When I was in Europe last year, we had some complaints of people waiting for a call to bring the child in and then after they were examined waiting 3 or 5 months to get a pair of glasses.

Mr. AVERILL. This is indeed a problem.

Mr. BYRNE. Coming from a town where you have the best eye hospital, Wills Eye Hospital, I know about eye care. And I don't see why the Army or the Navy or the Air Force or the Marine Corps can't take care of it.

Any questions?

Mr. Wilson?

Mr. WILSON. No.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Brinkley?

Mr. BRINKLEY. I have no questions, but I wish to express my appreciation for the very excellent statements from both of the witnesses. Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Beall?

Mr. BEALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do have a request.

Mr. BYRNE. Yes; Mr. Beall.

Mr. BEALL. We haven't heard anything about the DOD plans to implement section 404 of the recently passed procurement authorization bill concerning an Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs.

I am wondering if we could have the counsel direct a letter to the Department of Defense asking for plans on implementation of that new law.

(Mr. Ford nods.)

Mr. BYRNE. We will do that.

Mr. FORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Beall.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, at that point, if I might compliment these gentlemen myself on their fine statements and let them know that Dr. James Gregg, who has been very active in your national organization, has his office in my district and I am one of his patients. He fitted me with eyeglasses. I have great respect for the ability of optometrists, and I hope, we can solve the problems that you have presented to us today.

Dr. ROBBINS. Thank you, sir, very much.

Mr. FORD. Do you have any information as to why the number of optometry officers in the Navy is so much lower than the Air Force, where you have practically the same number eligible for care?

Mr. AVERILL. We do know, Mr. Ford, that the Navy hopefully will request additional slots for optometrists, but at this time that official word has not come in, and we don't know exactly the reason why the Navy has not made this request in the past.

Dr. Robbins pointed out that part of the problem is that in the Navy the optometrist does not go in as high a rank as they do in the Army, which is a captain, and they have to wait a little while in the Navy, which is one of the problems there.

Mr. FORD. In other words, it is not a question of what the Navy wants. It is a question of where they go by choice?

Mr. AVERILL. Well, in the Navy we have had in the past-in the Air Force and Navy, we have had to draft optometrists twice in the last 15 months. So there is a problem there of getting optometrists to come into those two branches.

Mr. FORD. Just one other question: Do you have any statistics you could put in the record on the average annual income of optometrists? Mr. AVERILL. We would be very happy to supply that.

(The American Optometric Association subsequently submitted the following material from the AOA 1969 Economic Survey on Optometry :)

Average net income by regions
of responding A.0.A.0.D.'s

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BYRNE. Thank you both.

Bob Nolan, Fleet Reserve Association. Will you come forward, please?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Nolan begins, I could ask a question of Mr. McKenzie of the Department of Defense. I wanted to clarify something for the record that we were discussing the other day. We discussed the question, Mr. McKenzie, of disabled retired personnel being ineligible for certain types of care in military facilities, even though they might live close to these facilities and have to go many miles to a Veterans' Administration facility where they were eligible. You said there were five or six types of conditions for which they were not eligible for care in a military hospital, under an Executive order dating back, I think, to 1951.

Now I was wondering, and my question to you is, if that regulation is not violating the law, since the dependent medical care law of 1956 says they are eligible for care in military facilities subject only to the availability of space, facilities, and medical personnel?

Mr. MCKENZIE. Mr. Ford, that question has been considered several times by the Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

The question first arose in 1956, when the Department of Defense was preparing its implementing regulations for the then recently enacted Dependents' Medical Care Act. At that time the Assistant General Counsel held, and he has repeatedly held on subsequent occasions, that there is no conflict between the Executive order and the law. His reasoning is that the law is prefaced by the phrase "Under joint regulations issued by the Secretary of Defense," that is, the entitlement to care of retired members in military facilities is conditioned by that qualifying phrase, and that therefore all the department has done is to take into account the provisions of the Executive order in issuing the implementing regulations which the statute specifically states that care shall be provided under.

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Nolan.

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman

Mr. BYRNE. Will you identify your partner, please?

Mr. NOLAN. On my right is my legislative assistant, Mr. Jack Yelverton-who in our offices here in Washington handles all of our CHAMPUS problems, and that is why I am having him with me today.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. NOLAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee:

I am Robert W. Nolan, the national executive secretary of the Fleet Reserve Association. The FRA is a service organization composed of over 74,000 career sailors and marines, active duty and retired. Sixty percent of our membership is serving on active duty. As a retired chief petty officer I deem it a privilege to appear here today on behalf of my shipmates and present their views on this vital subject.

This committee is aware of the Fleet Reserve Association's "hospital rights" program which during the years 1963-66 focused congressional and public attention on the issue of medical care for military personnel and initiated corrective legislation in the 88th Congress which resulted in the enactment of Public Law 89-614.

The Fleet Reserve Association takes great pride in its pioneering role in this legislation. Because, outside of military pay, Public Law 89-614 is the most comprehensive and meaningful benefit given to military personnel and their dependents in this decade.

It is true that all new programs must be evaluated after a period of operation to assure that the beneficiaries are receiving maximum benefits compatible with the language of the law and the expenditure of public funds. Therefore, the FRA congratulates this subcommittee on its timely investigation and assures you of our complete cooperation. As my association's chief executive, I am proud that I originated the first supplemental health insurance program to Public Law 89-614. It is entitled "Milicare" and is available to our members and their dependents. It was designed to fit "hand-in-glove" with the benefits of Public Law 89-614. Under its provisions the underwriter, the Continental Insurance Co., pays the patient's share of the cost of medical care received under the provisions of CHAMPUS.

"Milicare" was originated in the spring of 1967 and implemented in the fall of that year. All benefits of the program accrue to the participants. The treasury of the FRA does not receive 1 cent of revenue from the program. The policy has enabled us, after 2 years of experience, to reduce the premium costs this year. I have attached a brochure on "Milicare" to this testimony for your information. I offer this information as evidence of the FRA's continuing interest in the CHAMPUS program.

OUR EXPERIENCE WITH CHAMPUS

The Fleet Reserve Association provides career services to its members. Since the implementation of CHAMPUS we have developed an entirely new service: resolving problems relating to CHAMPUS. Since October 1, 1966, we have averaged one to two letters a day concerning a CHAMPUS problem or inquiring for information on the program. These problems range in scope from the

Lack of beneficiaries knowledge of the program;

Lack of medical personnel's knowledge of the program;
Lack of the fiscal agents' knowledge of the program;

Fiscal agents' indifference in providing information and
assistance;

Misunderstanding of the "reasonable charges";

Lack of information as to why the full claim is not allowed; Establishment of proof that the deductible for outpatient care has been met;

Excessive delay in the processing of claims.

Tendency of some military hospitals to discourage giving care to retirees and their dependents; and

Lack of certain types of care (that is eye examinations) under the provisions of the law.

By the same token, I feel that it speaks well of the program and the medical profession that I cannot recall of having received a single com