The Kansas City Star

WASHINGTON – To slow its rising medical expenses, the Pentagon wants to triple the health insurance premiums for its 3 million military retirees and families.

Veterans and their advocates said the plan would create a financial hardship and violate the military’s pledge to volunteers who wear a uniform for 20 years or more.

“I think it breaks with the promise the Department of Defense has implied all these years, which is men and women who have dedicated their lives to service, who have fought wars and defended the nation, would get health care for life,” said retired Army Col. Michael Neer of Overland Park, Kan., president of the Kansas City area chapter of the Association of the U.S. Army.

The plan was tucked away amid the billions for new jet fighters and warships that the Pentagon requested this week in its proposed budget for fiscal year 2007.

William Winkenwerder Jr., assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said the increases were needed because the military’s share of the costs of retiree health benefits had risen 15 percent in the past decade while the premiums had not been raised in 10 years.

“Our fundamental purpose is to maintain and sustain a really outstanding health benefit for all of those we serve – active duty, families and retirees – by placing the program on a sound fiscal foundation,” Winkenwerder said. “That is it in a nutshell.”

The proposed increases would mean that the annual health insurance premium for a retired officer under age 65 with family coverage would more than triple – rising from $460 to $1,400 – by 2008. Premiums in the next two years for a retired officer with single coverage would jump from $230 to $700.

A retired noncommissioned officer younger than 65, who earns a smaller retirement benefit than an officer, would also take a hit. Family coverage, now $460 annually, would cost from $650 to $950 by 2008. Single coverage, now $230 annually, would cost $325 to $475 in two years.

After that, increases could come through higher co-pays, deductibles and enrollment fees, said Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith. But she said the net financial effect on retiree health benefits would be no higher than the average health insurance increase for federal workers.

Federal workers, whose health insurance premiums can vary from state to state, generally pay higher rates than the military.

Pentagon officials stressed that premiums for military retirees had not changed in 10 years.

“Then what?” countered Deirdre Holleman, legislative director for the Retired Enlisted Association. “You clobber someone because you didn’t do it earlier?”

Veterans advocates also questioned whether some of the additional revenue would be used for other Defense Department costs, such as weapons and equipment.

Steve Strobridge, government relations director for the Military Officers Association of America, said retirees served long careers and “earned health benefits by their service. Now you’ve got the government saying, “No. Your service and sacrifice wasn’t enough. We need more money.’ They are choosing to take it out of retirees’ pockets and future retirees’ pockets to fund weapons.”

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he hoped his panel would hold hearings on the proposed increases. Besides the effect on military retirees, Skelton worried about the effect on personnel wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and forced to leave the service.

“A young Marine gets wounded and is retired medically, and he has to come up with additional dollars,” Skelton said. “That’s going to work a hardship on him. He’s already paid a severe price, and now we’re asking more of him?”