NEWS FROM….

CONGRESSMAN LANE EVANS

RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

    U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FOR RELEASE: May 4, 2000

Washington, DC – "There are a lot of innovative practices being used by VA at the local level to improve veterans claims processing right now," said Congressman Lane Evans of Illinois, Democratic Leader of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. "The problem is that VA [the Department of Veterans Affairs] hasn’t developed a system for evaluating which new ideas work. I want to help them do that."

Evans today released a new General Accounting Office (GAO) study of the VA benefits claims processing system. Using a system-wide survey and follow-up interviews in six VA Regional Offices, GAO found four broad categories of inventive approaches developing in the field:

• Efforts to improve staff training, guidance or accountability.
• Changes in supervisory or staffing structure.
• Efforts to develop evidence accurately and fully.
• Efforts to communicate more effectively with veterans.

"When you look at what VA’s claims people told GAO," Evans said, "all four of these sets of new practices are about accuracy – the need for regional office decision-makers to get the claim right the first time. What I find heartening is many regional offices are giving serious attention to improving the accuracy of decisions."

There is a great deal to improve. VA has set technical accuracy as its number one priority, with a goal of getting it right at least 96% of the time. In 1999, VA’s national accuracy rate was only 68%; meaning almost 1 out of 3 VA claims contained at least one error.

"For a veteran with a valid disability claim to be turned down, or told that the disability is less serious than the veteran knows it to be is infuriating, and unfair to our Nation’s defenders," Evans said. "Either the veteran goes away unhappy, or the claim results in hearings, appeals, remands and correspondence that all take time which could be better devoted to serving veterans. What my GAO study shows is that unless practices used to improve processing of claims are evaluated, Regional Offices have no basis for selecting one practice over another."

GAO notes that the "remand" rate – the percentage of cases sent back to Regional Offices because of errors – was much lower before veterans gained the right in 1988 to sue. "Before we won the fight to get judicial review," Evans said, "VA’s Board of Veterans Appeals [BVA] remanded 12 to 24% of the appeals. BVA seemed to see its role as protecting VA’s decisions, and veterans had no recourse. Now BVA has been sending as many as half the appeals back, rather than have veterans appeal BVA decisions. The numbers look worse, but they mean there is more justice in the system."

What is needed, Evans says, is to reduce current remand rates by hitting the mark the first time. That may be happening. The GAO report says that in the first quarter of fiscal year 2000, about 29% of appeals were remanded back to the Regional Offices (ROs). "That’s still pretty bad," said Evans. "Congress needs to see how it can help. I don’t think the answer lies in tongue-lashing and budget-slashing."

A number of the solutions that have sprung up from VA field staff are quite simple.

• Evaluate data on errors.
• Include accuracy as an element in performance appraisals.
• Contact the Board or the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and discuss why cases were sent back.
• Train the staff on Board and Court decisions that affect claims processing development and ratings.
• Set up special units at RO level to process and analyze why cases are appealed and remanded, or to handle specific types of claims that need more attention.
• Tell veterans what they need to do to establish their claims.

"What GAO tells us we don’t have," Evans said, "is an evaluation of these ideas. Those interviewed say some of them seem useful, but the Regional Offices don’t have the time or the resources – staff and money – to test them all. In some cases, regional offices reporting similar procedures have dramatically different remand rates. We don’t know from hard data which of these are great ideas instead of merely good ideas."

Evans is still pressing VA for information on how it will implement quality assurance provision of the Veterans Millenium Health Care and Benefits Act enacted last year. "This legislation requires the VA to have a Quality Assurance Division which meets governmental standards for independence and internal controls," said Evans. "The Quality Assurance Division will perform independent quality reviews of the adjudication of veterans claims for benefits which are decided by the Compensation and Pension Service, the Education Service, the Vocational Rehabilitation Service, the Loan Guaranty Service and the Insurance Service. Veterans deserve accurate, prompt responses to their claims. I believe that evaluation of various practices is crucial to improving the quality of claims adjudication."