Veterans being screwed
While the Terror Alert Level hasn’t changed much since the end of the 2004 elections, a study has been ongoing into another way the GOP abuses veterans.
Since reports of disparities emerged in 2005, the VA has struggled to explain them. It has largely blamed problems on demographic factors beyond its control; for instance, whether a particular state had more Vietnam veterans, who on average receive higher payments, or whether a veteran had legal help when making a claim.
But the study released to the AP found that roughly one-third of the problems could be blamed on poor VA standards and inadequate training. As a result, disability raters in VA regional offices often had too much power and discretion to decide how much pay a veteran was entitled.
The report also faulted the VA for not collecting data on certain types of claims, such as how many post-traumatic stress disorder cases are rejected. As a result, it was impossible to determine whether part of the disparity might be due to a VA office inappropriately rejecting a high number of claims for PTSD, a signature injury of the Iraq war.
Some soldiers and veterans groups have charged that Army disability review boards, which are under the Pentagon’s purview, unfairly reject PTSD claims to avoid paying disability pay. No data was available to determine whether that might be the case for the VA, the report said.
Now I wonder why great American patriots like SGT Mac haven’t been watching out for those who came before. Hmmm. Too busy complaining about being over taxed?
Those who are concerned would also know how the GOP treated Marines and their families at Lejeune.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/toxic_tap_water;_ylt=Asnsob.NC8mLgHU6AnF7PmYDW7oF
The problems at the VA were not created by the “GOP”. The VA is an antiquated government medical system that has been overwhelmed with the injured Iraq/Afghanistan veterans. We have bipartisan committees such as the Committee on Veteran’s Affairs and the Armed Services Committee who hold primary responsibility for overseeing these issues and addressing problems with the Congress and the President. Many public officials (both Dem and Rep) have obviously dropped the ball on our VA system but efforts are being made to reform and better the VA healthcare system.
From your link:
“In interviews, Patrick Dunne, VA’s assistant secretary for policy, planning and preparedness, and Ronald Aument, the VA’s deputy undersecretary for benefits, said they welcomed the findings and would take additional measures to improve training and oversight.
Beside hiring hundreds of additional staff, the VA is beginning to collect more data on the types of claims rejected, standardizing procedures from office to office and improving collaboration with its medical personnel to ensure claims processors have enough information to make a decision based on objective criteria, Aument said.
The agency also is doubling the size of its quality assurance program — currently 15 people — to review data and audit pay outcomes on a regular basis.
A separate review of the VA system for handling disability claims is also under way to determine how to cut through bureaucratic delays, confusing paperwork and long appeals processes as thousands of veterans return home from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
It appears the administration is addressing these problems appropriately and effectively.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS !
Hold the Administration responsible.
“The agency also is doubling the size of its quality assurance program”
Check the details before you buy into their line of BS. Ask them how their data system works and what it is capable of. IF they have one then you can have SOME level of confidence.
A governmental quality control program is like a cannabilistic humanitarian association.
Doggie, Doggie, Doggie…….
Your penchant for complaining (about anything other than left wing liberals) rivals any GI I’ve ever known.
NOBODY in his right mind wants to see Veterans get “screwed” as you say. Let’s give the system a chance to work. The VA, according to your own article, “welcomed the findings” and saw it as a chance to improve. The good news here is that the VA is addressing the problem. The bad news, other than poor treatment of some very deserving people, is that our illustrious federal government is “hiring more people” instead of letting private industry compete.
Come on Doggie Boy……you can do better than that!
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – Let’s reign in Federal spending.
Mac,
You really don’t know nothing about the VA.
The problems at Walter Reed were a direct result of privatizing the maintenance staff!
During 2003, EXISTING vets were turned away from the best treatment for EXISTING neurological problems when Walter Reed was closed to transfers. (VETs are not sent to private hospitals!) So if a Viet Nam vet, a Korean War vet, or a Desert Storm vet had a crisis, they were dumped back on the street.
And, don’t every forget, I lived in the home of a disabled VET. I know exactly how GOP congressmen handled requests for help. I know how GOP SPOKESMODELS trashed my family for years. We were by your standards, DEADBEATS LIVING OFF THE SYSTEM.
FUkK YOU!
Mad Dog says: “You don’t know nothing about the VA.” Doggie, your english teacher would be appalled.
Way to go Doggie! Your arguements gain more and more credibility when you slip into the “language-challenged” left-wing mode.
I, and a few of my family members including my father, have had the odd problem with the VA, but I don’t feel the need to slam the whole system over one or two incidents. You, and the rest of our “elite left” pick out individual things and events, then claim everything is bad. News Flash Rover…..it’s not all bad, and what’s been identified is being fixed. What’s the problem?
As for your final remark, Doggie Boy, thank you but I’d rather not. I’m saving myself for someone who practices better personal hygiene and doesn’t lick their genitals.
Now I’ll move on before Doggie Boy has a stroke. Calm down Doggie….try chewing on a soup bone or go chase a cat!
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – It’s time to reign in spending!
As a vet who uses the systems, has had surgeries in it, etc. I received excellent care. The best. However, I was using the Alberquerque Hospital the VA has and it is great. At the same time I used it, I heard “stories” of bad care in the Phoenix VA. Same with some clinics. Some were praised while others cursed.
The veterans system is socialized medicine and it can be good or bad based on things like funding, demand on services, close proximity to large veteran populations where overcrowding causes problems.
My personal doctor was one that had left private practice for the VA because of lawsuits when he wasn’t even culpable. Yet, what about doctors who choose the VA who aren’t as good but still want to get out of private practice where litigation over their services might be a problem?
What motivates a doctor to take a lower paying position when they are good? When they are bad? Why enter socialized medicine? For some the motivation will be “love of mankind.” But, for some, it will be for less than stellar motivations.
The other problem we have is that our government is going broke. We are trying to cut costs in ways that can impact services in many departments, including healthcare. Our entire infrastructure of the U.S. is at risk so why not hospitals in and out of private practice.
It isn’t just the VA with long waits for service. Go to any ER room where we have a lot of welfare or illegal alien populations and see how long you wait for service and how good that service is. We now find it faster and cheaper to send a MRI to Australia to be read. How long before more and more delays, and bad services will be common place in both the VA and our private hospitals.
As a veteran that uses the VA, I am fortunate that I get great service. The clinic I go to near Mesa, AZ. has wonderful staff, volunteers, and services. I have no long waits, friendly people, and uncrowded waiting rooms. But, they don’t handle “emergencies.” For that, I go to “urgent care” and pay up front as long as it isn’t too serious because I don’t want to drive to the crowded facility (VA Hospital) in Phoenix.
The VA, at least here in Az. has added new clinics to help serve veterans and they are good clinics. They do provide good services for those they were intended to provide and they have helped ease the overcrowding at the main facilities.
Still, we are going to face more and more funding problems the deeper in debt we go and the more interest payments we have to provide and the more injured vets we put into the system with the wars we are involved in. Congress can up the funding for the VA anytime it wants. Will they? How do they get reelected if they don’t? Why aren’t the voters more upset over this?
I make co-pays to the VA and for my prescriptions from the VA. Why not increase the co-pays? Many of us who use the VA system aren’t “disabled” and have jobs and can pay co-pays that are even higher than what we have now.
Even those who retired from the military but, aren’t disabled, should be able to make co-pays that would ease the funding burden for those who can’t make them or shouldn’t have to make them, like vets injured in the line of duty.
100% full of crap! I’ve been writing about this since the war started. In 2004 and 2005, congressional Republicans cut funding for the VA. Pat Murray (D-WA) in both years attempted to propose an ammendment to fully fund the VA, citing in one year a $4.5 billion shortfall, which was denied…the GOP wouldn’t even allow debate on the ammendment.
Don’t just make things up hoads. During a war, the funding for our veterans’ care shouldn’t be cut. Any idiot would understand that. Republicans aren’t just “any idiots”…they’re special idiots.
To them, this equation makes perfect sense:
More Casualties + Inflation = Savings
Al,
I’m not making anything up. In fact Bush has never cut funding to the VA and funding has actually increased to the VA under Bush.
READ
READ
READ
Department of Veteran’s Affairs press release 2004:
The budget request represents a $1.2 billion, or 3.8 percent, increase in discretionary funding over the enacted level for 2004.
The president’s budget requests $29.5 billion for VA’s medical care, an increase of $1.17 billion, or 4.1 percent, over the 2004 level and more than 40 percent above the level in 2001.
DVA press release 2005:
READ
The FY ’06 budget proposal calls for $33.4 billion in discretionary funding — mostly for health care — and $37.4 billion in mandatory funding, mostly for compensation, pension and other benefit programs. This represents an increase of 2.7 percent over this year’s discretionary budget.
With this budget proposal, the President, working in partnership with Congress, will have increased health care funding for veterans by 47 percent since FY ’01.
I’d like to see a chart depicting dem vs. repub. with soldiers from boot camp through Iraq, and then to the VA hospital and afterward. but I don’t think I’d like the overall trend.
Hoads
Don’t confuse Al with the facts. You should know better.
Bart Brannon for U.S. Senate – It’s time to establish a home for people like Hugh!
Previous posts
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/top-officials-knew-of-neglect-at-walter-reed
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/sex-assault-at-walter-reed
http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/soldiers-face-neglect-frustration-at-armys-top-medical-facility
The GOP talks about illegal immigration and spends more GOP money on illegal immigration than on Veterans and families of VETs.
Illegal immigration will get votes.
Fixing the VA will cost money.
The GOP does not spend money to ‘coddle’ or care for “deadbeats.”
MD
Mad Dog,
The “GOP” has been allocating more money to the VA every year and the VA discretionary budget has increased 47% since 2001—-those are the facts. And the VA is in the process of an overhaul to streamline processes, and improve efficiency in the delivery of its services. The “GOP” not only “cares” about the welfare of veterans—they also support the troops in theatre–unlike the Dems.
Not sure what you mean by “spend more money on illegal immigration than on Vets” We don’t have a budget line item for “illegal immigration” in the federal budget.
Then explain the $5 billion dollars shortfall in the VA budget under Bush?
I’m talking about the amount of time, money, and effort put into forums, townhall meetings and etc by GOP candidates on the topic of ‘illegal immigration.’
Illegal immigration is a talking point for raising money and votes.
The reality is illegal corporations hiring migratory workers. The GOP free market fundamentalists created a job market for workers willing to break the law.
And, how do you define discretionary budget as being the over-riding measure of the VA budget?
How about some numbers?
Average number of days to process compensation and pension requests under Clinton in 1998?
128
In 2002 under Bush?
273
Can you do the math or would you like a public school teacher to help with that?
For Dear Jan Paul and his wacko comments about the occasional dissatisfaction outside of his personal experience.
Appeals resolution time varied from 745 days to 682 days with no data for 2001 or 2002.
Percent of patients rating service as good or excellent:
64% or less than two out of three.
Percent of patients reporting problems varied by type of service, ranging up to 30 percent.
The goal for being able to get an appointment within THIRTY DAYS? 95% No actual data offerred.
MD
We should also take note of the COLA for VA programs.
Some programs MUST increase no matter who holds the money.
And, we should take note of various reports that show how cuts were made.
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, MINORITY STAFF
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
MAY 2003
Executive summary
In February 2003, President Bush released his proposed budget for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2004. The budget would halt
enrollment in VA health care for many veterans, denying them access to any VA
care. In addition, the budget would charge other veterans who are currently in the
VA system a $250 annual enrollment fee and increase co-payments for doctor’s
visits and prescription drugs. The budget narrowly passed by the House of
Representatives and the Senate on April 11, 2003, adopted these proposals.
The report finds that the proposed changes would cause over 80,000 Pennsylvania
veterans, including an estimated 14,000 Pittsburgh area veterans, to be denied VA
health care or to drop out of the VA system, while increasing costs for thousands
more.
Many veterans in the Pittsburgh area would pay an additional $350
or more each year for VA care. Other veterans in the Pittsburgh area
would remain in the VA system but be forced to pay more for their health
care. Veterans who receive prescription drugs from VA and who fill a
typical number of prescriptions each year could face new fees of almost
$600.
Background
The Department of Veterans Affairs has had long-standing problems providing
care for eligible veterans. Nationwide, there were almost 300,000 veterans in
2002 who were either placed on waiting lists or forced to wait for over six months
in order to receive an appointment for necessary care. (Memorandum from Department of Veterans Affairs to Chairs and Ranking Members of
Senate and House Veterans’ Committees and VA-HUD Appropriations Sub-Committees
(July 2002).)
Overall, the President proposed a budget of $27.5 billion for VA health care, an increase
of 7.7%. Most of this increase is offset by medical inflation, which was 4.7% last year,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index: All Urban Consumers (2003), and
new enrolment, which is expected to increase by 8% this year. Supra note 4. Some of
the increase would pay for decreasing pharmacy co-pays for some low-income veterans
(those with incomes between $9,690 and $16,169) and for reducing the backlog for care.
The Administration’s own figures indicate that the proposed budget is less than is needed
to provide adequate health care to veterans. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans
Health Care Enrollment and Expenditure Projections (Sep. 2002). Leading veterans
groups have also indicated that the budget is inadequate to provide all necessary care.
Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, VFW of the United States,
AMVETS, The Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2004: A Comprehensive Budget and
Policy Document Created by Veterans for Veterans (2003).
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution (April 11, 2003). In the House, the budget
resolution passed by 5 votes, 216 to 211, with 216 Republicans supporting the resolution
and 204 Democrats opposing it, while in the Senate the budget resolution passed 51 to 50
after Vice President Cheney cast the tie-breaking vote. The final budget resolution
reconciled differences in funding approved by the House and the Senate. Initially, the
Senate approved $30 billion in spending authority for VA health care and other
discretionary programs for FY 2004, while the House approved $28.1 billion. The final
agreement provided the FY 2004 funding level approved by the Senate, $30 billion, of
which $29 billion is for VA health care. This funding level assumes that the President’s
proposal to increase fees for Priority 7 and Priority 8 veterans will be put into effect. The
final budget resolution also approved less spending than requested by the President in FY
2005 – FY 2008. Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, Fiscal
Year 2004 Budget Resolution (Apr. 11, 2003) (online at http://www.house.gov/budget/
04stmntmngrs.pdf).
Last John Konop style cut and paste
Conclusion
This report analyzes the impact of President Bush’s proposed budget on VA
health care in the Pittsburgh area. The budget proposes restricting access to care
for many veterans and increasing the cost of care for others. These proposals
would deny care to an estimated 10,000 veterans in the state and force an
additional 72,000 enrolled Pennsylvania veterans, including over 24,000 active
patients, to drop out of the VA health care system. Locally, the proposals would
deny care to an estimated 1,700 veterans at Pittsburgh area VA facilities and force
more than 12,300 veterans enrolled in Pittsburgh area VA facilities, including
almost 4,200 active patients, to drop out of the VA health care system. The
proposals would also increase the cost of health care for many veterans who
remain in the program by an average of $350 annually and would cost many
veterans as much as $600 or more annually.
Yes, we have increases.
Those increases include revenue ‘recovered’ from VETs via various NEW fees. Historical new fees.
Never before seen fees.
Or, should we just call them what they are?
VETs paying for their own care.
Mad Dog,
I can’t make head nor tails of your posts unless you provide the origianl source but, I will say the Left has a vested interest in “spinning” the numbers, figures and stats to create the illusion that Bush et al only cares about the “war machine” and discards vets like old pieces of equipment.
The Left only supports the troops when they can be made into “victims”–and this is done by the media image of vets being neglected by their government when they return home. It’s all part of the anti-war rhetoric that started with the Vietnam War-it’s all the same template. And our government has thrown money after money and that is the goal of the left–extract as much money as possible from the government–make them “pay for their unjust war”– remake soldiers into victims that can demand money from the government. Don’t get me wrong, I believe our government should provide very generous benefits to our vets but no matter how much is provided, the Left will always paint it is insufficient because the Left’s goal is to denounce our government to the media and the public.
hoads,
I gave the name and title of the report.
You don’t want to look it up, don’t.
It’s a public record.
You can get it at a library.
You can ask Congress for a copy.
You can pay me to get you a copy.
Or, you can blame the left, center, right, up, and down. North, South, East, and West. Yesterday, tomorrow, and the day after that.
All my numbers are public numbers. No fake numbers from polls. No opinion webpages. No news reports.
Hard, orginal source numbers, including the budget, GAO, VA, Congressional oversight committee… BEFORE the invasion of Iraq.
No spinning of the war.
Straight talk.
YOU’re the one spinning it into being “ANTI -war rhetoric that started with he Vietnam War.”
MD
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
February 6, 2006
The Honorable Steve Buyer
Chairman
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
House of Representatives
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
The Honorable Patty Murray
The Honorable Ken Salazar
United States Senate
Subject: VA Health Care: Preliminary Findings on the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Budget Formulation for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006
This report documents the information we provided to you in a briefing on February 2, 2006, in response to your request concerning the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) internal budget formulation process. (See enclosure.) This includes information that VA develops for its budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but it does not include information on subsequent interactions that occur between VA and OMB. We will do additional work to incorporate information from OMB and complete our analysis in a report to be issued at a later date. You requested information on VA’s budget formulation process because of your interest in ensuring that VA’s budget forecasts are accurate and based on valid patient estimates.
As you know, VA provides a uniform set of medical benefits to eligible veterans. If sufficient resources are not available to provide care that is timely and acceptable in quality, VA is required to restrict medical benefits based on veterans’ eligibility priorities.1 VA also provides other services, such as nursing home care, to certain veterans. VA’s provision of medical care is dependent upon the availability of appropriations. For fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $31.5 billion for all of VA’s medical programs, and VA provided medical care to about 5 million veterans.
1Priority categories are generally determined on the basis of service-connected disability and income. There are currently eight priority categories. VA used this system to restrict enrollment in January 2003 to no longer allow Priority 8 veterans, those in the lowest priority category who generally do not have service-connected disabilities or low income, to enroll. This policy remains in effect.
Administration News | VA Accounting of Health Care Savings Flawed, GAO Report Says
[Feb 03, 2006]
The Department of Veterans Affairs failed to show it achieved $1.3 billion in budget savings that it claimed in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, CQ Today reports (Starks, CQ Today, 2/2). According to the GAO report, President Bush’s budget requests for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 assumed that VA would implement “management efficiency initiatives that would save money without reducing the quality” of health care services. After the president submits his budget request to Congress, VA provides lawmakers with a detailed budget justification and funding proposals for its programs, the report says. The report says that over the FY 2003-2006 time period, the president’s budget proposals assumed that the VA’s projected savings reduced funding requests by billions of dollars (GAO, “Veteran Affairs: Limited Support for Reported Health Care Management Efficiency Savings,” 2/1). CQ Today reports that VA twice in summer 2005 reported to Congress shortfalls totaling about $3 billion in its health care accounts over FY 2005 and FY 2006 (CQ Today, 2/2). According to the report, VA did not have proper documentation for the $1.3 billion it reported as management efficiency savings in FY 2003 and FY 2004. In addition, the VA claimed savings of more than $3 million from “efficiencies” that reduced overtime and delayed hiring at VA offices but did not explain how the savings were achieved without a reduction in the quality of service, according to the AP/Houston Chronicle. “VA officials told us that the management efficiency savings assumed were savings goals … to fill the gap between the cost associated with VA’s projected demand for health care services and the amount the president was willing to request,” the GAO report says (Yen, AP/Houston Chronicle, 2/2). CQ Today reports that GAO did not examine FY 2005 savings because VA has not finished calculating them (CQ Today, 2/2).
hoads,
You have the date and title of the documents.
Get off the couch, grow a brain, and a spine.
Do your work as a citizens instead of hating other Americans for revealing the truth.
MD
This is a freebie
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-430R
Mad Dog,
I have perused your links provided and I see nothing that indicts Bush as being unfair to veterans. Every year of his terms. he has appropriated more money to the VA than was requested. It appears the VA has some real problems with their budget process by their own admission:(pg. 26 of your link above)
22An Unrealistic Assumption, Errors in Estimation, and Insufficient Data Were Key Factors in VA’s Budget Formulation Process that Contributed to the Requests for Additional Funding
•An unrealistic assumption about implementation of a proposal expected to result in cost savings contributed to the request for additional funding in fiscal year 2005.
•Errors in estimating the effect of a nursing home policy contributed to the request for additional funding in fiscal year 2006.
•Insufficient data on certain activities contributed to the requests for additional funding in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
So what did the VA do? They requested additional funding which was granted.
So the VA health system enacted additional copays and changed eligibility requirements for Priority level 7 & 8 vets. If you haven’t noticed, all health care systems in the US (including that of the federal employees) now require more out of pocket expenses and have enstated certain service reductions.
We have a population across all private and public sectors that is aging faster than the number of workers needed to finance the systems. Priority 8 vets were purged from the system because they do not have service related injuries and are not low income and can afford private insurance coverage. Sounds fair and reasonable to me. Do you honestly believe that VA benefits are to never be re-evaluated? The whole problem with government systems is that exact mentality-once a government benefit is enstated, it becomes extremely difficult to reform programs to better meet the needs of the enrollees in such a way that more benefits accrue to those with the greatest needs. Why shouldn’t a vet whose income is suffiicient to purchase private health insurance be purged so that those with worse disabilties can have better benefits? In Fact, I believe Medicare should also be needs based. We cannot afford to offer healthcare to Bill Gates just because he turns 65. And so it should be with the VA system.
hoads,
You say, “I have perused your links provided and I see nothing that indicts Bush as being unfair to veterans. ”
From the GAO report:
“VA officials told us that the management efficiency savings assumed were savings goals … to fill the gap between the cost associated with VA’s projected demand for health care services and the amount the president was willing to request,” the GAO report says.
Bush said, “Cook the books.” His toadies pulled the Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing accounting scam.
They cooked the numbers on the Federal Budget like a bunch of criminals.
Got caught.
Got punished, but not nearly enough punishment.
And, your take on these events?
Very Republican. Cuts in budget are good no matter what.
Get a brain. Think for yourself.
Mad Dog,
It says nothing of the sort–that again is your biased interpretation. Based on your rant, the whole of VA and the administration are a bunch of criminals. Now if you’d like to extend that to the whole of government then I might agree with you but nothing you have shown me is proof of illegality, neglect or abuse of power.
The VA budgeting process works like all other agencies. Agencies must justify their budgets and the VA is in control of its own budget analysis. So Bush established a budget number and the VA erroneously concluded the number was appropriate and attainable.
The VA themselves presented those numbers for potential savings among nursing home services to vets to Bush. The VA realized the actuarial model used was insufficient, recognized their data was flawed, presented their errors, requested further funding and was granted additional funding. Criminals ALL—-
it’s called a budgetary process and it appears the process was followed and appropriately adjudicated.
So you are accusing me of inventing the quotation?
From the GAO report:
“VA officials told us that the management efficiency savings assumed were savings goals … to fill the gap between the cost associated with VA’s projected demand for health care services and the amount the president was willing to request.”
hoads, you’re a classic.