Senate Tricare Plan Would Dramatically Raise Some Retiree Costs

Thank you for sharing my friend Lt Col Charlie Brown
A Senate proposal would bring forward to next year a plan to charge military retirees to use Tricare Select, increasing annual costs by at least hundreds of dollars.
The enrollment fee plan, which by current law would take effect in 2021 if Tricare meets a series of network benchmarks, would instead start in 2019 -- and cost up to hundreds of dollars more than what is currently planned.
The proposal does not affect Tricare for Life users.
Here's a little background: Congress last year decided to revamp the Tricare programs by increasing fees for Tricare Prime retirees; setting flat-rate, out-of-pocket costs for most services; and creating an enrollment fee for future retirees in Tricare Standard, renamed Tricare Select, with the option of adding one for current retirees in 2021.
Retirees who do not live near a military treatment facility have no choice but to use the Select program. The plan was originally presented to troops, retirees and families as protecting a lower-cost benefit for currently serving troops and retirees by grandfathering them into current plan structures or setting lower fees.
But when the fees were actually revealed, an alternate reality became clear for retirees and active-duty family users of the freshly rebranded Tricare Select program. While they were temporarily safe from enrollment fees, their out-of-pocket costs were set at a higher rate than troops who joined or retired after January of this year.
For example, current retirees on Select were set to pay $41 for a specialty visit or $35 for a primary-care visit, while future retirees would by law pay $40 for specialty or $25 for primary care.
And although protected from an enrollment fee now and in the future, active-duty families have the same cost-share problem. By law, new troops and users of Tricare's purchased plans, like Tricare Reserve Select, are paying $15 for primary care, while current troops are paying $21, for example.
Meanwhile, Congress kicked the can on potential enrollment fees for current Tricare Select retirees until 2021, and even put into law requirements before it's triggered.
For it to happen, the U.S. Comptroller must submit a report in early 2020 to the House Armed Services Committee on whether Tricare is meeting network standards and overall satisfaction of Select users, among other factors.
If that report doesn't make the situation look good, Congress would then have a chance to repeal the whole thing.
According to a top Tricare official, the system is currently nowhere near meeting network standards in its West region. Health Net, which manages that region, has developed 12 central focus regions for network development. As of May, only two of them were complete. The official said it could be 2021 before they are ready.
"Congress recognized that this would be some tough work because they gave us until 2021," Ken Canestrini, who directs Tricare's health plan, told me in May.
The Senate's New Plan Skips the Review Process
Despite Canestrini's admission that the network is not ready to meet the benchmarks, the Senate is willing to skip the review process and force all Tricare Select users to pay enrollment fees.
Here's why: This year, the Senate decided to address the retiree out-of-pocket fee disparity. But it first needed to find a way to pay for it.
The answer? Ditch the 2021 timeline and current enrollment fee plan, and instead knock everyone into the new enrollment fee structure right away.
The Senate's plan makes a few changes that military retiree advocates see as incredibly worrisome.
First, it removes the review process or a chance for the whole thing to be repealed before current retirees must pay to enroll in Tricare Select.
Next, instead of annually charging current users $150 for individual enrollment or $300 for a family starting in 2021, it knocks everyone to a $450 individual and $900 family fee immediately.
That means the grandfathering idea goes out the window, and both current and future military retirees will be paying out-of-pocket fees."

My darling wife and me only use military medical facilities for our healthcare {I am covered by the VAMC system so I have costs there either] so out of pocket cost would not increase with this proposal.

FYI COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C. LTC Wayne Brandon LTC Bill Koski Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Capt Seid Waddell Capt Tom Brown Maj Marty Hogan MSG Andrew White SFC William Farrell SSgt Robert Marx PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SPC Margaret Higgins MSgt Jason McClish AN Christopher Crayne SPC Tom DeSmet SGT Charles H. Hawes SGT (Join to see) SSG David Andrews

This seems to be becoming an annual event. Wife and I are TFL but dependent grandson isn't and his rates increased, fortunately we are close enough to a base that he can use it for medical, plus he's healthy as an ox. Afraid that as we who were told free medical care age there will be less and less objection to these fee increases.

Before 1989, every military recruiter told countless thousands of young men and women considering military service, they would be guaranteed unequaled heath care benefits for serving at least 20 years. These benefits were taught, as part of the curriculum, in Recruiting Schools and Career Counselor Training Courses as an incentive for joining and re-enlistment. During all the prior years of training, there is no documentation of even a single recruiter or counselor questioning the validity of what they were promising. There was no reason, they were told the same thing when they joined and retirees were receiving promised health care. Sadly, since 1989, this has not been the case and the phrase "the truth changes" increasingly is used when referring to most promises made by our government.

In 1975, I decided to join the Navy. The first step of the process involved testing, physical, classification and most desirable, the promise, in return for 20 years' service, free medical care for me and my immediate family for the rest of our lives. I joined and I served 20 years retiring in 1995. The words left out of the promise were "space available." Initially, this omission was not important. Today, it has great significance. The reason; the military has downsized considerably over time and therefore, there are fewer doctors, nurses, other health care professionals, and especially hospitals to provide space available health care. They are the words now being used as justification to change military health care benefits.

Most believe recruiters and career counselors have lied to military retirees and disabled service members, especially since 1959 when Congress enacted the "space available" addition to military Health Care. This was the first of a number of laws enacted to reduce and limit access to retirees...the Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act 0f 2003 acknowledges promises of lifetime health care were made and broken for many years after these laws were passed. The quandary, Congress and the Joint Chiefs, never ordered military recruiters to stop promising free health care for life. Today, Congress blames recruiters for lying to new recruits. I wonder at the number of members of the Congress who recruiters informed their Health Benefits would extend for life if they served 20 or more years; now respond with ignorance of recruiter promises. In 1969, there were 329 veterans or retired in the house and senate. Over time, the number with military service has dropped to its current level of 121. Their collective wartime service includes World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

They all knew upon enlistment or commissioning the benefits of joining the military and retiring. All who retired received or are receiving the benefit of this promise. Yet, when they entered the Congress or Senate, they treat addressing recruiter promises as taboo, avoiding any mention of military recruiters lying to them about benefits.

I was in Navy Recruiting in about 1989, when we were informed to cease and desist telling prospective and new recruits about any guarantee of free health care for life. Although it was known since about 1959, Congress never moved to denied promises made by recruiters were not authorized or had ever been guaranteed through legislation.

When I went to Recruiting School in 1986, we were taught free health care was a critical recruiting tool, again, "space available" was not mentioned. Benefits were major compensation in enticing recruits to join military services. I found this to be true and it was one of the major reasons for my success in recruiting.

The recruiter is not at fault in this deception of millions, and they did not lie, nor did I. It was the Congress who knew what was being promised, yet did nothing to legitimize. Hundreds of members of the Congress served in the military and knew what recruiters promised, yet allowed continuation. They knew they were promising benefits not condoned or supported by legislation and turned their heads because recruiting was successfully meeting the demands of National Security.

The military is a unique extension of American society. Our pay and benefits pale in contrast to our civilian counterparts. If there are no incentives for military retirement; if congress is allowed to erode the benefits of today's retirees and disabled; how then do those entering the service or deciding to remain, believe promises they are being guaranteed. Verbal Agreements are apparently enforceable only in the civilian sector; ignored in the government, they are subject to denial and change at discretion.

The dilemma looming largest on the military horizon, will our President and Congress force the inclusion of "buyer beware" as a disclaimer warning future recruits, "the truth changes" in relation to benefits promised."