MEDFAC documents of Interest:
***ADFAC MEDFAC Key Issues Oct 2016
***ADFAC MEDFAC Key Issues April 2016
***ADFAC MEDFAC Key Issues Nov 2015
***ADFAC MEDFAC Key Issues Apr 15
***DPH ADFAC Brief Apr 15
***MEDFAC Charter 2008 (for comparison: F-16_WSC_Charter_2010)
***2014 Pond Analysis of 2008 MEDFAC Charter
***MEDFAC 2014 Update Col Pond
***MEDFAC Structure (prior to 2017 restructure)
***2012 08 04 MEDFAC Minutes (prior to sequestration)
The following discussion highlights an issue caused by current budgeting constraints along with efforts creatively to address it. Any thoughts or volunteers? Shoot them my way: firstname.lastname@example.org or call me (260) 602-5167 William W. Pond, MEDFAC Chair
McPherson and Pond replies in Bold Blac
MEDFAC Organizational Update:
BLUF: MEDFAC continues to evolve to meet mission requirements and fiscal constraints.
Historical Background: When the Medical Field Advisory Council (MEDFAC) was formed in 2008, it was composed of a chair and 3 representatives from 3 sub-councils: the State Air Surgeons, MDG Commanders and Senior Enlisted. These each met in conjunction with national meetings such as Readiness Frontiers and then conducted additional discussions by teleconference. The 3 sub-council representatives, along with the MEDFAC chair, also met at the same national meeting and by additional teleconferences. With input from the MEDFAC, the ANG SG staff, and ANG Medical Service Assistants, the Air National Guard Medical Service issues of national important could be identified and raised to the Air Director’s Field Advisory Council (ADFAC) by the MEDFAC chair for information and support.
Sequestration, restrictions on national meetings, and movement of key personnel severely impacted participation by the MDG Commander and Enlisted representatives while MEDFAC Chair, State Air Surgeon, ANG SG and Assistant input and participation remained strong. Budgetary constraints and meeting limitations will continue for the foreseeable future; consequently, means of meeting the purpose of the charter should be met while working within these constraints. While teleconferences can be valuable for disseminating information, in person discussions are essential for frank, collegial, sensitive discussions. If in person meetings are to be held, but there is no monetary support for them in spite of their value, then in person gathering the members at another training or working venue might be a solution.
The MEDFAC Charter clearly outlines purpose and goals, but is flexible in the way that these may be accomplished. Here are some ideas for purposes initiating a discussion on the future:
1) MEDFAC will continue to be composed of representatives from State Air Surgeon, Commander, and Enlisted members. – AGREED
2) Strong input and support will continue from the offices of the Air National Guard Surgeon General and involvement will continue from ANGMS assistants. AGREED
3) Homeland Response has grown since the charter was formulated and as such should be recognized.
This is an interesting point. How do you propose we recognize or work on this? It has become one of the things I have found rewarding as it touches on our civilian lives as well as military. As the PHEO liaison the SAS is in a unique position to have impact here, but I’m not sure we are as engaged a we could be. I have found that I have to ask to be included in exercises, to have medical injects and even to get the AARs from them.
Homeland response could be represented by both the SAS because of the SAS roll as the PHEO liaison as you point out, but also by the CERF/HRP Commander
4) In person discussions and gatherings of the component sub councils should occur in conjunction with required training or other functions, e.g. State Air Surgeons at SAS refresher course, Commanders at Commanders course, national credentialing functions etc. with follow up by teleconferences
I agree here, but they are still few and far between. I get pumped up after the meeting then I still don’t see anyone for another year. By then I’ll probably be retired. For the foreseeable future, getting together more than once a year may not be possible. At least that would be a good start with follow-up telecons quarterly.
5) At such gatherings, sub council members would be in official status as training students or instructors with discussions to be held during non-training times, so no additional costs would be incurred.
We need to be able to have additional time set aside for OUR meeting together, not just the training. If we could even get one extra day, we would be better able to interact. The last two times I have been to these training sessions they were so packed with training that we had no other time to get together except the one social function. You are correct; the training venues have been fully utilized. Setting aside an evening or the morning or afternoon of a travel day might work.
6) Dissemination of information would continue by the ANG SG “Heads Up,” AANGFS Newsletter, and internet searchable web site. Good
7) SAS Weapons System Council would continue to represent dominant weapons system and State Air Surgeon issues. The SAS would represent the dominant weapons system of the state. Total members would be limited to the number of weapons systems
I have fallen down here, Bill. I need to work harder at identifying specific people (though we have been hampered by a piecemeal address list) I invite input from every SAS. I should put out an appeal to gain members again. I believe our address list should be close to cleaned up. I’ll check with Frank. Current commercial emails and cell phones are imperative. It is a lot of work initially, but after the database is established, it really does not take too much effort to maintain. The SAS Society did give me permission to post the roster in the SAS page of the aangfs web site with password protection. This would allow easy, commercial access without bots being able to access the data. I’ve already tested the issue, just waiting for an updated list.
8) Commanders sub council would be limited to 10 with distribution throughout the FEMA regions. How active has this been? The ban on meetings and sequestration severely impacted the formal representation by the Commanders and the Enlisted sub councils, while the SAS representation, ANG SG office and Assistants remained strong.
9) Enlisted representation would continue by Senior Health Technicians, First Sergeants or other key enlisted personnel. Same question, how active and informative have these been?
10) Each sub council will continue to elect its own chair; members are selected by the sub council chair from volunteers, or absent a council chair by the MEDFAC chair.
11) CERFP/HRF will have a MEDFAC sub council and a representative to the MEDFAC with the mechanics left to the sub council Great idea. Now that we are splitting up it makes perfect sense to do this. Cutter has some good ideas and has offered to place them in writing and we will do the same.
The telecon on October the 28th might be a good time to solicit volunteers. The MEDFAC is fundamentally different from say the F-16 WSC whose members are determined by their positions as Commander of an F-16 Wing. Some of the councils are relatively small, since there just are not that many wings. From the MEDFAC standpoint, we are trying to get broad field input. Perhaps each sub council would do well with 4-5 participating members, rather than a large number of which only a few participate.
One idea: MEDFAC composed of representatives from SAS, MDG Commanders, Enlisted & Homeland Response. Each group would have 5 members of which one would be the chair. MEDFAC would meet yearly in conjunction with flight surgeon/SAS meeting which would guarantee funded spots of for 2 of the 4 in addition to the chair. Cutter suggested that if there were national credentialing body, the sub chairs could serve on this body and then meet at the same time as part of MEDFAC. This idea has a lot of merit, because those doing the credentialing should be senior experienced, involved leaders, and these are the same ones who should be on the MEDFAC.
The charter did not have a mechanism to create or recreate the sub councils. In order to reanimate the process, I would like to suggest. So here are some possible suggestions.
- The charter be updated.
- Membership in the MEDFAC will consist of one representative from State Air Surgeons, Commanders, Enlisted & Homeland Response.
- We solicit 3- 5 volunteers for each sub council and select those with proven track records for performance.
- Sub councils will immediately select a chair.
- ANG SG office and MEDFAC chair and will be invited non voting guests at the sub council meetings.
Thank you for your thoughts and support. The purpose of the MEDFAC is to have a body for the identification and elevation of issues that are important to the field. The MEDFAC chair is tasked with informing and advocating those medical issues that are Guard wide among other Weapons System Council Chairs at the Air Director’s Field Advisory Council (ADFAC). To have credibility, the representative to the ADFAC must have qualities and experience commensurate to the other members of the ADFAC.
The structure that was envisioned when the MEFAC was created may not be sustainable
in the current resource-constrained environment; consequently, we might need to re-formulate a mechanism that meets the objectives while being consistent with our
current allocation of resources.
There is merit in combining the credentials function with the MEDFAC since MDG/CCs & SASs would be senior, operational Guard members who could execute both functions.
I have a version of the charter and am checking records to see if there has been an
Do you have a name of a contact in the with the Army National Guard equivalent of the Air Guard MEDFAC? I would like to give him/her a call for information .
I’m not sure how the travel money issue will be in FY16–we may be back to
Sequestration, but the ARNG was able to continue their equivalent to the
MEDFAC by tying it to their centralized credentials process.
My goal would be to have SASs and MDG/CCs on the credentials/privileged board
as well as reps for dentists, PAs, NPs and Optometrists. Many of these
members can also be on the MEDFAC (we can make sure there is a member from
each corps) as well as fulltime reps (both enlisted and officer). Those folks
that are tied only to the MEDFAC may be limited on travel, but the
credentials/privileges should be able to continue–that would make having a
quorum a little easier and the full-timers could call-in if necessary.
Do you have the charter in electrons? And if so can you send it to me so I
can at least be familiar with it.