I think we are all waiting for a little more elaboration from
@Cavalry.
Wouldn't that be irony, though, or direct? That is, if the cavalry comes over the hill to save the day?
Well I'll do my best,
So for efficiency system-wide, there are things like drug prescription and distribution that is very efficient compared to civilian counterparts and our patients never see a co-pay for prescriptions at MTFs - "After comparing the cost of prescriptions filled at military pharmacies with those filled at private sector pharmacies, we estimate that the overall cost of dispensing direct care prescriptions would have been 42 percent higher had the prescriptions been dispensed at a mix of retail and home delivery pharmacies." (2016, Insitute for Defense Analyses, Comparing the Costs of Military Treatment Facilities with Private Sector Care, Lurie). The DoD's MTFs outpace the VA on pretty much every quality metric (not saying that's the highest bar by any means, though MTFs are often confused with the VA) and we can get appointments for pts in many subspecialty clinics, particularly in the Army, better than many of our civilian counterparts. "Soldiers, retirees and family members reported very high overall satisfaction – 93 percent – with their experience at Army medical treatment facilities...other two big metrics are ease of access to Army providers, which was rated 83 percent positive, the highest in the military health services, and overall experience with Army pharmacies, which was rated 78 percent positive."
Survey indicates higher satisfaction with military medical facilities | Health.mil.
For overall costs - "2016 Kaiser Permanente collected $64.6 billion to care for its 11.3 million members. The Department of Defense’s FY2017 budget for military health is $48.8 billion to care for its 9.4 million beneficiaries... Military health spending grew too, but recently it has increased at a far slower pace than civilian health spending." (
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170427.059833/full/)
Furthermore, "Critics assert that the military health system does not perform enough complex surgical procedures in peacetime to maintain provider skills. The volume-quality relationship is strong, but it is not absolute. High-quality training and strict adherence to procedures—an approach first championed by military aviation—can largely compensate for smaller case volumes. In 2014, the military health system compared its performance to three of our nation’s top health care systems—Geisinger, Intermountain Healthcare, and Kaiser Permanente—and found that it did better in some areas, worse in others, and generally as well overall." (
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170427.059833/full/)
A recent American College of Surgeons assessment of surgical outcomes, based on national data, identified several military health system hospitals as top performers. Another study found that the military health system does not have the racial disparities in care commonly seen in civilian hospitals. A recently published analysis of more than 10,000 military health system beneficiaries with carotid artery stenosis (a condition that can lead to stroke) found that patients treated by military doctors got fewer procedures but had better outcomes than beneficiaries treated by private, fee-for-service doctors." (
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170427.059833/full/)
Our hospitals often outperform civilian centers nationally and rank well above the national average in Well Child Visits in the first 15 months, Child Strep Tests, Child Common Cold, Breast Cancer Screenings, Cervical Cancer Screenings, Colon Cancer Screenings, Diabetes A1c Testing, Diabetes A1C Control <8, Low Back Pain management, Admission for Mental Health Follow Up within 7 days, and Admission for Mental Health Follow Up within 30 days. All are national metrics using HEDIS measures in national surveys (See HEIDIS attachment, for national percentile scores, anything above 50% is above the national median).
We don't bother with playing the preauthorization insurance game, if the patient needs a CT, or an X-ray, or an MRI, it's ordered and it gets done - no insurance company involved. I'm not saying that every hospital support system is as efficient as that of the private sector, and I will be the first to admit that it often isn't. But EDs in MTFs rarely get backed up the way all our civilian ones stateside often do, and surgery tires to refuse taking patients when we call from the ED (unlike my last job when we always got flak. Yes, there is a lower case volume at MTFs around the country, but our programs are actually quite good. Our first-year gen surg interns in MTFs often perform between 40 and 70 cases as primary surgeon or first assistant, unlike many civilian gen surg programs (see SurgeryBrochure2018 attachment) AND many such programs are ranked amongst the top of civilian gen surgical programs across the nation in peer-reviewed research papers (see American Journal of Surgery Article) - (For you, my dear deuist)
Also, what top 10 list are you referring to? If military residency programs were considered so competitive, every civilian out there would be throwing themselves at the Department of Defense to join its GME.
There are lots of things that we can do to improve our hospitals and the military health system overall. Some of the articles I cited above as well as this jama article
Transforming TRICARE and the Military Health System and this white paper (
http://www.businessofgovernment.org... to Improve Military Hospital Performance.pdf) likely include the most credible go-tos, including shuttering some very low-volume MTFs of the total 50-something Military Hospitals across the US (
Comparing Military Hospitals). However, there are also well-founded calls for expansion of the most successful MTFs, and those serve as the bedrock that will continue to provide strong graduate medical education in the military.
I look forward to your critique
🙂