Congress has raised incentive pay cielings

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

jtn3

Junior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
This might be of some interest to my fellow future military docs. Congress has signed into law fairly substantial multi-year special pay cielings, incentive special pay cielings, and retention bonuses. As of yet it remains an unfunded mandate.

From US Medicine

December 2002
Military Health Bonus Pays Raised In Bill - Matt Pueschel

WASHINGTON-Congress passed legislation last month that would raise the ceilings of several military health professional bonus pays.

The Conference Report of the FY 2003 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4546) was approved by the House and Senate in mid-November, and included both House and Senate previously proposed provisions for bonus pays as long as those who are eligible serve for any 12-month period beginning after FY '02. The bill was delivered to the President in late November for his signature.

Under section 615 of the conference report, the House/Senate conferees increased the maximum rates of muti-year retention bonuses for certain medical officers and dentists from $14,000 to $50,000; the maximum rates of special pay for nurse anesthetists from $15,000 to $50,000; the maximum rate of incentive special pay for medical officers from $36,000 to $50,000; the maximum level of accession bonuses for registered nurses from $5,000 to $30,000; the maximum annual special pay for pharmacy officers from $12,000 to $15,000; and the maximum retention special pay for optometrists from $6,000 to $15,000. The conferees also increased the maximum accession bonuses for nurse officer candidates to $10,000 and their maximum monthly stipend to $1,000.

In section 618 of the conference report, the conferees accepted the House's original provision to amend the Critical Skills Retention Bonus (CSRB) awarding criteria for certain health care professionals to allow exceptions to the limits on bonus amounts and years of service for bonuses paid. Previously, the law limited the total amount a military physician could receive under the CSRB to $200,000 over the course of his or her military career, but not past 25 years, according to a House staff member. Section 618 sets no dollar or service year limits for DoD if they find it necessary to pay extra to keep qualified military physicians in certain critical skills. "It's a flexible tool with no dollar limits for the CSRB," the staff member said.

The new provision only requires DoD to notify Congress 90 days in advance when they design a new CSRB program (See sidebar for the Department of Defense Health Affairs currently proposed CSRB plan).


Funding Paucity
However since the FY '03 Defense appropriations bill passed in October did not include funding for these newly authorized medical special pay ceiling increases (pending Presidential approval) under sections 615 and 618 of the new bill, it's possible that significant funds to cover the provisions may not be garnered for another couple of years. "Although the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] has authorized increases to each of the special pays, it did not appropriate any additional moneys to cover the bill," an Air Force surgeon general spokesperson told U.S. MEDICINE. "The next step in the process is for [the] DoD special pays working group to determine where critical shortages justify an increase in a special pay and set the FY '04 rates and project FY '05 and '06 rates. Because each service will need to POM [Program Objective Memorandum tool used to budget in outyears] for the money, we are looking at FY '05 before a significant increase in special pays [is seen]. We are requesting that P&R [Office of the Secretary of Defense Progams and Resources] issue a directive to each service to POM for the increases, rather than relying on each service deciding whether to POM or not. We still need to use short term fixes for the next two years unless Congress should appropriate increased funds to cover the increased spcial pay bills."

However, a Congressional staff member told U.S. MEDICINE that if DoD officials find the new bonus ceilings to be worthwhile enough to try to fund them this year, they could try to partially fund them at a feasible increase somewhere underneath the new limit, or ask for additional money later in a supplemental bill. According to a House Armed Services Committee staff member, the special pay ceiling increases in the bill are discretionary, so the services can choose whether or not to fund it this fiscal year if they can find the funds for it.


Conference Agreement
In reaching an agreement on the conference report, the House and Senate conferees accepted all provisions the two sides had previously proposed with an additional increase in one of new the pay ceilings.

The original Senate version of the bill had proposed an increase in the maximum multi-year retention bonus from $14,000 to $25,000 a year. The conferees not only accepted this provision, but decided to bump the increase up to $50,000.

The other original Senate provision called for an increase in the maximum incentive special pay for medical officers from $36,000 to $50,000 a year, which was accepted as is. The orginal House provision called for exceptions to be granted to the limitation on maximum bonus amounts for healthcare providers qualified in a critical military health skill and exceptions to the years of service limitation for medical officers, which was accepted as section 618 in the conference report.

The conferees also added in bonus pay ceiling increases for four other healthcare professional specialties.

A Congressional staff member told U.S. MEDICINE that the House expects DoD to implement the ceiling increases over time.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Originally posted by jtn3

The original Senate version of the bill had proposed an increase in the maximum multi-year retention bonus from $14,000 to $25,000 a year. The conferees not only accepted this provision, but decided to bump the increase up to $50,000.

The other original Senate provision called for an increase in the maximum incentive special pay for medical officers from $36,000 to $50,000 a year, which was accepted as is.

If this is true and there will be funding for this, then the icing on my cake just got thicker! ;)
 
Let me tell you how the CRSB was administered this past fiscal year.

It was announced that there was going to be a CRSB. As high as $50,000 for some individuals. Contracts were offered. Pretty much the only people who took the contract were people who were going to stay anyways. No one who was going to get out took the contract to stay. A number of people who wanted to take the contract and obligate themselves for an extra year of duty were not eligible.

After the contracts were signed, the leadership said "oops, we don't have any money, so the contracts are void".....Do you think that would fly anywhere else in the United States????

Then a few months later, the leadership says we found some money, the contracts are not void anymore. We'll just pay you late, and backdate the payment date as if you were paid on time. What a way to do business.

That was also done with the ISP....good thing I didn't take the ISP or the CRSB this year.

A number of people who were expecting their ISPs in October which is when it is supposed to be paid didn't get it. I don't think people were paid until December.

I know people with say insurance reimbursements are the same, but it is not. Account receiveables works on a delay, and physicians expect the delay......ISP contracts say when you are supposed to be paid.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
That's the military for you. :(
However, it's better late than never.

But I suppose it's better than being in private practice and the malpractice premiums double, medicare reimbursements go down, or your practice volume goes down b/c more physicians set up shop. Even worse, your patient sues you for something ridiculous. Unfortunately, similar financial uncertainties face private practice physicians too.
 
The reason these CRSBs, MSP, ISP, etc.... are being raised is because despite all the "negatives" of private practice that you mentioned it is still preferred by the overwhelming majority of practicing physicians. (current mass exodus)

I need to mention one thing about malpractice. Although you are protected financially when it comes to malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act....YOU can still be sued. AD cannot sue, but family members and retirees can sue, and you will be named in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Your credentials can be hurt and practice limited. I have done several specialty reviews for the government related to lawsuits brought against the individual.

If the malpractice has merit, and you really screw up...I'm quite sure that you can be brought up on charges under the UCMJ.
 
Very good points, and I understand your points about malpractice in the military.

I'm not encouraging military physicians to practice carelessly; however, within the military system, there is no chance of financial stress of malpractice premiums rising and less of a chance that a lawsuit will have financial impact on you.

In private practice, whether you are at fault or not, an unfounded lawsuit will be financially draining.

In the military, it's your reputation on the line. If you are an outstanding physician, then you'll have little to worry about your reputation due to unfounded accusations.
 
Sorry big guy....the majority of the suits in the military are unfounded also. Just go to the Risk Management Office of any majority military hospital and ask them how many ongoing suits they have, and how many of them are just plan nuisance suits. You would be surprised.

The worse part is that because of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the individual providers are not informed about the suit (hence the myth that you don't have to worry about lawsuits) until they get ready to put your name in the Data Base.

However, you're right about not having to worry about the increasing malpractice premiums, but that's about it. Everything else is the same.
 
Actually, you do. If you are unlucky enough to be involved in a case, I wouldn't trust a military lawyer to defend me. If you really cared about the credentialling/data bank issue, it is advsiable to get your own lawyer. The people I know did.
 
Top