GovernmentExecutive.com

After wrangling with the Pentagon for weeks over a cost-cutting plan to raise healthcare fees for military retirees under age 65, at least 20 lawmakers are expected to sign on to a bipartisan bill that would block the Defense Department from acting without congressional consent.

Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and House Military Quality of Life Appropriations ranking member Chet Edwards, D-Texas, will introduce the legislation Wednesday, their offices said Monday afternoon.

If it succeeds, the bill would thwart Pentagon efforts to leverage the increased fees for military retirees to offset skyrocketing healthcare costs. It also would change current law, which allows the Pentagon to alter healthcare fees without the blessing of Capitol Hill.

"For some retirees, this means increases of up to $1,000 to their annual payments," according to a written statement from Jones' office. "We must pass legislation now that blocks this massive burden from being placed on their shoulders."

The Pentagon's plan, outlined in the department's fiscal 2007 budget request, would increase enrollment fees and deductibles on a sliding scale based on rank at retirement. It also would raise retail pharmacy co-payments and reward retirees for using mail-order services for generic prescriptions.

Pentagon leaders estimate the proposal would save $735 million in fiscal 2007 and a staggering $11 billion over the next five years.

But "sense of Congress" language in the draft bill asserts that the Pentagon would generate a large portion of those savings from retirees who opt to use private-sector health insurance plans instead of their "earned military benefits."

The language also indicates that the affordable Tricare system is a crucial recruiting and retention tool, particularly at a time of war.

"The primary offset for enduring the extraordinary sacrifices inherent in a military career is a system of extraordinary retirement benefits, including health care coverage ... that a grateful nation provides for those who choose to subordinate much of their personal life to the national interest for so many years," according to the draft.

The Tricare proposal has ignited the powerful and expansive military grassroots base, which already has inundated congressional offices with thousands of letters and helped push the issue to the forefront of this round of budget deliberations.

"We've all been involved in supporting the issue and making some noise . . . about our unhappiness with the DOD plan," said Steve Strobridge, director of government relations at the Military Officers Association of America.

Indeed, Strobridge helped craft the Jones-Edwards bill, and is now looking for Senate sponsors for this or similar legislation. "We don't have anybody lined up yet, but I think we will," he said.

The Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee has scheduled a hearing Tuesday on military health benefits, with defense officials and leaders of several veterans groups expected to address the Pentagon's proposed cost-cutting measures.

In fiscal 2006, the military expects to pay $37 billion for healthcare programs, which amounts to 8 percent of the Defense budget and $18 billion more than the department paid five years ago.

The Defense Department has not increased Tricare premiums since the program began in 1995. If premiums and other fees remain static, the military is on track to spend $64 billion annually on health care by 2015, according to Pentagon leaders.

COMMENTS

• Tip: I do not disagree that it is/was bad planning. After four years active duty, two years as a contractor, and three as a civilian I have come to expect it. Yes, I'm sure the government could have planned better. I somewhat expect it comes from the recent explosion of health care costs and that it is most likely a lot of work to raise Tricare rates, whereas the private sector and government civilians have come to expect health insurance rates to go up while quality goes down. I'm just a realist when comes to matters such as health care, and as such I know that realistically the price has to go up, the benefits go down, or most likely a bit of both. Nullrout Posted March 23, 2006 1:02 PM
• Nullrout, "Show me where...," I, and McNamara’s 10,000, entered the military in the post-draft Sep '73. I was recruited with the specific promise that if I successfully completed 20 years and reached retirement that I (and my family) would enjoy the most generous and state of the art healthcare in the world for the rest of my life, if I lived. Okay, I had just turned 18 and knew little of the government and what recruiters will say to make mission, but that party line continued for the next two or three re-enlistments. It was a primary reason I stayed in for the duration. Once more, steady and gradual increases in the Tricare costs to recipients may cause grumbling, but such an overnight jump in cost speaks volumes of a general lack of planning and was bound to raise hackles; and stunt recruitment. It is too late to ask Uncle Sam to be a "man of his word," but "reasonableness" is a legal standard and not an excessive quality to ask for or pursue in personnel matters. My real problem with all this is the way government institutes problem solving techniques. Fire management is not a preferred or even good method of management. Uncle Sam needed soldiers so he lied to them. He lied to them to get them to stay. And when the bill came due, he changed the rules. Another example is how Uncle Sugar changed the Civil Service from CSRS to FERS. Touted to save money, its long term affect will be to create a new working-poor government retiree. Now, he’s changing from FERS to NSPS; I believe not for national security reasons or recruit quality personnel, but again to save money. How such recruitment happen when the fiscal incentives aren’t or won’t be there? Whatever happened to long-term planning and budgeting? Many of us have spoken of the death traps in implementing performance pay and pay pool panels, but no one is looking at the long-term results. This type of vacillation has lost a heck of a lot of respect in workers and businesses dealing with the federal government. No one enters into contract with the fed, anymore, without great trepidation and a serious backup plan. The government asks us to educate the kids -- I say we educate those who govern. Tip off. Tip Posted March 22, 2006 8:08 AM
• Taxpayer: you spew worthless garbage while playing both sides of the fence. Show me where "free health care for life" has ever been an official recruiting incentive. It may have been implied, but never promised. As to you speaking about me joining the military: been there, done that, got the t-shirt ... so yet again you speak of which you do not know. Yeah free healthcare ... goes back to a true adage: you get what you pay for. How exactly do IRA's have anything to do with the increasing Tricare premiums? Nullrout Posted March 20, 2006 1:02 PM