Officers lobby undermines reforms

Here we go again.  Every time the military and civilian leaders propose any change that will slow the growth of military compensation costs, they are accused by the highly paid lobbyists of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) of breaking faith with the troops.  This year, the target of MOAA’s ire is the Senate Armed Service’s support of the Pentagon’s proposals to increase pharmacy co-pays and begin bringing housing benefits back in line with the original standards.  These changes are both modest and long-overdue.  

The pharmacy co-pays have been increased only once since 1996, although although drug costs have shot up.  For example, the cost for an Epi-Pen has more than doubled in the past seven years, to about $200 each.  These cost increases are unsustainable.  The Pentagon’s proposed changes are incremental, designed to shift prescriptions towards being filled by mail order and by less-costly generic medications over the next ten years.  Co-pays for generics would go up just a buck a year, while co-pays for brand-name drugs would go up by just two bucks a year.  Most private insurance have already embraced generics and mail-order pharmacies in an effort to control costs.   It’s time for the Pentagon to follow suit.  Moreover, prescriptions would continue to be filled at no cost for active-duty servicemembers and at military medical facilities. 

{mosads}The Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), supposed to cover 85 percent of housing costs, has grown way beyond what it was originally supposed to be, and now covers 100 percent of housing costs.  The Pentagon proposal would gradually adjust housing allowances by slowing how fast BAH allowances increase – not by cutting current rates.  Over several years, servicemembers would pay for an average of about 6 percent of their housing costs, adjusted so that soldiers of the same pay grade pay the same amount out-of-pocket. On a $2,000-a-month house, this 6 percent would be an out-of-pocket cost of just $120 a month, far less than the 20 percent out-of-pocket costs of the 1990s. 

The stakes in the debate are high.  Military personnel costs have nearly doubled since 2001, and now make up over a third of the defense budget.  Now that the gusher of defense spending is over, if the Pentagon cannot make sensible, incremental changes to rein in long-term personnel costs, there will be less and less money available for readiness and modernization.  And despite what the MOAA crowd is saying, no promise will be broken.  No-one who joined the services since the end of the Cold War would receive less than they were promised when they joined.  Fortunately, while the House Armed Services Committee has refused to support the Pentagon’s proposal, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), and three senior Republicans on the committee, Sens. James Inhofe (Okla.), John McCain (Ariz.), and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) are supporting Secretary Hagel.  These senators must hold their ground, embrace these modest changes, and give the Pentagon the tools it needs to meet the needs of the force. 

Korb, PhD, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, and former assistant secretary of Defense for Manpower, Logistics, Reserve Affairs and Readiness in the Reagan Administration.