Proposed increases in TRICARE fees and co-pays for military retirees under 65, education benefits and military retirement were among the topics discussed at a hearing held last week by the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee.

Representatives of The Military Coalition, a group of 35 military, veterans and uniformed services organizations of which AUSA is a member, testified that some of the recommendations offered by an independent task force looking at the military health care system were “wrong,” especially on fees and co-pays.

Steven Strobridge, Co-Chairman of The Military Coalition, said “Military benefits should be driven by standards and principals and not budget.”

When asked by Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., whether the Coalition is opposed to any increase in fees, co-pays and pharmacy charges, Strobridge answered that “It’s unrealistic to say no increases.”  But he stressed that the percentage of increase in fees should not pass the percentage increase in compensation.

Joseph Barnes, The Military Coalition’s other co-chairman, warned against “the disastrous nature of the [much higher] fees” and their impact on “the morale … among those currently serving.”

“The most severely injured are having to pay the most,” Meredith Beck, National Policy Director of the Wounded Warrior Project, said.  The reason is that if they are on Medicare they have to pay those fees as well as the higher fees in the TRICARE system.

The Subcommittee’s top Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham. R-S.C., said “You don’t make it up all at once.  We’re going to phase in some increases [in fees and co-pays] that are not draconian.” 

Sen. Graham’s statement contradicted a letter sent from the Armed Services Committee Chairman and Ranking member in March that rejected the Administration’s proposal to increase TRICARE fees.

The letter from Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich and John McCain, R-Ariz., to the Senate Budget Committee outlined their opposition to the proposed increases.  “With respect to the base budget, we are concerned about the Administration’s proposal to reduce the apparent cost of running the Defense Health Program in FY2009” by “assuming $1.2 billion in discretionary savings based on a proposal to impose higher premiums and co-payments on military retirees – a proposal that Congress rejected when it was requested in the FY2008 budget.”  Sens. Levin and McCain asked that the Budget Committee’s resolution reject the fee increases for military personnel, retirees or dependents. 

The witnesses also told the panel that access to care outside of military clinics, hospitals and medical centers was increasingly difficult to find because of the low fees paid to providers and providers having to hire additional staff to work with TRICARE to settle bills.  Many providers not only are not accepting new patients but are also dropping patients who used TRICARE, Strobridge said. 

Michael Cline, Executive Director of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, another member of the Coalition,  said, “In Alaska, most doctors will not accept TRICARE.”

In a discussion about education benefits, Sen. Graham said, “The GI benefit is going to be a big issue and that’s where transferability comes into play.”  After saying “we need to bump up the benefit,” he proposed a plan whereby a service member could transfer half of his or her Montgomery GI Bill to a spouse or child after six years and all of it after 12.”

He added that he wanted to act on improving benefits for service members who came on active duty when the Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) was in effect.  “We are not going to leave those folks behind.”

All witnesses representing the Coalition took sharp exception to a recent recommendation concerning military retirement made by a special task force on military compensation.

Barnes said the proposals to raise the age in which service members could receive retirement pay yet vest others who leave active service after five or more years and the proposal to combine the retirement pay systems of the active and reserve components, failed to take into account that “Service in the military is significantly different than working in the civilian sector.”

Strobridge agreed.  During a time of high operating tempo, “it would be a disaster” to change the retirement system.

AUSA will respond to any attempt by Congress or the Department of Defense to change the military retirement system or drastically increase TRICARE fees.

Fights Looms as Congress Tackles Emergency War Funding

Another showdown between the White House and Congressional Democrats is looming as Congress prepares to tackle the emergency supplemental spending bill.

Democrats are expected to tack a $70 billion “bridge fund” for fiscal 2009 onto the $102 billion already requested for the military for fiscal 2008.  The bridge fund will pay for the war into the next presidency thus avoiding another fight between Congress and the White House. 

The latest round came at a hearing held last week by the Senate Appropriations Committee.  Jim Nussle, Director of the Office of Management and Budget warned the Committee that failure to approve the administration’s emergency war spending request would result in layoffs.  He said steps to curtail defense department spending would begin around Memorial Day.

He also warned the panel against “the desire of some in Congress to load up this troop funding bill with tens of billions in additional spending.”  He repeated the President’s threat to veto any bill containing the domestic add-ons. 

In response to Nussle’s warning, Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said the White House should expect a bill to emerge from his committee that includes increased domestic spending. 

The House version of the supplemental includes added money for military hardware, a second economic stimulus package, and veterans’ benefits.  Other funding mentioned recently includes money for programs such as international food aid; physics research; infrastructure projects; an extension of unemployment benefits and more money for the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.

Don’t think that Democrats are the only ones planning to load the bill with extra spending not related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While some Republicans say they favor limiting the bill to war funding only, they, too, plan to seek money for other programs. 

“I would prefer to have a clean supplemental.  If we add domestic funding there are some things I would like get covered,” Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn, said.  “Clean would be great, but if that doesn’t happen, I will certainly be involved in discussions.”

“A clean supplemental on the first effort is not going to be adhered to by Democrat or Republican,” said Senate Appropriator Larry E. Craig, R-Idaho, who seeks funding through it for rural counties hit by declining timber payments.  “On the second try, we’ll see how insistent the President is and what can prevail.”

However, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., disagrees with that approach.  He said he is worried that the supplemental “has the potential to become a big Christmas tree” and he would criticize any spending added to the bill.  “I hope that nobody – not the White House or the Democrats here in the Congress or for that matter the Republicans – tries to make it a vehicle to do a lot of extra spending.” 

At the Appropriations Committee hearing, Democrats and Republicans pressed Nussle on why the United States should provide additional money for reconstruction when the Iraqi government is running surpluses because of rising oil prices.

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, “Here is a country making millions of dollars at our expense and yet we pay for their reconstruction.”

“The Iraqi government has been grotesquely irresponsible with the money we’ve given them,” Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said.

“We will once again take good care of our troops.  But we must also invest in our own economy and take care of our people at home,” Sen. Byrd said.  “It is time to prime the pump.”

 

AUSA Working to Preserve Retiree Benefits

“We want to make sure there is no repeat of the ‘peace dividend’’’ that saw America’s military readiness decline as the Cold War ended and the launching of cutbacks in programs that directly affected retention, recruitment and retiree benefits, the Vice President for Education of the Association of the United States Army said.

Speaking at a reception for the Chief of Staff of the Army’s Retiree Council, LTG Theodore Stroup, USA, Ret., said AUSA’s position was that the defense budget should remain between 4 to 5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

“It is not a Democratic or Republican thing” to keep defense spending at that level as the nation continues prosecuting the war on terrorism.  He told the attendees at the gathering in suburban Washington that in addition to the more than $140 billion request for the Army in the regular budget for fiscal 2009 that the defense emergency spending bill request would provide the Army with money for recruitment, retention and retiree programs.

“We’re out there fighting” for these programs and trying to move the requests from emergency spending bills to the regular budget to ensure that they continue in the future, such as TRICARE for Life and the senior pharmacy benefit.  “These are big deals.”  Adding, “We keep the drumbeat up.”

Stroup said that in Army and AUSA analyses of the retiree population that the average retiree is an E-7 with 20 years of service.  “There are more E-7s in the retiree [population] than lieutenant colonels from the guard, reserve and active force.”

What that means is that proposed increases in TRICARE fees [“health care premiums”] and co-pays would “take one month of retiree pay before federal and state taxes are deducted from that E-7.  Don’t put that on the back of enlisted retirees,” he said.  “We don’t believe it’s the right thing to do.”

Stroup said that in the struggle to preserve retiree benefits on Capitol Hill that “Our best allies have been members of Congress and their staffers.”  Congress has rejected for three years administration proposals to dramatically increase fees and co-pays to make up for more than a decade of not raising them to cover higher medical costs.

 

AUSA Supports the United States Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008

AUSA President Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, USA, Ret., sent a letter to every member of Congress who has not yet co-sponsored legislation that would create an Army Commemorative Coin urging them to do so.  Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., sponsored S.2579 and H.R. 5714, respectively, that would require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in 2011 in recognition and celebration of the establishment of the United States Army in 1775, and to commemorate the traditions, history and heritage of the United States Army and its role in American society, from the Colonial period until today. 

The creation of the coin will serve another worthy purpose as revenue from the surcharge for the Army Commemorative Coin will help fund the National Museum of the United States Army.  The Army, the nation's oldest and largest military service, is the only branch without a comprehensive national museum, celebrating, preserving, and displaying its heritage and honoring its veterans. 

You can add your voice to ours.  Go to the AUSA website, www.ausa.org, click on “Contact Congress”, type in your zip code beside “Elected Officials”, and scroll down to “Pass the United States Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008.”