IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/defpea/v29y2018i1p6-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of an Alternative Military Healthcare Benefit Design

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah K. Burns
  • Philip M. Lurie
  • John E. Whitley

Abstract

The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission was established by the Congress in 2013 to perform a systematic review of military compensation to address rising costs and other trends. Their recommendation for reforming the TRICARE health care program was sweeping, and differed greatly from earlier proposals that focused on increasing beneficiary cost shares. Specifically, the commission proposed overhauling the current benefit delivery model and replacing it with a premium-based insurance model offering a menu of DoD-sponsored private health plans. The analysis presented here is based on work that supported the commission by estimating the budgetary impact of its proposed reforms. Results indicate that movement towards the premium-based model would produce an annual budgetary cost savings in the $2 billion to $4 billion range, with a best savings estimate of $3.2 billion.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah K. Burns & Philip M. Lurie & John E. Whitley, 2018. "Analysis of an Alternative Military Healthcare Benefit Design," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 6-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:29:y:2018:i:1:p:6-23
    DOI: 10.1080/10242694.2017.1349302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10242694.2017.1349302
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10242694.2017.1349302?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Congressional Budget Office, 2013. "Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 to 2023," Reports 44715, Congressional Budget Office.
    2. Congressional Budget Office, 2013. "Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 to 2023," Reports 44715, Congressional Budget Office.
    3. Congressional Budget Office, 2013. "Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 to 2023," Reports 44715, Congressional Budget Office.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gaudette Étienne & Tysinger Bryan & Cassil Alwyn & Goldman Dana P., 2015. "Health and Health Care of Medicare Beneficiaries in 2030," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(2), pages 75-96, December.
    2. Donald B. Marron & Eric J. Toder, 2014. "Tax Policy Issues in Designing a Carbon Tax," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 563-568, May.
    3. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2018. "The Impact of Removing Tax Preferences for US Oil and Natural Gas Production: Measuring Tax Subsidies by an Equivalent Price Impact Approach," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1-37.
    4. Jung, Juergen & Tran, Chung & Chambers, Matthew, 2017. "Aging and health financing in the U.S.: A general equilibrium analysis," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 428-462.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:defpea:v:29:y:2018:i:1:p:6-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GDPE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.