Commandant's Planning Guidance and Mil Med

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

LittleBrother

Membership Revoked
Removed
Joined
Oct 22, 2020
Messages
187
Reaction score
305
Hi all,

I'm applying this cycle and hoping to go into milmed. I'm prior service Marine infantry and have been following the restructuring efforts in the Marine Corps. The Corps is moving in a fairly radical new direction and rethinking a lot of the ways we expect to fight wars in the future, particularly against a near-peer adversary.

I'm wondering if anyone here who is in milmed or knows someone still working with it is hearing anything with regards to these changes as they pertain to expeditionary medicine? What is the Naval medical community doing to prepare for a near-peer conflict? How does the Navy expect to integrate medicine in a distributed operating environment? Are we still thinking "business as usual" or are people thinking about how casevacs are going to work when we might be fighting across thousands of miles?

If anyone has any insight on this I would appreciate it.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the Defense Health Administration (DHA) which is the new-ish triservice management of military medicine, has spoken a lot about re-orienting staffing and structure in an operational direction.

What that will actually mean is anyone's guess. The plans as communicated seem incongruent with real world needs. For example, COVID-19 may have led to a realization that the military might actually need a bunch of "non-war-critical" specialists for things like pandemic and disaster response. Honestly it's any body's guess right now if or how proposed realignment will take place, how they'll affect military residency programs, to what degree active duty physicians will work in yet-to-be-established civilian partnerships, etc.

There are a handful of indications that this time they really are serious about fundamental structural changes. Last year for the first time, certain non-war-critical specialties lost the ability to sign certain kinds of retention bonus contracts. Recently individuals have started getting orders to platforms instead of hospitals (they largely still work day to day at the hospitals but they may "belong" to another command). Starting a few years ago the USMC "bought" a bunch of physician billets for that ownership reason but the individuals mostly spend their time loaned to hospitals.

Again though what all this actually means for any given physician's practice, or what it means for today's medical student who's signing up for HPSP and therefore in-service residency training 5 or 10 years from now, who knows?

As for peer and near-peer conflict, I think everyone basically understands that while we'll make efforts to train and procure and prepare as part of a deterrent effort, the obvious truth is that any ACTUAL direct near-peer conflict will either (1) be rapidly de-escalated by political means or (2) go nuclear because there just ain't no way we're going to duke it out overseas with China.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
What that will actually mean is anyone's guess. ...

Again though what all this actually means for any given physician's practice, or what it means for today's medical student who's signing up for HPSP and therefore in-service residency training 5 or 10 years from now, who knows?

...or as we used to say when I was on active duty 15 years ago, "If you think you know what's going on, you aren't with the program."

Changes that are being made now with regard to DHA emphasizing "operational" medicine with active duty patients and shifting almost all dependents and retirees to civilian care away from MTFs will take years to play out.

Maybe the remaining military physicians will get really good at taking care of wounded troops and evacuating them via air/ground/sea/space to where they can get definitive care.

Maybe active duty and reserve physicians will all be replaced by cheaper surgeon nurses, CRNAs, NPs, PAs, IDMTs, etc. to save money. It is unclear whether the changes to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 will change the calculus of permitting less trained people to act as "providers" to replace more trained (and more expensive) physicians. (Note: I am linking the malpractice lawyers' web site because it quotes the actual words of the Act, unlike the twenty or so other web sites I looked to link to. Nobody paid me anything to do so. If you have a better site that accurately describes how the changes to the NDAA do not actually revoke the Feres doctrine per se, I'm happy to replace it).

Maybe the lack of training caring for older/sicker retirees in MTFs can be replaced by civilian rotations where the docs see the real demographics of humans who show up for hospital care in the US (hint: not reflected by active duty cohort). Maybe rotations at civilian hospitals will enable specialist surgeons to get enough numbers to stay board certified...or maybe they will be pulled into GMO/Flight surgeon/Dive Medicine billets because [billets needing to be filled] >> [military caring about what people want].

As pgg says, it's anyone's guess. Coping with uncertainty is definitely one of the harder aspects of military life in general (Am I getting deployed? Am I getting my specialty pay that Congress is holding up approval for? Is my MTF shutting down [the WRAMC surgical residents in D.C. back in the day were in such denial that their "flagship" would be sacrificed on the altar of BRAC...]).

I am sure your prior service experience will give you a definite advantage over your peers in dealing with the stress of uncertainty. Best of luck!
 
Changes that are being made now with regard to DHA emphasizing "operational" medicine with active duty patients and shifting almost all dependents and retirees to civilian care away from MTFs will take years to play out.
Not true. It's playing out right now! Our clinics/hospitals are ghost towns (at least in the Navy).

Maybe the lack of training caring for older/sicker retirees in MTFs can be replaced by civilian rotations where

We really should just scrap GME. Our residency programs are OK at best. The military is not interested in it (and I don't blame it . . . the mission of the DoD is not to train physicians).
 
Not true. It's playing out right now! Our clinics/hospitals are ghost towns (at least in the Navy).

By "playing out" I mean the long term effects of condemning active duty physicians to a 20+ year career of seeing either (Primary Care) URIs, STDs, and pelvic pain or (Surgeons) appys, hernias, and D&Cs, thus causing their skills to degrade to the point they are physically and mentally incapable of dealing with the tragically old and sick patients they will need to see/operate on in the civilian world after they punch out in their early-mid 40s with 30-50 more years of medical practice ahead of them (with advances in modern medicine and anticipated increases in life expectancy combined with the imminent immolation of civilian retirement options).

We really should just scrap GME. Our residency programs are OK at best. The military is not interested in it (and I don't blame it . . . the mission of the DoD is not to train physicians).

So who will form the cadre of senior physicians to guide and mentor these poor civilian docs regarding the military aspects of military medicine when they arrive on station? How will they know an AAR from an SQ/CC from a CCATT from a SMEED? What if they have ten COVID-23 patients to transport, but the CONEX/BCU is FUBAR and the AEOT is being run by an MSC officer from the "clean team" more interested in her ROAD plans than helping you or your "dirty team" patients, and whose best medical insight is "Don't do stupid"? Oh, that's right, all the O-4s and above dropped papers and quit on the exact days of their ETS.

I guess I'm biased as an [ROTC+USU+WHMC anesthesiology residency] alumnus, but still... Someone high up the chain of command of all services had better arrange for some kind of Super-Bushmaster training for all incoming civilian docs before their first duty station, or else the FNGs' first experience of MOPP4 will be when the BRAAT and UXO folks mop up their SLUDGE-covered remains after a Novichok attack...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Just a question: were you AFROTC when you were in college? I never considered being one branch for ROTC, owing however many years, then going HPSP with a different branch.
AFROTC Det. 365 (Harvard, M.I.T., Wellesley, Tufts). I also got the Outstanding Graduating Harvard Senior award, for what it's worth.

Harvard University | U.S. Air Force ROTC

Fun fact: when Ronald Reagan's DoD canceled all of the "non-technical" ROTC scholarships ca. 1982, our Detachment was the only one specifically excluded (good thing, because my ROTC scholarship was in biology, which was considered "non-technical" vs. engineering, etc.).

I am grateful that the USAF paid for (most) of my college education (room and board were not included) and all of my medical school education at USU. I then owed eleven years (4 + 7) after residency, because residency did not count toward payback. That's why I left after 15 total years toward retirement, because the 4 years at USU did not count (do not count) until you do 20, then they give you 24. I had, of course, anticipated retiring from the Air Force after 20 years since age 17 (I wasn't quite 18 when I started ROTC). That didn't work out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You make me wanna drink. Whiskey that is, lots of it.
I have that effect on people.

The VA has a special code for this condition with my name on it.

You should use it when you go to your C&P evaluation to see if you can increase your disability rating.

I would tell you the code but it's obviously unprintable, and I don't want to annoy pgg more than I have
already over the past 14 years.

I would recommend 30 year old Tomatin from Inbhir Nis if you can find it here. Otherwise, Glenmorangie Lasanta with the
sherry cask finish would be a reasonable second choice. Not that I know anything about the subject.

Cheers!
 
AFROTC Det. 365 (Harvard, M.I.T., Wellesley, Tufts). I also got the Outstanding Graduating Harvard Senior award, for what it's worth.

Harvard University | U.S. Air Force ROTC

Fun fact: when Ronald Reagan's DoD canceled all of the "non-technical" ROTC scholarships ca. 1982, our Detachment was the only one specifically excluded (good thing, because my ROTC scholarship was in biology, which was considered "non-technical" vs. engineering, etc.).

I am grateful that the USAF paid for (most) of my college education (room and board were not included) and all of my medical school education at USU. I then owed eleven years (4 + 7) after residency, because residency did not count toward payback. That's why I left after 15 total years toward retirement, because the 4 years at USU did not count (do not count) until you do 20, then they give you 24. I had, of course, anticipated retiring from the Air Force after 20 years since age 17 (I wasn't quite 18 when I started ROTC). That didn't work out.
I was graduated from VMI, but I wasn't commissioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hey, thanks everyone for the information provided.


So, outside of DHA and the push to make milmed more operationally focused, what is milmed doing in an operational/tactical sense to prepare integrate with the rest of the military in terms of near-peer conflict?

I guess I should come forward and say that I'm interested in looking at some of these issues for research inspiration. From my understanding, a lot of lives saved since WWII has been through streamlining the casevac process, ie MASH and "the Golden Hour" that was the rule when I was in. These things won't exist in a near-peer environment. The planning guidance talks about distributed forces and getting away from fixed infrastructure, so it's not like you are going to have a causality on a bird and in surgery in Kandahar in less than an hour (or 2, or 8, or 24 for that matter).

My concern/interest is we don't actually know how to operate under these conditions, and that we are underestimating the risks when we think we are going to get the same life-saving medical effectiveness we've enjoyed since Vietnam, when we are actually operating in the most hostile conditions probably ever encountered. I mean, in every previous war lines have been, at the least, fairly slow moving. You could put a field hospital outside of hostile artillery range, for instance, and no opposition has held air superiority against us.

So, what my interest is in is what is milmed (particularly the Navy/Marine Corps) doing at the tactical and operational level to integrate medicine into these new concepts? Is there any research, training, or theorizing, that is looking at what would be clinical best-practices for war-time trauma with delayed definitive care? Is anyone thinking about what we need, and what we want providers to do, with urgent patients that they might have to hold onto and manage for many hours or days? Like, in WW1 femur and hip fractures had 25% mortality rate, I have a hunch a lot of medical issues that we consider routine will become very problematic under the near-peer circumstances. I also have a hunch that a lot of gains in basic-science have gone unscrutinized in terms of there application to battlefield medicine. For example, research regarding stress, immunity, and inflammation has made considerable gains since the 80s/90s, but I've found very little research that looks at military-specific circumstances, and of this most of the emphasis is on PTSD.

Can anyone that is involved with the community validate or invalidate this? I'm fairly out of the loop, I've been out for over 6 years now and my job wasn't even medical. I'm very much looking at this through a 2014 Lcpl Rifleman's lens of milmed and I'm interested if it's worth going down this rabbit hole.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Hey, thanks everyone for the information provided.


So, outside of DHA and the push to make milmed more operationally focused, what is milmed doing in an operational/tactical sense to prepare integrate with the rest of the military in terms of near-peer conflict?

I guess I should come forward and say that I'm interested in looking at some of these issues for research inspiration.
1) If I knew, I certainly wouldn't talk about it on this insecure forum...or even via e-mail. I'd try not to think about it.

2) I am 100% sure we are not going to do the following:

--Try to fight the last war due to sheer poor planning (SPP) at the highest levels by people more interested in golf

--End up fighting the war before last because the medical budget for fighting the last war is approved but unfunded

--Have smart ideas from junior officers shot down by the Pentagon because "we've never done it that way before"

--Slash military medical research to the bone because promotion boards don't understand anything but command billets

--Continue an antiquated promotion system for physicians that prioritizes money, metrics, and buzzwords over everything

--Dumb down every single thing about medicine to flying analogies so that idiots who once flew planes can understand

--Have expensive but vital medical upgrades cannibalized by the line to buy shiny things that pilots can sit in

--Build expensive flying shinies that can be hacked by high school kids

--Allow pilots to fly new toys with inadequate oxygen but not within 25 miles of lightning

--Ignore the risk of [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] from countries years ahead of us in those areas

--Assume the enemy even knows about internationally-accepted Laws of Armed Conflict, let alone cares

--Rely on huge, slow, ancient floating hypersonic missile targets (FHMTs) that should have been mothballed in the 1990s

--Buy more huge, slow, sexy FHMTs because Captains need something to replace their TRICARE-unapproved ED meds

--Assign medics to hospital ships with 30 year old copper kettle vaporizers without training, leading to several deaths

--Involuntarily recall 86 year old clinical psychologists to active duty and send them far away, where they quickly have MIs

--Tell surgeons to use fewer sutures because the line needs that medical budget line item to buy more bullets because

--Deploy the last intensivist at your military hospital and then order untrained family docs and interns to cover the ICUs

--Activate ancient NATO hangars to receive casualties while birds poop relentlessly onto surgical fields from the rafters

--Certify drugs and saline stockpiled for WWIII to be used in real life casualties despite being expired for 30 years because

--Use planes designed in 1964 and 1981 to fly medics and patients into and out of war zones

--Send CCATT air evac (A/E) teams to care for patients with expired drugs and leadership as broken as their defibrillators

--Have Army hospital refuse to loan oxygen cylinders to A/E crew for transport to aircraft; none on board plane because

--Place advanced pain catheters into patients and then put them into a system where no one is trained to manage them

--Sneak advanced pain pumps onto aircraft before they are flight certified and tell troops to hide them from the flight nurses

--Allow patients to arrive in CONUS with empty pumps that are beeping but are locked and that no one knew were there

--Have critically-ill patients Remain Over Night (RON) at facilities not capable of caring for them because

--Divide the A/E mission into "dirty teams" and "clean teams" to optimize lack of cooperation and morale

--Claim that A/E "clean teams" can't be trained to do the work of "dirty teams" because pots of money are different

--Send home half of the deployed "dirty teams" after one month, thus doubling the workload of the remaining victims

--Set up two sets of quarantine Restriction of Movement (ROM) rules: those for medics (strict) and those for aircrew (loose)

--Order large groups to gaggle together in superspreader fashion like 2019 despite host nation rules that restrict group size

--Issue e-mail that states that the above is OK because A/E teams are "one family" per USAF rules despite host nation rules

--Hire 57 year old ER docs from private practice then deploy them to manage things like litters, Ambuses and SMEEDs

--Fail to remind 57 year old docs that kinetic energy still equals one half of mass times the square of velocity on a bus

--Attempt to draft old, fat, tired physicians to replace the young, smart, competent military docs who got disgusted and left

--Replace physicians with cheap, less-trained "providers" who salute better than most doctors and who don't talk back

--Put nurses, pharmacists, and PAs in command of physicians and then wonder why troops are dying unexpectedly

--Use the phrase "but we've always done it that way" just before the very bright, bad light makes things moot

3) Problems like the following from the last war have been 100% fixed due to the brilliance of our military leaders:

"There was significant confusion about our date for redeployment home. The team was initially given a redeployment date of 30 June 2003. This was understandably changed to “indefinite” when it was realized that operations tempo in May was higher than expected. Then we were informed that we were redeploying on 3 July and that replacements were not required. On 1 July we were sent to [Some Place] to make our arrangement for travel home. We were scheduled on a rotator for 4 July. Then, on the morning of 2 July, we were informed that we could not leave until a replacement team arrived and that our release from the AOR was rescinded. Finally, our replacements arrived in the AOR on or around 6 July. However, their weapons were confiscated upon arrival in the AOR because they had been sent on commercial aircraft with weapons but without the appropriate paperwork to enter [Another Place] with them. This further delayed our ability to depart. In the mean time, we used the extended overlap period to orient the new team members to their duties. Finally, on 10 July, we departed the AOR for home. While the miscommunication about our release on 3 July caused hard feelings and increased stress for our families, the squadron did make every effort to get us home once our replacements were mission capable. SRA X. and I departed [Some Place] on 10 July and arrived [home] on 11 July. Captain X. returned [home] on 13 July."

4) I am sure everything will be just fine. Our visionary leaders have everything under control.

P.S. The answer to every "because why?" question you ask downrange or in garrison is always SPP (R) (TM).






(Edited so as not to insult our chimpanzee relatives)



 
Last edited:
@MedicalCorpse Like an HMC told me at my first hospital, if you stop seeing the problems in Navy Medicine or you can’t contribute anything to the solutions, then it’s time to get out, because you are part of the problem.

Some of us still want to try and work to find solutions with our colleagues because we still have a health system to run, instead of just bitching endlessly about it.

OP, to try and answer your question, from what I recall from conversations with the MAGTF planners in our G3/5, the Marine Corps is going to depend heavily on our current capabilities for Role II care both ashore (STP/FRSS), the Navy’s role II capabilities afloat (LHA’s/LHD’s and other casualty receiving ships). In terms of Role III care, there are the expeditionary medical facilities (EMFs) which the Navy can field, and we have the T-AH’s- although for how much longer, I’m not sure. Their service life was up last year and a replacement has been planned for sometime-One of the options is the Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission (CHAMP) ships which are apparently a pretty useful and modular platform for a hospital ship.

Based on what I remember from Marine Corps Force 2025 and Expeditionary 2021 and other doctrinal pubs like them, the Navy and the Corps are planning to build up seabasing and MPF capabilities and platforms and along with them, defenses for those platforms, in preparation for any peer/ near peer conflicts in the future. Short of knowing the actual Annex Q’s for those OPLANs themselves, I couldn’t say specifics.

If you are looking at this as a possible research question, you might see what the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab has published in the last few years- they have an expeditionary medicine branch. Think tanks are another good option- Deloitte, Rand, and others have published studies on the military health system in recent years.

Good luck and welcome back in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
@MedicalCorpse Like an HMC told me at my first hospital, if you stop seeing the problems in Navy Medicine or you can’t contribute anything to the solutions, then it’s time to get out, because you are part of the problem.

Some of us still want to try and work to find solutions with our colleagues because we still have a health system to run, instead of just bitching endlessly about it.

OP, to try and answer your question, from what I recall from conversations with the MAGTF planners in our G3/5, the Marine Corps is going to depend heavily on our current capabilities for Role II care both ashore (STP/FRSS), the Navy’s role II capabilities afloat (LHA’s/LHD’s and other casualty receiving ships). In terms of Role III care, there are the expeditionary medical facilities (EMFs) which the Navy can field, and we have the T-AH’s- although for how much longer, I’m not sure. Their service life was up last year and a replacement has been planned for sometime-One of the options is the Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-mission (CHAMP) ships which are apparently a pretty useful and modular platform for a hospital ship.

Based on what I remember from Marine Corps Force 2025 and Expeditionary 2021 and other doctrinal pubs like them, the Navy and the Corps are planning to build up seabasing and MPF capabilities and platforms and along with them, defenses for those platforms, in preparation for any peer/ near peer conflicts in the future. Short of knowing the actual Annex Q’s for those OPLANs themselves, I couldn’t say specifics.

If you are looking at this as a possible research question, you might see what the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab has published in the last few years- they have an expeditionary medicine branch. Think tanks are another good option- Deloitte, Rand, and others have published studies on the military health system in recent years.

Good luck and welcome back in.
Platforms baby!

OP, poke around this website as well. I know the director here and can attest that most contacts you will find on this website will be happy to chat with you about this offline. https://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nmrc/nhrc/research/orh/Pages/home.aspx

Good luck
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
@MedicalCorpse Like an HMC told me at my first hospital, if you stop seeing the problems in Navy Medicine or you can’t contribute anything to the solutions, then it’s time to get out, because you are part of the problem.

@LTMCUSN: Bottom line: I should shut up. Roger that. No guarantees re: "Wilco".

Luckily, I got out 15 years ago, so I'm way ahead of you.

I wonder how you will feel about Navy Medicine when you are an O-5 as I was when I left and resigned my commission.

Maybe you can let me know 10 years from now.

Some of us still want to try and work to find solutions with our colleagues because we still have a health system to run, instead of just bitching endlessly about it.

I am curious if you are enjoying more success not just "finding solutions" (the easy part), but having them implemented by your chain of command (the hard part). I found and advocated all sorts of solutions to both local and systemic problems during my fifteen years as an Air Force physician, which resulted in the same knee jerk "shut up, sit down, color, and here are your orders to Alaska for three years unaccompanied" that the U.S. military usually uses to neutralize anyone who speaks out at any rank.

Best of luck "running" your "health system" for the next few years before it is all privatized. I wouldn't be surprised if more intelligent, caring, idealistic physicians run away from the system in the near future than are chosen by the non-physicians in charge to "run" it.

I guess, in the end, it is typical for the military mindset to dismiss as "bitching" all attempts to learn from the mistakes of the past. "Le pantalon rouge c’est la France!” Sigh.
 
Last edited:
@LTMCUSN I should shut up. Roger that.

Luckily, I got out 15 years ago, so I'm way ahead of you.

I wonder how you will feel about Navy Medicine when you are an O-5 as I was when I left and resigned my commission.

Maybe you can let me know 10 years from now.



I am curious if you are enjoying more success not just "finding solutions" (the easy part), but having them implemented by your chain of command (the hard part). I found and advocated all sorts of solutions to both local and systemic problems during my fifteen years as an Air Force physician, which resulted in the same knee jerk "shut up, sit down, color, and here are your orders to Alaska for three years unaccompanied" that the U.S. military usually uses to neutralize anyone who speaks out at any rank.

Best of luck "running" your "health system" for the next few years before it is all privatized. I wouldn't be surprised if more intelligent, caring, idealistic physicians run away from the system in the near future than are chosen by the non-physicians in charge to "run" it.

I guess, in the end, it is typical for the military mindset to dismiss as "bitching" all attempts to learn from the mistakes of the past. "Le pantalon rouge c’est la France!” Sigh.
I think the only issue is assuming that our experiences with the system will be the same for everyone coming behind us.

You may be right that in 10 years we will be just as burnt out and averse to the MilMed system as you became but I also know plenty of personal mentors and senior colleagues who were very satisfied with their MilMed careers. Full understanding of the system, acceptance of the shortcomings and acceptance of working for the man are all prerequisites for potential happiness in MilMed in my opinion.

When it is time to leave, people should leave. Those considering joining should hesitate, research, explore before joining.

Premeds should hear the horror stories. They should also hear the success stories. Neither should just be dismissed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Premeds should hear the horror stories. They should also hear the success stories. Neither should just be dismissed.

Concur*1,000, good sir. Believe it or not, I hope to hear more success stories. Our military personnel, retirees, and dependents all deserve the best and the brightest physicians (not "providers") caring for them with 100% support from a wise, intelligent and compassionate chain of command.

I'd love to hear ten or twenty of these success stories to brighten my days here in isolation while COVID shuts down all the ASCs in my state...again.

Proposed thread title: "I spoke out for patient safety as a physician and succeeded with kudos!"

Peace,
 
Success meaning successful/happy career for the MilMed physician.

Being content with a career in MilMed doesn't have to be dependent on whether or not our attempts at process improvement or patient safety were successful. I've been hit with poor leadership and horrible system processes. Did we still try to make improvements? Sure. Were they successful? Sometimes. Doesn't change how I feel about my lifestyle, career, etc. right now.

I do have some PI success stories to share. I'll sprinkle them in for your reading pleasure. While you were gone others on here did not like hearing them because they thought I was recruiting for MilMed. I figured if there was an avenue or angle for success in MilMed then it should be shared with the group.
 
@LTMCUSN: Bottom line: I should shut up. Roger that. No guarantees re: "Wilco".

Luckily, I got out 15 years ago, so I'm way ahead of you.

I wonder how you will feel about Navy Medicine when you are an O-5 as I was when I left and resigned my commission.

Maybe you can let me know 10 years from now.



I am curious if you are enjoying more success not just "finding solutions" (the easy part), but having them implemented by your chain of command (the hard part). I found and advocated all sorts of solutions to both local and systemic problems during my fifteen years as an Air Force physician, which resulted in the same knee jerk "shut up, sit down, color, and here are your orders to Alaska for three years unaccompanied" that the U.S. military usually uses to neutralize anyone who speaks out at any rank.

Best of luck "running" your "health system" for the next few years before it is all privatized. I wouldn't be surprised if more intelligent, caring, idealistic physicians run away from the system in the near future than are chosen by the non-physicians in charge to "run" it.

I guess, in the end, it is typical for the military mindset to dismiss as "bitching" all attempts to learn from the mistakes of the past. "Le pantalon rouge c’est la France!” Sigh.
 
@LTMCUSN: Bottom line: I should shut up. Roger that. No guarantees re: "Wilco".

Luckily, I got out 15 years ago, so I'm way ahead of you.

I wonder how you will feel about Navy Medicine when you are an O-5 as I was when I left and resigned my commission.

Maybe you can let me know 10 years from now.



I am curious if you are enjoying more success not just "finding solutions" (the easy part), but having them implemented by your chain of command (the hard part). I found and advocated all sorts of solutions to both local and systemic problems during my fifteen years as an Air Force physician, which resulted in the same knee jerk "shut up, sit down, color, and here are your orders to Alaska for three years unaccompanied" that the U.S. military usually uses to neutralize anyone who speaks out at any rank.

Best of luck "running" your "health system" for the next few years before it is all privatized. I wouldn't be surprised if more intelligent, caring, idealistic physicians run away from the system in the near future than are chosen by the non-physicians in charge to "run" it.

I guess, in the end, it is typical for the military mindset to dismiss as "bitching" all attempts to learn from the mistakes of the past. "Le pantalon rouge c’est la France!” Sigh.
The privatization of military healthcare is in full effect already.

I practice close to a major army post and my "satellite" clinic is literally <5 minutes outside the gates.

5 years ago (when the local military MTF was actually seeing and treating patients), Tricare patient # was < 5% of my overall patient population. I just checked the number for the last year and it is > 60%!!! Hard to believe that there has been this big of an increase, but numbers don't lie.

The pathetic part is that these patients NEVER come with any records (i.e. notes, labs, radiology, studies, etc) and frequently are pissed off at me when they show up for their appointments and I don't have any information. Their "providers" (usually PAs or NPs) just dump them, don't forward any records and could care less what happens to them. Once they leave post, they are no longer their problem. The crazy thing is the number of ACTIVE DUTY troops that I have treated in the last year has rapidly increased. This major "MTF" can't even handle the active dutv population, let along retirees and dependents.

While this certainly has increased my business, I find this practice disgusting and pathetic.
 
Hey, thanks everyone for the information provided.


So, outside of DHA and the push to make milmed more operationally focused, what is milmed doing in an operational/tactical sense to prepare integrate with the rest of the military in terms of near-peer conflict?

I guess I should come forward and say that I'm interested in looking at some of these issues for research inspiration. From my understanding, a lot of lives saved since WWII has been through streamlining the casevac process, ie MASH and "the Golden Hour" that was the rule when I was in. These things won't exist in a near-peer environment. The planning guidance talks about distributed forces and getting away from fixed infrastructure, so it's not like you are going to have a causality on a bird and in surgery in Kandahar in less than an hour (or 2, or 8, or 24 for that matter).

My concern/interest is we don't actually know how to operate under these conditions, and that we are underestimating the risks when we think we are going to get the same life-saving medical effectiveness we've enjoyed since Vietnam, when we are actually operating in the most hostile conditions probably ever encountered. I mean, in every previous war lines have been, at the least, fairly slow moving. You could put a field hospital outside of hostile artillery range, for instance, and no opposition has held air superiority against us.

So, what my interest is in is what is milmed (particularly the Navy/Marine Corps) doing at the tactical and operational level to integrate medicine into these new concepts? Is there any research, training, or theorizing, that is looking at what would be clinical best-practices for war-time trauma with delayed definitive care? Is anyone thinking about what we need, and what we want providers to do, with urgent patients that they might have to hold onto and manage for many hours or days? Like, in WW1 femur and hip fractures had 25% mortality rate, I have a hunch a lot of medical issues that we consider routine will become very problematic under the near-peer circumstances. I also have a hunch that a lot of gains in basic-science have gone unscrutinized in terms of there application to battlefield medicine. For example, research regarding stress, immunity, and inflammation has made considerable gains since the 80s/90s, but I've found very little research that looks at military-specific circumstances, and of this most of the emphasis is on PTSD.

Can anyone that is involved with the community validate or invalidate this? I'm fairly out of the loop, I've been out for over 6 years now and my job wasn't even medical. I'm very much looking at this through a 2014 Lcpl Rifleman's lens of milmed and I'm interested if it's worth going down this rabbit hole.
You're pretty much spot on. It has been a very long time since we've fought in truly contested air space. I'm certainly not high up the food chain or know what the high level planners are planning, but in general I do know that they're trying to figure out how to do more definitive care in a forward environment vs in the rear. The PAs/IDCs/MDs that'll be embedded with units will need to learn essentially a more advanced version of prolonged field care. I know some GME programs are looking into this.
--Have smart ideas from junior officers shot down by the Pentagon because "we've never done it that way before"
The big issue I see is that senior officers are thinking in terms of what it was like when they were the junior officer. They don't grasp how much things have changed over their 10-15 since holding that GMO or junior attending job.
Some of us still want to try and work to find solutions with our colleagues because we still have a health system to run, instead of just bitching endlessly about it.
Yup. But culture is hard to change. And what happens long term is some realize they're the only ones putting in the effort and give up. Gotta keep pushing though.
The pathetic part is that these patients NEVER come with any records (i.e. notes, labs, radiology, studies, etc) and frequently are pissed off at me when they show up for their appointments and I don't have any information. Their "providers" (usually PAs or NPs) just dump them, don't forward any records and could care less what happens to them. Once they leave post, they are no longer their problem. The crazy thing is the number of ACTIVE DUTY troops that I have treated in the last year has rapidly increased. This major "MTF" can't even handle the active dutv population, let along retirees and dependents.
This is frustrating for us as well, and part of the problem is the beauracratic levels of tricare. For example, to try and avoid this, I always put in a great referral note. However, I recently put in a referral to physical therapy that got sent to the network. There's no ICD 10 for bilateral knee pain, so I put in both left and right knee pain ICD10 codes, but I associated the referral with only one of the ICD10s (which is a limitation of AHLTA). I wrote in the text "bilateral knee pain, right > left ...." and gave a history.

When he got to the network provider, they would only treat one knee because that was all that was authorized by tricare. And then, in order to fix it I could either put in another referral for his other knee, which would take a week or two to process all the way to the PT's office, or I could spend 2 hours emailing and calling different people at the MTF till I was finally able to find someone who said he thinks he could reach out to HNFS to get it fixed. I haven't heard back yet, so hopefully it was fixed.

But we have no control over anything once the referral is in the system. It also used to be that each clinic would handle their own referrals, now there's a central referral management at most MTFs. These central referral management offices don't know the nuances of every clinic, so just operate off a checklist. For example, podiatry likes weight bearing films of the feet for most things. So if you send something to podiatry, even if it's an ingrown toenail, sometimes they'll kick back the referral due to lack of films.

As far as sending stuff out to the network, it goes to Health Net Federal Services who figure out who goes where. Way about the MTF level.

Also, I've had my marines get into accidents and get stabilized, open/closed reductions at outside hospitals and get send out with just basic discharge paperwork. No films or any technical description of procedures done. So I have to repeat films and then contact our ortho to figure out next steps. Wish we had better EMR interoperability.
 
The pathetic part is that these patients NEVER come with any records (i.e. notes, labs, radiology, studies, etc) and frequently are pissed off at me when they show up for their appointments and I don't have any information. Their "providers" (usually PAs or NPs) just dump them, don't forward any records and could care less what happens to them. Once they leave post, they are no longer their problem. The crazy thing is the number of ACTIVE DUTY troops that I have treated in the last year has rapidly increased. This major "MTF" can't even handle the active dutv population, let along retirees and dependents.

While this certainly has increased my business, I find this practice disgusting and pathetic.

I totally understand the frustration but as someone who worked in the system you are likely aware this is a systems issue and the ire shouldn’t be directed at the provider.

One “new” thing is that every persons full medical record is available on Tricare Online. If you have a patient that shows up without records (or you could even do this proactively when they book) tell them to print their record. It may even be worth investing in a cheap laptop and a CAC reader and you could even have the patient pull up their record at your office if they show up without any. (CAC for an active duty patient, dependents have username/password access. Parents have access to children records through age 13)

The real solution is that any consult should automatically have appended the note from the visit that generated the consult as a start. This should be an auto-generated process, but as mentioned before once the consult is put in the control of the orderer is essentially zero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top