Military children are often described as resilient, but according to Joanne M. Frederick, CEO of Government Market Strategies, that resilience comes at a cost that remains largely invisible outside the military community. In a recent interview, Frederick emphasized that while April’s Month of the Military Child brings welcome attention, meaningful recognition and support must extend far beyond a single month.
“Military children develop a level of resilience that is both remarkable and often underappreciated,” Frederick said. Their lives are shaped by frequent relocations, parental deployments, and constant adaptation to new schools, healthcare providers, and communities. While these experiences foster strength, they also create instability, particularly in areas like healthcare where continuity is critical.
Frederick argues that recognizing military children year-round is not just symbolic. It also has practical implications. Their well-being, she notes, is directly tied to the readiness of service members. “Their stability directly supports service member readiness,” she explained, highlighting how family systems and military effectiveness are deeply interconnected.
A major area of concern is access to healthcare through TRICARE, the military’s health program. Despite its intention to provide comprehensive coverage, Frederick points to significant gaps that disproportionately affect children. “The most pressing gaps come down to access and continuity,” she said.
Families frequently struggle to find providers who accept TRICARE, particularly in specialized areas such as pediatric and behavioral health. Even when care is secured, it is often disrupted by Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves, forcing families to restart treatment with new providers. “The system is fragmented,” Frederick noted, citing administrative complexity and inconsistent provider networks as key barriers.
At the heart of the issue, she argues, is misaligned incentives within TRICARE’s contracting structure. Current contracts prioritize cost control over patient outcomes, which can limit provider participation and undermine care quality. “The biggest failure point is that the contracts are not aligned to deliver the best outcomes for beneficiaries, particularly children who need stable, continuous support,” she said.
To address these challenges, Frederick advocates for a fundamental redesign of military healthcare delivery. Incremental fixes, she suggests, are not enough. Instead, she points to more comprehensive reform models, such as the “Patriot Health” framework that aims to realign the system around the needs of military families.
Such reforms would prioritize access, continuity, and outcomes, ensuring that care follows families wherever they move. Network modernization would play a critical role, particularly by increasing participation among pediatric and behavioral health providers. “The goal is to create a model that delivers consistent, portable care as families move, reducing disruption and stress.”
Equally important is how success is measured. Frederick believes current healthcare metrics fail to capture the real experiences of military families. Instead, she calls for a shift toward data that reflects actual access and continuity of care.
Leaders, she says, should track whether families can find providers in their area and how often care is delayed or missed due to access barriers. Continuity during PCS moves should also be closely monitored, including how frequently treatment is interrupted and how quickly it resumes.
“Missed or delayed care due to access barriers, which is often invisible in traditional reporting but directly affects outcomes for children.”
Ultimately, Frederick’s message is clear. Supporting military children requires more than recognition. It demands systemic change. From redesigning healthcare contracts to modernizing provider networks and improving data tracking, the path forward involves aligning the system with the realities of military life.
Until then, the resilience of military children will continue to fill the gaps left by a system that is not yet built to fully support them.
