Recommendation: TROA strongly recommends that the present form of CRI be maintained for California and Hawaii, with the expectations that care for the Medicare-eligible beneficiary in the MTF, be strengthened through a provision for Medicare Subvention funding. Further, TROA fully endorses expansion of the CRI program to Washington, Oregon, Florida and Tidewater Virginia. Finally, when the New Orleans test ends, it too should be maintained in its present form (plus a provision for Medicare Subvention funding), if it shows the same results as found in CRI.

Recommendation:

TROA strongly recommends that DOD be directed to limit CCP to a test in one or two geographical areas (states). This would require DoD and independent agencies to evaluate beneficiary satisfaction, examine the implementation methodologies and ensure that the "tools" needed (local contracting support, information systems and performance measurements on the cost and quality of and access to care) are not only available to the MTF Commander but used effectively. Limiting CCP to a test mode would be consistent with the deliberate phase-in, with Congressional oversight, that was employed with CRI and the other demonstration projects.

Recommendation: TROA strongly recommends that DOD be directed to proceed with a minimum of five subvention demonstration projects in FY '93. There should be no cost associated with these demonstration projects and we are confident that the results will prove that subvention is a "win-win" situation for all parties.

Recommendation: TROA strongly recommends that the Committee support protecting the medical end-strength position adopted by Congress until the results of the current managed care demonstrations can be fully evaluated and appropriate decisions made by DOD and Congress.

In summary, military health care has reached a critical crossroads.

The choice in directions is to continue on the path of the highly successful CRI or to take a detour on the uncharted and untested road to CCP now being developed by DOD. The choice to us is obvious: continue CRI with minor improvements. We believe that if the recommendations presented here are approved, we will be taking a giant step toward turning the corner on many of the problems plaguing the DOD health care system.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee for allowing us to present our views on these important issues.

Mr. MURTHA. I will recognize Mr. Young to introduce Mrs. Terry Cox.

REMARKS OF MR. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. If there were some way to do it, I would propose that the next witness, Mrs. Terry Cox, be elevated to sainthood. I say that sincerely, because anyone who learns of the trials and tribulations of her life would agree. Because of the crack, if I can use that expression, that they fell through between Federal programs, she has had to deal with a hundred percent disabled husband, a veteran, one who had CHAMPUS benefits and medicare benefits, who, all of a sudden, fell between programs and neither CHAMPUS nor medicare would care for Andy Cox.

Terry has done it and without a lot of help. We have been working with her for a long time to get the Government to recognize that she had a legitimate complaint and a legitimate problem. They have been very reluctant, so many of us introduced a bill a little over a year ago, H.R. 467, that would solve the problem. But the bill didn't get hearings by the authorizing committee and it was slow coming, although it has tremendous support throughout the entire veterans community all over the country.

During markup last year, Mr. Chairman, you gave me authority to develop the language and we included the language in the bill. It survived the conference and we thought we had solved the problem. The authorizing committee changed the language and that has created a little hiatus.

I want to introduce my constituent from St. Petersburg, Florida, and my friend Terry Cox, one who has, in an unbelievable way, devoted her life to her husband who served this country so well, Mrs. Terry Cox.

STATEMENT OF MRS. Cox

Mrs. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my personal gratitude to Chairman Murtha and the members of this Committee for the opportunity to testify, but also the support you have provided to approximately 9,000 other military retired families who have either lost or will lose their CHAMPUS coverage during their greatest time of need. In particular, I would like to thank Congressman Bill Young for his continuing support and assistance with my crisis.

I represent no organization. I am a homemaker, assistant manager of a travel agency, and the proud wife of a disabled military retiree whom I love greatly.

My husband, Staff Sergeant Andrew Cox, faithfully and honorably served his country for over 22 years in the United States Navy and Army. We saved for years pursuing the American dream of owning our first home, achieving this dream Wednesday, October 14, 1987. But while painting that Sunday, the ladder on which Andy was standing collapsed, causing him to hit his head and lapse into a coma.

After a year of being hospitalized without noticeable improvement, I was able to bring Andy home with the approval of the Department of Defense CHAMPUS program. For nearly a year-and-ahalf, CHAMPUS provided the 24-hour skilled nursing care he required and slowly he began to improve.

However, 29 months after Andy's freak accident, the Defense Department cut off his medical benefits; putting his life in jeopardy and forcing me to sell our home and furniture to provide him with the medical care he needed to survive. Fortunately, we were able to move in with my mother.

After no logical explanations from the Defense Department, except saying "It was the law," research revealed a loophole which discriminated against military retirees who become 100 percent disabled. My husband was never advised that his CHAMPUS was good only as long as he stayed healthy. His peers continued to have access to their CHAMPUS solely because they were not 100 disabled.

Christmas Eve 1990 I received a recoupment letter from the DOD stating Andy was not entitled to the coverage he had received almost two years earlier; and CHAMPUS wanted the money back. A week after Christmas, a second and third letter arrived asking for additional funds to be reimbursed, making the total amount requested over $200,000.

As a result, we were forced to declare bankruptcy and lose our dignity, but I did not lose my will to fight for Andy and what I knew was right.

Congressman Young introduced legislation, H.R. 467, to correct this inequity against a disabled military retiree. In addition, he added an amendment to the 1992 Defense Appropriations bill which this Committee approved on May 22, 1991, and which was eventually signed into law on November 26, 1991.

Our story should happily end here, but it does not. In the 32 months since the law was passed, nothing has happened. I understand not one of the approximately 9,000 100 percent disabled retirees has been notified of this change.

I called the office of CHAMPUS, in Aurora, Colorado, and was informed it could take another eight months to implement this law while men and women like my husband are suffering. Also I was informed benefits for this new provision will be paid differently than other CHAMPUS benefits, again discriminating against the disabled. I don't believe this was the intent of Congress. My recoupment appeal finally begins this April after numerous delays and cancellations by CHAMPUS for the last 15 extremely stressful months.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I am bankrupt. I have lost our home. I have had to sell our furniture and many personal belongings. My husband's health care has been unjustly taken away from him. I am forced to live with my mother, who has heart problems. I am dependent on volunteers to provide Andy's necessary medical care. Many times, I have nearly lost my husband because of this system, and the Defense Department is suing me.

How much worse can the Defense Health Care System make my life? I believe this Committee knows the Defense health care system needs dramatic revision. It needs to be more aware of the health care needs its beneficiaries require, keeping its promise and commitment to care for the men and women we ask to do things the rest of us are not willing to do.

It needs to improve its benefits and not continuously eliminate care in order to save money. These are America's finest and they

should be treated as such. It is time we take care of our own as readily as we take care of the rest of world.

Thank you for letting me tell our story. We would be happy to answer any questions the members of this Committee might have. Mr. MURTHA. Thank you very much, Mrs. Cox.

[The statement of Mrs. Cox follows:]