Approaches to Reducing Federal Spending on National Defense

  • 1,713 views
Uploaded on

Presentation by Carla Tighe Murray, CBO Analyst, to the Manpower Roundtable

Presentation by Carla Tighe Murray, CBO Analyst, to the Manpower Roundtable

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here

Comments are closed

    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,713
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Congressional Budget Office January 7, 2014 Approaches to Reducing Federal Spending on National Defense Presentation to the Manpower Roundtable Carla Tighe Murray, Ph.D. Senior Analyst, National Security Division This presentation provides information published in Long-Term Implications of the 2014 Future Years Defense Program (November 2013) and Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 to 2023 (November 2013). See www.cbo.gov/publication/44683 and www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44687.
  • 2. Cost of DoD’s Plans, by Appropriation Category (Billions of 2014 dollars) Actual 900 FYDP Period Beyond the FYDP Period CBO Projection 800 700 600 CBO Projection With Illustrative OCO Funding Military Construction Family Housing OCO Funding 500 Extension of FYDP FYDP Operation and Support 400 Operation and Maintenance 300 200 Military Personnel 100 Acquisition Procurement Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 FYDP = Future Years Defense Program 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Infrastructure 2028 OCO = Overseas Contingency Operations CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 1
  • 3. Cost of DoD’s Plans Compared with Funding Caps (Billions of 2014 dollars) Actual 800 FYDP Period Base Budget Plus OCO Funding 700 Beyond the FYDP Period CBO Projection 600 Extension of FYDP 500 Base Budget 400 FYDP 300 Estimate of DoD's Funding Under the BCA Caps After Automatic Reductions 200 100 0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 FYDP = Future Years Defense Program 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 OCO = Overseas Contingency Operations CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 2020 2024 2028 BCA = Budget Control Act 2
  • 4. Reduce the Size of the Military to Satisfy Caps Under the Budget Control Act Total 201420142018 2023 (Billions of dollars) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Change in Spending Budget authority 0 -28 -39 -49 -45 -66 -73 -80 -86 -86 -161 -552 Outlays 0 -18 -31 -42 -43 -57 -67 -75 -81 -83 -133 -495 This option would take effect in October 2014. Amounts do not reflect changes to caps in 2015 made by the Bipartisan Budget Act. ■ This option would reduce the size of the military so that, by 2017, DoD’s budget would comply with the cap for that year. It would not fully comply with the caps for 2014-2016. ■ If the reductions were spread evenly across the four military services and among all active, guard, and reserve personnel, those reductions could eliminate – – – – 10 Army brigade combat teams (out of 66 planned in 2017); 34 major warships (out of 244 in 2017); 2 Marine regiments (out of 11 in 2017); 170 Air Force fighters (out of 1,100 in combat squadrons in 2017). CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 3
  • 5. Other Options to Reduce Spending Option Reductions in Outlays, 2014–2023 1. Cap Increases in Basic Pay for Military Service Members $25 billion 2. Replace Some Military Personnel With Civilian Employees $20 billion 3. Increase TRICARE Cost Sharing for Working-Age Retirees $19 billion-$71 billion 4. Increase Cost Sharing for TRICARE for Life members $31 billion 5. Six Procurement Options Examined by CBO $10 billion-$37 billion each [relative to FYDP extended] CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 4
  • 6. Option 1: Cap Increases in Basic Pay for Military Service Members Total (Billions of dollars) Change in Spending Budget authority Outlays 2014–2018 -4.7 -4.6 2014–2023 -24.9 -24.6 This option would take effect in January 2015. ■ An argument for: Average cash compensation for military personnel exceeds that of 80 percent of comparable civilians. ■ An argument against: Recruiting and retention could be compromised. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 5
  • 7. Option 2: Replace Some Military Personnel With Civilian Employees Total (Billions of dollars) Change in Spending Budget authority Outlays 2014–2018 -5.0 -4.6 2014–2023 -20.2 -19.4 This option would take effect in October 2014. ■ An argument for: Civilians require less job-specific training and are not subject to the frequent transfers that military personnel are. ■ An argument against: It could reduce the number of trained military personnel able to deploy in an emergency. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 6
  • 8. Actual and Projected Costs for Military Health Care as a Share of DoD’s Base Budget, 1990 to 2028 (Percent) 16 TRICARE Initiated TRICARE for Life Initiated Actual FY Period DP Projected 12 8 4 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 7
  • 9. Costs of DoD’s Plans for Its Military Health System (Billions of 2014 dollars) Actual 100 FYDP Period Beyond the FYDP Period 90 CBO Projection 80 Extension of FYDP 70 FYDP 60 TRICARE for Life Accrual Payments 50 40 Pharmaceuticals Purchased Care and Contracts 30 20 Direct Care and Administration 10 Military Personnel 0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 2020 2024 2028 8
  • 10. TRICARE Beneficiaries Generally Pay Less Out-of-Pocket for Their Health Care Than Their Civilian Counterparts ■ The share of health care costs paid by a military retiree family of working age (<65) has fallen. – 27 percent of the total cost of care when TRICARE was first fully implemented – 11 percent in 2012 ■ In 2012, on average, retiree families paid less than one-fifth as much for their care as civilian counterparts with employmentbased insurance. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 9
  • 11. Average Annual Costs for Military Retiree Families Under TRICARE Plans and for Civilian Counterparts with Employment-Based Insurance, 2012 (Dollars) Premium or Enrollment Fee 520 TRICARE Prime Civilian HMO 5,080 Deductibles and Copayments 445 1,000 TRICARE as a Percentage of the Civilian HMO Plan TRICARE Standard or Extra Total Annual Out-of-Pocket Costs 965 6,080 16% 1,035 1,035 4,270 Civilian PPO 0 1,295 5,565 TRICARE as a Percentage of the Civilian PPO Plan CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 19% 10
  • 12. Some Options for Slowing the Growth of Health Care Costs ■ Cost-sharing Options – Increase fees, copayments, and deductibles for workingage military retirees and families – Prevent working-age military retirees and families from enrolling in Prime but allow access to Standard/Extra for an annual fee – Introduce minimum out-ofpocket costs to Tricare for Life for Medicare-eligible retirees and families ■ Other Approaches – Expand disease management programs – Expand scholarships and close the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS) – Hire additional auditors to combat fraud – Combine the military departments’ medical establishments CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 11
  • 13. Option 3a: Modify TRICARE Enrollment Fees, Deductibles and Copayments for Working-Age Military Retirees Total (Billions of dollars) Change in Mandatory Outlays Change in Revenues Change in Discretionary Spending Budget authority Outlays 2014–2018 -0.1 -0.4 2014–2023 -0.3 -1.6 -6.8 -6.1 -21.0 -19.7 This option would take effect in October 2014. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 12
  • 14. Option 3b: Make Working-Age Retirees Ineligible for TRICARE Prime Total (Billions of dollars) Change in Mandatory Outlays Change in Revenues Change in Discretionary Spending Budget authority Outlays 2014–2018 0.1 -3.0 -25.5 -23.1 2014–2023 0.5 -10.5 -75.4 -71.0 This option would take effect in October 2014. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 13
  • 15. Option 4: Introduce Minimum Out-of-Pocket Requirements Under TRICARE for Life Total (Billions of dollars) Change in Mandatory Outlays MERHCF Medicare Total 2014–2018 2014–2023 -8.0 -2.6 -10.6 -22.2 -8.6 -30.7 This option would take effect in January 2015. MERHCF = Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 14
  • 16. The Pros and Cons of Changing TRICARE Fees for Retirees ■ Arguments For – DoD-provided care was not meant to replace health insurance offered by postservice employers. – The benefit is available only to those who served a full career; most veterans will never receive it. – Would encourage a more disciplined use of medical resources and discourage the use of low-value health care. ■ Arguments Against – Would impose costs on those who chose to remain in the military for a full career. – Would discourage some current members from remaining. – Higher copayments could cause some people to delay treatment, and their health could suffer. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 15
  • 17. Potential for Savings in the Other Approaches ■ Expand disease management programs – Studies of DoD’s existing program find small to nonexistent savings. ■ Expand the use of scholarships and close USUHS – In 2012, USUHS funding was $190 million for operations and maintenance and $35 million for military personnel – Transferring functions would mean continuing some funding. ■ Hire additional auditors – Would have known costs and reduce deficits by unknown but probably small amounts. ■ Combine military medical establishments – Defense Health Agency established on October 1, 2013 – DoD estimated that savings from implementing the Defense Health Agency could equal $46.5 million per year – GAO’s assessment was that savings would be lower. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 16
  • 18. An Example of a Procurement Option: Replace the Joint Strike Fighter Program With F-16s and F/A-18s Total (Billions of dollars) 2014–2018 2014–2023 Change in Spending Budget authority -23.3 -48.5 Outlays -11.9 -37.1 This option would take effect in October 2014. Savings are measured relative to CBO’s extension of DoD’s FYDP. ■ An argument for: New F-16s and F/A-18s would be sufficiently advanced to meet anticipated threats. ■ An argument against: F-16s and F/A-18s lack the stealth design features found on the F-35s. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 17