IMPACT OF OFFICER REDUC ON MEDICAL OFFICERS Ms. Byron. Chapter 5 of the March 1 Defense Officer requirements study provides an assessment of what would happen if additional officer reductions take place in the future. On page 49 of the report, the Army says that in fiscal year 1989/90, it would have to reduce 500 medical officers. Could you please explain why the Army has included these officers when existing language prohibits medical officers from being reduced under the 6 percent legislatively mandated reduction in officer strength? LTG Ono. Congressional language states that the Congress expects the Secretary of Defense to exempt medical personnel; however, these is no prohibition from such a reduction. While strongly supportive of Congressional concerns regarding the preservation of medical force capability, the Army, in order to preserve its deterrent and warfighting force, chose not to exclude 19% of its officer corps from consideration when facing reductions of the magnitude now planned for FY89-90. The point has been reached where medical facilities that primarily serve a retired population can no longer be justified at the expense of eliminating pilots, communicators, platoon leaders, or installation managers. It is important to emphasize that the Army will reduce only those medical authorizations not directly involved with patient care or performing functions directly related to their professional expertise. medical reductions will be taken from administrative and support areas. This was a very difficult decision but one that was made with a view of minimizing the adverse impact on readiness caused by such reductions. The Army will also consider other options such as closing a second health care facility and reducing health care personnel at other locations to help pay the officer reduction bill. Reduction in the direct care program will substantially increase the cost of CHAMPUS benefits. Any MILITARY MANPOWER Mr. Bustamante: Could you please explain what you mean in your recently submitted Defense Officer Requirements Study by the terms "validated" and "non-validated" and do the use of these terms imply that you evaluated all existing officer growth against established manpower standards? Mr. Green: As used in the Defense Officer Requirements Study invalid growth does not necessarily represent invalid requirements. "Valid" and "invalid" represent the ability or inability (after significant effort) to recapture historical reasons for growth of officers and, in some cases, the identification of officers doing work which could be performed by civilians. In the course of the study, Service manpower requirements determination systems were examined to assure that, where practicable, measurable standards were being developed and applied. PEACETIME MEDICAL CARE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, MILITARY PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 9, 1988. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Beverly B. Byron (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. STATEMENT OF HON. BEVERLY B. BYRON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND, CHAIRMAN, MILITARY PERSONNEL AND COMPENSATION SUBCOMMITTEE Mrs. BYRON. Good morning. Today, we are going to get down to the meat and potatoes of the subcommittee's focus on the past year, and that is the military medical care system. This is the tenth subcommittee medical care hearing during the 100th Congress; that must be some kind of a record. Medical care was also a primary topic during the personnel field hearings at Okinawa and also at Clark Air Force Base last November, and I can assure you that we got an earful from beneficiaries on the difficulty in obtaining medical care overseas. This is a repeat performance for our witnesses today. Secretary Mayer and the three surgeons general have appeared before us 2 weeks ago on our wartime medical readiness hearings, and we welcome all of you again today. A great deal has happened since our medical overview hearing at this time last year. The Department of Defense has recently signed contracts for the CHAMPUS reform initiative demonstration project in California and Hawaii and for the operational test and evaluation phase of the composite health care system acquisition. Several demonstration projects initiated by this committee, though not yet under way, are also in the pipeline. There are lessons to be learned from all of this, and I believe it is vitally important that the CHAMPUS reform, the catchment area, the fiscal intermediary demonstration projects, PRIMUS and NAVCARE, and other initiatives are fully and carefully evaluated. I commend to my colleagues' attention a recently published Congressional Budget Office report prepared at the subcommittee's requested entitled Reforming The Military Health Care System. It provides a useful framework for the evaluation process. I got the idea last week that the subcommittee would want to focus more on the level of care currently provided in military hospitals in general and in naval hospitals specifically. Therefore, in the interest of conserving time, I have asked the Congressional Budget Office to submit a statement for the record for this morning's hearings, and we will have their oral testimony at a subsequent hearing. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hale follows:] Statement for the Record Robert F. Hale National Security Division before the Subcommittee on Military Personnel and Compensation March 9, 1988 NOTICE This statement is not available for public release until it is delivered at 10:00 a.m. (EST), Wednesday, March 9, 1988. |