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

Better Staffing Will Improve Hospital Care, Lower Costs

Thanks for an insightful report on [the Joint Task Force National Capital Region Medical] another matter affecting military community members.

I was struck by one phrase you used and, in substance, have seen many times before:  "As military medical personnel are sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, fewer patients at home can get care in military facilities. But productivity can be improved through tighter oversight."

Those two sentences are not compatible.

"Fewer patients" and "improved productivity" do not go hand in hand. I've been at military medical facilities for the past seven-plus years and any "under-productivity" is due to medical personnel not being assigned where needed, as well as to a general overall shortage.

What drives the ever-reducing medical care availability is under funding. It is deliberate under funding so that patients can be sent to TRICARE civilian support care which is allegedly less expensive than using military medical personnel.  However, such care takes longer to get and always costs the patient something.

The decisions on how much and where military medical resources are used is usually made by non-medical, non-military persons who have no obligation to "do no harm."

ROBERT D. DOLEMAN
Ft. Sill, Okla.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS

From the standpoint of a patient in a VA system using its computerized health records, I find my doctor spends well over 75 percent of his or her time fiddling with the computer and never having time to elicit history, new complaints or review medications thoroughly, much less actually perform a physical examination.

Diagnoses are rendered via laboratory tests or x-rays instead of having time to poke, prod, feel, listen and put together history and complaints with findings to arrive at a diagnosis, discuss findings and agree on treatment. Dam' shame.

The Defense Department's AHLTA system too sounds like something dreamed up by non-physicians determined to take personal contact completely out of the medical relationship and replace it with cold, hard facts…as interpreted by a computer program.

ROBERT H. 'DOC BOB' MEADERS, MD

Captain, Medical Corps, USN-Ret
Operation Helmet 
Montgomery, Texas

My number one concern with electronic health records is patient's privacy rights. With such a system like AHLTA that is poorly received and burdened with problems, I cannot foresee any guarantee of patient's rights to confidentiality.

PETER CARMINATI
Staff Sergeant, USAF-Ret.
Stonington, Maine

UNFAIR DELAY

Brothers and sisters of the National Guard and Reserves should not have to wait until age 60 to receive retirement.  I have friends who served careers as weekend warriors and died before age 60. Their family members received zero for their 20 to 30 years of service.

It is not right that Guard and Reserve members who served beside active military in Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be penalized by having to wait until 60 to get retired pay and benefits.

I served over 32 years in the Air National Guard.  I am classified as retired but won't be paid immediately after leaving service like active duty retirees. We should not be forced to wait 10 to 20 years. We deserve a better retirement.

JOHN T. CLAY
Chief Master Sergeant, ANG-Ret.
Via e-mail
 

CREDIT UNION HIT

Your column about credit unions fighting a special $5 billion assessment from regulators to bail out their corporate credit union absolutely infuriates me, a 30-year credit union member and retired military officer.

While my confidence in Navy Federal and Pentagon Federal Credit Unions remains strong, the reach down from the corporate credit unions will, in my opinion, be felt across the board in higher interest rates for mortgages and loans and lower interest rates on savings.

It would be in the best interest of the individual credit union boards to rally membership in writing members of Congress to deliver a resounding notice on this unacceptable and untenable assessment forced on otherwise sound financial organizations.

MORDAUNT P. BRABNER
Commander, USN-Ret.
Via e-mail 
 

BACK OF THE LINE

Do you believe that military retirees with VA disability ratings below 50 percent will ever have the VA offset restored to their retirement retainers?

 I know what the current law is. I know who's eligible and who's not. I'm on the edge. I'm at 40 percent.  I'm not getting any younger.

Is there anyone out there on our side?

KEITH TOTZKE
USN Ret.
Port Orchard, WA

Efforts to lift the ban on current receipt of both military retired pay and VA disability compensation have resulted in a steady stream of victories over the last seven or eight years.  Advocates for disabled retirees continue to press Congress to lift the ban entirely.  But it's a costly enterprise and lawmakers have chosen to address it incrementally.  They started with career military retirees having combat-related injuries, went next to the most seriously disabled career retirees (50 percent and higher), followed by veterans forced to retire short of 20 years because of combat-related conditions.

In time, I believe, Congress will eliminate the concurrent receipt ban entirely.  The debate no longer revolves around the equity of such a move but only the affordability. -- 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.