Not Anthrax Related, but has to do with bigger picture - Traci.....

[Guest guest]

March 28, 2000

Military retirees complain to

Warner about poor medical

coverage

By DALE EISMAN

© 2000, The Virginian-Pilot

NORFOLK -- He spent 37 proud years in uniform,

and when Myers got out of the Navy, he

figured it

would take care of him and his wife for the

rest of their

days.

That was back during the

administration, the

77-year-old Norfolk resident recalled Monday,

and it

was the last time he or his wife got any

medical service

from anyone connected to the Defense

Department.

Instead of the lifetime free care he said he

was promised

during his service days, Myers told a forum

hosted by

U.S. Sen. W. Warner, he has been forced

by the

limited availability of military doctors and

facilities to turn

to civilian providers.

He pays for insurance through Medicare's

``Part B'' and

buys supplemental coverage on the commercial

market,

Myers said. And he kicks himself for letting

his wife, a

career federal civil servant, opt out of the

less expensive

and more generous coverage she could have

gotten

through the Federal Employees Health Benefits

Plan

(FEHBP) when she retired.

Myers was among almost 200 military retirees

and

active duty members who brought long lists of

pointed

questions and complaints to Warner's two-hour

session

at the Norfolk Naval Station.

Most of the gripes came from retirees over 65,

some of

whom said they pay up to $5,000 per year for

the kind

of coverage they were promised.

Technically, those retirees are still eligible

for free care at

military clinics and hospitals such as the

Portsmouth

Naval Medical Center. But as a practical

matter, the

attention that military facilities must give

to active duty

members and families, and to retirees under

65, forces

many retirees to turn to civilian doctors and

insurers,

several told Warner.

He wants to help them, Warner insisted

repeatedly, but

they need to understand that the free care

they believe

they were promised is unaffordable in today's

military

budget.

Even the relatively modest reform bill he has

introduced,

with considerable bipartisan support on

Capitol Hill,

would dip into shipbuilding, aircraft

procurement and

other vital military readiness accounts to

come up with

$600 million annually in health care

improvements,

Warner said. The money simply isn't available

anywhere

else, he told them.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last

week

that the broader coverage sought by Myers and

thousands of other retirees would cost up to

$40 billion

between 2001 and 2010.

``I can't do it all at once,'' Warner told the

forum. ``So

bear with me on this.''

Myers wasn't buying it. At least not

completely.

When elected officials talk about the

unaffordability of

better coverage for retirees, he wonders how

they can

continue to provide coverage for retired

federal civil

servants, Myers told Warner. The answer, he

was told,

is that those civilian workers pay a premium

-- roughly

22 percent of the cost of coverage -- and

their

government agencies absorb the rest.

Myers said if he could get the same coverage

civilian

retirees receive, he'd happily pay the same

premium.

Pat Grillo, local president of The Retired

Officers

Association, said military retirees have

earned at least

that much. ``When was the last time a civil

servant ever

stood a mid-watch?'' he asked Warner. ``When

was the

last time a civil servant ever spent nine

months out on a

carrier when it was deployed?''

Though Warner insisted a complete fix of the

system isn't

affordable, nearly 300 House members and more

than

30 senators have signed on to a more

comprehensive

``Keep Our Promise to America's Military

Retirees Act''

introduced by Rep. Ronnie Shows, D-Miss.

Where Warner's bill expands a mail order

pharmacy

benefit now available to some retirees and

continues

experiments with FEHBP coverage in several

geographic areas, the Shows proposal would

extend that

coverage to all retirees over 65 and have the

Defense

Department pay the full cost of their

enrollment.

Mike Lazorchak, president of the Peninsula

chapter of

the retired officers group, said Warner and

other

lawmakers could force the Pentagon and

executive

branch to restructure their budgets to provide

such

coverage if they would simply write it into

federal law as

an ``entitlement.''

Such language would trigger lawsuits from

individuals

and groups complaining that they were getting

less

coverage than the law guaranteed, Warner said.

Reach Dale Eisman at (703) 913-9872 or

icemandc@...