TRICARE Overseas

Proposed TRICARE for Life Changes

“Implement Enrollment Fee for New Tricare-for-Life Beneficiaries and Increase Pharmacy Co-Pays — In conjunction with the TRICARE Plan changes, the Department again seeks to adjust pharmacy co-pay structures and establish a modest annual enrollment fee for the TRICARE-for-Life coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees.

 TRICARE-for-Life Annual Family (Two Individuals) Enrollment Fees*

% of Gross Retired Pay (GRP)

TRICARE chart

* Individual fees are 50 percent of family fees (e.g., 1 percent of GRP in FY 2020 and after).  Ceilings indexed to retiree National Health Expenditures (NHE) per capita after FY 2020.”

NAUS Note:  Along with members of The Military Coalition, NAUS opposes any enrollment fee for TRICARE-for-Life.  TFL is an earned entitlement.  Service members who qualify for TFL have more than earned the benefit due to their multiple years of service and an additional fee for a benefit most were promised is an insult.  We owe these men and women a large debt of gratitude for their service.  We will fight any enrollment fee.

  1. M. Pilgrim
    M. PilgrimFeb 24, 2016

    TFL fee proposals are an insult. Congress and DO need to honor the promises made to career service members.

    Once again they are telling us to bend over.

  2. Robert Mobley
    Robert MobleyFeb 24, 2016

    During my 25 years of service, I was promised lifetime medical care for me and my spouse! Now the country I faithfully served is going back on their promise! On top of this, Ihey want to means test us! I worked myself through the enlisted ranks while taking college courses at night! After eight years enlisted time, I was selected for a commissing program! My reward for busting my ass to take on ever increasing responsibilities is to pay more for my promised benefits! You are soon going to learn that actions like this will destroy the all volunteer force! The military should be the last people who should pay the debt created by wars decided by our elected officials! The draft won’t solve your retention and recruiting problems since it takes more than two years to train recruits on advanced weapons systems! Besides, what you are doing will not leave anyone in the military to even train new recruits!

    • Tommy Campbell
      Tommy CampbellFeb 25, 2016

      Mr. Mobley,
      NAUS concurs with your opinion on proposals to add “Participation Fees” to participate in TRICARE for Life. Those of us in TFL already pay an extra monthly fee to be in Medicare Part B. As you know there are many military retirees who were promised lifetime healthcare and dental care for ourselves and our families. Unfortunately the Supreme Court while agreeing that we were promised those benefits, they concluded that the various recruiting commands that promised were not in a position to do that. Only Congress could and they had not done so. The decision said that Congress should make this right. I guess they think TFL did that and now they want to, once again, change the rules after we have already done our service. NAUS will vigorously fight, along with our colleagues in The Military Coalition, any attempts at adding more fees to TFL. Make sure you let your elected official know how you feel!
      Mike Plumer
      Deputy Legislative Director/Veterans Affairs
      National Association for Uniformed Services

      • Chuck DuFault
        Chuck DuFaultApr 25, 2016

        Mr Plumer, those promised benefits were not JUST recruiting commands; but supervisors, first sergeants, commanders, and garrison career advisor/retention NCOs who followed programmed scripts up to at least 1995.

        In short, the military services took no action to ensure those above quit promising these benefits after the law was changed from “shall” to “may” which perpetuated the promises to the benefit of the military. In fact, many branches continued to publish recruiting command posters with those subject promises.

        In a court of law these actions would be determinative of a contract which is when there is an “offer,” “acceptance,” and “consideration” conveyed by someone with “agency.” That is unless it is against the US Government.

        Just like Mr Mobley, my wife (also a military retiree) and I were promised “Free Lifetime Health Care” all 24 years of our service and we make it a point to reinforce that point to our representatives every chance we can. The Supreme Court laid this at their feet, each and everyone of us need to do the same.

        I surmise as we older troops, who received those face-to-face promises, age out Congress will have their way, but not as long as I draw breath. And I, a Lifetime Member, would like to solicit your Organization’s support to propagate the Supreme Courts sentiment that they know of no other group that should have themselves made whole than by Congress’ action to redress the injustice.

        • Tommy Campbell
          Tommy CampbellMay 24, 2016

          Mr. DuFault,
          I do not believe I said that only Recruiting Commands used the tactic of promising free health and dental care for life. Any and all who were responsible for gaining new recruits or trying to reenlist those of us already in, used those tactics. But as the Supreme Court ruled, no matter what was promised, there was never any permission or laws that governed those promises from Congress. So no matter what, you are no longer entitled to those promises. I too was promised the times I reenlisted. Yes I am angry but there is nothing I can do except what I do when talking to members of Congress or their staffs.

  3. Wilmer Zenbaver
    Wilmer ZenbaverMar 12, 2016

    Even with additional fees, the coverage is far cheaper than equivalent civilian sector health care plans, and the care will remain comparable to or better than the civilian sector, the proposal said.

  4. Edwin Robinson
    Edwin RobinsonMay 04, 2016

    I too agree with the simple fact that lifelong medical was a part of our service contract. My question to congress would be: ” If such a law were approved to charge service members or retirees such a fee, would congress and the senate be required to pay the same fees within their own health plans?”.

    • Tommy Campbell
      Tommy CampbellMay 24, 2016

      Mr. Robinson,
      Members of Congress are eligible, as is any Government employee, for Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP). The premiums for this coverage
      are comparable to many other commercial plans such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

  5. Joel Krall
    Joel KrallMay 24, 2016

    Considering TFL on the medicare side already requires a monthly fee… and medicare is the primary payer insurance wise this is highly stupid…. I was hospitalized 18 months ago – 25k bill… medicare paid all but 200 or so dollars which TFL picked up.

    And they are considering a fee?

    I am insulted that I have to pay medicare every month or lose TRICARE… once you qualify for TFL you do not have any choice but to pay medicare or leave TRICARE…. just have to love it.

    • Tommy Campbell
      Tommy CampbellMay 24, 2016

      Mr. Krall,
      The current proposals both in the House and Senate do not mention any fees for TFL. We will watch and see if they change their minds.
      We agree with you that the fee we retirees have to pay, Medicare Part B, to be in TFL is not fair. To even imply that another 3rd fee for TFL
      is a possibility is something that we oppose and will work to eliminate if enacted.

Leave a Reply