Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.

Idea of Fewer TRICARE Prime Networks Riles Retirees

Your article, “TRICARE Eyes Fewer 'Prime' Networks” really hits home for retired military members who made retirement decisions based on healthcare program support.

While I agree that healthcare costs nationwide are a problem, this is one more case of the government and Defense Department bureaucrats attempting to control costs at the expense of military members when they can least afford it.

In the past, bureaucrats decided it would be cheaper to reduce military medical support personnel and facilities in lieu of contracted non-government support. Now they decide this cost is out of control, and want it reduced at the expense of those who dedicated their youthful years to our country.

G. BRIGHT
Via e-mail

While this proposed reduction in TRICARE Prime networks would not affect me, the effect on many thousands of low-income retirees would be devastating.

I understand the dilemma of escalating medical costs, but a proposal like this should be phased in over at least 10 years to permit retirees to plan for their future. Any action to do this immediately is unconscionable.

SPIKE BOWMAN
Silver Spring, Md.

Since retiring last month I’ve been relegated to TRICARE Standard because I live outside the 40-mile radius of a military base. It appears DoD is moving inexorably toward the day when all retirees will be on Standard as a cost-savings move.

WILLIAM M. KOHNKE
Colonel, USAF-Ret.
Elliston, Mont.

This is another in a long list of examples of how we are being let down from the promise of healthcare for life if we served our country for at least 20 years.

I live 275 miles from the nearest military reservation. Many of us chose to live in our hometowns, so of course we are going to be left out.  

Those responsible for such programs as TRICARE really demonstrate how little they appreciate our service. 

DAVE MANCHESTER
Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Wyoming

TRICARE Prime retirees in the south region would seem to be hit hardest by this initiative. Even living close to Jackson, Miss., our state capital, we have problems finding providers and specialists. For some services I have had to travel 60 miles one way to Vicksburg, next to the Louisiana border.

This doesn't make sense when Jackson is the state hub with many medical providers and hospitals. The closest military base for us is 100 miles to Meridian or 150 miles to Biloxi.

Financially it would not be a good move for my spouse and me to have to change to TRICARE Standard. I went into the military in 1976 when they told us our healthcare would be free for life. With my “civilian” husband now disabled and receiving no retirement, healthcare costs do make a difference.

WANDA MAGERS
USMC-Ret.
Via e-mail

It was a good article on the TRICARE Prime networks but it also was misleading regarding the catastrophic cap. You wrote that total out-of-pocket costs per family can't exceed $3000. That applies only to “covered” expenses. For people like me on TRICARE Standard, there are many things that aren't covered. It isn't difficult to go well over $3000 in expenses when docs don't accept TRICARE assignment, which is the real problem. Docs can charge anything they want, and we have to pay cash up front for service.

I probably have paid close to $6000 out of pocket this year alone. In past years it was not much different. When we ask the TRICARE Management Activity about costs that aren't “allowable” or are in addition to the “cap,” we learn they don't track how much families are spending.

Chiropractic care, which is a major benefit under Medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, isn't covered at all under TRICARE Standard. Neither are physicals. Dental care and eyeglasses are totally unsubsidized.

I went to find a new dermatologist the other day. The practice would see BC/BS patients and TRICARE for Life people on Medicare. But, to use their exact words, "the only insurance we won't accept is TRICARE.”

JOHN VANN
North Carolina

I am not directly affected since I live within a required Prime coverage area. But this is the exactly the sort of nickel and dime benefit reduction I would expect following the unsuccessful bid to triple retiree payments.

My expectation is that we'll see a consistent effort to reduce the value of TRICARE for non-active duty personnel, in insidious ways, until people lose faith in the program. It pains me to watch the government search for ways to undercut the value of TRICARE program, which is a back-door effort to drive the retirees out.

Retirees gave their prime income-earning lives to military service, at much lower pay than they would make for similarly demanding jobs on the civilian economy. Short-sighted bureaucrats see us now only as a superfluous dollar-sink.

BILL SWEARS
Chugiak, Ark.

Military retirement is not enough to live on. Now another shot in the wallet. There are plenty of other government programs to pull money from. Keep TRICARE Prime available regardless of where we live.

DAVE ELLIS
Longwood, Fla.

TFL RETIREES NOT IN PRIME

How would changes to the number of TRICARE Prime service areas affect retirees age 65 and older who use TRICARE for Life?

FRED PARSONS
Master Sergeant, USAF-Ret.

Fewer TRICARE Prime Service Areas would have no impact on TRICARE for Life beneficiaries because they do not rely on TRICARE provider networks. With TFL, Medicare is first payer and TRICARE becomes the wrap-around second payer.   – Tom Philpott

Letters may be edited for clarity or length.  Write to Military Forum, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA  20120-1111, send e-mail to militaryforum@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com

How do you feel about reducing 'Prime' networks?
Let your public officials know how you feel.