Legislation |  Armed services committees are racing the legislative clock.

Defense Bill Outlook Uncertain

Congressional leaders once again have found themselves between a rock and a hard place as the legislative (and election) year winds down.

With Congress scheduled to recess Oct. 8 for a few weeks of pre-election campaigning, leaders were behind on their legislative agenda and had many contentious authorization and appropriations bills left to be finished. As this column was being written in late September, leaders in the House and Senate armed services committees were struggling to complete work on the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Act before the recess, but it was far from certain that they would be successful. Even if defense bill conferees were able to work out the differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions by Oct. 8, many observers doubted there would be time for a final vote before the recess.

Hill leaders have acknowledged that Congress will have to reconvene for a lame duck session after the election. Some have speculated that action on the 12 remaining appropriations bills could take so long it might even spill past the lame duck session and into next year.

To ensure the government didn’t shut down for lack of funds when the new fiscal year began Oct. 1, Congress passed a continuing resolution that provides funding until Nov. 20. If the lame duck session doesn’t finish its work by that date, a new continuing resolution will be required. In most recent years, a series of such short-term resolutions has proven necessary.

With so much to do and so little time to do it, House and Senate leaders faced some tough choices about which issues would be given priority for immediate action, which would be handled before the lame-duck session adjourns, and which might have to be pushed into next year.

Leaders of the armed services committees were under the gun to get the Defense Authorization Act finished quickly because the Defense Appropriations Act was passed months ago. Having the funding “cart” passed before the authorizing “horse” for the third year in a row has been irksome to armed services leaders, to say the least. Normally, the appropriations act is passed later, because it’s supposed to fund the agenda approved in the authorization act.

The problem is that the Defense Authorization Act includes some contentious issues (such as the House’s proposal to delay the 2005 round of base closures until 2007, which has drawn a presidential veto threat) that many in Congress wouldn’t mind seeing deferred until after the election.

Other leaders have personal incentives not to let the appropriations process slip into next year. Some key committee and subcommittee chairmanships will change after the first of the year, and the outgoing chairmen won’t have the same clout to bring home the pork when someone else takes over their committees.

MOAA put out a special alert in late September urging members to call and e-mail their legislators to retain MOAA-supported Survivor Benefit Plan, concurrent receipt, and Guard and Reserve health care provisions in the final Defense Authorization Act in hopes that this key legislation will make the list for early action.

Guard/Reserve |  Survey shows that satisfaction is decreasing.

Some Re-Up Intentions Down

Anew Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) survey indicates high mobilization rates among reserve component members might have significant retention fallout.

The DMDC summary of the May 2004 survey said, “Over the past year, reserve component members’ reports of their intentions to stay in the military, satisfaction with the military way of life, personal readiness, and unit readiness have significantly declined.”

DMDCdrew that conclusion by comparing the May 2004 survey answers with data from identical questions posed in a May 2003 survey. The survey report was completed in July but became available only recently.

The sharpest decline in intention to remain in uniform was reported by members of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Respondents associated with these servicemembers—spouses, other family members, civilian job supervisors, and coworkers—reported a sharp decline in their support for participation in the Guard and Reserve.

DMDC found:

• Army reservists’ intention to stay in the military dropped 10 percentage points (to 59 percent) from May 2003 to May 2004;
• Army National Guard members’ intention to stay dropped to 62 percent, a decline of 8 percentage points in the same period;
• spouses’ “favorable” rating of service participation declined 15 percentage points to 60 percent;
• other family member support for continued military participation dropped 13 points to 68 percent, with the biggest declines in Army guardmembers’ and reservists’ families; and
• civilian job supervisors’ support dropped 10 percentage points to 59 percent on average, with declines in support for Army guardmembers down 14 percentage points to 66 percent and Army reservists employees down 17 points to 61 percent. Support for Air National Guard participation among civilian job supervisors dropped 10 percentage points to 61 percent.

The survey also revealed guardmembers and reservists are spending more time training for their missions. On average, reserve component members reported spending 84 days in a reserve pay status in the past year, up 37 days from the survey a year earlier. Reservists also spent 72 nights away from home, up 28 nights from the previous year. The survey documented increased stress, reduced satisfaction with the military way of life, and a drop in individual readiness to perform wartime jobs.

For some time, MOAA has expressed concern to DoD and Congress that over-reliance on Guard and Reserve forces to fulfill long-term active duty missions poses considerable risks for recruitment, retention, and readiness. But there’s no comfort in having those concerns confirmed. The real issue is what should be done about the situation.

The government at least must recognize that the increased sacrifices being demanded from Guard and Reserve forces require adjustments in the reserve component benefit package, starting with options to provide year-round health coverage continuity for Selected Reserve families.

For the longer term, we need a more realistic rebalancing of active duty and Guard and Reserve force levels and missions. It’s time to recognize that expecting guardmembers and reservists to spend one year out of five on active duty is incompatible with the historic assumption that these members will have full-time civilian careers.

Health Care |  Rising costs affect Part B premiums.

Medicare Rates Increasing in 2005

In September, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the Medicare premium, deductible, and coinsurance amounts that Medicare beneficiaries will pay beginning in January 2005.

The monthly premium paid by beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part B will increase by $11.60, or 17 percent, to $78.20, versus the $66.60 premium in 2004. Part B (Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance) covers physician services, outpatient hospital services, certain home health services, durable medical equipment, and other items. Part B outpatient deductibles (now $100 a year) will increase to $110 in 2005 and will be indexed to the average cost of Part B services for beneficiaries age 65 and older, beginning Jan. 1, 2006.

By law, the Part B premium increase is limited to 25 percent of the overall cost increase, with the federal government paying the other 75 percent.

No one likes cost increases, but Medicare officials say the added money will buy “improved access to physician services, new preventive and health screening benefits, more Medicare Advantage plan choices, and better benefits and/or lower out-of-pocket costs in many Medicare Advantage plans.”

As an added protection, Part B premium increases may not exceed the amount of any beneficiary’s Social Security cola. The great majority of beneficiaries will see Social Security colas that significantly exceed the Part B premium increases.

Medicare-eligible military retirees and family members will continue to avoid other out-of-pocket health cost increases, thanks to TRICARE For Life, which covers most expenses not covered by Medicare.

For more information about the Medicare increases, call (800) MEDICARE (633-4227) or, for hearing or speech impaired, (877) 486-2048.

Retired Pay |  Judge considers motion to dismiss.

USFSPA Lawsuit Awaits Decision

As reported in this past October’s “Washington Scene” (see “USFSPA Lawsuit Hearing Set,” page 20) a hearing was held in the Alexandria, Va., Federal District Court Sept. 10, 2004, on a government motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA) Legal Support Group (ULSG). ULSG filed the suit on behalf of 58 servicemembers and retirees alleging the former spouse law violates constitutional protections. Judge James Cacheris listened to opposing arguments and acknowledged “a lot of public interest in this issue.” He concluded that he would need more time before rendering his decision. The final decision could take anywhere from a few weeks to two months.

Most USFSPA observers doubt the lawsuit will yield a favorable court decision in the end but say publicity can only help raise the visibility of an issue that has languished in Congress.

To learn more about the USFSPA issue, visit www.moaa.org/legislative/usfspa.

NOAA |  NOAA Reorganization to be considered next year.

NOAA Corps Changes Command

The nation’s seventh and smallest uniformed service welcomed its new leaders in the historic Herbert Hoover Commerce Building Sept. 10. Rear Adm. Sam DeBow, NOAA, was appointed director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Commissioned Corps of officers and director of the Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Rear Adm. Rich Behn, NOAA, assumed responsibilities as the director of Marine and Aviation Operations Centers.

The NOAA Corps’ existence was under siege in the late 1990s, but MOAA and other advocates from The Military Coalition waged a campaign on Capitol Hill to educate Congress about the need to preserve its unique capabilities. The NOAA Corps’ ongoing contributions to homeland security, safety, and protection of the environment and increased support to the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard have ably demonstrated its value to the nation in the post-Sept. 11 world.

Today, the NOAA Corps has 278 commissioned officers, a fleet of 17 ships, and 13 aircraft. A new class of NOAA Corps officers entered basic officer training in August. The NOAA Commissioned Corps traces its roots to the former U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, which dates back to 1807 and President Thomas Jefferson. The NOAA Corps today provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines.

NOAA’s contributions have received enough attention in recent years that several key legislators have proposed simplifying the hodgepodge of authorities governing it, including giving NOAA leaders more control over their budget and possibly moving NOAA out of the Commerce Department to a more visible status. Serious consideration of such initiatives probably will have to wait until 2005.

Survivor Issues |  Military falls short in “high-risk” benefits comparison.

GAO Studies Survivor Benefits

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed a study comparing survivor benefits for servicemembers who die on active duty with those for federal, state, and city government employees killed in the line of duty. The FY 2004 National Defense Authorization Act called for the study as a result of congressional interest following media coverage of benefits paid to the families of Sept. 11 victims.

The GAO set out to determine how the benefits of servicemembers’ survivors differ from those provided to the survivors of other government workers. The study also looked at supplemental benefits provided specifically for federal, state, and local government workers in high-risk occupations—mainly law enforcement officers and firefighters.

The report found that military survivor benefits are higher than they are for survivors of average government workers, but less than benefits for survivors of high-risk government workers. The GAO did include the point that benefits eligibility is linked to line of duty determination and that this applies 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to military members but is more limited for other government workers. There were no recommendations in the report.

MOAA thinks military service is inherently a high-risk occupation and is more accurately described as a part of this grouping.

Interestingly, the report made no mention of a cut in survivor benefits at any age in any of the 61 civilian benefit programs examined by the GAO. Military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuitants, whose SBP benefits are cut by one-third at age 62, remain the only group of federal survivors subject to such a benefit reduction. Hopefully, Congress will change that in the FY 2005 Defense Authorization Act later this year.

Health Care |  Special open season is under way.

Part B Penalty Relief—Finally

One of MOAA’s significant legislative victories last year was a provision in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvements and Modernization Act of 2003 that relieves many TRICARE For Life (TFL) beneficiaries from stiff late-enrollment penalties for Medicare Part B. The statute waives late-enrollment penalties (as of January 2004) for TFL beneficiaries who enrolled in Medicare Part B between Jan. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2004. It also authorizes a special enrollment period in 2004 for TFL eligibles who have been holding off enrolling in Part B.

In September, the Defense Management Data Center (DMDC) sent letters to beneficiaries affected by the changes alerting them that they would receive a notice from the Social Security Administration outlining the special enrollment terms. Medicare-eligibles must be enrolled in Part B to have tfl as a second-payer to Medicare. The only exception to this requirement is that active duty family members who are eligible for Medicare (e.g., a disabled spouse or child) can wait until their active duty sponsor retires to enroll in Part B. This does not affect any beneficiaries who are not eligible for Medicare. All of those beneficiaries are eligible for TRICARE as first-payer.

Social Security letters went out in mid-September to the 48,000 military beneficiaries affected by the change.

One of the letters went to eligible beneficiaries who have not enrolled previously in Part B, letting them know that they’ve been enrolled automatically in Part B effective Sept. 1, 2004. For this group, Part B premiums ($66.60 a month) started being deducted from their Social Security checks Sept. 1. The letter also explained that the beneficiary can choose to backdate the Part B enrollment to a month earlier in 2004 or choose to opt out of Part B and have the new premium deduction refunded.

Beneficiaries have 60 days to make one of these elections. Those who elect an earlier start date will have to pay the past months’ premium amount in a lump sum, but they’ll also be able to file Medicare claims for qualifying health care expenses incurred in those months. If necessary, payment options may be arranged through local Social Security offices (or at a U.S. Foreign Service Post for eligibles residing outside the United States, Canada, or Mexico).

A separate letter went to those beneficiaries who have enrolled in Part B since Jan. 1, 2001, and who have been paying the late enrollment penalty. It explained that their Part B premium was reduced to the normal $66.60 a month as of Sept. 1 and that they will get a separate reimbursement check soon for any late enrollment penalties paid since January 2004.

For more information regarding Medicare Part B penalty relief, affected beneficiaries should call Wisconsin Physicians Services at (866) 773-0404 or go online to visit the TRICARE Web site at www.tricare.osd.mil.