RESUMO
Background: The evolution of governance models for the Military Health System's (MHS) large hospitals, called medical treatment facilities (MTFs), has culminated with the effort to implement Enhanced Multi-Service Markets (eMSM). The term eMSM refers to two separate concepts. First, MSM refers to those geographic areas, that is, markets, which have the following characteristics: they have MTFs that are operated by two or more Department of Defense (DoD) Services, that is, Army, Navy, or Air Force; there is a large beneficiary population; there is a substantial amount of direct care (i.e., beneficiaries are treated at MTFs instead of TRICARE's purchased care from civilian providers); and there is a substantial readiness and training platform. Second, the term "enhanced" refers to an increase in management authority over clinical and business operations, readiness, and MTF workload. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted to study the evolution of military and civilian health care delivery models for the purpose of understanding how governance models have changed since the 1980s to design and manage MTFs with overlapping catchments areas. Primary and secondary data sources were analyzed through a comprehensive literature review. Findings: Since the 1980s, the MHS governance models have evolved from testing various managed care models to a regionally focused TRICARE model and culminating with an overlapping catchment area model entitled eMSMs. The eMSM model partially fulfills the original vision because the eMSM leaders have limited budgetary and resource allocation authority. Discussion: The various models sought to improve governance of overlapping catchment areas with the intent to enhance medical readiness, community health, and individual health care while reducing costs. However, the success of the current model, that is, eMSMs, cannot be fully assessed because the eMSM model was not fully implemented as originally envisioned. Instead, the current eMSM model partially implements the eMSM model. As a result, the current eMSMs operate solely through cooperation and collaboration, without directive authority. Nevertheless, there have been some market-specific initiatives. Further analysis is necessary in the event that eMSM market managers are granted governance authority. This authority would include the ability to allocate the overall market's budget, determine common clinical and business functions, optimize the readiness of both the medical and the operational forces assigned to the market, and reallocate resources to optimize MTF workload. The results of this analysis may determine whether the fully implemented eMSMs optimize patient-centric initiatives as well as improve the market's efficiency and effectiveness.
