May212013
Hearing Transcript on Examining Training Requirements of Veterans Benefits Administration Claims Processing Personnel.
|
EXAMINING TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS PROCESSING PERSONNEL
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 SERIAL No. 111-98 Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
CORRINE BROWN, Florida |
STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking |
|
||
|
|
|||||
|
|
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process is further refined. |
|
|||
C O N T E N T S
September 16, 2010
Examining Training Requirements of Veterans Benefits Administration Claims Processing Personnel
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman John J. Hall
Prepared statement of Chairman Hall
Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member
Prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn
WITNESSES
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Michael Cardarelli, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration
Prepared statement of Mr. Cardarelli
American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO), Jimmy F. Sims, Jr., Shop Steward, Local 1738, and AFGE National Veterans Affairs Council, and Rating Veterans Service Representative, Winston-Salem, NC, Regional Office, Veterans Benefits Administration
Prepared statement of Mr. Sims
American Legion, Ian C. de Planque, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission
Prepared statement of Mr. de Planque
Disabled American Veterans, Jeffrey C. Hall, Assistant National Legislative Director
Prepared statement of Mr. Hall
Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), David E. Hunter, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Cost Analysis and Research Division
Prepared statement of Dr. Hunter
National Veterans Legal Services Program, Meg Bartley, Esq., Senior Staff Attorney
Prepared statement of Ms. Bartley
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Federal Bar Association, Carol Wild Scott, Chairman, Veterans Law Section, statement
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record:
EXAMINING TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS PROCESSING PERSONNEL
Thursday, September 16, 2010
U. S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Hall [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hall, Donnelly, and Lamborn.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[Pledge was taken.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you. I am very grateful that you have been able to join us today for our hearing entitled, "Examining Training Requirements of Veterans Benefits Administration Claims Processing Personnel."
I think it is indisputable that quality training for Veterans Benefit Administration (VBA) claims personnel is critical for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to reach its goal of processing all claims within 125 days at a 98 percent accuracy rate and in reaching its overarching goal of eliminating the backlog by 2015.
As of 2009, VBA received more than one million compensation and pension (C&P) related claims annually. Over 200,000 of these claims take longer than 4 months for VBA staff to fully process, meaning that they are part of the backlog. Further, it is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the claims processed by VBA, as many as 200,000 are erroneous.
Also, according to information provided by the Board of Veterans' Appeals in its annual report, 37 percent of all appeals that it receives are returned to the VBA due to avoidable errors. It should also be noted that the backlog itself continues to grow.
In response, since 2007, Congress has appropriated more than $750 million for VA to hire more than 10,000 new VBA claims processors on an expedited hiring timetable. Recognizing that the backlog is not just a “people” issue and that brute force alone will not bring about transformation, Congress also passed the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-389, which included sweeping provisions to overhaul the claims processing system including efforts to improve the training of VBA claims personnel.
Recently, VA expanded the training requirements for claims processing personnel. This is especially significant since 50 percent of the VA staff is considered new—that is with less than 2 years or less of experience.
Today veteran service representatives (VSRs) and ratings veteran service representatives (RVSRs) are required to complete 85 hours of instruction annually, a 5-hour increase over previous levels.
VA has also reimplemented and revamped its certification testing program. I look forward to hearing more about that today.
Congress also directed the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine VA’s training program for claims processing personnel. GAO answered the call with two reports, one in 2008 and one in 2010, which both assessed VBA’s training requirements and practices.
From these reports, we found that VBA claims processors may be hindered from completing their training requirements in order to meet their work production goals.
We also learned that VBA’s training may not be sufficient to equip VBA claims processors with the skills needed to help them perform their duties.
Moreover, the GAO indicates that significant improvements might be achieved by the VBA if it were to better monitor the claims process, particularly during the claims developmental stage, and employ appropriate training management and other tools to provide timely correction of staff processing errors.
The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), based on its research, has also issued findings relating to VBA’s claims processing related training, particularly as it pertains to variances in the ratings between different regional offices (ROs).
I look forward to hearing from both the GAO and IDA on their findings.
Our job in our oversight capacity here in Congress includes helping the VA to find solutions to these challenges that stand in the way of veterans receiving the benefits they are due.
Today’s hearing is designed to achieve this end by shining greater light on the efficacy of the training and certification of VBA claims processing personnel.
I look forward to the testimony of the veterans services organizations and other stakeholders, many of whom for years have offered recommendations for improving the training of VBA claims processors, but with little avail.
Finally, I look forward to hearing feedback from the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Benefits on the critiques and recommendations from the earlier witnesses and to get an action plan for implementing and equipping VBA claims processing personnel with the skills needed for the VA to “break the back of the backlog.”
Again, I reiterate that I strongly believe VBA’s focus should be on getting the claim right the first time, on quality, not predominantly on production. I am disappointed that the VA’s recorded performance on training has not improved significantly and I expect to hear specifics from VA on how it will be significantly more effective in this area in the future.
Veterans understand the necessity of proper training as they have placed their lives in harm’s way dependent upon the training they and their brothers and sisters in arms received, so they understand the importance of the training the processors receive who decide their claims when they are veterans.
Our mission today is to ensure that the VBA provides meaningful and appropriate training and devotes the resources that claims processing personnel need to perform their duties, so that our veterans, their families, and survivors receive the 21st Century world-class service they deserve.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. And I would now yield to Ranking Member Doug Lamborn for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. You are welcome.
Mr. LAMBORN. And welcome everyone to this hearing on Veterans Benefits Administration training programs.
A quality training program is the key to any successful organization, particularly one like VBA that must adhere to a complex set of laws, regulations, and precedent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
While these requirements pose a daunting challenge for trainers, I want to emphasize my strong desire to ensure that a comprehensive and substantive training program is employed at all levels of VBA. And I know that this perspective is shared by the Chairman, Representative Hall.
Over the past several years, Republican Members have recommended substantial increases for training in our views and estimates. We realize the importance proper training and feedback have in production of quality rating decisions that are fair and equitable to our veterans.
Throughout my tenure on this Committee, we have discussed a number of problems within VBA that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I recognize could be addressed through better training.
VA training must be connected to its vision and mission and VA managers need to be assured that if employees are pulled off the floor for training, that it will result in long-term benefits. There must be clear support from the top down in order to conduct adequate training and acquire the expected outcomes.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. And I thank you all for your participation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
I would ask you all to please turn off your cell phones, and remind all panelists that your complete written statements have been made a part of the hearing record. Please limit your remarks so that we may have sufficient time to follow-up with questions once everyone has had the opportunity to provide their testimony.
Our first panel features Daniel Bertoni, Director of Education, Workforce and Income Security with the Government Accountability Office.
Mr. Bertoni, if you would join us at the witness table, please. You have 5 minutes, but your written statement is in the record, so feel free to improvise. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. BERTONI. Am I on? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. I am pleased to discuss training for Veterans Benefits Administration disability claims processors.
For years, the claims process has been a subject of concern due to long waits for decisions, large numbers of pending claims, and problems with the accuracy and consistency of decisions.
To help VBA manage increasing workloads, Congress has provided additional funding over the last several years which enabled the Agency to hire thousands of new staff. However, more staff alone will not guarantee success. A robust training program is needed to help new claims processors become fully proficient and seasoned staff to maintain their knowledge and skills over time.
In 2008, we noted that VBA’s centralized training program for new staff appeared well designed, but offered several recommendations for further enhancing management of the program in which the Agency concurred and has taken several actions.
In April 2010, we again reported on VBA’s management and oversight of its training, but in regard to more experienced staff.
My remarks today will focus on experienced claims processors’ views regarding training and VBA’s efforts to monitor and assess that training.
In summary, experienced staff had concerns about the amount of required training and their ability to meet those requirements. Our survey showed that 60 percent found it difficult to obtain 80 hours of annual training given their workloads. About 50 percent of the supervisors thought that only some or a few needed that amount to do their jobs effectively.
Experienced staff also had mixed views on the training received on specific topics with an estimated 47 and 42 percent respectively noting that training was less than sufficient for appeals and remands and special monthly compensation.
On the other hand, one-third reported receiving more than enough training in records management, rating claims, and calculating payments.
Experienced staff in general found certain training modes more helpful than others with nearly all noting that on-the-job training best suited their needs. Only 20 percent viewed VBA’s training performance support system, other online videos, or satellite training as very helpful.
Moreover, an estimated 39 percent of respondents felt that the training they received in the last 12 months was delivered too late.
In regard to program management and oversight, we found that the Agency delegated considerable authority for training staff to its 57 regional offices and could do more to monitor and assess training.
For example, VBA did not use its Web-based Learning Management System (LMS) to monitor the regions, the specific types of training completed by individual staff in the regions, and could not ensure they received all required training.
In fact, our survey analysis showed that 24 percent of staff who should have received mandatory training on spinal, neck, and joint injuries never did.
In its comments to our report, VBA noted that it has begun to electronically track the percentage of staff at each office that are meeting annual training requirements.
We also reported that the Agency lacked controls to ensure regional offices consistently define and record training. For example, some offices allowed staff to count the time spent reading Fast Letters as training while other offices did not. At a minimum, this raised serious concerns about the consistency and reliability of regional data.
And per our recommendation, the Agency is now developing criteria as to what activities should and should not count toward the completion of annual training.
And, finally, we reported that VBA had not systematically assessed the appropriateness and consistency of regional office training or collected feedback from experienced staff on the training delivered.
We recommended that VA develop a strategy to assess the content, mode, and timing of such training. The Agency has developed such a strategy for national core technical training and is exploring the feasibility of applying it to non-core and locally developed regional training.
In conclusion, veterans who have been injured in service to their country deserve timely, accurate, and consistent disability decisions. And claims processors play a vital role in responding to their needs. It is good news that the Agency has a number of initiatives either planned or underway to strengthen its training program and enhance service delivery.
However, going forward, we will continue to monitor and assess its progress toward addressing our recommendations and ensuring that both new and experienced staff are properly supported in their efforts to serve the veteran community.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Bertoni.
I will just recognize myself for a few questions and then the Ranking Member.
In its 2008 report entitled, "Increased Focus on Evaluation and Accountability Would Enhance Training and Performance Management for Claims Processors," the GAO found that individual VBA personnel staff members faced no consequences for failing to meet required training specifications.
In your recent study, did you determine whether this issue has been remedied or is there still a problem with accountability?
Mr. BERTONI. I do not believe there has been a specific policy change or at least at the time of our review, there was not a specific policy change in terms of accountability.
At the tail end of our review in January of 2010, there was a Fast Letter issued that talked about the requirement that staff must now enter the fact that they have taken training into the LMS. There would be an electronic query to supervisors if that did not occur and some reference to either counseling or reprimanding or perhaps adjusting the individual’s workload to make that training happen. But I do not know whether there is any linkage to, say, performance rating or anything else.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Comparing both the 2008 report with your most recent 2010 report, it appears that the quantity of training continues to pose a challenge for seasoned VBA claims staff. According to both studies, claims processors reported that the demands of their work production requirements often prevent them from receiving mandatory training.
What has been the VA’s response to this ongoing issue and what measures, if any, do you recommend to remedy this problem?
Mr. BERTONI. I think up until very recently, the response has been we established this 80-hour requirement. We believe it is appropriate and we will continue to go that way.
But more recently, I believe there has been some outreach and analysis to field staff and management to get a sense of whether this is appropriate and whether it is doable under current workloads.
And there have been some adjustments not in terms of the ceiling but in terms of the curriculum. I think now they are more training to the intermediate and targeting journey levels. And I think that will go a long way towards making training more relevant and processors being able to find training that is relevant to their position.
I think there is an acknowledgment also that the workload can distract from one’s ability to do training. And I did see a reference that now seasoned claims processors who teach or are instructors can now apply up to 20 hours of that instructional time to their Central Processing Unit requirements.
So I think short of changing the bar or lowering the bar, there has been substantive of examination of the content. And I think that might alleviate some of the pressure in terms of their ability to make that 80-hour requirement.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, sir.
It seems that VBA fails to tie the training requirements to its organizational goals for claims processing accuracy and timeliness or even transformation efforts.
Can you provide us with any insight on how VA can close this disconnect, that is to correlate training with more accurate and quality claims processing outcomes?
Mr. BERTONI. I think in the 2008 report, we actually did say that at least on paper in terms of design they were in accordance with what we call generally accepted practices in design of training programs in that there are goals for timeliness, accuracy, and consistency. And the training that is administered does get at those issues.
What we were concerned about was how they were doing the training, was it appropriate, and how was it being evaluated so that they could make adjustments to the training to make it the best it could be and VA could more better target what they are doing in training towards ultimate end goals.
And, yes, it appears that claims quality has gone down over the last couple years. And we are concerned about that also.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Regarding the quantity of training, your 2010 report contained an interesting survey in which experienced claims processors felt that they received too little training on some topics and too much on others. A full 46 percent felt that they experienced problems completing the training.
What has been the VA’s reaction to the survey? Do you know of any steps that have been taken to address this issue?
Mr. BERTONI. I do not know what they are doing specifically with the survey results. But one thing that did stand out to me was the statistic on appeals and remands. We appear to see a real need amongst staff that they want more appeals and remands training and also on the other side, we saw that they did not feel the appeals and remands training was as effective as it could be in helping them do their job.
And then you look at problematic areas in the claims process that we do find a lot of issues with remanded cases. So I think that it would behoove the Agency to really look at that data and to look to what adjustments they might want to make in their training to address the issues around appeals and remands.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Bertoni. I have more questions, which I will submit in writing to you.
And now I will recognize Ranking Member Lamborn.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks for being here, Mr. Bertoni.
Do you believe that 85 hours of training is an adequate requirement for all employees or should this be reduced or perhaps increased?
Mr. BERTONI. Again, I do not know and we have asked on numerous occasions for the criteria or justification as to how the Agency arrived at that, whether there was any other benefit processing baseline that we could look to. We did not find that.
So we really do not know the basis. I do know that in both of our reviews there is the concern about the ability to reach that bar. And, again, I think part of it comes down to what is being offered and whether it is relevant and substantive.
I think for new claims processors, they will make that. The training in the first couple years is very intense. It is after you leave that environment of the challenge program where, I do not want to say folks forget about you, but I think the emphasis in the past has been, well, they are fine, you know, they will just get by on refresher training.
I do not think that is the appropriate way to look at this. I think you really need to look at a vigorous and invigorated training program going forward for seasoned staff and it would benefit the Agency to do so.
Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you.
And I know I might be overlapping some with previous questions and answers, but my last question is this. Could you tell us what you think the VA can do to ensure that the correct staff members are rewarded for exceptional performance and also how we can assure that proper feedback is given to the staff from their managers?
Mr. BERTONI. I am glad you revisited that section of the 2008 report. I was not quite sure if I was going to get questions on that? But I can weigh in on that.
In 2008, we looked at the performance appraisal and management system. And in our view, we were concerned that although there were numerous categories to place people in various performance buckets, it appeared that as designed, the formula that was used, did not allow appropriate differentiation in performance.
And because of the formula, you could have someone—they would rate folks on, I believe, critical and noncritical elements. And someone who scores outstanding in all critical elements would, of course, get an outstanding rating. However, if an individual rated less than outstanding in one of the critical elements, say that person got a fully successful, that would be enough to drop that person into the third category which would be fully successful, bypassing the next category of exceptional.
So in this case, you would have a very high performer dropping into a bucket with some folks who perhaps were at the very bottom end of fully successful performance but would be rated the same.
So we felt there was room for the Agency to look at their performance evaluation system, and determine whether they could better differentiate between our highest performers.
Mr. LAMBORN. Okay.
Mr. BERTONI. And, again, that backs into training. If you know where your remedial needs are, you can design and target your training to staffs’ individual needs. And perhaps 85 hours is not enough or is too much for some staff, but perhaps some staff will need more. So it is a way to target your training resources to people who need your help.
Mr. LAMBORN. Thanks for your answers and for being here today.
I yield back.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Bertoni, just another question or two. Did GAO explore the quality or adequacy of the training that the VBA instructors receive? Does VBA have a formalized program for training the trainers and are RO instructors required to complete it?
Mr. BERTONI. We did not look at the train the trainer program per se. We looked generally at their program. Just in general, train the trainer programs make good sense. And also if you give trainers an incentive to step up by allowing them to apply what they are doing to their annual training hours, I think everybody benefits. The Agency benefits from knowledge transfer.
These supposedly are your best people. They are knowledgeable. You have a vast number of new staff in the Agency who could benefit from that. And the Agency will benefit, I think, from good train the trainer programs. The individual benefits, of course, because as you train, you get better. You sharpen your skills and you also pick up a few credit hours towards your national requirement.
We found it interesting that in our survey in 2010 that many experienced staff really viewed on-the-job training as the preferred mode. The question I have is, was that the default choice? If they could not turn internally to the established curriculum, were they turning towards peers and other on-the-job tools to get what they need? I think that is a question that VBA has to really think about.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Well, thank you very much for your work and your testimony and for being here today, Mr. Bertoni, and you are now excused.
Mr. BERTONI. Thank you.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Have a good day, sir.
I will call our next panel, please, which includes Jimmy Sims, Jr., the RVSR and AFGE Local 1738 Steward, VBA Regional Office, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
Jeffrey C. Hall from New York, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans (DAV), welcome, sir.
Meg Bartley, Senior Staff Attorney, National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP); Dr. David Hunter, Assistant Director, Cost Analysis and Research Division for the Institute for Defense Analyses; and Ian C. de Planque, Deputy Director of the National Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission of the America Legion.
We are expecting votes to be called at any time. So what we will do is we will try to get as much testimony as we can before we have to recess for votes across the street. And then we will come back and have questions.
Mr. Sims, your statement has been entered into the record. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF JIMMY F. SIMS, JR., RATING VETERANS SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE, WINSTON-SALEM, NC, REGIONAL OFFICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, AND SHOP STEWARD, LOCAL 1738, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (AFL-CIO), AND AFGE NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS COUNCIL; JEFFREY C. HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; MEG BARTLEY, ESQ., SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM; DAVID E. HUNTER, PH.D., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COST ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH DIVISION, INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES; AND IAN C. DE PLANQUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION
STATEMENT OF JIMMY F. SIMS, JR.
Mr. SIMS. Thank you.
I thank Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn. I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees and the National VA Council.
Training has a direct impact on the VBA’s ability to process claims accurately and timely. Improving VBA’s training program is of utmost importance given the increased number of new claims processors and projected increase over the next year.
I would like to say at the outset that after many years of excluding the input of AFGE members on training and testing programs, we are beginning to see a change toward a more collaborative effort.
I recently began working on a site team headed by the VBA’s Employee Development and Training Director, Terence Meehan, which was commissioned to review the implementation and compliance with phase three challenge training. Hopefully this joint teamwork will not stop with challenge training and will also look at the training programs for senior employees.
Why is VBA’s mandatory annual training program deficient? First, too much of the training is self-directed. Employees are provided documents on the computer and expected to review, interpret, and apply this information with no assistance from subject matter experts.
While computer-based training is an effective tool for providing training for a large audience, the computer-based training should not be the primary method of training. There must be more formal classroom training.
Second, VBA is facing a lack of qualified trainers. Many of the employees placed in a training role have not had the benefit of formal instructor training.
In my office, simply being promoted to a decision review officer or a super senior VSR automatically qualifies you as a trainer and you are thrust into the instructor role right away.
There is no program in place to validate the retention of the newly learned material. Currently, VBA only tracks the quantity of training versus the quality of training.
In addition, some topics identified in the mandatory training such as how to write a clear and concise rating decision are remedial training which is better focused on employees within the first year of training. This training time would be better spent on more complex concepts such as evaluating blast injuries or debilitating diseases.
AFGE has also received reports by employees at other regional offices of management’s pressure to spend much less time than officially allotted on training modules in an attempt to increase productivity.
VBA allows regional offices to specify topics for 20 hours of the mandatory training. This practice has evolved into issues being identified during regular team meetings and management directing employees to take training time for these meetings.
The GAO reported an average of 46 percent of employees indicated they would experience difficulty in completing this training. I would dare say this percentage is greatly under-reported based on experiences in my regional office.
Overall, employees report that the 85-hour requirement is hard to achieve when faced with the dilemma of adequately completing the training or meeting management’s production requirements.
The timing of training is also a problem. In my regional office, we have experienced delays in delivery of the training. We are still awaiting training directed by VBA on ischemic heart disease, which is a presumptive disability associated with the Agent Orange exposure.
VA must begin to invest the time and energy necessary to meet the training needs of the employees. Otherwise, the Agency is doomed to fail in our mission.
AFGE urges Congress to take the following actions:
Establish a team of subject matter experts to include hands-on senior claims processors, AFGE, and veteran service officers to annually review the training programs and make recommendations for improvement; establish an effective monitoring system for tracking compliance with training to eliminate the incentives of managers who require employees to shortcut the training to meet production; develop clear guidelines on what should and should not be credited toward training requirements; to establish consistency across the regional offices; and, finally, VBA must start utilizing the national Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) quality review program to shape training around the areas where employees are making the most errors.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sims appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Sims.
I am now going to call on the DAV witness, Jeffrey Hall, who was the National Service Officer Supervisor in the New York office for the last 6 years and has recently moved to DC.
We are not related, but it is my pleasure to recognize you for 5 minutes of testimony.
Mr. JEFFREY HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and Ranking Member Lamborn.
It is indeed a pleasure to appear before this Subcommittee to discuss the training program and requirements for VBA claims processors and why training is so important in reforming the benefits claims process.
Mr. Chairman, while the growing backlog of pending claims receives all the headlines, the backlog is actually not the problem. It is just one symptom of a much larger problem, a broken claims process.
Rather than focusing only on breaking the back of the backlog of claims, VA must work to build a new claims process that is centered around the idea of getting it right the first time, which will require uncompromising emphasis on quality, accuracy, consistency, and training.
Similar to VBA, DAV has an extensive training program for our National Service Officers (NSOs). And I would like to offer some insight as to the training that we provide versus that of VBA.
VBA’s training for new employees involves periods of orientation and classroom instruction followed by on-the-job training and increasing caseloads until they receive a full caseload which is approximately 2 years from their hire date.
DAV’s training program for new NSOs has a similar structure and format. However, we emphasize academic foundation by requiring college-level courses in anatomy and physiology, medical terminology, and legal research and writing.
In addition to mandatory testing throughout their initial training, NSOs must pass a comprehensive Web-based examination for the entire 16-month training period.
Beyond VBA’s initial training, experienced VSRs and RVSRs are required to complete 85 hours of training annually. By comparison, DAV’s structure and continued training program is required of all NSOs and managers.
Training is separated into two separate 16-month training periods with monthly testing and aggregate testing at the conclusion of each period. All NSOs and managers are responsible for successfully completing the training and testing. Training and testing are ongoing and repeated every 3 years for the duration of their careers.
Upon successful completion of the entire training curriculum for the first time, NSOs earn 12 college credits from the American Council on Education. This is a major incentive to NSOs and one VBA may want to consider for its own employees.
We are not suggesting that VBA match DAV’s training program nor adopt our curriculum verbatim. However, we do feel that it is not possible for VBA claims processors to maximize their potential or proficiency level without substantially increasing the amount of training beyond the 85 hours currently required.
Even with this minimal training requirement, as we have heard, GAO found that only one regional office actually met their training requirement in 2009. And at nine regional offices, less than 50 percent of VSRs and RVSRs met their training goals.
GAO also reported that 46 percent of experienced claims processors found it difficult to meet their annual training requirement due to their increasing workload demands.
Mr. Chairman, from my personal experience over the past 17 years, VBA employees are motivated to learn. They want to do a good job for veterans, but they are disillusioned by more pressure being placed on meeting production goals than that of quality, accuracy, and training.
VBA employees need regular training schedules and managers must allow time for training. Also successful completion of the training must be an absolute requirement for every regional office while being a shared responsibility of every employee and manager.
Just as VBA managers must provide employees with the time for training, employees must faithfully complete that training. Neither should be able or feel pressured to simply check the box when it comes to training.
It is our understanding that VBA is administering some type of certification examination for employees. However, the examination being used seems to be for grade level increases only and not for aptitude purposes.
A VSR must pass a certification examination to move, for example, to the highest level. However, if they fail the examination, they can still remain at their current grade level albeit with no requirement to retake the exam or learn the material.
An experienced VBA employee recently told me that the only requirement for annual training is to simply attend, but there is no tool such as testing to measure whether or not the training is understood or the information being retained. In fact, when he expressed his opinion about the need for testing, he was actually ridiculed and he left the training feeling that it was a waste of his time and merely fulfilling a requirement.
Regular testing, Mr. Chairman, should be a mandatory for all VBA employees to include and must include coaches, Decision Review Officers (DROs), and managers. Testing measures for efficiency and knowledge and can identify subject matters or competencies requiring additional training. Equally important, testing can also aid in evaluating the effectiveness of training programs and ascertain weaknesses in the claims process.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, for the VA to truly reform the claims process, it must make an earnest effort and invest the time and resources towards getting it right the first time. And training is an essential and core component of any reform.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and thank you for your service to our veterans, especially those in New York and in the Hudson Valley.
Ms. Bartley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MEG BARTLEY, ESQ.
Ms. BARTLEY. Chairman Hall and Ranking Member Lamborn and Members of the Subcommittee, I am honored to provide this testimony on behalf of National Veterans Legal Services Program.
I and others at NVLSP read the GAO report on training of claims processors. It would be duplicative at this time to review the findings and recommendations, but the report was very revealing.
In this testimony, I wanted to step back for a minute from the details of the report and look broadly at what we see happening at the VA ROs through some other lenses. These lenses include talking to current VA employees at American Legion quality reviews, talking with former VA employees, reviewing files for cases on appeal to the Board, and reviewing files for cases that are on appeal at the Veterans Court.
And based on those lenses, I wanted to just make a few points, recommendations, and observations.
First it seems that many VA errors seem to be caused by the perceived need to adjudicate claims quickly and not necessarily by a lack of knowledge on the part of the VSRs and RVSRs. The need to hurry and always hurry is a strong contributing factor at the very least to work not being properly done.
The work is not brain surgery but neither is it, you know, a one plus one equals two. There are complexities involved and it takes a lot of time to do these claims. When employees do not have that time, sometimes it is not a matter of how much they know, they’re not going to be doing a good job if they do not have the time.
In our perspective, training is important, but time to do the job well from the start is very important also. And the VA’s emphasis on production at all costs can hinder any kind of training that has occurred.
The second point is that VA needs to, and I am just reiterating what others have said here, needs to identify major error patterns and work on them. There are common errors that are repeated so often that they deserve to be the subject of intense focus by the VA in training.
Some of the errors I have listed in my testimony and I will just repeat a few here. Not providing a VA exam or medical opinion where one was required or warranted under current law, this could easily be a reason for one-quarter to one-third of all remands, cases that keep going around the hamster wheel of the VA, the Board, and the court.
So VA needs to identify these major error patterns and work on them. It wastes tax dollars trying to fix these cases at higher appeal levels. And those errors have to be strongly and actively targeted preferably with interactive training where trainers use actual files and scenarios to train on this issue.
One other point is that immediate supervisors of VSRs and RVSRs should have technical experience. I know this was addressed in the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 requiring certification of employees or managers, but feedback we received from VA ROs tells us this is still a problem.
If the manager does not have technical experience, that really deteriorates the whole notion of training and of quality. If you cannot ask your boss to answer your substantive question about your work, there is something wrong.
Under-use of DROs as a training tool is also a problem for some ROs. Let me say that some DROs do not appear to be real highly skilled sometimes in decisions that I read, but nevertheless one of the main reasons for the DRO program to begin with was not only to lessen the appeal numbers but also to use DROs as a tool to target issues that were being done wrong by the RVSRs and to target poorly trained employees. And the DRO knowledge base is not being used from feedback that we get from employees at this time.
And, finally, the training attitude of some managers has to change. The GAO report said that 50 percent thought training of 80 hours really was not necessary. This attitude should change. The manager is seeing only the little picture of their regional office, but that mentality really does hinder the VA in doing a quality job.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bartley appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Ms. Bartley.
Let us see. Mr. Hunter, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID E. HUNTER, PH.D.
Mr. HUNTER. First, good morning. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to come before you today to discuss IDA’s assessment of claims adjudication personnel requirements, a study we performed for VBA in 2009.
In November of 2008, as a result of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, the VA asked IDA to conduct an assessment of the current personnel requirements of the VBA. Given the topic of today’s hearing, it is important to note that the focus of our study was personnel requirements for VBA claims adjudication positions.
IDA was not asked to analyze the adequacy of training requirements nor did it do so. We did not make any recommendations regarding training.
We did find that requirements for training are an important factor in determining the VBA claims processing capacity, however, as the balance of my testimony will discuss.
The results of our study in entirety have been documented in IDA Paper P4471. Our analysis shows that for the rating bundle, VBA claims processing capacity is currently limited by the number of rating veteran service representatives or RVSRs.
Our model of the VBA claims processing capacity took into account, among other factors, the number and experience levels of claims adjudication personnel, particularly RVSRs.
Newly hired RVSRs are not as effective as fully trained RVSRs. They spend a significant portion of their time in the classroom and engaged in on-the-job training and they are generally less proficient in the performance of their tasks.
We calculated effectiveness levels for less than fully trained RVSRs based on the typical production goals used at the regional offices. It takes 2 years for an RVSR to become 100 percent effective. For less experienced RVSRs, we assume that for the first 6 months of employment they did not contribute to claims production and they become incrementally more effective from 6 months to 2 years.
We note in our report that VBA added over 600 RVSRs from the beginning of fiscal year 2008 to April 2009, the last month for which we had actual employment levels.
Due to the increasing productivity of these RVSRs as they gain experience over time, we estimated that production would grow by 29 percent from September 2009 levels without any additional hiring.
There is a direct relationship between the number of adjudication personnel and the number of completed claims. Increases in completed claims do not necessarily translate into a decline in the pending inventory, however, because the pending inventory is influenced by both completed and received claims.
In fiscal year 2008, completed rating claims exceeded received rating claims for the first time since fiscal year 2003. The result was the number of pending rating claims which had been increasing during the preceding several years decreased slightly in fiscal year 2008.
Unfortunately, this trend in pending claims did not continue. Our study accurately forecasted that completed claims would increase further in fiscal year 2009 and 2010 as the RVSRs that were hired in 2007 and 2008 became fully effective. Claims received, however, increased even more rapidly and, hence, pending claims increased even while VBA capacity increased.
The number of received claims is difficult to predict. It can change drastically from year to year due to changes in both statute and in veterans’ propensity to file claims. Any substantive changes from historically observed behavior will naturally have direct effects on the requirements for VBA claims adjudication personnel.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, that concludes my remarks and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hunter appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Dr. Hunter.
Mr. de Planque, welcome, and you have the floor for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF IAN C. DE PLANQUE
Mr. DE PLANQUE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Lamborn. I would like to thank you on behalf of the American Legion for the opportunity to talk about training today.
This is a particularly opportune time to examine the training process at VA owing largely to recent attention to VBA operations and the growing backlog. There has been a boom in VA hiring unseen in recent history.
With these growing numbers come greater challenges to VA. Nearly half of the workforce processing claims has less than 3 years of experience. While this infusion of new energy and resources has great potential to help VA manage their caseload that includes over a million new filings every year, it will be wasted if these employees cannot be properly trained and brought up to speed to handle claims accurately and with the timeliness to meet Secretary Shinseki’s stated goals of 98 percent accuracy and no claim pending longer than 125 days.
In order to examine this, we want to look at three areas, consistency, focus, and measurement of the training process.
The consistency issue has been highlighted by American Legion visits, quality review visits. Over the last decade or so, we have conducted between 40 and 50 of these quality review visits in conjunction with NVLSP. They consist of a mix of examination of recently adjudicated cases as well as in-depth interviews with the staff of VA.
What we have noted overwhelmingly is inconsistency from regional office to regional office. Mr. Bertoni from the GAO recently mentioned Fast Letters. In some offices, the reading of a Fast Letter is counted as training. In other offices, it is not counted as training.
With most of the employees that we have discussed, a Fast Letter from VA, a directive on how VA employees should be operating, is circulated as an e-mail and they are told to read it and if they have any questions, go to a supervisor.
That is not efficiently getting the training out to the people. Regardless of the intention of Central Office, if they cannot consistently enforce their training plan at the individual regional offices, it will be ineffective.
In terms of focus, VA has a wealth of data that is out there that can tell them where they need to focus their training. We have mentioned these STAR reviews, internal quality reviews, the DROs reviewing cases, the Board of Veterans' Appeals reviewing cases and sending back their regular remands.
We have just heard that the Board sends 37 percent of the cases back as remands for avoidable errors. Those avoidable errors should be captured and reinforced with employees so that they are avoided in the future.
The American Legion has recommended in the past, and continues to recommend, that STAR reviews, DRO decisions, remands from the Board of Veterans' Appeals, remands from the Veterans Court be captured and used as a focusing mechanism for future training for VA employees.
Finally, I would like to look at the measurement section of how VA measures the training. It does not matter if we are talking about 45 hours of training, 85 hours of training, or 105 hours. If it is not effective training, it does not matter how many hours they are doing.
We have just heard again from Mr. Sims of the AFGE mentioning that training is tracked as a measure of quantity, not quality. Where have we heard this before? This is a consistent mantra within the VA. Whether they are doing four claims a day without regard to whether you are doing them correctly or whether you are meeting your 85 hours a year of training, you are simply checking a box. You are not looking to see that you are doing the job correctly.
And so that aspect of the training needs to be addressed and it is difficult to say whether 85 hours is enough if you do not know if it is the right kind of training. The kind of training should be targeted, it should be consistently applied to all of the employees, and there needs to be a better metric to measure that training.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. de Planque appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Thank you, Mr. de Planque.
Thank you all for your testimony.
I will start by asking Mr. Sims, should experienced raters who perform well in their performance ratings be allowed to take less training and should VBA require more training for those who score poorly on performance evaluations?
Mr. SIMS. Chairman Hall, the aspect of senior rating specialists who perform well receiving less training, I do not believe that is an adequate way to approach training. Training is necessary at all phases of our work because of the nature of the work and the rapid changes that take place both in legislation and in medical technology. It directly affects how we do our job.
The targeting training for those who are performing poorly is something that needs to be looked at. Saying that 85 hours across the board is adequate for all personnel is not an adequate way to look at training. Training needs to be focused on the needs of the employee.
There are employees that may require a greater amount of training to be focused because of their performance whereas some employees may not need the same type of training, but continual training is necessary in our position.
Mr. HALL OF NEW YORK. Is there a way that VBA could better tailor the training to produce better outcomes for employees and for veterans given the disparity between how quickly certain people learn or employees learn their training and they take the material in and get it and are ready to go back to—it would seem some people are ready to go to work using that new information quicker than others. And I am just curious if you think VBA should be trying to tailor its training requirements depending on the outcome.
Mr. SIMS. Well, the VBA is in one form tailoring the training in the fact that there are specific topics that are identified for intermediate level and journey level. The problem is that the training topics that are identified are set. And, unfortunately, there is not enough focus on the areas where improvement is necessary.
We have a quality review program in place b
Sign Up for Committee Updates
Stay connected with the Committee