WASHINGTON — The White House^[1] is laying out a new set of guidelines to ensure it will be informed any time a Cabinet head can't carry out their job after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's^[2] secret hospitalization this month was kept for days from President Joe Biden and his top aides.

The new guidelines include a half-dozen instructions for Cabinet agencies to follow when there is a “delegation of authority," or when secretaries temporarily transfer their authority to a deputy when unreachable due to medical issues, travel or other reasons. White House chief of staff Jeff Zients launched a review^[3] of existing notification procedures earlier this month shortly after Austin's hospitalization was disclosed, along with the Pentagon's failure to immediately alert the White House^[4].

"Through your submissions, you demonstrated your commitment to notifying the White House in the event of a delegation – and upon assumption of a delegation, establishing contact with the White House," White House chief of staff Jeff Zients wrote in a memo sent to the rest of the Cabinet on Friday. The memo was obtained by The Associated Press.

Zients noted that some existing guidelines among agencies differed because of various laws, regulations and executive orders.

But “through this process we are assured that all agencies have a set of standard protocols they must follow in the event of a delegation of authority," he wrote.

From now on, Cabinet agencies must notify the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs and Zients' office when they're anticipating a delegation of authority and again when the delegation actually happens. It must also put in writing that the delegation is in effect and once that delegation has ended.

Once the interim leader has assumed authority, that person must contact his or her primary counterpart at the White House and the agency must follow any other notifications that are required under law — such as informing key lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Agencies should ensure that authority is transferred when a Cabinet official is “traveling to areas with limited or no access to communication, undergoing hospitalization or a medical procedure requiring general anesthesia, or otherwise in a circumstance when he or she may be unreachable,” the memo reads.

The Pentagon said earlier this month^[5] that Austin had a prostatectomy to treat prostate cancer on Dec. 22, for which he underwent general anesthesia at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. He did not tell the White House about the procedure, but he did temporarily transfer some of his authorities to Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks.

Austin returned to Walter Reed on Jan. 1 after being in severe pain and was admitted to intensive care. The next day, he again transferred some authorities to Hicks, who was on vacation in Puerto Rico. In both instances, Hicks was not told why she was having authorities delegated to her.

The Pentagon did not tell the White House about Austin's hospitalization until Jan. 4, when national security adviser Jake Sullivan was informed and in turn told Biden.

Unmarried service members and those who require donor gametes and in vitro fertilization to have a baby may soon be able to access advanced fertility treatments within the Department of Defense's health system.

The DoD plans to change its policy that offers assisted fertility treatments at select military hospitals to married couples at cost and for free to troops whose infertility is tied to a service-connected injury, while barring all others from receiving the benefit.

Under the change, described last month in court documents as part of an ongoing lawsuit, the DoD will remove the requirement that service members be married and will allow the use of donor eggs or sperm -- a change that will broaden eligibility to include single service members, same-sex couples and married couples unable to use their own gametes.

Read Next: Years-long Delay in Covering Transgender Surgeries Prompts Lawsuit Against VA^[1]

"DoD is in the process of determining the exact contours of these policy changes and expects to finalize and share with plaintiff a signed memorandum by the end of February 2024 that formally directs the changes and provides further details on their scope," wrote Damian Williams, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

The National Organization for Women, the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic and the National Veterans Legal Services Program filed a lawsuit in August^[2] against the DoD and the Department of Veterans Affairs^[3], charging that their coverage policies for in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments are discriminatory against single troops and same-sex couples.

They also argued that the policy violates the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

According to the court documents, the VA is continuing to review its policy and now must do so in light of the DoD's changes, which the VA must consider before issuing its final decision.

Although the VA has not announced any new policies, Sonia Ossorio, executive director of NOW NYC, called the DoD's decision "a big win."

"We applaud the Department of Defense for working to expand access to fertility treatments for service members," Ossorio said in a statement. "We are overjoyed for our military members who may only now qualify for coverage and desperately need this care to build a family."

Under the current policy, the DoD covers fertility counseling, in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies for married service members whose infertility is tied to a military injury or related illness.

Other married troops are given access to IVF, artificial insemination and other fertility services at cost at one of seven military treatment facilities that offer such care.

Service members and their families also can use Tricare^[4], the military's civilian health benefits program, for limited services such as diagnoses of conditions that cause infertility and correction of medical issues that may be the source. But Tricare does not cover reproductive procedures such as IVF or artificial insemination for non-injured service members.

Because of that lack of coverage by Tricare and a requirement that non-injured troops cover the cost of the benefit, Ossorio said her organization will continue to challenge the DoD's and VA's policies.

Briana Thompson, a former Air Force^[5] officer and student intern at Yale's Veterans Legal Services Clinic, said that, despite the DoD's pending change, its policy requirements remain "unlawful."

"Service members who delay child rearing and need IVF because of the basic demands of military life like deployment^[6] and permanent change of station^[7] are ineligible for care," Thompson said in a statement.

The case, National Organization for Women-New York City v. United States Department of Defense et al., remains ongoing with the government having been granted an extension as the VA weighs the DoD's change.

Both parties also are continuing to argue over the legality of the DoD's and VA's requirement that the condition be caused by a service-connected illness or injury to qualify for complete coverage of the benefit without any out-of-pocket expenses to troops or veterans.

Related: Veteran Advocates Sue over 'Discriminatory' Fertility Treatment Policies at DoD, VA^[8]

Last year, inside the massive, annual defense policy bill was a measure aimed at making long exercises and deployments easier on families -- a hike in the "Family Separation Allowance" -- but, for reasons that remain unclear, the Pentagon has yet to implement the bump in pay^[1].

The allowance, also known as FSA^[2], is typically an extra monthly $250 that a service member is paid "to defray a reasonable amount of extra expenses" that come with a separation from their dependents that lasts more than 30 days.

Under the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, signed into law in December, the Pentagon is now allowed to increase the allowance to as much as $400. Specifically, the bill says the payment must be "not less than $250, and not more than $400."

Read Next: Some Military Patients Left Without Heat for a Week at Texas Base During Blast of Frigid Weather^[3]

According to an internal Army^[4] newsletter that was sent out to soldiers Friday and reviewed by Military.com, the service described the change in the NDAA as "discretionary" and cited unnamed Defense Department guidance that meant "no increase is being implemented."

Military.com reached out to the Pentagon, and a defense official said in an emailed statement Tuesday that they have "not made any decision to change the monthly amount of Family Separation Allowance at this time."

The official's statement also noted that Congress gave the Pentagon "flexibility over time to adjust payment levels based upon the department's needs and other conditions" but did not offer any details as to what needs are holding back the hike in payments.

The official was unable to offer a timeline on when the increase would be enacted but pointed to an ongoing military compensation review that is expected to issue a final report at the end of 2024.

"The department looks forward to reviewing its recommendations at that time," the statement said, without offering any assurances that an increase in the FSA would happen at that point.

Military Times was the first outlet to report the story^[5].

The NDAA also required that the review, formally known as the Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, include an examination of the FSA.

Amid lawmakers' desire to boost service members' pay, defense officials have repeatedly deferred to the ongoing review. For example, the Biden administration opposed a push to overhaul the pay chart^[6] so junior enlisted service members would make the equivalent of at least $15 per hour by arguing that such a change would be premature during the review.

The version of the NDAA that was signed into law was watered down from the original House-passed proposal. The NDAA that the House passed in July required the FSA to be increased to $400 without any wiggle room. A report accompanying the compromise version of the bill did not offer an explanation for changing the provision to a range.

Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, the original sponsor of the NDAA provision, vowed to continue pushing the Pentagon to increase the stipend.

"Our military families make great sacrifices every day -- it's only fair that we do everything we can to improve their quality of life," Gonzales said in a written statement this week. "That is why I pushed hard to increase the Family Separation Allowance in this year's NDAA for the first time in two decades. I will continue to work with the Department of Defense to ensure this boost is made a reality for military parents across the country."

The confusion and delay from defense officials on a seemingly minor point of service member compensation comes at a critical time for the Defense Department. Most of the services have struggled to meet recruiting goals^[7] -- despite huge bonuses and novel ideas -- in the past year and there are few indications that the situation will improve soon. In response, branches like the Navy^[8] have been heaving huge sums of cash at well-qualified recruits.

Citing tight competition with the private sector for job benefits and perks, Navy officials offered recruits up to $115,000 in 2022 to sign up for the sea service.

"We are offering record-high enlistment bonuses to be competitive with the strong civilian labor market, recognizing that we are in competition for the best and the brightest young Americans from all walks of life," the Navy's Recruiting Command spokesman told Military.com at the time^[9].

Now, that maximum Navy bonus total has grown to $140,000^[10].

Related: The Navy's Personnel Boss Is Confident Data Can Fix the Service's Recruiting Woes^[11]