Determining how to curb burgeoning military health care costs without compromising (1) access to and quality of care or (2) the readiness of military medical personnel continues to be a priority for the Defense Health Agency. The purpose of this report is to describe emerging topics related to military health care costs and policy to provide policymakers and researchers with future research to pursue.
Reforming Military Health Care Costs
Issues for Future Research
Download Free Electronic Document
|PDF file||0.7 MB||
Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.
- What are the key policy areas on which researchers should focus to find ways to reduce MHS costs?
The top three costs for the Military Health System (MHS) are health care delivery costs, military medical personnel costs, and Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund contributions. Determining how to curb burgeoning military health care costs without compromising (1) access to and quality of care or (2) the readiness of military medical personnel continues to be a priority for the Defense Health Agency.
The authors of this report conducted a literature review and solicited expert opinions to outline four key policy areas in which further research could be pursued to understand how to reduce MHS costs.
The authors found four key policy areas in which further research could be pursued
These areas were selected because of how they directly affect the three main MHS cost categories.
Reforms to the MHS, which are in progress, provide many possibilities for future research
Research would focus on how MHS reforms affect the utilization of direct and private-sector care, military health care delivery costs, and military medical personnel costs. Research would also examine whether the effects of MHS reforms vary across locations and how the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic affects the MHS.
Implementing the military's universal health records system, MHS Genesis, could streamline service and provide cost savings
Research would examine how providers and beneficiaries use the platform, its impact on care and costs, and use cost-benefit analysis to determine whether and how the use of MHS Genesis should be expanded.
The military medical force, which needs to both be ready to deploy and provide regular medical care, should undergo a cost analysis
Research would determine what the most cost-effective personnel mix should be and examine the optimal mix of military- and privately provided care in a post–MHS reform era.
The TRICARE program, which covers existing and former military service members and their dependents, should undergo a cost analysis
Research would study the cost effects of changes to TRICARE that stemmed from the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, cost effects of alternative plan designs for TRICARE and examine the merits of making changes to TRICARE for Life.
Research conducted by
The research described in this report was prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD).
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.