Referred to Subcommittee on International Security.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 21, 1998
Military Health Care Fairness Act - Amends the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) to allow certain eligible covered beneficiaries to enroll in any health benefits plan under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHB) offering medical care comparable to that offered under CHAMPUS. Includes as an eligible beneficiary a military retiree (with an exception) or dependent who is: (1) not guaranteed access under TRICARE (a Department of Defense (DOD) managed care program) to health care comparable to health care provided under the FEHB; (2) eligible to enroll in the TRICARE Program but is not so enrolled because of location, total enrollment limitations, or any other reason; or (3) entitled to hospital insurance benefits under Part A of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act. Limits eligible beneficiaries during the first two years of enrollment to military retirees who are: (1) 65 years of age or older; or (2) retired or separated due to physical disability. States that any eligible beneficiary shall not be required to satisfy any FEHB eligibility criteria as a condition for enrollment. Provides for: (1) an enrollment period and a three-year minimum enrollment term; (2) authorized treatment in a military medical treatment facility; (3) enrollment contributions; (4) participation management by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); and (5) annual reports from the Secretary of Defense and the OPM Director concerning the provision of such care. Directs the Secretary, within four years after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, to report to the Congress on whether such health care option should be made permanent and on the estimated costs of such option. Directs the Secretary to: (1) begin to offer such option no later than six months after enactment of this Act; and (2) continue to offer such option through 2003, and to provide care to eligible beneficiaries through 2005. Provides program funding for FY 1999 through 2005 from amounts authorized for appropriation to DOD for military personnel for such years.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1963 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1963 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1963 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1963 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.