So what happens if you develop a software system that enables Army physicians in Iraq to seamlessly track medical information on a wounded soldier through the Army’s medical system and into the Veterans Affairs medical system? And what if that software solved the problems that plagued Walter Reed Army Hospital and its treatment of wounded veterans? And what if you developed it on the cheap? And what if your software was lauded by the highest of the higher-ups in the Army and VA?

Answer: You get transferred to the equivalent of “bureacratic Siberia.”

Such was the fate of Lt. Col. Mike Fravell, who developed the patient-tracking system in 2003 and created a Web-based version last year while on a fellowship at VA.

The transfer was in retaliation for Fravell’s public criticism of the two Defense health agencies, a congressional source said. At a hearing in May of the House Veteran Affairs Committee, Fravell spoke highly of the two patient-tracking systems he developed and criticized MHS’ reluctance to work with VA on the two systems. “I think on the DoD side, things are very territorial,” Fravell told the committee.

The transfer occurred despite widespread praise for Fravell’s systems. Army Chief of Staff George Casey said this month they provided the Army with “improved visibility on location, medical status and progress of soldiers’ care.” David Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans, said, “The ability to transfer electronic medical information between DoD and the VA is critical to providing the highest quality health care to the men and women who have been wounded in combat or otherwise require medical care after serving in the military.”

Now why would the Department of Defense transfer a guy who had created a cheap, effective, popular tool that aids the medical treatment and care of sick and wonded soldiers? Can you spell money?

At stake are billions of dollars. Through fiscal 2006, AHLTA [Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application] alone cost Defense $775 million to develop and deploy. The system’s fiscal 2007 budget is $392 million. By comparison, [Fravell’s] Joint Patient Tracking Application system cost less than $1 million to develop and $2 million a year to maintain.

But is Fravell’s cheapo system really better than DoD’s really expensive system?

The Web-based patient-tracking systems are more useful to doctors, according to a paper prepared by a team of combat clinicians serving in Iraq. The system “is the only record that has visibility throughout the evacuation chain,” according to the paper. “It is easy to access anywhere that we have Internet, it is easy to enter key progress [notes, X-rays, lab and operation] report data in a quick read stream that answers most coordination of care issues at a glance.”

Field surgeons in Iraq said of the [DoD’s] MHS systems, “It is time to say, ‘The emperor has no clothes.’ These systems do not answer … the critical issues [that there is] no easy way to capture vital trauma data, [and they] lack real-time visibility of clinical data across the evacuation spectrum and to command and control medical elements.”

Although the VA wanted to extend Fravell’s fellowship another year, DoD transferred him to a forgotten building on the outskirts of Washington that a congressional aide called “bureacratic Siberia.” But it almost was worse. DoD was in the process of transferring Fravell to South Korea, but was thwarted by Reps. Bob Filner, D-Calif., and Steve Buyer, R-Ind., respectively the chairman and ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, wrote a letter to Pete Geren, acting secretary of the Army, highlighting the importance of Fravell’s systems. So Fravell didn’t go to Korea, but he’s not working on the patient-transfer system, either.

DoD is working to improve its system, and claims it will have a better version in the field by this fall, though experts say that is unlikely. The MHS’s patient-transfer system is not scheuled to be operational until 2011. That could mean another cool $1 billion will be spent on a system that doesn’t work as well as what is currently available.

Remember how DoD chief Donald Rumsfeld’s mantra was, “If you criticize the war, you don’t support the troops.” Well, it looks like in its current iteration, the Department of Defense supports only those troops who can kill insurgents. Once a soldier gets blown up by an IED and needs medical attention, DoD’s support shifts to the department’s medical software suppliers.