Vaoig Says "rsvr's Are Confused"

[broncovet]

The VAOIG did a report on the St. Pete RO, and told us what most Vets already know. (Finding 5, Page 11)

"VARO staff did not properly address whether 22 (59 percent) of 37 Gulf War

veterans were entitled to receive treatment for mental disorders. These errors

occurred because VSC staff lacked understanding of VBA policy and

overlooked reminder notifications to consider entitlement to mental health

treatment. As a result, veterans may be unaware of their possible entitlement

to treatment for mental disorders and may not get the care they need.

Interviews with VSC management and staff confirmed RVSRs did not

always follow VBA policy to consider entitlement to mental health treatment

when they denied the Gulf War veterans service connection for mental

disorders. RVSRs stated the criteria regarding entitlement to mental health

treatment for Gulf War veterans was confusing and that it was easy to ignore

the reminder notification. VSC management stated they last had training on

this topic in December 2010."

http://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-11-04243-86.pdf

[Pete53]

No sirprise I would bet that most VAMC are poorly trained and motivated

[broncovet]

I guess I am "confused", too. This VAOIG reported 59% were wrong, and the VA often boasts of better than 80% correct decisions.

Here is how VA gets "correct" decisions. If a teacher had 100 students and graded 10 papers, and they all got a 0% (every answer wrong), the teacher could say that there was an accuracy rate of 90%. That is, the teacher assumes all of the ungraded papers would be 100% correct. This is exactly what the VA does. They assume, when a Veteran does not appeal, it is a "correct" decision, and since only about 10% appeal, that means the RO decisions are 90% correct.

However, of the decisions appealed, almost 70% are either awarded or remanded at the BVA level, with even more overturned at the CAVC and Federal Circuit levels which, more accurately, shows about 70% of RO decisions are in error.

Edited February 9, 2012 by broncovet

[donna68]

I think the statistics in this scenerio are based on two different things. One is actual service connection and the other is entitlement to medical care. In this case, they are referring to 1702 benefits. Veterans who have been diagnosed with a mental health condition within 2 years of discharge that are not granted service connection for whatever reason (condition resolved..), they are still entitled to chapter 1702, which is medical care, but not service connection.

As far as BVA and appeals, the great thing about BVA is that they can manipulate the laws, but the staff who rate the cases do not have the same benefit. So with that being said, just because BVA grants an award that was denied by the RO, it doesnt necissarily mean the staff that originally rated the case was incorrect.

[Hoppy]

They are confused because the powers that be do not pressure them to do a good job. Were any of these confused raters disciplined.

Treatment leads to diagnoses. Diagnoses lead to service connection. Being confused is a good way to delay and deny. According to my old SO who was a VA rating specialist for 20 years before he jumped sides, the confusion has been ongoing so long on mental health claims that you really get to the point that you think they are adversarial rather than confused.

[jbasser]

Everyone makes a fine point here but I am always thinking from a Quality Assurance view of things and it works for me.

These folks are very well educated. Highly intelligent. Do you think it is caused by confusion and the VAOIG is buying that.

I think there is a little more than that involved. I think it is a very well thought out scripted event with someone making the decisions well outside the realm of the RO.

Makes you sit back and think, doesnt it.

J

[Wings]

x

x

x

They're not "confused", they are lazy. The VA will argue they have no duty to disclose potential benefits, they will argue that the onus is on the veteran to claim the benefit, they have argued that the VA has no statutory to assist unless the claim meets a well-grounded threshold of plausability (prior to 1999), etc. etc. I have never seen the VA voluntarily surrender any information without being ordered (by the Sec or the Court). ~Wings