Fireworks At House Committee On Veteran Affairs At Todays Hearing.

[Bigred122]

Todays hearing on Veteran claim back log starts slow during first 3 panel. Fireworks starts when Secretary Hickey testifies" All is fine"??? Well worth the watching!!

[SCAATY]

I watched the thing 'cuz I needed a good laugh. Here's what caught my ear. All the Adjent Ornge claims have been completed, according to the undersecretary. According to her these claims was taking some 30%+ of her manpower. This week that manpower should be shifted back to the rest of the backlog. This means this next week we should see a substantial decress in the backlog reflected in the Monday Morning Reports. I know that's just wishful thinking. I think Congressman Filner should keep a watchful eye on these reports. JMHO

[Chuck75]

This was the best reaming I have ever seen the VA get. I almost sang the StarBangled Banner and stood up and saluted. LOL

Great stuff...every one on this group should play it every day they are waiting for a check !

I had to start laughing! The service orgs did not really want to "tweak" the VA's "beak", or even more important, place a good part of the "blame" where it should be. (Congress)

Think a bit --

Title 38 (Law, Congress)

VA Regulations and M-21 (In many places, they restrict the original meaning and intent of Congress, such that a small number of veterans are successful in claims

VA Bureaucracy and practices Establish or promote a mind set that veterans are out to "game" the system. And regardless of VA disclaimers, make claim denial quicker and simpler than award.

VA attitudes towards veteran's claims seem to be that if we delay long enough, it's likely the veteran will go away (die), or the veteran's claim succumbs to the "pitfalls" built into Title 38 and the VA regs, or the veteran will "just give up".

The VSO's have a problem, in that fighting the VA tooth and nail, as Filner seems to favor, is often counter productive when having to deal with bureaucrats.

Getting bureaucrats to do something is often difficult, and more so when you don't have their "goodwill".

When it comes down to it, over the decades, blue ribbon panels, committees, funded and unfunded studies have made numerous recommendations.

Virtually NONE have been implemented by changes in law or regulation. Many of the more recent changes have been examples of "give with one hand, take away with the other".

One notable example, and "improvement" is a VA reg that deals with PTSD, and states that a VA C&P examiner's report is the only way that the VA will recognize a PTSD diagnosis for claim purposes. (This is contrary to past practice, and Title 38 language.) Not to mention that the VA C&P examiners qualifications are often such that the examiner's opinion is not accepted

by a court of law as authoritative.

Another one is shortening veteran's response times, and leaving the VA's side open ended for a useful response or decision.

Perhaps another oddity worthy of mention. An SSA determination of total disability is valid for almost all courts and purposes, yet the VA does not acknowledge it's validity.

In such cases, the VA should only be concerned about "Service Connection", not the level of disability. The present situation is not only absurd, it costs the government a great deal, in terms of extra administrative time and expense.

A fair number of the VA problems can be cured by legislation and oversight, if penalties can be imposed for the VA's improper actions and lack of action.

Possible examples

1. When a veteran is paid retroactive compensation, the compensation must be adjusted for the delay, inflation, etc. and perhaps a percentage (20%) added when the delay is significant.

2. Denials must go through a more complex process than they do now, and the process must take as long and be as or more complicated as the award process.

3. When a significant number of denied claims processed by a VARO are found to be in error, all denied claims in the same general time-frames must be reviewed for error.

4. Bonuses will not be given to management when a VARO takes over "X" days to process and complete claims.

5. Bonuses will not be given when the number of appeals is above "X" percentage.

6. Bonuses will not be given when claim error rates are above "X" percentage.

7. As time passes, the "X" number or percentage will be reduced significantly each year, until the VA's performance is "second to none".

In other words. the VA's proclivity to deny rather than award must be reversed any way possible, if the stated intent of the veterans compensation laws is to be properly carried out. Ultimately, this places things back in Congresses lap.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Chuck75

[Chuck75]

This hearing showed how much no one knows what they are doing. The Rep from PVA had the best grasp of things. The others showed their lack of knowledge of the system. VHA or VBA Drs versus Drs/PA and then when Hickey testifies " We don't have No Stinkin' Drs".( Who were those masked men who disagreed with our civilian Drs?) Too funny that VA employees think the new DBQs are too hard and are striking at various ROs.So much confusion on who can fill out DBQs. VA says any Dr can VA or civilian, yet I have had two Drs tell at my hospital they were instructed that they couldn't fill them out and it had to be done by the C&P Drs.(aren't they the bad guys who say we are not worthy). I think they were calling the QTC Drs/PA VBA Drs. But since we don't use them in this region, I know little about them. Everyone was in agreement that the VA was the best until PVA rep spoke the truth and then other Vet orgs jumped ship and admitted not all is proper in the land of OZ! I'd love to see those bonus figures and qualification sheets.Looks like our cards and letters are driving the committee members to maybe do something productive

Think about this - - The VA can order a C&P exam be accomplished by a VA treating doctor if they choose to do so.

1. VBA pays VHA when this is done. Ah Ha!

2. The treating doctor supposedly knows more about the veteran's medical problems in detail than a five to fifteen minute interview with a C&P examiner will disclose, and this information is usually favorable to the veteran's claim.

In the past, I have had a few VA (real, licensed, etc.) treating doctors that were willing to fill out various forms that are useful during a claims process. It's worthy of note that those doctors invariably were transfered or left the VA completely within a year or so after filling out the forms. Documenting my claims properly involved several years of efforts, multiple non VA treatment records, and statements, including IOMs. I had one IMO summarily dismissed by the VA as "speculation", even though it met all the requirements to be valid when presented to the Court of Veteran's Appeals, and the originating doctor was considered and recognized as an "expert" in the appropriate field by the court.

[Bigred122]

Think about this - - The VA can order a C&P exam be accomplished by a VA treating doctor if they choose to do so.

1. VBA pays VHA when this is done. Ah Ha!

2. The treating doctor supposedly knows more about the veteran's medical problems in detail than a five to fifteen minute interview with a C&P examiner will disclose, and this information is usually favorable to the veteran's claim.

In the past, I have had a few VA (real, licensed, etc.) treating doctors that were willing to fill out various forms that are useful during a claims process. It's worthy of note that those doctors invariably were transfered or left the VA completely within a year or so after filling out the forms. Documenting my claims properly involved several years of efforts, multiple non VA treatment records, and statements, including IOMs. I had one IMO summarily dismissed by the VA as "speculation", even though it met all the requirements to be valid when presented to the Court of Veteran's Appeals, and the originating doctor was considered and recognized as an "expert" in the appropriate field by the court.

I agree with ya 100%. The biggest shocker this whole process taught me is that VA Drs only have to be licensed in some state.Most are not licensed in the state that they practice.30% of the C& P exam Drs at my VAMC failed to meet qualifications and priveledging the month after my exams by the OIG. To maintain their C&P qualifications they are required to have C&P training of just a few hours each month.One of my examiners is a GP and the other was an ER dr.The GP Dr admitted he wasn't qualified on one of my disabilities to give an opinion. The ER Dr opinions were based mostly on his outlook and not on medical advice.He assumed alot of things that were not in the records and made his opinion based on his personal not professional belief.

The Committee needs to hold a hearing with just Veterans testifying. They can have one or two from each category to bring up problems they experience unique to their disabilities.They would get a real view of what is happening. I agree with the one committee member who said just grant the Vietnams claims and get them off the books. He figured only 1% of them would be fraudalent. Then go back and review later when caught up.Freeze fed employee bonuses for 2 years should pay for the program. Then get some of these simple claims approved individually and then get these new folks some guideslines to measure their TBI and PTSD and get them the help they need NOW! No more multi tours unless they volunteer.Bring back the draft if you must.3 or more tours is just too much on the human mind and body!!.

[jbasser]

The folks who work in the C and P departments are part of the VBA not the VAMC.

Their payroll and budget are funded by VBA. Sometimes they use medical center docs to do a c and p if they need to. Then they bill VBA for the services.

J

[boomer2]

I agree with Chuck75... The vets from WW1 had to march on Washington to get results, unfortunately it looks like that is going to have to happen again. And if that is the case, the sooner the better.