ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Defense Department

Health

The Pentagon Blames Insurance Giant For Military Families’ Health Care Delays

(Credit: Go Army)

Pentagon officials circulated a memo to military leaders on Thursday blaming delays to military families’ health care referrals on UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest private insurance provider. The delays led the Defense Department to take the unusual step of granting temporary waivers “so the plan’s members in the western region could get specialty care without UnitedHealth’s authorization and not incur penalties.”

In April, UnitedHealth took over a contract that serves beneficiaries enrolled in the Tricare Prime program in the western United States. Tricare ensures that nearly 10 million active duty personnel, retirees, reservists and their families have access to health benefits; the Tricare Prime program itself is a subset of that entitlement, pairing beneficiaries with “a primary-care manager responsible for referring patients to specialists for necessary services.”

However, those specialist referrals are contingent on the insurance provider’s — in this case, UnitedHealth’s — approval. The trouble is, the insurer has been falling behind in approving those referrals, leaving many military families in limbo while waiting for their care. And while UnitedHealth spokespeople claim they were simply overwhelmed by an unexpected number of referral requests, others argue that they were aware that this exact problem would arise, and should have been prepared to deal with it:

The delays are occurring because UnitedHealth has received requests for referrals and care authorizations that “far exceeded the norms” since it took over the contract, said Bruce Jasurda, a spokesman for the company.

“The increased volume was driven largely by people asking whether previously authorized referrals and authorizations were still valid, resulting in large numbers of duplicate referrals in the system,” Jasurda said in a phone interview. The company “understands the issues we need to improve on, and we are taking aggressive action.” [...]

U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican, said in a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel yesterday that health-care providers in his state are facing “unexpected and dramatic reductions in their workload” because of the backlog in referrals. He also blamed UnitedHealth.

“They claimed to be aware of the problem and doing what was necessary to get on top of the problem,” Lamborn said in a phone interview. “There seemed to be a disconnect from the reality on the ground.”

Specialty care encompasses a broad swath of medical services, ranging from urgent care surgical procedures to treating autoimmune disorders — so UnitedHealth’s delays were, in essence, preventing military families from getting anything other than primary and preventative care until Thursday’s Pentagon waiver was issued. That’s especially problematic considering that many military families’ health needs fall outside the realm of primary care.

And when it comes to Tricare, specifically, beneficiaries certainly don’t need additional hassles from insurance companies. The program’s outsized spending on retiree — as opposed to active — enrollees’ benefits has led Pentagon officials to call for raising veterans’ out-of-pocket health costs. So far, Congress has found such a proposal too politically unpalatable to adopt — but given the reality of the numbers, their resistance may not last much longer.

Security

Report: The Pentagon Must Cut Spending

F-35

President Obama’s Pentagon budget proposal exceed’s last year’s request by $1 billion and CAP defense budget experts Lawrence Korb, Alex Rothman and Max Hoffman think the White House can do better. “This is a missed opportunity to realign our national security priorities,” they write in a new brief, adding, “Unnecessary defense spending does not make us safer; it diverts resources away from other critical investments here at home that create jobs and rebuild our infrastructure.”

The report notes that in 2011, the United States spent more on its military than the next 13 biggest spenders combined (a majority of those nations are U.S. allies) and note that Obama’s defense budget proposal maintains an “unwillingness to return military spending to prewar levels or historical norms in real terms.”

The authors agree with the Obama administration that sequestration is not the best way to reduce military spending, and note that winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — an era of unprecedented levels of defense spending — provide an opportunity to bring down U.S. military spending, as their graphic illustrates:

CAP released a report last year outlining some spending reductions that are not only politically feasible but also maintain American national security and military dominance:

  • Eliminate the Navy’s purchase of the troubled over-budget F-35C jet and instead purchase the effective and affordable F/A-18E/F jet. Savings: about $17 billion over 10 years.
  • Reduce the size of our ground forces to their prewar levels. Savings: about $16 billion over the next decade.

  • Reform the Pentagon’s outdated health care programs. Savings: roughly $40 billion over 10 years.
  • Reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons to 1,100 by 2022 from about 1,700 today. Savings: more than $28 billion over 10 years.
  • “The United States faces no existential threats or rival superpowers,” Korb, Rothman and Hoffman write. “We should not be spending as much on defense as we did during the Cold War. Returning the defense budget to historical norms will force the Pentagon to better manage its affairs and will help ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly.”

    Health

    Overwhelmed By Rising Health Costs, Pentagon Pushes For More Out-Of-Pocket Fees For Veterans

    The rising cost of health care in the United States has prompted some of the nation’s most contentious policy debates, with spending on entitlements for the poor and elderly a constant source of tension between lawmakers. One policy that has enjoyed widespread support in Congress is the TRICARE system, which ensures that nearly 10 million active duty personnel, retirees, reservists and their families have access to generous health benefits. But there are currently far more retirees than active duty personnel receiving benefits through TRICARE. And with health costs continuing their upward trajectory, providing these expensive benefits has become something of an albatross around the Pentagon’s neck — setting up an unusual showdown between civilian leaders looking to tame costs through higher fees and deductibles on one side, and congressional lawmakers from both parties who are wary to shift costs onto retired service members on the other.

    As Military Times reports, the Pentagon’s push for implementing higher fees goes beyond party lines. The last three Defense secretaries have pushed for enrollment fees on Medicare-eligible beneficiaries and higher enrollment fees that are pegged to national health care inflation — rather than the more generous metric currently endorsed by Congress — for working-age retirees. President Obama is expected to include those requests, as well as requests for higher deductibles on working-age retirees, in his budget on Wednesday.

    Civilian leaders have not minced words about what might happen without drastic changes to the way that the Defense Department provides these benefits:

    The greatest fiscal threat to the military is not declining budgets, [Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel] warned, but rather “the growing imbalance in where that money is being spent internally.” In other words, money dedicated to health care or benefits is money that’s not spent on preparing troops for battle or pilots for missions.

    Hagel echoed his predecessors, Leon Panetta, who said personnel costs had put the Pentagon on an “unsustainable course,” and former Pentagon chief Robert Gates, who bluntly said in 2009 that “health care is eating the department alive.”

    In his speech last week, Hagel quoted retired Adm. Gary Roughead, the former Navy chief, who offered a devastating assessment of the future Pentagon.

    Without changes, Roughead said, the department could be transformed from “an agency protecting the nation to an agency administering benefit programs, capable of buying only limited quantities of irrelevant and overpriced equipment.”

    TRICARE benefits are extraordinarily generous. As the Times notes, the annual enrollment fee for working-age TRICARE beneficiaries is significantly lower than it is for other federal employees, and the program currently imposes no deductibles on beneficiaries or their dependents. That’s a truly unique deal in an era of high-deductible health plans and blatant cost-shifting by employers onto their workers.

    Read more

    Health

    Military Leaders: Sequester Cuts Will Prevent Veterans From Accessing Mental Health Services

    During a hearing before the House Military Personnel Subcommittee Wednesday, American civilian and military leaders issued lawmakers a stark warning: federal budget cutbacks under the so-called “sequester” will leave veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental illnesses without access to the health care that they desperately need.

    The sequester cuts will force multiple governmental departments to cut back on programs or eliminate them entirely. Charged with taking care of the staggering percentage of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans with PTSD, the Defense Department has had to increasingly rely on civilian mental health specialists to address the backlog. In fact, out of the 2,118 psychologists, 809 psychiatrists, and 2,533 social workers now employed by the military — a substantial increase over past years — over half are civilians. But under sequestration, the Department has been bracing for massive cuts to this civilian workforce, and is preparing to send notices to “more than 800,000 Defense Department civilian workers telling them that once-a-week unpaid furloughs will begin in April and continue for 22 weeks.”

    As Military.com reports, that is particularly problematic for the military when it comes to these civilian mental health specialists because “they have options to seek employment elsewhere” and might be tempted to do so seeing as they are not exempt from the furloughs:

    Lt. Gen. Patricia Horoho, the Army’s surgeon general, has lobbied to exempt the mental health specialists from furloughs to retain them for treating PTSD. The Pentagon has said that 20 percent of the civilian workforce will be exempt from furloughs. However, it did not look like the mental health specialists would receive that exemption, said Col. Rebecca Porter, the chief of Behavioral Health in Horoho’s office.

    “We value these individuals greatly,” Porter said of the mental health workers. “If they start to go out the door, it’s going to take a lot longer for us to rebuild that” mental health workforce, Porter told a defense writers breakfast Tuesday.

    “We have in the past offered retention bonuses, but that’s not specifically on the table now,” said Porter, a former military police officer and now a clinical psychologist whose main task is treating PTSD in the Army.

    Her comments echoed those of Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, who told a Senate hearing last month that “before sequestration, we allocated the dollars and positions to increase military and civilian mental health providers.”

    “The problem is there are not enough out there,” Odierno said. “Now what’s going to happen is we’re going to have to reduce the number we already have.”

    The officials’ testimony is a clear-cut demonstration of the real world consequences brought on by budget cuts that lawmakers and the media tend to discuss in rather shallow terms. Budget cuts to military health care programs are also particularly cruel considering the already-massive backlog of over 900,000 veterans’ benefit claims — a problem that will be exacerbated as more military personnel return home from the waning Afghan war. Those veterans will already be plagued by poverty and a bleak economic outlook when they return home — and under sequestration, their mental health care outlook is even worse.

    Security

    In First Speech As Defense Secretary, Hagel Says U.S. Should Use Its Power ‘Wisely’

    (Photo: DOD)

    Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a speech before a gathering of Defense Department officials and military brass on Wednesday that the U.S. should remain engaged with its allies around the world and “reach out and find new alliances” based on common interests.

    Hagel also told the group that he is “proud” to be leading the Pentagon, and that “it’s a great honor” and “a privilege” to join DOD. “You’re not joining my team,” Hagel said in the speech, “I am joining your team.”

    “If there’s anything American has stood for more than any one thing, is that we are a force for good,” the newly minted Pentagon chief said later. “We’ve made mistakes. We’ll continue to make mistakes but we are a force for good.”

    He also pledged to see that every Department of Defense employee is treated equally and without discrimination:

    HAGEL: It’s also important for you to know that I am committed to … assuring that every person in the Department of Defense associated with the Department of Defense, civilian or military, is absolutely treated fairly, honestly, equal benefits, everything that each of you do should be dealt with on a fair and equal basis. No discrimination anywhere in any way.

    The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart writes today that the fight over Hagel’s nomination and confirmation was really about “the struggle over the Bush doctrine” and the fact that Hagel has challenged the notion that military force should be used to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

    Hagel seemed to touch on this theme during his speech today, arguing that the United States should use its power to remained engaged in the world. “How we apply our power is particularly important,” he said, adding, “That engagement in the world should be done wisely.” Watch the clip:

    Security

    BREAKING: Senate Confirms Chuck Hagel As The Next Secretary Of Defense

    (Photo: The Washington Post)

    The Senate on Tuesday voted to confirm Chuck Hagel to become the next Secretary of Defense, just hours after the upper chamber of Congress broke the Republican-led filibuster of Hagel’s nomination.

    The final vote was 58-41. Four Republicans joined the Democrats in voting for Hagel: Sens. Mike Johanns (NE), Thad Cochran (MS), Richard Shelby (AL), and in a surprise move, Rand Paul (KY), who voted against cloture earlier today. Eighteen Republicans supported the cloture motion to bring about the up-or-down vote this afternoon.

    Once sworn in, Hagel will most likely first face the looming budget crisis, particularly sequestration, which is set to kick in at the end of the week absent any deal. Hagel will also face other pressing issues like the coming drawdown in Afghanistan and the focus on Asia, none of which were debated much during the run-up to Hagel’s confirmation vote.

    The Republicans and their neocon allies threw everything they could — however false, misleading, petty or shameless — at Hagel to try to prevent him from leading the Pentagon and TPM’s Josh Marshall may have stumbled across one of the main reasons why. “The real driver of this drama is that it signals a real closing of the door on the Bush era,” he wrote last week.

    Security

    Poll: Voters Prefer Military Spending Cuts To Reduce The Deficit

    A new poll released by the Hill newspaper has found that more voters favor slashing military spending versus cutting spending on domestic programs like Medicare and Social Security in order to reduce the debt and deficit.

    While the HIll says the poll results show that American voters think reducing the debt is more important than maintaining domestic and military spending at current levels, they prefer to see the cuts come from the Pentagon:

    Forty-nine percent of respondents said they would support cutting military spending, while just 23 percent said they would support slashing Social Security and Medicare. An overwhelming majority, 69 percent, said they would oppose cuts to social programs.

    Moreover, 37 percent said the U.S. spends “too much” on the military, 38 percent said “just the right amount” and only 18 percent said “too little.”

    The new poll results come as the sequester cuts — totaling $85 billion this year alone — are set to take effect on March 1 if Congress and the White House can’t get a deal done to avert them.

    But as far as the sequester’s military reductions are concerned, the arbitrary automatic cuts probably aren’t the best way to reduce the Pentagon’s bloated budget (there are alternatives). But, as CAP Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb noted recently, the military spending sequester would bring DOD’s baseline budget “would return to the fiscal year 2007.”

    Even former Defense officials led by former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen agree. “In previous eras, increased defense spending may have been required to maintain security,” the group wrote in a joint statement in December. “That is no longer the case. In our judgment, advances in technological capabilities and the changing nature of threats make it possible, if properly done, to spend less on a more intelligent, efficient and contemporary defense strategy that maintains our military superiority and national security.”

    Security

    Media Rips GOP’s Hagel Obstruction: ‘They Hit A New Low’

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is opposing Hagel as political payback

    The Senate GOP made history on Thursday, successfully filibustering a president’s choice for Defense Secretary. Senate Republicans — with the exception of a few — voted against a cloture motion yesterday afternoon, thus preventing an up-or-down vote to approve their former colleague Chuck Hagel and delaying his confirmation until after the President’s Day recess.

    In a scathing editorial, the New York Times blasted the Republicans, saying “they hit a new low” in their four-year campaign of obstructing anything President Obama wants to get done:

    The Republicans claimed they needed more information about Mr. Hagel, though he answered every question at his confirmation hearing and provided more paperwork than usual. As a former Republican senator, in fact, Mr. Hagel is better known to his old colleagues than most nominees. A delay of another week or two, which some members said they were seeking, is not going to change anyone’s opinion.

    Other media figures piled on as well. “It looks terrible to people overseas,” TIME Magazine’s Mark Thompson said on PBS’s Newshour, adding, “you want a secretary of defense, especially when you’re at war and especially when you have these other issues hanging over your head. No good can come from this ambiguity that we’re currently facing.”

    MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, himself a former Republican congressman, was particularly upset with the Senate Republicans’ hold up of Hagel, expressing disbelief at Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) admission on Thursday that he’s opposing Hagel because Hagel broke with the GOP on the Iraq war: “They don’t have a Secretary of Defense running the Pentagon because of a 6 or 7 year old grudge? Really?”:

    SCARBOROUGH: For the 66,000 troops currently serving in Afghanistan and for their families all across America this morning, I’m sure they’re glad to know that we don’t have a Secretary of Defense in place and we’re not going to because of 7-year-old political grudge. Forget about sequestration, forget about all the cuts, there are men and women on the ground in Afghanistan today fighting and possibly dying for this country and they don’t have a Secretary of Defense running the Pentagon because of a 6 or 7 year old grudge? Really? Is that how small we’ve become? And because this guy is disagreeable? …. It’s sort of frightening isn’t it?

    “This filibuster, with the recess, permits the opposition to keep upping the ante,” said NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell in the same segment, adding, “Every time Chuck Hagel turns a corner, they’re throwing something else at him. Benghazi wasn’t even on his watch.” Watch the clip:

    Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    “The impressive thing about the anti-Hagel effort is how politically tone-deaf it is,” writes the American Conservative’s Daniel Larison. It’s not just that their opposition is misguided, but they stand to gain nothing from it. No one outside of a small core of hard-liners sympathizes with what Senate Republicans are doing.”

    “The Constitution says the Senate must give or withhold its consent to presidential nominees,” the Times notes, “it does not give minority blocs the power to determine the outcome.”

    Update

    Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum observes:

    I bow to no one in my belief that Republicans have gone off the rails in their opposition to Hagel. I don’t buy for a second the argument that, hey, maybe Republicans have some legitimate questions about Hagel’s role in drone warfare. There might be legitimate questions about his role, but the actual Senate hearings have made crystal clear that among Republican ranks, they couldn’t care less about that. They love drones. They’ve asked no substantive questions about that at all. It’s all Israel, Benghazi, Israel, Iran, Israel, “Friends of Hamas,” and Israel.

    Security

    Senate Majority Leader Says ‘It’s Tragic’ GOP Is Filibustering Hagel

    Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he has scheduled a cloture vote for Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary for Friday morning.

    In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, Reid lambasted Republicans for their “unprecedented” obstruction on Hagel (this is the first time in the history of the United States that a president’s nominee for Defense Secretary has been filibustered). “It’s shocking,” Reid said, “that my Republican colleagues would leave the country without a fully empowered Secretary of Defense during all the things that we have going on in the world including a war”:

    REID: I have heard speeches from the other side a lot saying, “you know the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants.” He has the support of this body, a majority vote in this body in this democracy. We are a nation, Mr. President, at war. We are whether we like it or not the world’s indispensable leader. We’re it. For the sake of our national security it’s time to put aside this political theatre and that’s what it is.

    People are worried about primary elections. We know how the Tea Party goes after Republicans when they aren’t conservative enough. Is that something they need to have on their resume? “I filibustered one of the president’s nominees.” Is that what they want? The filibuster of Senator Hagel’s confirmation is unprecedented. I repeat. Not a single nominee for Secretary of Defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered. Never, ever!

    “We need a Secretary of Defense,” Reid said later. “It’s tragic that they’ve decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. It is really unfortunate.” Watch the clip:

    Senate Democratic aides are reportedly saying they may not have enough votes to break the filibuster while some are reporting that there are enough votes for cloture, but the actual vote on Hagel’s nomination won’t take place until after the recess.

    However, NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan. “We need our new defense secretary to be there,” a White House spokesperson said today, calling the GOP obstruction “unconscionable” and adding, “It does not send a favorable signal for the Republicans of the U.S. senate to delay a vote. …It’s difficult to explain to our allies why that’s happening.”

    Video transcript:

    Read more

    Security

    Senate Majority Leader Scolds GOP For Unprecedented Hagel Obstruction: ‘What A Shame’

    Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) today filed a cloture motion on Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be the next Defense Secretary, saying he was forced to file the motion — which effectively means that 60 votes will be required for an up or down vote on Hagel — because Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) and other Republicans “aren’t willing to consider” the Nebraska Republican’s nomination.

    “This is the first time in the history of our country that a presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense has been filibustered,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “What a shame.” Watch the clip:

    The cloture vote is scheduled for Friday and It’s unlikely Senate Republicans will be able to derail Hagel’s confirmation. At this point, their obstruction and delay appears to be just that: obstruction and delay.

    But it’s worth remembering who wants Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense — former top military and defense officials from both parties, 50 former U.S. ambassadors, veterans and military families, a bipartisan group of former national security advisers, and the country’s most prominent newspapers and journalists — and who doesn’t: James Inhofe, Ted Cruz, Bill Kristol, Rick Santorum, Elliott Abrams, and Jennifer Rubin. You do the math.

    Older

    Switch to Mobile
    ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

    Sign Up