BRAC would cut inpatient access
Since 07-07-05
From:
Waspscpo@aol.com [mailto:Waspscpo@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:12 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: BRAC would cut inpatient access
![]()
Thursday,
July 7, 2005
![]()
Military Update:
BRAC would cut inpatient access
By Tom Philpott,
Special to Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Thursday, July 7, 2005
Military
health officials concede that some retirees will see higher costs if the Base
Realignment and Closure Commission accepts a plan to downsize nine stateside
hospitals to outpatient clinics and to refer patients needing hospitalization to
civilian facilities. Most of these patients, however, still will be treated by
military physicians under facility-sharing arrangements with local communities,
said Lt. Gen. George Peach Taylor Jr., the Air Force surgeon general.
Taylor chaired the Medical Joint Cross-Service Group that shaped the draft BRAC
recommendations on health care. The hospital downsizing plan, if accepted by the
commission, will affect 148 inpatients a day, 6 percent of all inpatients
treated in military stateside hospitals.
Even if patients are treated off base by military physicians, their
out-of-pocket costs will rise because Tricare fees and co-payments for off-base
care will apply. Some lawmakers and military associations have criticized the
move as an attempt by the Bush administration to deny on-base medical care to
more service beneficiaries, particularly retirees and their families.
Taylor, however, said the actual goals are to create a more cost-efficient
medical system, improve patient care and enhance medical staff skills and combat
readiness. Hospitals slated to downsize to clinics or outpatient surgery centers
are at the Air Force Academy, Colo.;
MacDill Air Force Base, Fla.;
Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Ill.;
Scott Air Force Base, Ill.,
Andrews Air Force Base, Md.;
Keesler Air Force Base, Miss.;
Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, N.C.;
Fort Knox, Ky.; and
Fort Eustis, Va.
The
estimated cost savings is $62 million a year.Two medical centers also will lose
their inpatient mission but to nearby military facilities. Wilford Hall Medical
Center at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will send inpatients to Brooke Army
Medical Center, 16 miles away. Brooke will be renamed the San Antonio Regional
Medical Center. Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington will close.
Its patients will be treated at Bethesda Naval Medical Center, six miles away,
which will be renamed the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center at
Bethesda.Richard M. Dean, executive director of the Air Force Sergeants
Association, wrote to commission chairman Anthony Principi last month, urging
careful scrutiny of the rationale behind hospital downsizing.
Several hospitals are “heavily used,” he said, casting doubt on claims of excess
capacity. Retirees and their families, Dean said, “feel they are specifically
being targeted” and that BRAC 2005 is “a veiled way to push retirees, family
members and survivors out of the military health care system in order to avoid
funding for their health care and medicines.”
Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., whose district includes Keesler, said he is worried
about higher out-of-pocket costs for young military families.Whether treated in
military or civilian hospitals, active-duty family members enrolled in Tricare
Prime, the managed care network, pay no hospital charges. If not enrolled, they
pay $13.90 a day at a civilian hospital.Enrolled retirees and their dependents
under age 65 pay $11 a day.
But under-65 retirees who rely on Tricare Standard, the military’s
fee-for-service plan, pay $250 a day in civilian hospitals, or 25 percent of
negotiated charges plus 20 percent of negotiated professional fees, whichever is
less.Older retirees sent to civilian hospitals typically have Medicare and
Tricare for Life coverage, which covers almost all their costs.Tricare and
mail-order pharmacy benefits, said Gen. Gen. Taylor said, provide a cushion for
beneficiaries that didn’t exist in earlier BRAC rounds.
Still, in recommending downsizing, Taylor said, the group he led weighed the
impact on beneficiaries. Top priorities, however, were quality of care and cost
efficiency. The group found opportunities to improve both by cutting excess
capacity.Doctors are better able to maintain their skills at larger, busier
hospitals than at small hospitals like at Eustis, Cherry Point and Great Lakes
that have fewer than 10 inpatients a day.
Still, Taylor said, the number of patients treated by military physicians should
not change because the services intend to lease space at civilian hospitals and
continue the care.“Same care, different place,” Taylor said.But that is not
guaranteed, he added. In the end, each community will determine the level of
support provided in this way to military beneficiaries. T
To
comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111,
e-mail milupdate@aol.com or visit
militaryupdate.com
------------------------------------------------------
Contributed,
YNCS Don Harribine, USN(ret)