Military Advanced Education Volume 13, Issue 3 — Summer, 2018
Editorial
Jay Colby Editor jay.colby@kmimediagroup.com Correspondents J.B. Bissell • Kasey Chisholm • Catherine Day Jaime Fettrow-Alderfer • Nora McGann Holly Christy • Robert D. Rahni
Advertising
Publisher Cheri Anderson cheri@kmimediagroup.com Mobile: (240) 277-0932 • Office: (301) 299-5566 Advertising Sales Manager Greg Smith gsmith@kmimediagroup.com Mobile: (252) 339-9191 • Office: (301) 299-5566 Web Advertising Account Executive Duane Ebanks duanee@kmimediagroup.com Mobile: (202)-459-1925 • Office (301) 299-5566
KMI Media Group Chief Executive Officer Jack Kerrigan jack@kmimediagroup.com Office: (301) 299-5566 Mobile: (240) 994-5352
Operations, Circulation & Production Marketing & Distribution Director circulation@kmimediagroup.com
Subscription Information
A Proud Member of
Military Advanced Education
ISSN 2380-8217 is published 8 times a year by KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2018. Military Advanced Education is free to qualified members of the U.S. military, employees of the U.S. government and non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S.
Corporate Offices KMI Media Group 10209 Bentcross Drive Potomac, MD 20854 Office: 301.299.5566 kmi@kmimediagroup.com Web: www.MAE-kmi.com
GI Bill Wrong From the Pentagon Benefit restrictions that kick in after 16 years of service. Donald Trump promised in his victory speech that he would “finally take care of our great veterans.” He took a step in the right direction last year by signing the Forever GI Bill, which lifts the time limit on veterans’ educational benefits and makes it easier to transfer benefits to dependents. But the Defense Department took a step in the wrong direction last week, prohibiting members of the armed forces who have been in the service for more than 16 years from transferring their GI Bill benefits to dependents. The new rule is meant “to more closely align the transferability benefit with its purpose as a recruiting and retention incentive,” the Pentagon explained in a statement. The idea is that people who’ve served for 16 years have already shown a propensity to stay and therefore don’t need an incentive. After six years of service, members can transfer their GI Bill benefits to a spouse or child—under the condition that they commit to serve at least four more years. After 10 years, service members can still cash in on the benefit, subject to the requirement only that they
“serve for the maximum amount of time allowed by such policy or statute”— which can be less than four years. Transfers must be submitted while one is still in active-duty service. Advocates of the Forever GI Bill aren’t happy with the 16-year cutoff. “We understand the minimum time-in-service for transferability eligibility, and that makes sense from a retention perspective,” said Joe Plenzler of the American Legion. “But the 16-year transfer-or-lose rule makes no sense to us . . . and disadvantages the veteran when it comes to the full use of this earned benefit.” Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell said in an email that “with these updates, the department addresses the intent of Congress and ensures the benefit is available for future service members.” She added that the decision will affect only 9% of those on active-duty service—but if the effect is so small, why is the change necessary? The six-year minimum requirement to receive the transferability benefit remains intact, and therefore so does the retention incentive to serve longer in the military. Why should those that have proved their commitment be penalized with limits on their benefits?
Doctor Shortfall According to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the United States is on track to have a shortage of up to 120,000 doctors by 2030. Up to 49,000 of that shortfall will be in the realm of primary-care physicians—typically the first doctors patients see when they know something is wrong but aren’t exactly sure what, or when they need a routine checkup. Primary-care work, however, pays far less than many other specialties. A recent surveyshowed that, on average, primary-care physicians make around $100,000 less than specialists each year—the average salary hovers around $223,000, though family doctors and primary-care physicians can make slightly more in rural areas. Even though some doctors may choose to work in rural areas—where they could make more money—to help chop away at their educational debt, the areas still have a great need for more doctors. And since 2010, there have been 87 rural-hospital closures.