Posted on Dec 12, 2015
Will Tricare reforms improve access, raise fees or both?
8.68K
6
4
2
2
0
Will Tricare reforms improve access, raise fees or both?
RP Members check out this article - what do you think?
For those of you that like to "Merge" the question is will it improve access, raise fees, or both?
http://www.stripes.com/will-tricare-reforms-improve-access-raise-fees-or-both-1.383124
Here is some background from the article
Ryan also criticized “a serious disconnect between rhetoric and reality on DOD health care costs. Every year, defense leaders offer dire budget projections of health costs they say are spiraling out of control. But recent history shows those projections have been consistently wrong.”
He said defense budgets over the last five years show medical program costs have been flat or even have fallen, and that Tricare for Life costs are down 40 percent from their peak.
Joyce Wessel Raezer, executive director of the National Military Family Association, testified that “many of our families remain satisfied with Tricare” based on the care they receive and the low cost.
Retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Rodric G. Hammond of Pensacola, Fla., said he was mystified when a blue-ribbon commission on military compensation declared last February that the triple-option Tricare benefit was “broken.”
It proposed replacing Tricare for active-duty families and retirees under age 65 with a menu of commercial insurance plans, like that offered to federal civilians, except that active-duty families would get a new health allowance to cover their premiums at least for mid-price-range plans.
The whole idea left Hammond, 77, and retiree friends asking why.
Retired Vice Adm. Norbert Ryan, stepping down as president of Military Officers Association of America after 13 years, described Tricare strengths and weaknesses from a recent survey of more than 30,000 MOAA members. More than half of respondents were 65 or older, using Tricare for Life and well satisfied with the benefit commissioners would leave unchanged. But 86 percent of those using Tricare Standard, the fee-for-service option, also were satisfied and 81 percent of enrollees in Tricare Prime, the managed networks.
“We think it’s important to preserve what’s working, and fix what’s not,” Ryan said.
RP Members check out this article - what do you think?
For those of you that like to "Merge" the question is will it improve access, raise fees, or both?
http://www.stripes.com/will-tricare-reforms-improve-access-raise-fees-or-both-1.383124
Here is some background from the article
Ryan also criticized “a serious disconnect between rhetoric and reality on DOD health care costs. Every year, defense leaders offer dire budget projections of health costs they say are spiraling out of control. But recent history shows those projections have been consistently wrong.”
He said defense budgets over the last five years show medical program costs have been flat or even have fallen, and that Tricare for Life costs are down 40 percent from their peak.
Joyce Wessel Raezer, executive director of the National Military Family Association, testified that “many of our families remain satisfied with Tricare” based on the care they receive and the low cost.
Retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Rodric G. Hammond of Pensacola, Fla., said he was mystified when a blue-ribbon commission on military compensation declared last February that the triple-option Tricare benefit was “broken.”
It proposed replacing Tricare for active-duty families and retirees under age 65 with a menu of commercial insurance plans, like that offered to federal civilians, except that active-duty families would get a new health allowance to cover their premiums at least for mid-price-range plans.
The whole idea left Hammond, 77, and retiree friends asking why.
Retired Vice Adm. Norbert Ryan, stepping down as president of Military Officers Association of America after 13 years, described Tricare strengths and weaknesses from a recent survey of more than 30,000 MOAA members. More than half of respondents were 65 or older, using Tricare for Life and well satisfied with the benefit commissioners would leave unchanged. But 86 percent of those using Tricare Standard, the fee-for-service option, also were satisfied and 81 percent of enrollees in Tricare Prime, the managed networks.
“We think it’s important to preserve what’s working, and fix what’s not,” Ryan said.
Benefits
Health
Reform
Budget
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Like anything else I'm sure it needs tweaking and not sure I'm to fond of paying more. Guess it falls back to, you get what you pay for though.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I tend to think that Tricare reforms, while hopefully improving an already proven system, will also raise fees, but to do nothing would raise fees as well. As long as we don't get greedy reformers diverting money to their own pockets, the opportunity exists, and could be beneficial in making it better. Unfortunately, we don't, historically, do well with reforming anything... And I see a good program about to join the other broken "reformed" ones...
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
My wife has been satisfied with her service under tricare standard/prime (it is the same coverage, just depends if the physician is in the prime network). It compares favorably to the insurance we had through my civilian employer previously. And the docs get their money MONTHS faster. We are considering going to tricare reserve select when I come off orders. Still a way off, and still playing with numbers, but it seems to be a significantly better deal - unless/until they change it....
I honestly see no need to reform it. The only issue I know of is that it is really location-dependent. Where I am (JBLM, I-5 corridor) there are TONS of providers that are in standard/prime. In some rural areas of the state (such as where my son lives), there are few providers that accept it. I could see giving them more/different options. But this is one of there rare benefits that seems to be working as intended, from my point of view.
I think this is more companies wanting a piece of the pie.
Disclaimer1: We are not heavy users of medical care. I am open to believing that those who are may have a different opinion.
Disclaimer2: I am using the MTF, so haven't personally used standard/prime. But I live with someone who does.
I honestly see no need to reform it. The only issue I know of is that it is really location-dependent. Where I am (JBLM, I-5 corridor) there are TONS of providers that are in standard/prime. In some rural areas of the state (such as where my son lives), there are few providers that accept it. I could see giving them more/different options. But this is one of there rare benefits that seems to be working as intended, from my point of view.
I think this is more companies wanting a piece of the pie.
Disclaimer1: We are not heavy users of medical care. I am open to believing that those who are may have a different opinion.
Disclaimer2: I am using the MTF, so haven't personally used standard/prime. But I live with someone who does.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google