Military Officer - April 2008 - (Page 39) washingtonscene cancer, emphysema, heart attacks, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. If you knew all these things, and it was your money TRICARE was spending in treating these conditions, what kinds of changes would you be looking for in military health programs? Here’s a helpful hint: A study found that introduction of a $10 copayment requirement significantly reduced the number of women seeking annual mammograms. MOAA thinks it’s time to get serious about preventative care. For too long, the response of administration officials to rising health costs has been to stick military beneficiaries with a larger share of the bill, as if the increasing costs were their fault. But TRICARE simply isn’t built to promote healthy lifestyles. At a time when private-sector studies have shown the way to promote adherence to medication guidelines is to reduce copayments for drugs that treat chronic conditions like diabetes, the administration plan is to double or even quintuple pharmacy copayments. Doctors say the No. 1 thing a smoker can do to reduce his or her long-term health problems is stop smoking. But TRICARE doesn’t even authorize coverage for smoking cessation products and services. The medical world encourages shingles and other vaccinations, colonoscopies, mammograms, and more for prevention and early identification of serious medical conditions — but TRICARE charges beneficiaries a copayment for those services and maybe even sticks them with the whole cost if they haven’t yet met their annual deductible. If they’re really serious about reducing long-term TRICARE costs, one of the first things the Pentagon and Congress need to do is stop charging beneficiaries for seeking preventative care that serves exactly that purpose. And if that’s not done, they should think twice before claiming that rising costs are such a big concern to them. In-State Tuition Fix In Works Bill aimed at military dependents. T he path to higher learning for military children soon might be less costly thanks to action by the House of Representatives in early February that would establish in-state tuition eligibility for families of servicemembers assigned in a state — and continue eligibility even if later reassigned. Some military parents see their children’s college tuition skyrocket when they’re reassigned and lose in-state tuition eligibility. The House of Representatives voted to amend the Higher Education Reauthorization Act (H.R. 4137) to require in-state tuition rates at public universities for military members, their spouses, and dependent children stationed or domiciled there. Most states already provide in-state tuition for military families, but onethird of states require reversion to outof-state rates when a military parent is transferred out of the state. The action, championed by Rep. Chet Edwards (DTexas) and Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), would try to stop that by continuing instate rates once they’re approved for a military student. “Granting military children the ability to pay in-state tuition rates throughout the country means many will no longer have to give up their education goals when their parents’ military orders come in,” Edwards said. “Part of keeping our promise to our [servicemember] is making sure that their children are not penalized simply because their parents have answered their country’s call to serve.” As this issue went to press, the Senate was expected to consider the changes. APRIL 2008 Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) MILITARY OFFICER 39
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.