Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Who's eligible for TRICARE benefits?
In order to use TRICARE, you must be listed in the Defense Department's DEERS (Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System) computerized data base as being eligible for military health care benefits.
TRICARE-eligible people include:
(1) Eligible family members of active-duty service members, such as spouses, and unmarried children who are young enough (in most cases, under age 21, or under age 23 if in school full-time) to retain their eligibility. These children (including stepchildren who are adopted by the sponsor) are still covered by TRICARE, even if the spouse gets divorced or remarried. Stepchildren don't have to be adopted by the sponsor to be covered by TRICARE while the sponsor and the mother or father of the stepchildren remain married. But a stepchild who was not adopted by the sponsor loses eligibility on the date the divorce decree is final.
Active-duty service members themselves are enrolled automatically in TRICARE Prime, and may use the local military and civilian provider network (if one is in place) with proper authorization. Their health care remains the top priority of the military health care system, and they'll be the first to be allowed to sign up with primary care managers at military medical facilities;
(2) Military retirees and their eligible family members (same conditions for eligibility as above; these eligibility conditions for children are the same through all categories of eligibility);
(3) Spouses and unmarried children of reservists who are ordered to active duty for more than 30 consecutive days (they are covered only during the reservist's active-duty tour; they can use TRICARE Extra and TRICARE Standard, but they can't enroll in TRICARE Prime unless the reservist's active-duty period lasts at least 180 days), or reservists who die on active duty;
(4) Surviving unremarried spouses and unmarried children of active or retired service members who have died;
(5) Surviving unremarried spouses and unmarried children of reservists, if the reservists are injured or aggravate an injury, illness or disease during--or on the way to--active-duty training for a period of 30 days or less, or a period of inactive-duty training, and die as a result of the specific injuries, illnesses or diseases;
(6) Some unremarried former spouses of active or retired service members, who meet certain length-of-marriage rules and other requirements;
(7) Unmarried children of military sponsors, who are age 21 and over (to age 23, if the child is a full-time student), and who are severely disabled and the disability existed prior to the child's 21st birthday (or prior to the 23rd birthday, if the child is a full-time student);
(8) Dependent wards placed in the custody of a service member or former member, either by a court or by a recognized adoption agency, for a period of at least 12 months. TRICARE eligibility is effective July 1, 1994, if the child is placed by a court. A child placed by a recognized adoption agency is eligible effective on the date the child is placed by the agency, or on Oct. 5, 1994, whichever date is later;
(9) Certain family members of active-duty service members who were court-martialed and separated for spouse or child abuse, or were administratively discharged as a result of such an offense. The victims of the abuse within the family are eligible for treatment of illnesses and injuries related to the abuse for one year from the date of the sponsor's separation from the service. Cost-sharing will be the same as for other active-duty families;
(10) Certain abused spouses, former spouses, or dependent children of service members who were retirement-eligible, but who lost that eligibility as a result of abuse of the spouse or child. This benefit is effective for medically necessary services and supplies provided under TRICARE Standard on or after Oct. 23, 1992. It isn't limited to one year of eligibility (as is the category described immediately above), nor is it limited to illnesses and injuries resulting from the abuse;
(11) Illegitimate children of current or retired service members or their spouses may be eligible for TRICARE benefits under certain circumstances. Check with your nearest health benefits adviser (HBA), health care finder (HCF), or TRICARE service center (TSC);
(12) Spouses and children of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nation representatives, under certain circumstances (outpatient care only);
(13) Certain former active-duty members and their families may be eligible for limited periods of TRICARE benefits under the Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP). Check with your HBA or your military personnel office for details.
In order to use TRICARE Prime or TRICARE Extra, you must live in an area where TRICARE is in operation, and a civilian provider network has been established to support the program.
Eligibility is determined by the individual service branches. They also provide eligibility information to DEERS computer data files. Contractors then check the DEERS files for eligibility when processing claims.
Who's not eligible for TRICARE benefits?
(1) Most persons who are eligible for Medicare because of age (except active-duty family members). People who are Medicare-eligible because of disability or end-stage kidney disease, and are under 65, may retain TRICARE eligibility until they reach 65, but they must be enrolled in Medicare Part B;
(2) Parents and parents-in-law of active-duty service members or uniformed services retirees, or of deceased active-duty members or retirees, are not TRICARE-eligible. They may be able to receive treatment in military medical facilities, as space permits;
(3) Persons who are eligible for benefits under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA).
News Releases - WHO'S ELIGIBLE FOR TRICARE? WHO'S NOT ELIGIBLE?
EVERY veteran is not eligible for TriCare. Most veterans are not retirees.
The information is out there. You just aren't availing yourself of any of it.
It doesn't matter what they CALL it, dimwit.
Call it VetCare and carry on with the discussion as is...
I don't like it much. I think vets, especially combat vets, should have guaranteed benefits. The way the stock market fluctuates is too chancy.Mitten seems to think it's a good idea.
What say you?
Do you think it's a bad idea...?
Over barbecue and sweet tea with 12 veterans here Friday, Mitt Romney appeared to brainstorm a fundamental change to the way the nation pays back the people who put their lives on the line in the military.
Talking with the veterans about the challenge of navigating the Veterans Affairs bureaucracy to get their health care benefits after they leave active duty, Romney suggested a way to improve the system would be to privatize it.
Sometimes you wonder, would there be someway to introduce some private sector competition, somebody else that could come in and say, you know, each soldier gets X thousand dollars attributed to them and then they can choose whether they want to go on the government system or the private system and then it follows them, like what happens with schools in Florida where they have a voucher that follows them. Who knows.
Romney Spit-Balls His Way To Privatizing Veterans Benefits | TPM 2012
As long as that safety net is always there for them, why not..?
Though I guess if they CHOOSE that option that is their business....
I don't like it much. I think vets, especially combat vets, should have guaranteed benefits. The way the stock market fluctuates is too chancy.Do you think it's a bad idea...?
As long as that safety net is always there for them, why not..?
Though I guess if they CHOOSE that option that is their business....
Of course health insurance benefits should be guaranteed and they are...
Think of it this way...A soldier is a government worker and as the employer, the government is required to pay 100% of their health insurance premium. Our commitment is to offer the highest level of health benefits to Veterans. They can choose government administered TriCare or whatever they call it VetCare Insurance and stay within their network of providers or you they can choose Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Health Care, Aetna, etc...
Requiring soldiers to stay within the Military complex medical system has actually proven to be a conflict of interest in some cases.......Opening up to private options is in the best interest of Veterans.......
I don't like it much. I think vets, especially combat vets, should have guaranteed benefits. The way the stock market fluctuates is too chancy.
Though I guess if they CHOOSE that option that is their business....
Of course health insurance benefits should be guaranteed and they are...
Think of it this way...A soldier is a government worker and as the employer, the government is required to pay 100% of their health insurance premium. Our commitment is to offer the highest level of health benefits to Veterans. They can choose government administered TriCare or whatever they call it VetCare Insurance and stay within their network of providers or you they can choose Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Health Care, Aetna, etc...
Requiring soldiers to stay within the Military complex medical system has actually proven to be a conflict of interest in some cases.......Opening up to private options is in the best interest of Veterans.......
Could you get any more sanctimonious?
Caring for veterans through the VA is not a conflict of interest. It is a way to monitor and be sure the needs are met. It would be far more difficult to monitor via the private sector. And besides the VA isn't closing its doors because some sanctimonious heifer (you) says they should. The only way the VA will close is if it is going under and has to dump the care of veterans. Right now the VA is NOT going under. And if you notice when some politician pontificates in the sanctimonious manner that you are, the veterans groups swing into action and swats him like a fly.
I think I could!
Tell us the last weapon or good/service the Government manufactured on it's own without the private sector?Well we seem to have privatized quite a bit of our military and war operations anyway.
So how does Romney get over the stigma of RomneyCare and the risen cost of healthcare in Massechussetts...and his advisors then meeting with Obama's people to use it as a model for ObamaCare? You know darned well that Obama will use this against Romney should he be the nominee...1) Romney just threw out the idea because many people think private insurance is more efficient and gives better results. It isn't a done deal, it was just a freakin idea that would eventually be shot down by Republicans and Dimcrats in Congress....so quit with the panic.
2) Romney isn't going to throw Vets under the bus, the majority of us with a military background vote for the Republicans.....he is not an idiot. It is Dimcrats that spit on Vets, see Vietnam and that Dimcrat mayor in California that denied Vets public support yesterday.
3) As for Vets getting TRICARE, that is only if you are a retiree with 20 years of service. Now if a Vet serves less than 20 years but has disability benefits, then the VA covers those issues for life. Idiots on the left believe one can spend a minute in the military then get lifetime benefits, in order to further their cause to cut DoD spending to pieces.
Meanwhile those same dumbfucks on the left have no problem with Obamacare giving free healthcare to lazy people, even illegals for no fucking reason.
It is a way to monitor and be sure the needs are met. It would be far more difficult to monitor via the private sector. And besides the VA isn't closing its doors because some sanctimonious heifer (you) says they should.
The benefits are guaranteed. The Vet sees a provider of his choice, the provider sends a claim, the claim gets paid...As in NOT denied. And as I SAID the vet should always have the VA safety net, so way to make things up, SUNSHINE!
So how does Romney get over the stigma of RomneyCare and the risen cost of healthcare in Massechussetts...and his advisors then meeting with Obama's people to use it as a model for ObamaCare? You know darned well that Obama will use this against Romney should he be the nominee...1) Romney just threw out the idea because many people think private insurance is more efficient and gives better results. It isn't a done deal, it was just a freakin idea that would eventually be shot down by Republicans and Dimcrats in Congress....so quit with the panic.
2) Romney isn't going to throw Vets under the bus, the majority of us with a military background vote for the Republicans.....he is not an idiot. It is Dimcrats that spit on Vets, see Vietnam and that Dimcrat mayor in California that denied Vets public support yesterday.
3) As for Vets getting TRICARE, that is only if you are a retiree with 20 years of service. Now if a Vet serves less than 20 years but has disability benefits, then the VA covers those issues for life. Idiots on the left believe one can spend a minute in the military then get lifetime benefits, in order to further their cause to cut DoD spending to pieces.
Meanwhile those same dumbfucks on the left have no problem with Obamacare giving free healthcare to lazy people, even illegals for no fucking reason.
The benefits are guaranteed. The Vet sees a provider of his choice, the provider sends a claim, the claim gets paid...As in NOT denied.
Outside experts agree that the VHA has become an industry leader in its safety and quality measures. Dr. Donald M. Berwick, president of the Institute for Health Care Improvement and one of the nation's top health-care quality experts, praises the VHA's information technology as "spectacular." The venerable Institute of Medicine notes that the VHA's "integrated health information system, including its framework for using performance measures to improve quality, is considered one of the best in the nation."
If this gives you cognitive dissonance, it should. The story of how and why the VHA became the benchmark for quality medicine in the United States suggests that much of what we think we know about health care and medical economics is just wrong. It's natural to believe that more competition and consumer choice in health care would lead to greater quality and lower costs, because in almost every other realm, it does. That's why the Bush administrationwhich has been promoting greater use of information technology and other quality improvement in health carealso wants to give individuals new tax-free "health savings accounts" and high-deductible insurance plans. Together, these measures are supposed to encourage patients to do more comparison shopping and haggling with their doctors; therefore, they create more market discipline in the system.
But when it comes to health care, it's a government bureaucracy that's setting the standard for maintaining best practices while reducing costs, and it's the private sector that's lagging in quality. That unexpected reality needs examining if we're to have any hope of understanding what's wrong with America's health-care system and how to fix it. It turns out that precisely because the VHA is a big, government-run system that has nearly a lifetime relationship with its patients, it has incentives for investing in quality and keeping its patients wellincentives that are lacking in for-profit medicine.
First, unlike virtually all other health-care systems in the United States, VHA has a near lifetime relationship with its patients. Its customers don't jump from one health plan to the next every few years. They start a relationship with the VHA as early as their teens, and it endures. That means that the VHA actually has an incentive to invest in prevention and more effective disease management. When it does so, it isn't just saving money for somebody else. It's maximizing its own resources.
The system's doctors are salaried, which also makes a difference. Most could make more money doing something else, so their commitment to their profession most often derives from a higher-than-usual dose of idealism. Moreover, because they are not profit maximizers, they have no need to be fearful of new technologies or new protocols that keep people well. Nor do they have an incentive to clamor for high-tech devices that don't improve the system's quality or effectiveness of care.
And, because it is a well-defined system, the VHA can act like one. It can systematically attack patient safety issues. It can systematically manage information using standard platforms and interfaces. It can systematically develop and implement evidence-based standards of care. It can systematically discover where its care needs improvement and take corrective measures. In short, it can do what the rest of the health-care sector can't seem to, which is to pursue quality systematically without threatening its own financial viability.
It is a way to monitor and be sure the needs are met. It would be far more difficult to monitor via the private sector. And besides the VA isn't closing its doors because some sanctimonious heifer (you) says they should.
The benefits are guaranteed. The Vet sees a provider of his choice, the provider sends a claim, the claim gets paid...As in NOT denied. And as I SAID the vet should always have the VA safety net, so way to make things up, SUNSHINE!
And if no providers are willing to see them for what the VA pays? It happened in TN with TennCare.
It seems like you are advocating duplication of services, which isn't allowed even in the private sector.
So in effect? The FED has no dog in this hunt...but this becomes a States issue...and Obamacare is another power grab as we were treated to in 1913?A state like MA choosing their RomneyCare is no problem, the voters can easily influence their Gov and state Reps better than someone in Idaho can influence people in Washington DC dictating their lives from over 1,000 miles away.
Romney has said what they have today isn't what he put in place, but Obama has no ground to stand on claiming the 2 systems are the same. A Senator from Ohio has no business telling someone from Georgia they are required to be under Obamacare.....hell even the POTUS has no business doing that.
So how does Romney get over the stigma of RomneyCare and the risen cost of healthcare in Massechussetts...and his advisors then meeting with Obama's people to use it as a model for ObamaCare? You know darned well that Obama will use this against Romney should he be the nominee...1) Romney just threw out the idea because many people think private insurance is more efficient and gives better results. It isn't a done deal, it was just a freakin idea that would eventually be shot down by Republicans and Dimcrats in Congress....so quit with the panic.
2) Romney isn't going to throw Vets under the bus, the majority of us with a military background vote for the Republicans.....he is not an idiot. It is Dimcrats that spit on Vets, see Vietnam and that Dimcrat mayor in California that denied Vets public support yesterday.
3) As for Vets getting TRICARE, that is only if you are a retiree with 20 years of service. Now if a Vet serves less than 20 years but has disability benefits, then the VA covers those issues for life. Idiots on the left believe one can spend a minute in the military then get lifetime benefits, in order to further their cause to cut DoD spending to pieces.
Meanwhile those same dumbfucks on the left have no problem with Obamacare giving free healthcare to lazy people, even illegals for no fucking reason.
So in effect? The FED has no dog in this hunt...but this becomes a States issue...and Obamacare is another power grab as we were treated to in 1913?A state like MA choosing their RomneyCare is no problem, the voters can easily influence their Gov and state Reps better than someone in Idaho can influence people in Washington DC dictating their lives from over 1,000 miles away.
Romney has said what they have today isn't what he put in place, but Obama has no ground to stand on claiming the 2 systems are the same. A Senator from Ohio has no business telling someone from Georgia they are required to be under Obamacare.....hell even the POTUS has no business doing that.
So how does Romney get over the stigma of RomneyCare and the risen cost of healthcare in Massechussetts...and his advisors then meeting with Obama's people to use it as a model for ObamaCare? You know darned well that Obama will use this against Romney should he be the nominee...
The benefits are guaranteed. The Vet sees a provider of his choice, the provider sends a claim, the claim gets paid...As in NOT denied.
Part of the reason the VHA offers better care more cheaply than the rest of the health care system is that it's an integrated delivery system, which allows it to avoid much of the fragmentation that compromises quality in the rest of the system. Removing that key feature and instead shuffling vets been unconnected and uncoordinated private providers would undo much of what makes care for vets so good.
There was a profile in 2005 that delved into that concept pretty deeply and is worth reading: The Best Care Anywhere - Phillip Longman
Some of the key takeaways:
Outside experts agree that the VHA has become an industry leader in its safety and quality measures. Dr. Donald M. Berwick, president of the Institute for Health Care Improvement and one of the nation's top health-care quality experts, praises the VHA's information technology as "spectacular." The venerable Institute of Medicine notes that the VHA's "integrated health information system, including its framework for using performance measures to improve quality, is considered one of the best in the nation."
If this gives you cognitive dissonance, it should. The story of how and why the VHA became the benchmark for quality medicine in the United States suggests that much of what we think we know about health care and medical economics is just wrong. It's natural to believe that more competition and consumer choice in health care would lead to greater quality and lower costs, because in almost every other realm, it does. That's why the Bush administrationwhich has been promoting greater use of information technology and other quality improvement in health carealso wants to give individuals new tax-free "health savings accounts" and high-deductible insurance plans. Together, these measures are supposed to encourage patients to do more comparison shopping and haggling with their doctors; therefore, they create more market discipline in the system.
But when it comes to health care, it's a government bureaucracy that's setting the standard for maintaining best practices while reducing costs, and it's the private sector that's lagging in quality. That unexpected reality needs examining if we're to have any hope of understanding what's wrong with America's health-care system and how to fix it. It turns out that precisely because the VHA is a big, government-run system that has nearly a lifetime relationship with its patients, it has incentives for investing in quality and keeping its patients wellincentives that are lacking in for-profit medicine.
First, unlike virtually all other health-care systems in the United States, VHA has a near lifetime relationship with its patients. Its customers don't jump from one health plan to the next every few years. They start a relationship with the VHA as early as their teens, and it endures. That means that the VHA actually has an incentive to invest in prevention and more effective disease management. When it does so, it isn't just saving money for somebody else. It's maximizing its own resources.
The system's doctors are salaried, which also makes a difference. Most could make more money doing something else, so their commitment to their profession most often derives from a higher-than-usual dose of idealism. Moreover, because they are not profit maximizers, they have no need to be fearful of new technologies or new protocols that keep people well. Nor do they have an incentive to clamor for high-tech devices that don't improve the system's quality or effectiveness of care.
And, because it is a well-defined system, the VHA can act like one. It can systematically attack patient safety issues. It can systematically manage information using standard platforms and interfaces. It can systematically develop and implement evidence-based standards of care. It can systematically discover where its care needs improvement and take corrective measures. In short, it can do what the rest of the health-care sector can't seem to, which is to pursue quality systematically without threatening its own financial viability.
Mitten seems to think it's a good idea.
What say you?
It is a way to monitor and be sure the needs are met. It would be far more difficult to monitor via the private sector. And besides the VA isn't closing its doors because some sanctimonious heifer (you) says they should.
The benefits are guaranteed. The Vet sees a provider of his choice, the provider sends a claim, the claim gets paid...As in NOT denied. And as I SAID the vet should always have the VA safety net, so way to make things up, SUNSHINE!
And if no providers are willing to see them for what the VA pays? It happened in TN with TennCare.
It seems like you are advocating duplication of services, which isn't allowed even in the private sector.
Not at all. The VA could offer administrative services no matter which plan you choose, like a human resource department who handles the health insurance for employers. Covered services will never be denied no matter which plan you choose.
The government could negotiate discount group rates for veterans with private insurance companies. Once the Blue Cross for Veterans [for example] network is created there is no issue with who accepts the fee schedules. If a veteran would like a second opinion on a medical determination that effects their benefits, they could go into our out of the military medical complex...
Hmmm....... Our private system of medicine costs twice as much per citizen, does not cover all of our citizens, and has much poorer results than the systems of Canada, Japan, Taiwan, France, Germany, and even little Costa Rica.
But it will deliver better results if we just turn over Veteran care to them? We kind of did that at Walter Reed, remember?
But how will the private economy grow unless we pump more tax dollars into it?
you mean the $500BN taken out of Medicare to facilitate Ocare?Hmmm....... Our private system of medicine costs twice as much per citizen, does not cover all of our citizens, and has much poorer results than the systems of Canada, Japan, Taiwan, France, Germany, and even little Costa Rica.
But it will deliver better results if we just turn over Veteran care to them? We kind of did that at Walter Reed, remember?
But how will the private economy grow unless we pump more tax dollars into it?
Ask Obama he wants to pump 500 billion more in. As I recall you supported that plan.
you mean the $500BN taken out of Medicare to facilitate Ocare?But how will the private economy grow unless we pump more tax dollars into it?
Ask Obama he wants to pump 500 billion more in. As I recall you supported that plan.
