upfront premium in the adjustment process, by limiting the percentage growth in TRICARE fees in any year to the percentage growth 

in military retired pay. 

In the meantime, MOAA and The Military Coalition pledge our 

support to work with DOD and the subcommittee to find other 

ways to hold down military health cost growth. We believe much 

more can be done to encourage voluntary use of the mail-order 

pharmacy system, reduce costs of chronic conditions, reduce system 

duplication, and cut contracting and procurement costs, to name a 

few. 

Thank you very much for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Strobridge can be found in the 

Appendix on page 36.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Barnes. 

STATEMENT OF MCPO JOSEPH L. BARNES, USN (RET.), NATIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today. 

Military service isn’t like any other career or occupation, and associated with this and requirements associated with maintaining 

readiness are fulfilling commitments to provide health care and 

other benefits for career personnel after retirement. 

FRA’s [the Fleet Reserve Association’s] reaction to drastic healthcare fee-increase proposals from 2006 to 2008 included support for 

legislation that would shift oversight of these matters from DOD 

to Congress and support for a Senate bill in the 110th Congress 

prohibiting fee adjustments from exceeding the annual Consumer 
5 

Price Index associated with retired-pay COLAs [cost-of-living allowances]. 

DOD’s 2012 TRICARE Prime fee adjustments plan is more reasonable than past proposals. However, initial adjustments are only 

part of the plan, and our association is very concerned about the 

yet-to-be-determined baseline index for inflation in 2013 and beyond. 

FRA supports the elimination of co-pays for generic drugs via 

home delivery and notes that survivors and medically retired personnel are not impacted by the plan. There are also no Active Duty 

fee increases, no changes to TRICARE Standard, and no additional 

TRICARE for Life fees. 

FRA agrees with GAO [the Government Accountability Office] 

that management efficiencies and cost-saving initiatives can significantly offset higher health-care costs. And our members ask that 

Congress find a permanent ‘‘doc fix’’ to pending cuts in Medicare 

physician reimbursement rates, which is essential to ensuring access to care for all beneficiaries, including those under TRICARE 

for Life. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Jones. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. ‘‘RICK’’ JONES, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR 

UNIFORMED SERVICES 

Mr. JONES. Chairman Wilson, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to present testimony this 

morning. 

The National Association for Uniformed Services asks Congress 

to hold the line. Our association is not alone in this request to hold 

the line. We do not speak for them, but we are pleased to stand 

with the millions of veterans who form the American Legion, the 

Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS [American Veterans], the 

Air Force Sergeants Association, Jewish War Veterans, to name a 

number of major associations representing the men and women 

who actually served in the Armed Forces and who also reject the 

Pentagon plan. 

Our country has asked a great deal from these former troops. 

They have responded, kept the faith, kept our strong defense. We 

are better today for it. 

At first look, the plan for TRICARE increases may indeed seem 

modest, as the Department has described. However, it is clear the 

plan is a nose under the tent, a Trojan horse designed to divide 

Congress and divide military associations’ voices and to start a rollout for substantial increases in TRICARE fees and co-pays. Defense 

Comptroller Robert Hale called the Pentagon plan a slow start. 

And then he said, ‘‘It is a way to get Congress and the military associations in agreement, and then we can roll out the rest of it.’’ 

To achieve their plan, the Pentagon officials began with a public 

affairs attack that suggested that a pre-war fee, a cost for military 
6 

health care at $19 billion, and a rise currently to $52 billion was 

the fault of retirees. 

Gentlemen, we are at war. The cost of military health care will 

always increase during war. It has never been mentioned by the 

Pentagon. It is always the retirees. And it always will be costly unless we leave our troops on the field, which American veterans and 

those generations we hope to come later will never do while they 

breathe American air. Again, the blame for the dramatic rise in 

military health-care costs is the war, not the retiree. 

Our members tell us it is hard to imagine really anything that 

can be so callously said and directed at their members as to hear 

of the stories in the national media that depict the cost of retiree 

benefits as being responsible for threatening available funding for 

our national security. 

This benefit is a benefit that has been earned. It is for honorable 

military service. And for those who don’t understand it, these benefits were earned the hard way. They are part of a moral contract. 

They are different from private-sector, regular Federal health-care 

plans. They are provided in return for a career in military service. 

And for those outside this room who wish to compare military 

fees to other government programs and who do not understand the 

risk inherent in military service, allow me to point out that there 

is a stark difference between running in Reeboks or Rockports to 

catch a carpool and running in combat or desert boots to catch 

cover—protective cover. 

The National Association for Uniformed Services is certainly not 

comfortable with defense leadership actually suggesting to the public that the price we pay for health care is more than the value our 

Nation received from those who served more than 20 years, all to 

start slowly and to gain a nose under the tent. 

Certainly, there are a number of lower-priority programs that 

can be reduced. If cuts are needed to tighten the budget, there are 

things big and small that can be done. Our members understand 

this, yet they see resources fly out of the Federal Government for 

the Professional Golf Association, for a museum for the groundhog 

Punxsutawney Phil, for the cowboy museum, for other projects 

really too numerous to list. Money was even directed to the 

Grammy Association, an association of millionaire record producers, artists, and the like. 

As we see $120 billion stolen by fraudsters in various medical 

and social programs, we wondered why they point to an earned 

benefit. Incredibly, there are additional questionable priorities. 

What signal, for instance, is being sent when our government directs our Nation’s hospitals to pay the medical-care costs for treating illegal aliens? Does illegal-alien health care trump the healthcare benefit provided by those who give a lifetime protecting American freedom? 

We have faith in our leaders, but we are not blind. Before we 

begin whacking our military earned benefits, let us make certain 

that we use our best wisdom and select our most important programs over our lesser important ones. And let us not forget: We are 

at war. 

And it should be pointed out that many of our military retirees 

are on fixed incomes. Many cannot afford even the modest, so- 
7 

called modest, 13-percent increase in monthly expense. Lifetime 

health care is an earned benefit. And please consider, our members 

have not received a COLA over the past 2 years. 

Mr. Chairman, we thank you very much for your time and thank 

you very much for the opportunity to bring our view to your panel. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Mrs. Deirdre Holleman. 

STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION 

Mrs. HOLLEMAN. Good morning, Chairman Wilson, Ranking 

Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

On behalf of TREA [The Retired Enlisted Association], I, too, would 

like to thank you for the chance to quickly speak about these critical issues. 

Your question is concerning the Administration’s proposed defense health cost efficiencies. It is clear from both the testimony 

yesterday and already today that we all acknowledge that the primary mission of the Military Health System is readiness, and the 

cost of that mission must be paid by the entire Nation. It should 

not be the responsibility of those who have served a career in the 

military. 

Obviously, the present proposals are not as appalling as previous 

ideas, and for that, we are grateful. That does not mean, however, 

that we support all the proposals. 

It is not clear to TREA or others which medical inflation index 

DOD is planning to use, but it is completely clear that, at least for 

now, DOD is using a compounding figure of 6.2 percent. In a short 

amount of time, that figure will dramatically eat into a retiree’s 

earned retirement package. It would completely destroy the present 

purpose of the COLA for the retirement pay. 

TREA is completely opposed to this part of the proposal. And we 

feel no assurance that, if this change is made, more costs would not 

be added or more groups would not be included after Governor 

Baldacci finishes his study. 

As you can tell from my written testimony, TREA was planning 

to focus on the need to keep the U.S. Family Health Plan running 

in its present structure. However, since you have invited a representative of that fine program, let me simply state that we know 

how hard it is to get up and running any effective program. 

USFHP [the U.S. Family Health Plan] does a wonderful job for its 

beneficiaries. We should be very careful not to dislodge its smooth 

functioning. 

While of course we are focused on the new budget proposals, I 

do not wish to miss the chance of mentioning the continuing need 

to focus on our goal of a seamless transition for our wounded warriors transferring from DOD health care to VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] health care. 

In particular, at this moment, both departments should be urged 

to coordinate their Wounded Warrior caretakers program. Presently, the ending of DOD’s program and the starting of the VA’s 

program do not mesh. This really needs to be corrected. 
8 

Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to trying 

to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Holleman can be found in the 

Appendix on page 59.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Holleman. 

And I would like to point out, there appears to be a technical 

problem with the microphones, and so everyone needs to get a bit 

closer, beginning with Mrs. Kathy Moakler. 

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN B. MOAKLER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, NATIONAL MILITARY FAMILY ASSOCIATION 

Mrs. MOAKLER. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. 

The National Military Family Association appreciates the opportunity to speak with you about military families and a benefit that 

they consistently rate as important: military health care. 

We agree that DOD’s proposed increase of Prime enrollment fees 

for working-age military retirees and their families is fair. Our association has concerns, however, with using a civilian-based index 

in determining these fees after 2012. And we have always supported the use of the cost-of-living allowance as an index for increasing fees. 

While we agree that it can drive efficiencies through changing 

behavior, we do have some concerns with the proposed increase in 

co-pays for retail medications and the impact this increase will 

have on beneficiaries who have no choice but to rely on the retail 

pharmacy for urgent, non-maintenance medications. We should not 

penalize a military family when their child needs an antibiotic for 

pneumonia and they have no other option than the retail pharmacy. 

Family readiness calls for access to quality health care and mental health services. Military families may be encountering access 

challenges and provider shortages as we look ahead to the prospect 

of decreasing Medicare reimbursement fees, new contract renegotiations with the T–3 [Third Generation of TRICARE] contract, and 

the uncertainties faced by providers in regards to health-care reform. 

We are pleased with the many resources that have been provided 

for families for non-medical counseling. We are concerned about a 

shortage of behavioral health providers in the MTFs [military 

treatment facilities] and the network. While we know that the services are addressing this with new programs, we are troubled by the 

increases in servicemember suicides and also by the increase in 

suicide and suicide attempts by military family members. Our written statement goes into greater detail about these issues. 

Thank you for letting us be on the panel today. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Moakler can be found in the Appendix on page 65.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Moakler. 

And, at this time, Mr. Marshall Hanson. 
9 

STATEMENT OF CAPT MARSHALL HANSON, USNR (RET.), DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, RESERVE OFFICERS 

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HANSON. The Reserve Officers Association would like to 

thank Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and members of 

the committee for today’s invitation. 

Being brief, ROA [the Reserve Officers Association] finds DOD’s proposal of a fee increase of $60 a year for TRICARE Prime families, and half that for individuals, a modest rise and doesn’t find 

the proposed increases for pharmacy co-payments excessive. We 

hope that initial prescriptions at retail sites are exempted, though, 

permitting the beneficiary follow-up time to take advantage of 

mail-order savings. 

Where we hesitate is that DOD is suggesting an index for increasing TRICARE Prime fees in future years. While ROA would 

accept an index based on COLA, we also feel there is a need to explore other indices should a COLA basis not be accepted. 

The most important point of this hearing is to establish a process 

to involve Congress, the beneficiary associations, and DOD in determining acceptable rates. Unilateral decisions by the Pentagon 

worry ROA members. 

While ROA was once open to a cards-on-the-table approach to 

health-care discussions, we have grown hesitant by how the Pentagon implements programs. ROA is frustrated that DOD treats 

Reserve Component health care for drilling reservists as a health 

insurance program, even though Reserve Component members 

have mobilized over 800,000 times. 

And we are quite disappointed with the market-level premiums 

levied upon ‘‘gray-area’’ retirees. We hope that the committee will 

agree to a GAO review on premiums for TRICARE Retired Reserve 

the same way the HASC [House Armed Services Committee] 

prompted reductions in costs for TRICARE Reserve Select. 

Also, ROA asks that you look into DOD allowing TRS [TRICARE 

Reserve Select] beneficiaries who are discharged the option of being 

in the Continued Health-Care Benefit Plan. Selected reservists are 

the largest group in the United States not provided transitional 

COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] protections. 

Lastly, we need to work with your staff to ensure that all Guard 

and Reserve members coming off of Active Duty are permitted a 

TAMP [transition assistance management program] coverage. Some 

individuals are being told they are not covered. 

Thank you once again, and I am ready for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanson can be found in the Appendix on page 78.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Hanson. 

And we will now conclude with Ms. Mary Cooke. 

STATEMENT OF MARY H. COOKE, VICE PRESIDENT, JOHNS 

HOPKINS U.S. FAMILY HEALTH PLAN, CHAIR, U.S. FAMILY 

HEALTH PLAN ALLIANCE 

Ms. COOKE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Representative Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
10 

today on behalf of the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan. I 

am honored to be here today to share this opportunity with my colleagues from the military beneficiary associations who serve our 

Nation’s heroes and their families so well. U.S. Family Health Plan 

is proud to share in this commitment. 

My brief statement will focus on the successful partnership between U.S. Family Health Plan and the Department of Defense 

and our concern that a proposal contained in the President’s budget 

request, if enacted, would prohibit us from caring for many of our 

Nation’s heroes and their families. The President’s budget proposal 

would end the U.S. Family Health Plan’s ability to care for those 

beneficiaries who need it the most and is designed to undermine 

this highly effective program. 

Thirty years ago, the Congress directed that our organization 

continue the tradition of providing health care to uniformed services beneficiaries, including those age 65 and over. With the introduction of the TRICARE program, new legislation made us a permanent part of the Military Health System, establishing the U.S. 

Family Health Plan as a fully at-risk managed-care model designed 

to provide comprehensive health care while maintaining cost-neutrality. 

Today, the U.S. Family Health Plan provides the TRICARE 

Prime benefit to nearly 115,000 military beneficiaries in 16 States 

and the District of Columbia. The six not-for-profit health-care organizations administering the U.S. Family Health Plan are Johns 

Hopkins, Martin’s Point Health Care, Brighton Marine Health Center, St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Centers of New York, 

CHRISTUS Health, and Pacific Medical Centers. As a proud partner with the Military Health System, our objectives are aligned 

with the Department’s stated goals, which include readiness, the 

patient’s experience of care, population health, and controlling percapita costs. 

U.S. Family Health Plan continues to be the highest-rated health 

plan in the Military Health System. This year’s independently administered satisfaction survey found that 91 percent of our members rated our program highly, as compared to only 62 percent of 

members in commercial managed-care plans. 

With regards to cost, by statute total payments for health-care 

services to enrollees of the U.S. Family Health Plan cannot exceed 

an amount equal to what the government otherwise would have incurred had our enrollees received care from alternative sources, 

whether those sources be military treatment facilities, TRICARE, 

or Medicare. 

Because we are reimbursed on a capitated basis, our financial incentives are aligned with our longitudinal approach to population 

health—namely, to engage our members in living healthy lives and 

preventing chronic illnesses that both diminish quality of life and 

disproportionately contribute to escalating health-care costs. 

Given our high level of beneficiary satisfaction and our success 

in adopting innovative strategies to improve health outcomes, we 

were disturbed that the President’s budget proposes to require all 

new members to disenroll from our program at age 65, just when 

they need the benefits of our program the most. 
11 

The proposal does not save the government any money. It would 

merely shift the cost of care for our older beneficiaries from the Department to Medicare. In doing so, military beneficiaries and their 

families, who choose our plan in large part due to our integrated 

approach to population health, would lose access to our highly effective prevention and medical management programs. 

It appears, then, that the budget proposal and its destabilizing 

impact on the U.S. Family Health Plan is in conflict with the stated goals of the Military Health System. Perhaps most concerning 

is the fact that, over time, thousands of aging military beneficiaries 

who need our help in managing complicated medical conditions 

simply won’t have access to it. 

We understand the challenges the Department and the Congress 

face in needing to reduce costs, but the elimination of innovative 

programs like the U.S. Family Health Plan is counter to the goal 

of reducing government health-care costs. Accordingly, we urge 

Congress to reject this proposal and protect military families’ and 

retirees’ access to the quality of care they like, need, and deserve. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cooke can be found in the Appendix on page 89.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And now we will begin with the 5-minute rule. And Ms. James 

is very precise in this. 

And as we begin, I want to thank all of you. And I wish the 

American people could see the level of dedication of the veterans 

service organizations. You represent millions of members of families who have put their faith in you. And the organizations here 

today, the persons who provided the different organizations’ provided statements are so helpful. And so, you are the persons who 

have the background, and you are the people who use the systems 

we are talking about. It is also significant that it does not cost the 

taxpayers any money, so you are the correct example of stewardship. 

Yesterday, we had an extraordinary hearing with Dr. Clifford 

Stanley and Dr. Jonathan Woodson. And Dr. Stanley is special to 

me. He is a graduate of South Carolina State University, one of the 

great universities of South Carolina. And so I really am frustrated 

that, with their capabilities, that the President has named a military health-care czar, the former Governor of Maine, John Baldacci. 

We don’t need a health-care czar. We have veterans service organizations that can provide this information. And as stewards of the 

taxpayers—this is not the government’s money; it is the taxpayers’ 

money—$164,000, plus expenses, I think are being diverted from 

the military health-care system. It could be done without any expense. And I really think the first thing that the Governor should 

do is step down. He could then create a savings of almost $200,000 

by way of efficiencies. 

With that, indeed, we have people here today. And this is going 

to be tough. Each of you have 30 seconds to tell us how you would 

provide for an efficiency, beginning, obviously, with Mr. Strobridge. 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Sir, I think there are a lot of opportunities for 

efficiencies. 
12 

We have engaged with the Defense Department, to a pretty significant degree, on the mail-order pharmacy system. Despite what 

DOD has done so far, there has been really only a relatively modest shift. 

And what we have advised the Defense Department is they have 

probably gotten most of what they are going to get from people who 

are motivated by the money savings. Our surveys indicate people 

who aren’t shifting so far are doing so because they are worried 

about one aspect or another, they are deterred from taking that 

step. 

And we have talked to the Department of Defense about giving 

people that information ahead of time. They haven’t done that so 

far, but we have been trying to work with them to get the most 

frequently asked questions, get those answers to those people, 

which will reduce their inhibitions about calling to try it. Because 

once people try the mail-order system, they are pretty satisfied 

with it. 

We think that is a huge potential savings. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I would echo Steve’s comments with 

regard to the mail-order pharmacy. 

As I noted in our statement, we also note that GAO has identified several opportunities for significant savings, including command structure reorganization, which could save estimates of in excess of $260 million to over $400 million annually within the Department. 

There are also opportunities with regard to greater interaction 

and coordination with the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to electronic medical records. The AHLTA [Armed Forces 

Health Longitudinal Technology Application] and VistA [Veterans 

Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture] systems 

do not interact, despite significant resources that have been committed to both departments to those programs over the years. It is 

kind of mind-boggling. FRA has questioned why the VistA system 

was not the basis for developing the AHLTA system given the fact 

that we need to take care of our wounded warriors that transition 

from DOD to VA health care. 

So those are just a couple areas that we would recommend. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. Exactly right. I echo both of those thoughts, particularly the AHLTA thing. 

AHLTA comes in with rave reviews from defense contractors, but 

the doctors seem to say it is a burdensome system. It is incompatible with VA, and DOD and VA have been working on finding a 

way to combine the electronic system for years. Charles Percy, Senator from Illinois, long ago, 1982, began the process. He said, we 

need to pull this electronic health record together. 

Mr. WILSON. Right. 

Mr. JONES. I would also point out that there are opportunities for 

this sort of combination of joint working between VA and DOD. 

In South Carolina, for example, in Charleston, South Carolina, 

there is a major veterans pharmaceutical distribution system right 

across the street from the hospital. We have sent people down 
13 

there. And they had an oversight hearing last year, the Department, at the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, where there were 

problems in the mail order and distribution of pharmaceuticals. 

But it was pointed out that all you had to do was walk across the 

street to connect with VA to get this job done. So that is a major 

problem. 

Procurement reform is necessary in DOD. GAO pointed out several issues this past week in procurement reform. These are major 

issues and areas that we need to look at. And, of course, to 

incentivize the health-care mail-order system is important, as well. 

It can save a lot of money for beneficiaries, in particular, who we 

represent. 

Mr. WILSON. And, to be fair—and I apologize. We need to go immediately to Ms. Davis. I am subject to the 5 minutes, too, obviously. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, why don’t I let the rest of you finish with my time? Go ahead. 

Mrs. HOLLEMAN. Quickly, of course I agree with the suggestions 

already made. 

I think there should also be more of a focus on treating chronic 

illnesses. It has been discussed, it was discussed briefly, as all 

things were, yesterday, concerning the medical home and that pattern and that structure. Certainly, the government is looking at 

that. But that should really be a major, major focus, as it has been 

shown it saves money and it accomplishes the purpose of the 

health-care system. And USFHP is a prime example of how that 

works and how it saves money and improves lives. 

Mrs. MOAKLER. We, of course, agree with all the previous efficiencies that have been introduced. But we would like to re-emphasize that establishing a unified joint medical command structure 

would certainly introduce many efficiencies. As you know, we are 

a purple organization, and we feel that families would be best 

served by a joint command, a joint medical command. 

We also encourage the inclusion of recommendations of the Task 

Force on the Future of Military Health Care in this year’s NDAA 

[National Defense Authorization Act]: restructuring TMA 

[TRICARE Management Activity] to place greater emphasis on its 

acquisition role; examining and implementing strategies to ensure 

compliance with the principles of value-driven health care; reassessing requirements for purchased care contracts to determine 

whether more cost-effective strategies can be implemented; and removing the systemic obstacles to the use of more efficient and costeffective contracting strategies. 

Mr. HANSON. Medical and dental readiness continues to be having a big impact on Reserve Component mobilization. And as Dr. 

Heck pointed out at yesterday’s hearing, if Reserve dentists and 

doctors were permitted to treat fellow reservists, this would save 

health dollars and help our Nation’s readiness. 

Ms. COOKE. And I would echo the comments of my colleague, 

Mrs. Holleman. The best way to decrease health-care costs is to 

eliminate the medical conditions that diminish quality of life and 

contribute disproportionately to rising health-care trends. So I 

would suggest an upfront investment in prevention in programs to 
14 

minimize and eliminate chronic conditions as a long-term efficiency. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you so much. I appreciate everybody. 

Maybe I just want to really focus on your comments, Ms. Cooke, 

earlier especially, because I think, as it was explained to us yesterday, there is a difference in the capitated care, and so we are trying to really understand. 

I know prevention saves money. I believe that. When we have 

been looking at health care for the country, we have made that 

point repeatedly. Unfortunately, it doesn’t score when you are trying to figure out what some of those best methods are. And that 

is a great frustration, even though you know that you are going to 

be able to do that. 

Can you explain a little bit better, then, how your plan actually 

saves money? And how has that been documented over the years? 

Ms. COOKE. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. 

I will comment that the comments yesterday suggesting that 

there was a difference in cost, again, seem to us to be inconsistent 

with the law. And so we look forward to CBO’s [the Congressional 

Budget Office’s] scoring what this proposal would be, in that, by 

law, our costs cannot exceed what the government would pay. 

But with regard to managing chronic conditions, you know, the 

health-care industry faces the problem of, how do you quantify nonevents? How do you quantify the fact that certain people would 

have gotten diabetes and otherwise today do not? 

Throughout the six programs, we have over 40 disease management and care management programs. And so I will give an example of Johns Hopkins. We are very focused on research. We have 

one program that is called Guided Care that embeds clinical staff 

nurses in primary-care sites and provides them a panel of military 

retirees based on the chronic conditions that they have. 

And so there has been assessment that, because of that program, 

which focuses on not only engaging the member but visiting the 

member’s home, engaging the family, understanding what community resources are, and actually developing a care plan for the military beneficiary that they keep on their refrigerator, with the clinical nurse sometimes accompanying them to specialty care services, 

has shown a decrease in costs with regard to repeat inpatient admissions and has also shown an increase in satisfaction with the 

member and the provider. 

Mrs. DAVIS. My time is up, but perhaps in the next round we will 

have a chance to come back or someone else could ask about how, 

given all that—and I appreciate what you are saying, because I believe that, but I also want you to show us how you could reduce 

costs, if needed. 

Ms. COOKE. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Davis. 

We now have Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, what we heard when the other panel was here was 

this analogy or the comment made about that they are talking 

about the working-age retirees. So, potentially, somebody enlisted 

at the age of 18, retired at the age of 38, and what is going to happen from age 38 to, let’s say, 65. And that individual may go on 
15 

to a second career, maybe a very successful career, and be very 

well-off, and whether or not there should be some responsibility on 

that person’s part or their new employer’s part to provide some of 

their health-care coverage. 

I would like for you to address the counterargument and why 

that analogy doesn’t really hold water. 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Yes, sir. I think we would like very much to address that. 

That is one of the problems I think we have with some of the 

DOD descriptions. You know, when they talk about working-age retirees, there is almost an implication there that, if you go out and 

get a job, then, you know, you didn’t really earn your health care. 

And from the perspective of the military people, they spend 20 or 

30 years on Active Duty being told that if you put up with these 

conditions that other Americans aren’t willing to put up with, then 

you will be provided a package of retirement benefits, including 

health care. And nobody in there said, ‘‘Oh, but that doesn’t apply 

if you go get a civilian job.’’ 

That is what gets military retirees so upset, because they fulfill 

all the conditions, all the extra sacrifices that the government imposes. And the government imposes no cap on the amount of sacrifices that they will extract. Once that service is rendered, all of 

a sudden some folks in the Administration want to seem to say, 

you know, that service has no value anymore, that, you know, if 

you get a civilian job, DOD has no employer responsibility to you 

even though you served as a DOD employee under those conditions 

for 20 or 30 years. 

To us, that is very important. That is why I mentioned in my 

oral statement, we think it is very important to have some statement in law, where there is none now, that states explicitly that 

military health care is one of the crucial offsets to the adverse conditions of service that is, in fact, an upfront and very substantial 

premium payment. 

And that would help defeat some of these arguments, I think, upfront that people want to devaluate the service and only compare 

cash to cash, which to us is an apple-to-orange comparison. 

Mr. HANSON. One of the arguments that we made for the existence of TRICARE Reserve Select was to improve the hire-ability of 

members of the Guard and Reserve by having a health-care plan 

that is exportable. That would help small employers know that, 

when they bring an individual in, that they are bringing a healthcare plan with them. 

And this is one of the incentives that we have in place, because 

we are beginning to see problems with re-employment of people 

that have been deployed. 

And this same argument can be taken over to TRICARE for the 

Active Duty retirees, as well, because here is an experienced working pool that is needed by this Nation’s economy, and if they have 

a TRICARE health to bring with them, as well, that means they 

can be hired by individuals who maybe couldn’t afford equivalent 

people in the normal working place that didn’t have a military 

background. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Heck, Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, 

says these working retirees, as you described, are beneficiaries who 
16 

were employed full-time while receiving full pensions, often foregoing their employer’s health plan to remain on TRICARE. 

Well, it is apparent that some may find it very hard to understand, but the simple fact is that these men and women earned a 

retirement benefit, and they actually look forward to using it. It is 

a breach of moral contract to stump that promise that has been 

made to these folks. 

Mr. BARNES. Dr. Heck, I would add that this issue goes to military service being unlike any other career occupation. And there is 

a propensity to constantly focus on the dollar, the bottom line, and 

not on the commitment that was made and those that served in the 

past. 

Also, with regard to the enlisted force, those retired from the enlisted service, many of them do not have the high-paying jobs or 

the resources that are assumed when these discussions or when 

these points are brought forward. 

Also, approximately 1 percent of the population is shouldering 

the responsibility for defending our Nation. And the total amount 

of defense spending as a percentage of GDP [gross domestic product] is historically low during a wartime period compared to past 

periods of conflict. So, a couple observations to add to the discussion here. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, everyone. 

Indeed, Ms. James is really tough on this 5 minutes. And I tell 

you, she punches me. You all don’t see this. 

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you all for appearing before our committee 

today. It is an important issue, and I appreciate the insight that 

I am receiving from each of your testimonies. 

Yesterday, in the first of this series of hearings, I said that before Congress could increase TRICARE fees for working-age retirees, any proposal on the table would have to be proven to minimize 

impact. It would be inexcusable, in my mind, to deprive our retired 

heroes of the health benefits they have earned. 

I also question the disparate impact of any increases on 

servicemembers who accrue less annual retirement benefits than 

others. As you all know, retirement benefits vary greatly depending 

on a number of factors, such as how long a person served and 

whether they were decorated for extraordinary heroism. The key 

metric, however, is the rank they hold, or held. Retired generals 

can earn robust six-figure sums in annual retirement benefits, 

whereas enlisted personnel may only earn benefits in the teens. 

Yesterday, in the first part of this series, I asked Under Secretary Stanley and Assistant Secretary Woodson if the Department 

had seriously reviewed any proposals for a stepped increase of 

TRICARE Prime fees for working-age retirees determined on the 

basis of rank at the time of retirement and retiree benefits earned. 

Assistant Secretary Woodson answered that the Department did 

not consider this proposal because it would be difficult to administer since the Department would want to take into consideration 

retirees’ other streams of revenue—a statement I do not agree 

with. 
17 

More importantly, though, he stated that it was unnecessary in 

this case because the fee increases that were proposed are modest. 

But he stated that, quote, ‘‘If we were proposing large fee increases, I would agree with you strongly.’’ 

My question, then, to all of you is, do you agree or disagree with 

Dr. Woodson’s assessment? 

And if we could begin with you, Mr. Strobridge. 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Yes. 

The Department, in fact, did propose tiering fee increases previously. The Military Coalition has been unanimous in opposing 

means-testing of military benefits. We don’t have that for Federal 

civilian health care. The President pays the same as the lowest GS 

employee. 

One of the concerns, I think, is creating a situation where, the 

longer you serve and the more successfully you compete for promotion, you know, the less your benefit is. And we don’t think that 

is a good incentive. 

But more and more, as I said in my oral statement, the military 

benefit package is considered the offset for the adverse conditions 

of service. You earn the package mainly by your service. 

And I would have to agree with the answer that was given yesterday; once you start trying to split it, basically what you are saying is, who can afford to do what? And I think they were accurate. 

Once you start to say who can afford to do what, you have to look 

at all of your income, and it ultimately drives you to looking at last 

year’s tax return. 

And, to us, we don’t think that ought to be based on what kind 

of job you get as a civilian. We don’t think it ought to be based on 

your spouse’s income or how much you inherited from a parent. 

Your benefit derives from your service, not from your grade. 

Mr. BARNES. I would agree with Steve’s comments. 

Also, I think the comparison issue between military benefits and 

Federal civilian benefits is a real strong, compelling example with 

regard to that concept. 

There are also a number of variables, I think. And I was not at 

the hearing yesterday, but, from your description, it sounds like the 

Department is referencing the complexities of administering that, 

with regard to just retirement income or total household income or 

what have you, with calculating that. 

So I go back to the equity issue, the connection, and looking at 

Federal benefits. And that has been our position, and we concur 

with the Coalition’s position. 

Mr. HANSON. The Reserve Officers Association doesn’t support a 

tiered approach based on rank because it should be pointed out 

that reservists and Guards members have an income in their retirement that is 25 percent to 30 percent of what an Active Duty 

member does because of the fact that they are part-time warriors. 

So it would be very unfair to charge someone in the Reserves the 

same amount based on tiering that you would do an Active Duty 

member. 

Mr. WILSON. And we are at the 5-minute situation. 

Colonel Allen West of Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member. 
18 

And, a few years ago, there was an Army commercial that said, 

‘‘We do more before 0900 than most people do all day.’’ So thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing that commercial back to life. 

With that being said, you know, this panel and this briefing 

today is very important to me and it is very personal to me. I had 

a father who served in World War II; he was a disabled American 

veteran. My older brother in Vietnam; also a DAV [disabled American veteran]. I did a couple years in the Army, myself, and now 

my young nephew is following in my footsteps. My father-in-law 

served two tours in Vietnam, and my two brothers-in-law served 

also in the United States Air Force. 

So when I sit here today, I think about a quote from George 

Washington, and I am paraphrasing, when he said that future generations of a nation will judge itself based upon how well we treat 

our veterans. 

So I think it is very important that we understand that what we 

are talking about here is not a benefit; it is something that people 

have been willing, when they raised their hand, that they were 

going to give their lives for. And I think that this Nation owes 

them that. 

However, I will ask this question to you. You know, when I first 

retired, I would, you know, spend my Fridays going down to the 

VFW [Veterans of Foreign Wars] post. But I found myself not being 

able to endure that too much longer because, you know, myself, 

being a very avid distance runner, the cigarette smoke was just absolutely choking me. 

So my question to each and every one of you today: We are talking about what has to be done on this side, but I think there is 

a responsibility, also, for those of us who have retired. And so, how 

do we develop initiatives that incentivize healthy living in our military retirees? 

I think that is very important, so I would like to get your 

thoughts on that. Thank you. 

Mrs. MOAKLER. I think that the military health-care system has 

already introduced some preventive-care programs within the 

MTFs. And some of those can be focused on diabetes, helping those 

who are prediabetic to keep from having full-blown diabetes. There 

are also programs aimed at weight loss and controlling obesity. 

And as a beneficiary myself, I have seen those programs offered 

within the MTFs. And, also, some the TRICARE contractors are 

creating those programs, as well. 

As with any benefit offered to our military servicemembers, our 

retirees, our survivors, it is communicating the availability of these 

programs and ensuring that our families and our servicemembers 

can take advantage of those programs. 

Mrs. HOLLEMAN. I thoroughly agree. 

The military life, everyone thinks of it as a healthy life, and it 

is not; it is a fit life. People are fit, but they aren’t all that healthy 

in some of the habits they develop, in large part because of the 

pressures of that life—smoking, alcohol consumption, other things 

that can really affect long-term health requirements. 

And I firmly agree that the MTF programs, the contractors’ programs, the programs, again, mentioned for the U.S. Family Health 

Plan, that sort of thing, should be a focus. And, as Kathy Moakler 
19 

said, it should be widely publicized. Because how many times do 

they say you have to say something before it gets in my head? I 

think seven, for ads. At least, that is what Crest seems to run on. 

And I think we have to do the same thing. 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Congressman West, I think one of the frustrating things is that there has been a lot of effort tied to that, 

sometimes to no avail. We actually had to get this subcommittee 

to pass legislation to get DOD to run a pilot program to have 

TRICARE pay for smoking-cessation programs. And even then we 

don’t include Medicare eligibles in a lot of those incentive programs 

that we have, because, as Ranking Member Davis points out, you 

know, you end up with the scoring problems for Medicare eligibles 

and those kinds of things. So the budget rules actually inhibit us 

doing things that will encourage healthy life sometimes. 

Something else we think that needs to be done is eliminate the 

co-pays for those maintenance medications for people with chronic 

conditions. There are all kinds of studies out there that show that 

even a modest co-pay deters people from taking their medication. 

So there are lots of disincentives built into the system that I 

think we can still do. Unfortunately it seems too often take a law 

change to get DOD to do those. 

Mr. WILSON. We are precisely at 5 minutes, as I have been gently reminded by Ms. James. And our subcommittee is so fortunate 

to have people with experience. So we have a former sergeant in 

the Army, a former major of the Marine Corps, Congressman Mike 

Coffman of Colorado. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have got a question about TRICARE fees. And why don’t I start 

at this end for those groups who represent beneficiaries and go the 

other way. And here is my question. Would your organization support the proposed increase, $30 for individuals, $60 for family annually, if it were tied to a retired pay cost-of-living adjustment vice 

Medicare? And for those who say no, what if the increase didn’t impact current retirees? What if it were grandfathered in and didn’t 

start for 2 years? Just different iterations of the same question. 

But the primary thing is going to this about limiting the adjustment to whether or not there is a cost-of-living increase. So if the 

cost-of-living increase were 1 percent, or there wasn’t one, then it 

would be limited to the 1 percent if that were the case as opposed 

to whatever medical inflation was. 

Let us start with the Reserve Officers Association. 

Mr. HANSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

In short, a combination of the modest increases this year with an 

index base on COLA is something that ROA could not object to. 

The one concern that I have with how you phrase things is the 

setting up of generational differences in benefits to where one 

group is grandfathered and the next is charged more. That should 

be uniform across all people who serve. 

Mrs. MOAKLER. I agree with Marshall Hanson on that. Our association has agreed to the increase in fees even when they were 

first—the principle of increase in fees, even when they were introduced 4 years ago, and we have always maintained that they 

should be tied to COLA. And I also agree that creating a popu-
20 

lation of haves and have-nots is never a good thing with a military 

benefit. 

Mrs. HOLLEMAN. This question has been discussed in great detail 

and with some drama in my organization recently. After much discussion, TREA has found that we could agree to a COLA increase 

if that was absolutely necessary. Our people are dedicated. They 

are patriotic. They see the problems that are happening. But they 

see their problems, and they see their situations, and this is a very 

hard thing for them to make the conclusion. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Coffman, thank you very much for your question. 

The 13-percent increase is modest in some people’s eyes, but there 

is concern in our group that that increase is too steep. A 13-percent 

increase in Chinese military, as reported last week, can that be described as modest? I think the others would look at that in the 

same way we are looking at a 13-percent increase. 

We participate in retiree activity days across the Nation and 

overseas. We travel and meet with retirees at these opportunities 

that are on bases across the country. And what we have heard is 

the word ‘‘grandfather.’’ The grandfather word might be something 

that we would be attracted to, and we would certainly give it our 

very serious consideration. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Coffman, thanks for the question. I believe 

there is less opposition to what you are—or less concern in our association to what you are proposing than the current DOD proposal. But I have to state again that the oversight responsibility on 

this issue is key. DOD currently has the authority to adjust these 

fees apart from the USFHP part of this, which requires a legislative change. That goes back to 1995 when TRICARE was established. So I think key to that, to answering this question, is consideration of those key aspects. Thank you. 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Congressman, I think we would have a hard 

time objecting to what you propose. We would put the caveat in 

there that we think it is important to put those principles in legislation to specify that the benefits or the health care package and 

retirement package is to offset the conditions of service, and that 

those, in fact, constitute an upfront premium, and that is why the 

COLA adjustment is reasonable. Is that a better deal than civilians 

get? Yes, it is. But civilians don’t have to pay that upfront premium. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

I thank all of you. And I want to thank Congresswoman Vicky 

Hartzler of Missouri, who had been here, but she had a 9 o’clock 

meeting. So she has just been a very valuable member of this subcommittee. 

As we proceed, in agreement with the ranking member, we will 

go through another round, and we will be asking a question each. 

The question I have for all of you—and we will begin in the reverse order with Ms. Cooke—and that is the proverbial question of 

pharmaceuticals. Should they be mail order, or should they be by 

pharmacy? I know that I found it very helpful to have a one-onone contact with the local pharmacist. So not only could you let me 

know what you think about the mail order, but are there ways to 

reduce costs by using the local pharmacy? 
21 

Ms. COOKE. I think there is a role for mail order. I think for 

beneficiaries who are on several routine maintenance medications, 

it may be more convenient for them to have those medications delivered to their home. But there are circumstances certainly for urgent conditions where having a relationship with the local pharmacist and being able to access those medications on a timely basis 

are critical. 

So I think there is not a one size fits all. I think to the extent 

that home delivery for maintenance medications is something that 

really should be considered, because I think it would save the Department money, but it could not necessarily offset people’s right 

to receive urgent medications or exercise their options to receive it 

at the retail. So I think there is room for both. 

Mr. HANSON. The military coalition has worked hard with DOD 

Health Affairs to try and get beneficiaries to shift over to the mailorder system, and they are finding immediate savings by accomplishing this. So ROA, of course, supports this type of move. And 

to personalize it, both of my parents, who are in their late eighties, 

love the system because it saves them trips and constantly reminds 

them for refills. 

But as was pointed out in both my testimony and by my compatriot to my left, having some type of way that individuals aren’t 

penalized when they have to go to a retail side with higher co-payments is something we have to explore and, I think, include in any 

type of system that we go to so that young families that have to 

do a late-night run to stop an ear infection don’t pay higher prices 

just because they want to take people who have maintenance drugs 

and move them over to mail order. 

Mrs. MOAKLER. One of the things that we have discussed—of 

course, I agree with the statements of the two previous panelists, 

but one of the things we have discussed is education of the beneficiaries on how easy it is to use the mail-order pharmacy. Because 

people are reluctant. They are worried that they are not going to 

have enough pills. It can be difficult to make that initial start, especially if you are getting your prescription from a medical-treatment facility. But we do believe that not penalizing those 

servicemembers and family members who need that urgent medication or need a narcotic that they couldn’t get sent through the mail 

order, they shouldn’t be penalized with increased fees. But we do 

believe that the fees will promote greater efficiencies overall if 

more people use the mail-order pharmacy for their recurring medications. 

Mrs. HOLLEMAN. I agree with everything that the previous three 

people have said. 

I will also say that speaking to a pharmacist can be very helpful, 

particularly with an initial prescription. It is helpful if you are at 

the MTF. It is helpful if you are at a retail pharmacy. So I think 

it is obvious that we need both in the system. But for continuing 

maintenance drugs that you are taking for years and years, of 

course the home delivery is a very useful option. 

Mr. JONES. Home delivery is a useful option, and it saves the 

beneficiary and the Department of Defense taxpayers money. However, one of the things that could save money for the Defense Department and we feel is a primary reason for the higher costs in 
22 

the pharmaceutical program is the lack of aggressiveness in pursuit of the Federal pricing schedule for the drugs they used in the 

Department. 

Some years ago we offered the opportunity for Federal pricing. 

It was projected to return $1.6 billion annually. Well, the lack of 

aggressive nature of the Defense Department in securing Federal 

pricing has resulted in one-third of that amount being received— 

well, $600 million. So we need a little more aggressive action on 

the part of the Defense Department and a little less blame on retirees. 

Mr. WILSON. And I apologize, Mr. Barnes, but my time is up. So 

I now proceed to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Why don’t you just turn to some of the transition programs really 

quickly, because I know that a number of programs have been developed to respond to wounded warriors and their families. But 

when I speak to people, I always have the feeling that something 

is not quite connecting. If you could specify as quickly as possible, 

where do you see that gap? What is the problem? 

I think that we have also identified—I think a number of you 

did—in the data systems and being able to go from the DOD to the 

VA. But I am just wondering, is there something about the way the 

service could be improved that would enable that transition to be 

much smoother when it comes to our families? 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Are you talking about the transition between 

DOD and VA or—— 

Mrs. DAVIS. Transition back to the community. 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Back to the community. 

One of the things that we have talked about consistently that is 

a chronic problem is mental health/behavioral health. DOD has 

made great strides—I mean, everybody and his brother is trying 

their best to do these kinds of things and to try to find ways that 

it can be done and delivered in a way that the beneficiaries are 

comfortable with. 

There is a lot of fear on this issue. The servicemember is concerned that if they identify themselves, they are going to hurt their 

career, in many cases with good reason. The family members are 

reluctant to come forward for fear of the impact on the servicemember, for fear of being stigmatized. There are programs under way 

to try to do those in ways that are not reported back to the Defense 

Department. Those get more participation, but they don’t identify 

the problem to DOD. 

So there is a chronic issue, and I have to think that the key is 

going to be the destigmatization effort. And I think we have a problem with the senior leaders talking destigmatization, but when it 

comes to the unit, if you come forward, you are stigmatized. And 

until that changes, until the action matches that rhetoric, I think 

we are going to continue to have a problem. 

Mr. BARNES. Congresswoman, excellent question. I would echo 

Steve’s concern. And I will tell you from my experience when I was 

on Active Duty, having something about counseling in my record, 

it was like you just don’t go there. And the stigma issue is huge, 

and it is going to take a long time to turn that around. 
23 

Another aspect of this is family readiness, awareness of programs. Despite significant resources being committed to these 

across the services in the Department, we still hear story after 

story about spouses, family members and sometimes 

servicemembers that are not aware of programs and services that 

are available to them. 

Going back to the seamless transition issue, which I have to plug 

here, the bureaucratic challenges associated with the Department 

of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs for these 

wounded warriors and what they have to deal with is still very 

challenging. The special oversight committee is faltering. Great 

concept, but oversight is needed continually on this, and there 

needs to be a lot more done to effect seamless transition and take 

care of these wounded warriors and their families. 

Mr. HANSON. One challenge that we have, ma’am, is the duration 

that individuals are placed in these transitional programs. In some 

cases individuals are discharged as being fit when not all of their 

problems are recognized and recorded. In other cases you have individuals who are kept on medical hold because of the duration it 

takes to go through medical evaluation boards and physical evaluation boards. So these are things that need to have oversight and 

review, because it is not doing justice to our young warriors. 

Mrs. MOAKLER. We would also like to look at some bridge programs for our servicemembers and families who are being medically retired or medically discharged. Our association has promoted 

the idea of a 3-year Active Duty benefit for those servicemembers 

who are medically retired. We know they are still eligible for 

TRICARE as a retiree, but it would be similar to the survivor benefit. It would help them in those transitioning years with costs, 

with letting them use a system that they are familiar with as they 

transition into the community. 

I know we haven’t talked about families with special needs, but 

perhaps providing 1 year of an ECHO [extended care health option] 

benefit for those families with disabilities, be they a wounded family that is being medically retired or even a retired family after 20 

years who hasn’t been able to settle in the community where they 

are going to make their final retirement. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you all. 

And Congressman Allen West of Florida. 

Mr. WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to go back to the question that I had previously 

asked, because I know there were some people that wanted to respond to that, because I think that when you look at the nature 

of military service, it really is Pavlovian in nature. I mean, we do 

reward people for the right type of behavior. So I really believe that 

if we are, you know, serious about how we can lower the cost for 

military retiree health care, then how can we make sure the military retirees are healthy? So I know that there were some people 

that still want to chime in on that. So, please. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. It is an excellent question, and we appreciate the quotation from Washington. We used the quotation in our 

testimony. And the thought that the perception was so key, that we 

all should be able to recognize that. Those who will be coming into 
24 

service tomorrow do reflect on how today’s veterans in the military 

are being treated. 

You asked a question about how do we encourage individuals to 

maintain their public health, maintain their individual health. And 

you mentioned smoking and running and those sorts of things, 

which are key. Well, we do that not necessarily by government, but 

we do that necessarily by example and by appreciation. We note a 

lack in our communities of a community sense, of a community 

spirit. We see it with the litter on the highway. We see it with the 

lack of appreciation for people who excel. We see it for all sorts of 

things. 

What we are looking for is something like what was given— 

apologies to Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts. Some years ago, Michael Strahan retired from football, the New York Giants. They 

had just won the Super Bowl, beating the previously undefeated 

Patriots. And Strahan was speaking with George Mara, the president of the Giants, and Mara said that Strahan thanked him and 

thanked the organization for all they had done for him. And Mara 

simply said, it is not the organization that you should be thanking. 

He said, I think you have done more than we can ever do for you. 

That is the example of excellence, and that is the example we need 

to have reflected in our communities. 

We know that there are, what, 20 percent of Americans today 

that are not ready physically to become a servicemember. We need 

to incorporate physical education in our schools. We once did. In 

my youth certainly; I am not sure in your youth, sir. 

Mr. WEST. Yes. Okay. 

Mr. JONES. But in my youth we had physical education, and it 

was a regimen. People enjoyed it. Dodgeball was a fun game. 

Mr. WEST. Unless you got hit in the head. 

Mr. JONES. You get hit in the head, you learn the game better. 

You always learned how to play the game a little bit better. 

But these are the things that the community—a sense of community and understanding and example. And you set a fine example, 

And there are so many other Americans today who are setting that 

example. And we try to do that with our preventative care in the 

hospital system, to encourage people to take the right course. Certainly we save a lot of money in insulin and diabetes and those sort 

of things if we can capture it early. 

And I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak on this 

issue. It is very important. We do it by example, not necessarily by 

government. 

Mr. BARNES. Congressman, I would thank for your service and 

thank you for the question. 

A couple of observations here with regard to your description of 

the VFW hall and the smoking is indicative of a demographic issue. 

We in our association are working to communicate with three generations, in essence: those currently serving, and those in between, 

and those that go back through a number of conflicts, into World 

War II and some before that. And communicating to them education awareness is key. 

The communications aspect of this, this goes to the use of the 

mail-order pharmacy issue, too. Awareness is a great deal of anxiety in certain demographics about trying something new and 
25 

whatever. I will tell you I am enrolled in the medical home in Bethesda, and there are new efforts that are trying to be implemented, communications electronically and what have you, to help 

address some of these things. But I think the starting point is understanding the demographics and the perceptions of these different groups and trying to communicate and educate them about 

the importance of healthy lifestyles and changing some bad habits. 

Mr. WEST. Well, thank you. 

And, Mr. Jones, I will absolutely agree with you, it is leadership 

by example. That is the key thing. So next time I will ask Mr. 

Chairman if he will join me at 5:00 in the morning for a 6-mile PT 

[physical training] run. 

But thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, I am willing to take you up for a 5-mile walk. 

I have got my pedometer. 

And we will be concluding with a question from Congressman 

Mike Coffman from Colorado. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Maybe you all could give me some—if we were to focus on the 

delivery process, and I will include family health care, individual 

in there as well. What specific changes do you think we can make 

to contain the costs? In other words, is there room to maneuver in 

terms of saying that there has got to be some kind of primary-care 

gatekeeper that one has to see before accessing a higher-priced specialist, particularly those people outside the network? And that 

might be sort of the Kaiser model of a nurse practitioner or a physician’s assistant. I mean, are we doing enough in terms of cost 

containment at that level, particularly in primary care? Let me 

start with the U.S. Family Health Care Plan. 

Ms. COOKE. From a delivery process, I think it is less about the 

gatekeeper; it is integration. So almost 100 percent of beneficiaries 

enrolled in our plan have a primary-care manager, and it is the 

credibility and trust of the relationship. So it eliminates duplication of services. So that is one cost-cutting measure. There is a relationship there, so there is not a knee-jerk reaction to send the 

beneficiary off for specialty care or to send them off for urgent care 

when, in fact, they have the primary-care physician that understands their medical history and can provide that care. So I think 

that is critical. 

Also, there is a value in understanding the complete picture of 

the beneficiary, not just having access to their inpatient or primary-care claims. It is really understanding what medications the 

beneficiary is on, utilizing health-risk assessments, engaging the 

beneficiary in their health. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I am sorry to interrupt you, but time is short. If 

I am a beneficiary—and I will be soon. I just received my letter for 

TRICARE. And so let us just say I make a decision that I think 

I have got diabetes, or there is something wrong where I want to 

see an endocrinologist, and I make that assessment. Can I do that? 

Can I make that decision myself and access a specialist? 

Ms. COOKE. Not according to the TRICARE Prime benefits. You 

would have to receive a referral. But again, if you were enrolled in 

a program that has a diabetes care management, disease-management program, even if you didn’t raise your hand, you would be 
26 

identified and sought out for active participation and have that 

managed. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Because I think that is one of the issues in terms 

of escalating health care costs is when you don’t have a primarycare gatekeeper there, and people are making decisions that have 

direct access to specialty care without going through some type of 

gatekeeper process that says we can really do this at a lower cost 

here at this level instead of seeing a higher-cost specialist. 

Does anybody else want to comment on that? 

Mr. HANSON. As Ms. Cooke pointed out, TRICARE Prime across 

the board with all the contractors has primary-care managers that 

try and control this. We have been briefed by DOD that the real 

costs that they are facing isn’t so much the care that comes out of 

that program, but by the fact that so many people who are beneficiaries go directly to emergency care, which pops the care way up, 

and they are trying to find ways of bringing urgent-care centers 

and other ways of doing it to reduce the care there. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Good point. 

Mrs. MOAKLER. I think it is also interesting, our association, of 

course, is a big promoter of TRICARE Prime, but TRICARE Prime 

is not the entry to the benefit. We have so many of our beneficiaries who are not enrolled in TRICARE Prime either because of 

geographic reasons, or they choose not to be, but who are on 

TRICARE Standard. And I think it might be interesting to contrast 

those who are in TRICARE Standard who may be cobbling together 

their medical care and contrast their costs, mostly which are out 

of pocket but there is a cost to DOD, with those who are in managed care and have primary-care managers. 

Mr. STROBRIDGE. Congressman Coffman, I think one of the big 

problems, you know, that we have sort of touched around here is 

the Department of Defense spends a lot of time on TRICARE 

Prime. We have talked before about this subcommittee’s effort to 

put something in law requiring DOD to establish these healthy 

care kind of programs, which they did for TRICARE Prime, but 

they don’t have those kind of chronic-condition programs for 

TRICARE Standard or the people over 65 under TRICARE for Life, 

yet we know who the diabetics are, we know who the high-cost people are. To us, there is a great opportunity to reach out to those 

people not to control their care, but to urge them to participate in 

these kinds of management programs. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. 

And I just want to assure Lieutenant Colonel West that what 

happens in the VFW hall stays in the VFW hall. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. I thank all of you. 

And at this time, Mrs. Davis, if there is no further. Oh, pardon 

me. Please. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that you have a lot more to say about this issue and how 

we work some of this and some of the questions to ask. So we certainly welcome you to, if you would like to put some of that in writing, to do that or to communicate with us in whatever way you prefer in our offices. 
27 

I really appreciate the fact that we have to work through this. 

And I feel as if I don’t have as good of information from the DOD 

as we might like to understand better the real impacts on some of 

this and whether or not we actually are not so much comparing apples to oranges as much as understanding the impacts that some 

of these changes may bring about, and, in fact, whether we are 

doing all that we can in terms of this prevention issue. 

If we are doing what I think Ms. Cooke has said, and if we are 

trying to bring about many of those economies of care and making 

for healthier people through this, then it ought not cost so much 

more. We ought to find a better way to do that. And I am hoping 

that we can work through this as we move forward. Thanks a lot. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And I want to join in with Mrs. Davis. All of the members of the 

subcommittee are available and want to hear from you, meet with 

you. 

Also I want you to know what an extraordinary resource we have 

with Jeanette James. She herself has been a nurse. So we are very 

grateful for her service as the professional staff working with John 

Chapla. What a great team. VMI graduate. So we are very grateful. 

And at this time, we shall adjourn. 

[Whereupon, at 9:28 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 16, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 16, 2011 

(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 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 16, 2011 

(99) 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 

Æ