Military Update: Veterans’ disability panel to avoid debating genetics
By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, October 27, 2005
The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission unanimously has voted that a veteran’s genetic makeup, which might show predisposition to certain illnesses before entering service, is not a reasonable topic for the commission to study in its review of “service connection” and disability payments.
During an Oct. 14 public hearing in Washington, the commission also rejected, on a 10-1 vote, a proposal to study whether veterans’ disability benefits should be reduced at some “normal” retirement age to reflect the typical income drop of most American workers as they retire.
The two votes came as commissioners shaped research questions they want answered by staff or through contracted studies to be conducted by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science and by the Center for Naval Analyses over the next year or more.
“If you cannot determine at time of entry into service what the genetic makeup of the potential serviceman is, how can you, when the serviceman leaves in two years, three years or 20 years, base disability benefits on the genetic issue?” asked retired Army Lt. Gen. James T. Scott, commission chairman, in summing up the panel’s decision not to delve into genetics.
Some critics contend that the veterans’ disability compensation system is overly generous because it assumes that any disease or ailment that surfaces while a service member is on active duty is “service-connected” and, therefore, compensable, even if family history is suspected to be a factor.
“We’re not going there,” said Commissioner Rick Surratt, a Vietnam combat veteran and deputy legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, after the vote, which he agreed was significant for veterans.
The IOM says it needs 15 months to apply its medical expertise, which the commissioners concede they lack, to review and analyze the Schedule for Rating Disabilities used by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense for setting disability compensation levels.
The IOM will judge how well the rating schedule reflects current medical understanding of the link between impairment and disability; advances in technology and treatments for disabilities; gains in function realized through vocational rehabilitation, environmental adaptations or other special-purpose benefits. The IOM also will review possible weaknesses in the rating schedule that require “additional disability designations such as Individual Unemployability” in order to compensate veterans adequately.
Congress chartered the 13-member commission to conduct a comprehensive review of federal disability benefits for veterans and their survivors. Lawmakers set a tentative deadline for the commission to deliver a final report to the president and Congress within 17 months of its first meeting, which was held May 16 this year.
But Ray Wilburn, the commission’s executive director, said that a final report might be delayed at least a year, until fall 2007, to allow the IOM and CNA time to complete their studies, integrate their work and inform commissioners.
The CNA will study the appropriateness of current compensation levels for veterans, tapping various data sources and fresh surveys. It also will analyze the effectiveness of the rating schedule in meeting the original intent of Congress that compensation be sufficient to replace “average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations.”
Given the law’s emphasis on earning capacity, Commissioner John H. Grady, an actuary with Mellon Financial Corp. in Dallas, included among research questions for the CNA this: Would disability benefits be more appropriate if the level of payment was higher before some normal ‘retirement age’ and lower thereafter?
On a motion from Surratt that the research question be dropped, Grady defended it, saying the commission needs at least to consider whether disability benefits should follow earnings and income patterns of civilian occupations, which routinely fall as they retire.
Surratt argued that disabled veterans don’t have normal working careers. Some cannot build a nest egg for their retirement years like able-bodied counterparts. Also, he said, a veteran who becomes a double amputee from fighting in Iraq won’t grow his limbs back in retirement. The disability is permanent and continues to affect quality of life.
Surratt’s motion to strike such research was approved, with only Grady dissenting among 11 commissioners present.
Another commissioner, Marine Corps Major Gen. James E. Livingston, a Medal of Honor recipient, challenged draft guidance that CNA study the issue of “disabilities that occur as part of genetics” in reviewing standards for defining ailments as service connected.
Livingston said recruits who clear entrance physicals are presumed to be fit for duty, and that presumption shouldn’t be altered even if advances in genetics now can show that veterans were predisposed to certain illnesses. The entire panel, on a voice vote, agreed to strike the genetics question.
Chairman Scott, in an interview afterward, said the commission isn’t abandoning its responsibility to weigh other issues regarding the definition of “service-connected” disabilities. He pointed to research still planned into whether age should be a factor in determining entitlement to service-connected compensation, whether the “benefit-of-the-doubt rule,” which guides raters to favor the veteran in deciding close calls on service connection, should be changed, and whether service connection on a “secondary” or an “aggravation” basis should be redefined.
But Scott also said he also agreed with a concern expressed by Commissioner Joe Wynn that final recommendations reflect the opinions of commissioners and not be driven by “subject matter experts” at IOM or CNA.
To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, e-mail milupdate@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com.
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.
Question
SeattleShay
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
Military Update: Veterans’ disability panel to avoid debating genetics
By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, October 27, 2005
The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission unanimously has voted that a veteran’s genetic makeup, which might show predisposition to certain illnesses before entering service, is not a reasonable topic for the commission to study in its review of “service connection” and disability payments.
During an Oct. 14 public hearing in Washington, the commission also rejected, on a 10-1 vote, a proposal to study whether veterans’ disability benefits should be reduced at some “normal” retirement age to reflect the typical income drop of most American workers as they retire.
The two votes came as commissioners shaped research questions they want answered by staff or through contracted studies to be conducted by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science and by the Center for Naval Analyses over the next year or more.
“If you cannot determine at time of entry into service what the genetic makeup of the potential serviceman is, how can you, when the serviceman leaves in two years, three years or 20 years, base disability benefits on the genetic issue?” asked retired Army Lt. Gen. James T. Scott, commission chairman, in summing up the panel’s decision not to delve into genetics.
Some critics contend that the veterans’ disability compensation system is overly generous because it assumes that any disease or ailment that surfaces while a service member is on active duty is “service-connected” and, therefore, compensable, even if family history is suspected to be a factor.
“We’re not going there,” said Commissioner Rick Surratt, a Vietnam combat veteran and deputy legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, after the vote, which he agreed was significant for veterans.
The IOM says it needs 15 months to apply its medical expertise, which the commissioners concede they lack, to review and analyze the Schedule for Rating Disabilities used by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense for setting disability compensation levels.
The IOM will judge how well the rating schedule reflects current medical understanding of the link between impairment and disability; advances in technology and treatments for disabilities; gains in function realized through vocational rehabilitation, environmental adaptations or other special-purpose benefits. The IOM also will review possible weaknesses in the rating schedule that require “additional disability designations such as Individual Unemployability” in order to compensate veterans adequately.
Congress chartered the 13-member commission to conduct a comprehensive review of federal disability benefits for veterans and their survivors. Lawmakers set a tentative deadline for the commission to deliver a final report to the president and Congress within 17 months of its first meeting, which was held May 16 this year.
But Ray Wilburn, the commission’s executive director, said that a final report might be delayed at least a year, until fall 2007, to allow the IOM and CNA time to complete their studies, integrate their work and inform commissioners.
The CNA will study the appropriateness of current compensation levels for veterans, tapping various data sources and fresh surveys. It also will analyze the effectiveness of the rating schedule in meeting the original intent of Congress that compensation be sufficient to replace “average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations.”
Given the law’s emphasis on earning capacity, Commissioner John H. Grady, an actuary with Mellon Financial Corp. in Dallas, included among research questions for the CNA this: Would disability benefits be more appropriate if the level of payment was higher before some normal ‘retirement age’ and lower thereafter?
On a motion from Surratt that the research question be dropped, Grady defended it, saying the commission needs at least to consider whether disability benefits should follow earnings and income patterns of civilian occupations, which routinely fall as they retire.
Surratt argued that disabled veterans don’t have normal working careers. Some cannot build a nest egg for their retirement years like able-bodied counterparts. Also, he said, a veteran who becomes a double amputee from fighting in Iraq won’t grow his limbs back in retirement. The disability is permanent and continues to affect quality of life.
Surratt’s motion to strike such research was approved, with only Grady dissenting among 11 commissioners present.
Another commissioner, Marine Corps Major Gen. James E. Livingston, a Medal of Honor recipient, challenged draft guidance that CNA study the issue of “disabilities that occur as part of genetics” in reviewing standards for defining ailments as service connected.
Livingston said recruits who clear entrance physicals are presumed to be fit for duty, and that presumption shouldn’t be altered even if advances in genetics now can show that veterans were predisposed to certain illnesses. The entire panel, on a voice vote, agreed to strike the genetics question.
Chairman Scott, in an interview afterward, said the commission isn’t abandoning its responsibility to weigh other issues regarding the definition of “service-connected” disabilities. He pointed to research still planned into whether age should be a factor in determining entitlement to service-connected compensation, whether the “benefit-of-the-doubt rule,” which guides raters to favor the veteran in deciding close calls on service connection, should be changed, and whether service connection on a “secondary” or an “aggravation” basis should be redefined.
But Scott also said he also agreed with a concern expressed by Commissioner Joe Wynn that final recommendations reflect the opinions of commissioners and not be driven by “subject matter experts” at IOM or CNA.
To comment, write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA 20120-1111, e-mail milupdate@aol.com or visit www.militaryupdate.com.
© 2003 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Nov 2
1
Top Posters For This Question
SeattleShay 1 post
Popular Days
Nov 2 2005
1 post
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts