Military and Veterans’ Health,Health Care,and Wellbeing

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) need to bridge a gap in their understanding of service members’ health outcomes and the issues involved in treatment, such as cost. In addition, clinicians and policy analysts must overcome existing knowledge barriers. Clinicians need to be aware of policy changes that will affect their patient load in numbers and in treatment needs. Policy analysts need to be aware of issues relevant to clinical treatment, such as quality and timeliness of care. Given the need for services and support to military personnel and families, and the fact that the fastest growing expenses in defense are health care costs, a multi-disciplinary line of research will help lawmakers understand the most efficient and effective resource use across the health care services.     

EVALUATING NATO LONG RUN DEFENSE BURDENS USING UNIT ROOT TESTS

This study evaluates NATO long run defense burdens by analyzing the time‐series properties of burden measures, namely growth of defense spending, defense share in national output, defense share in government spending, defense spending per capita, and defense share in total NATO spending for the time period 1949–2002. The study also compares the effect of using government Purchasing Power Parity conversion factors and Market Exchange Rates for defense share in total NATO expenditure conversions and the implications of NATO expansion in light of the defense burden measures of the newer NATO members.     

Revisiting the justification for an all-volunteer force

In 1968, President Nixon established the Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force, or the Gates Commission, which served as the impetus and justification for an All-Volunteer Force (AVF). At the end of its deliberations, the commission recommended abolishing the draft and transforming the U.S. military into a force of volunteers beginning in 1973. Interestingly, the debate regarding the merits of both systems appeared to be largely economic – with cost–benefit analysis playing the primary role. Lately, we are beginning to see a new, politically-motivated impetus for returning to a “system of national service.” The ideas spurring this debate are many: the need to reaffirm the nation state, the commitment of citizens to the state, political ownership and oversight of the forces, the need for social equity in serving the nation, limiting the support for armed conflict by burden-sharing among citizens, and equitably spreading the personal cost of war.