Apr112013
Hearing Transcript on U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General and Office of Information Technology Budget Requests for Fiscal Year 2011
|
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AND OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 23, 2010 SERIAL No. 111-60 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
|
|
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS |
|||||
|
|
CORRINE BROWN, Florida |
STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking |
|
||
|
|
|||||
|
|
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
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
February 23, 2010
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General and Office of Information Technology Budget Requests for Fiscal Year 2011
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Harry E. Mitchell
Prepared statement of Chairman Mitchell
Hon. David P. Roe, Ranking Republican Member
Prepared statement of Congressman Roe
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:
Hon. Richard J. Griffin, Deputy Inspector General, Office of Inspector General
Prepared statement of Mr. Griffin
Hon. Roger W. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, Office of Information and Technology
Prepared statement of Mr. Baker
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AND OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
U. S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
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. Harry E. Mitchell [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Mitchell, Space, Walz, Roe, Stearns, Bilbray, Buyer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MITCHELL
Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on Oversight Investigations hearing on their U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011.
This hearing will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend the remarks and that statements may be entered into the record. Hearing no objections. So ordered.
Today we will examine the recently released budget request of these two vital offices within VA. The President and Secretary Shinseki have made a clear goal of transforming the VA into a 21st Century organization.
In the President’s budget for fiscal year 2011, the request for VA has increased by 10 percent over the 2010 enacted budget to $125 billion. The surge of new veterans from our Nations current wars requires a proportional surge in the capacity and capabilities of the VA to properly care for all of our veterans and their families.
The Office of Information and Technology and the Office of Inspector General are critical in accomplishing this goal. They facilitate the VA’s mission through the use of modern computing infrastructure, as well as by identifying waste, fraud and abuse within the VA through internal investigations. These two offices work closely with the Subcommittee by providing important information regarding urgent challenges facing the VA, including full interoperable health records of Oversight and Investigations into the serious allegations within the Department.
The OIG has been important to this Subcommittee’s work providing crucial information concerning VA activities such as the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) brachytherapy cases and proper hiring practices within the VA, to name a few.
Over time we have seen an increased demand being placed on the OIG for inspections and audits in order to facilitate Secretary Shinseki’s goals of improved transparency and accountability. We must ensure that the OIG is properly resourced and staffed to fulfill this critical role as watchdog of the VA.
Our first panel will address the Office of Inspector General’s proposed budget. The OIG’s request shows an increase of $367 thousand over fiscal year 2010 levels. And even though funding for the OIG may be increasing, it is important for the VA to remain fiscally responsible.
At the same time, this modest increase is still approximately $11 million less than what the office initially requested for their fiscal year 2011 budget. The Office of Inspector General has a proven track record and for every dollar invested in the OIG, we get a return of $38.
Our second panel will discuss the proposed budget for the Office of Information and Technology. The budget request remains at the 2010 level. As more demands are placed on the VA’s IT infrastructure and wide range in programs calling for technologically advances such as paperless initiatives, the office will, of course, need appropriate resources, especially as it works to transform the VA into a 21st Century agency.
We are very interested to hear the Department’s plan for executing this budget and ensure that we will meet the needs of our Nation’s heroes. Our veterans have borne a tremendous burden on our behalf and we are, therefore, obliged to ensure that they receive the care and opportunities that were commensurate with their selfless service.
Thank you all, again, for attending today’s hearing and I look forward to all the testimony being presented today. Before I recognize the Ranking Republican Member, I would like to swear in our witnesses. I ask that all witnesses stand and raise their right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
I now recognize Dr. Roe for his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Mitchell appears in the Appendix.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID P. ROE
Mr. ROE. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing to discuss the fiscal year 2011 budgets for the Office of Information and Technology and the VA Inspector General.
As we all know, both these components of VA are critical to operations at the VA, OI&T and their IT infrastructure responsibility and that of the OIG for their oversight responsibilities. I will tell you that I am very interested in where the resources are going and have been delegated to OI&T and I am quite concerned that the budget for the VA OIG has been flat-lined for fiscal year 2011, particularly given the amount of oversight this office has had to perform.
VA OI&T, Assistant Secretary Baker, has undergone a top-down review of all ongoing IT projects, and at this point put on hold the development of approximately 45 IT projects. I am interested in learning the downstream prospects for these projects, including the stalled Financial and Logistics Integrated Technology Enterprise (FLITE) project in which we have invested a large amount of resources since 2000. I am also interested in future planning for OI&T—how are we going to advance joint ventures such as those being used at the North Chicago/Great Lakes Venture that Chairman Mitchell and I visited earlier this year.
I am concerned about funding for VA to stop the practice of cutting and pasting and altering the VA’s electronic medical record. I find it disturbing that the VA has not learned its $26 million lesson from its data security breach in May of 2006. I understand VA still allows personal unencrypted laptops and other devices on VA’s secure networks.
I am also concerned that VA OIG budget has remained at the fiscal year 2010 level. With the increased responsibility of conducting Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Regional Office reviews similar to the Combined Assessment Program (CAP) reports issued for VA medical facilities, I am uncertain that the resources allocated to VA OIG will be enough for them to adequately complete their mission for fiscal year 2011. These reports are an invaluable resource to review and correct inadequacies within the VA program.
Without the oversight of the VA OIG, we would not be able to conduct proper oversight here at this Committee, and I just did some quick math, and I think I am correct that less than one tenth of one percent of VA budget is for oversight and that is, as the Chairman clearly said, the 38 to 1, I would like to invest in that and I think we need to make an investment.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony today and working with you on making certain, both, that the VA OI&T and the VA OIG have both adequate resources with which to perform their duties. Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Roe appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.
Mr. Walz?
Mr. Buyer?
Mr. BUYER. I would ask unanimous consent to participate in your hearing today. Thank you, and I will waive my opening statement.
Mr. MITCHELL. At this time I would like to welcome Panel 1 to the witness table. Joining us on our panel is Richard Griffin, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Griffin is accompanied by James J. O'Neill, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations; Dr. John Daigh, Jr., Assistant Inspector General for Healthcare Inspections; Belinda Finn, Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations and Maureen Regan, Counsel to the Inspector General.
I would ask that all witnesses please stay within the 5 minutes for their opening remarks. Your complete statements will be made part of the hearing record. Mr. Griffin?
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. GRIFFIN, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES J. O'NEILL, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR INVESTIGATIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; JOHN D. DAIGH, JR., M.D., CPA, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR HEALTHCARE INSPECTIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; BELINDA J. FINN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND MAUREEN T. REGAN, COUNSEL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to have this hearing and address the important work that we are trying to do in the Office of Inspector General. As you know, our mission is to provide independent and objective oversight of VA programs to ensure that veterans receive the care, support and recognition that they have earned in service to our country.
Our efforts include mandated, proactive and reactive projects, which continually challenge our resources. We strive to be responsive to Congressional requests as reflected in our work concerning improper disinfection of endoscopes, brachytherapy procedures, informed consent of research subjects, the interagency agreement between VA and Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command and claims related mail processing.
During fiscal year 2009, we also testified at eight Congressional hearings, conducted 52 briefings and responded to 234 congressional requests. Today’s hearing marks the fifth hearing of this fiscal year for the VA OIG.
Other major reactive work is performed by the men and women of our Office of Investigations. Significant criminal investigations in the past year resulted in convictions of a VBA employee, a veterans service organization (VSO) service officer, 11 veterans and one non-veteran who conspired to defraud VA of $2 million in undeserved benefits; the conviction of an Associate Director of a VA consolidated mail-out pharmacy and his wife for secretly running an 8A business, having contracts with his facility; and the conviction of the Nation’s first pharmaceutical chief executive officer for off-label marketing.
Our proactive work includes national audits and health care reviews; cyclical reviews of medical centers, outpatient clinics and VBA regional offices; along with pre-award and post-award reviews of VA contracts.
One proactive audit found that 37 percent of non-VA fee-basis care had payments that were improper. We recommended changes to improve the accuracy that could reduce $1 billion in improper payments. Our contract review staff continues to work collaboratively with VA’s Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction, and in the current fiscal year they have already identified potential cost savings of $243 million and have identified more than $10 million in overcharges that are being recovered.
Maureen Regan and her staff have been providing invaluable support by sharing their expertise with VA employees, leading sessions at the Acquisition Training Center in Frederick, Maryland, and at other locations.
We clearly recognize the growing demand for the full range of benefits and services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the parallel increase in VA staffing and budget.
We also recognize our responsibility to ensure every dollar appropriated is effectively and efficiently spent for the well being of our Nation’s veterans.
In view of our existing workload, our proposed budget of $109,367,000 will not allow us to take on any new initiatives, to include our desire to focus on the quality of outsourced health care; to expand audit coverage of IT systems development, acquisition and implementation; and to conduct proactive investigations of fiduciary, procurement and workers compensation fraud.
As always, we will prioritize our work and we will continue to try to be responsive to requests from the VA Secretary and Members of Congress.
I want to thank you for your continued support and the opportunity to testify today. We will be pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. I have a couple of quick questions. Are there any areas in the VA health care that would benefit from OIG oversight that are in jeopardy due to the resources that are being limited?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we started doing reviews of outpatient clinics within the last 12 to 18 months. There are presently over 800 outpatient clinics under the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA’s) purview. Current staffing allows us to do about 40 clinic reviews a year. If you do the math, that is a 20 year cycle before we could get to every clinic and ensure that the quality of care at those clinics is equal to the quality of care at the primary medical centers. I think that is an unacceptable cycle.
Mr. MITCHELL. Let me follow up on that. Of the outpatient clinics that you have investigated, are there any conclusions that you can drop on that are the top issues facing the VHA?
Mr. GRIFFIN. We can, and I am going to ask Dr. Daigh to speak to those early conclusions because we are just getting into the initiative.
Dr. DAIGH. Yes, sir. I would say that we will have a formal report that summarizes the work. I would say that the quality of care that we have seen in primary care delivery, not mental health care delivery, has been about the same. As I said, we are very happy to report that what we have seen from the community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs), the quality of care is the same, using the same metrics used at the hospital in both clinics so that is very satisfying.
We may find some difference between contracted clinics and VA owned and operated clinics but we haven’t run that data set yet and I am not able from just looking at the data to answer that question.
On the contracting side, we have found significant difficulties where VA manages a contract at the CBOC with respect to being able to ensure that we are paying the correct bill. And what we find, for example, is that the contracting officer's technical representative, who often is a clinician or nurse or another provider who has this as a side occupation, often doesn’t have the IT support lined up with the contract so that they can easily get the bill from the contractor and determine whether or not the work has been done according to VA’s data, so there will be some findings in the contract area there.
We have not looked at the mental health delivery at CBOCs as we would like and we will, in the coming years, spend more effort looking at the mental health contract for care provided CBOCs.
Mr. MITCHELL. We know that the budget included a lot less for the Inspector General than was originally requested. We also know, as I mentioned earlier, for every dollar that we invested in the OIG, we get $38 back. What explanation did the VA give you on why you were getting such a small increase, especially since the Department is asking for one of the largest increases in its overall budget?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in reality we have a decrease because when we submitted our budget, we projected that we would need about $4.4 million just to maintain current services. The amount that we were given over 2010, the $394,000, is specifically earmarked for the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency administrative requirements.
I think that in view of the current deficit situation, and that is speculation on my part. We were straight lined or less than current services in this budget.
Mr. MITCHELL. So there really were no programs, just more training in Mr. Regan’s office, is that right?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now this is training, training requirements that were mandated by the Inspector General Reform Act and funding for the Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency. It is a council made up of all the OIGs that administers programs, tries to organize training that is unique to the OIG community and each OIG had to pay for a pro-rated share of that activity.
Mr. MITCHELL. I see. I yield.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I probably am the last person up here that wants to see big brother looking over your shoulder, but clearly when you have a $125 billion budget, that is seven times the budget of the State of Tennessee. That is a huge responsibility, and we always talk in Medicare and Medicaid about fraud and abuse, and what I found fascinating was you, with less than one-tenth of one percent of the VA budget you were able to, with those resources, find almost three percent—$2.9 billion, I believe.
And we couldn’t, quite frankly, I mean just after a year on this job, we can’t do our job without you being able to do your job because we won’t know about brachytherapy problems, and we won’t know whether the follow-up is there if you don’t have the resources to follow-up. That is just current.
We wouldn’t know about the endoscopy and the very quick response that the OIG did. That was amazing how fast you went out and, I think, looked at 42 different facilities and a rapid response, which we need that information. Otherwise, we can’t do our job.
So I also see that from this relative resource chart that you have the least people, also, in addition to budget. I think we understand that. I think everybody up here gets that.
So what things will go undone that you feel are needed this year if you have a flat-lined budget? There were critical issues out there. Is it relooking at endoscopy or brachytherapy. Or, as the Chairman and I went to Great Lakes, is it looking at that project or the FLITE project or whatever?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I would say, before I give you the answer, that part of our difficulty is, as I mentioned in my oral remarks, we have proactive and reactive work. When we started out last year, we had no way of knowing that we were going to do the endoscopy review, which tied up a great number of David Daigh’s assets and removes from us the ability to strategically go after areas that we have identified as needing review.
Right now, there is a lot of money in the current budget for homelessness issues. We have, on an episodic basis with the homelessness, looked at elderly care, but not to the extent that we did a national review and could come forward with system-wide conclusions and recommendations. I know that that is something that Dr. Daigh would like to get into if we had the time and resources to do it. There are a number of audits, also, that Ms. Finn could talk about that we also feel are in dire need for a review, many things in the IT area that we would like to look at more closely.
As you know it is a very expensive area for the Department. Over the past decade there have been some successes and some failures in that area and a lot of money involved. We would like to have sufficient staff and expertise in our audit section to be able to more closely monitor the IT program at the Department.
Mr. ROE. Mr. Griffin, I agree with you a hundred percent because if we had had that kind of oversight in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and VA, there might, after however many 20 years and billions of dollars, be able to talk to each other, if someone had looked at it and I could not agree more.
And you hear things that go on. For instance, the homeless, which there is not a person on this Committee that doesn’t want every homeless veteran to have a place to live, but it is a $4 billion program ripe for abuse if it is not carefully looked at, and I think you have to have the resources to be able to do that, to do your job. And right now you are not going to have the resources, the best I can tell, to do your job.
How many people work for your department? Not exact, just approximately.
Mr. GRIFFIN. About 530, with some coming and going, you know, from time to time.
Mr. ROE. Five hundred, somewhere thereabouts.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Right.
Mr. ROE. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you. Mr. Walz?
Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each of you for being here.
Mr. Griffin, I very much appreciate your testimony—very candid, very helpful, exactly what I think people expect of how we need to work together.
To the rest of you, Dr. Daigh, you have been here before, Ms. Regan, and we thank you for this. I am a huge advocate of the work you do and I think the questions being brought up here are absolutely relevant.
Just a couple of things. Dr. Roe, I agree with you. I don’t think any of us up here wants big brother ever watching, but I do think we have a responsibility to the taxpayers as taxpayer advocates and watchdogs, making sure that we get this right and I think we need to be very clear that when I am looking at some of these improper things, 37 percent of the fee-based payments—now, I am not sure if that’s VA’s fault or the private sectors. I do know that $2.3 billion on the pharmaceutical side, there is not an all benevolent private sector either on this.
This is a job of taking care of our veterans. Nobody in my district is saying balance this budget on the backs of veterans, but we have a responsibility and I have been saying for a long time, as your budgets increase at VA, the accountability must increase exponentially to make sure that every dime is being spent correctly. So I am very concerned that your budget is not there. I appreciate the candidness of tell us exactly what it means by not having that money there and I think it is important for all of us to understand when we vote on VA appropriations when we vote—did you receive money from the Recovery Act dollars? Did any of the Recovery Act dollars go to you?
Mr. GRIFFIN. We received $1 million out of the $1.4 billion—
Mr. WALZ. That went to VA.
Mr. GRIFFIN [continuing]. That the VA got, which was less than one-tenth of one percent.
Mr. WALZ. That’s right.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And we spent it in the first year because trying to do the audits that were required and to do the investigations that Mr. O’Neill’s people have undertaken as a result of suspected fraud in those areas. We have spent our million and we are going to continue to do those audits and do the investigations that come to us.
Mr. WALZ. So you didn’t even receive enough money from the Recovery Act to monitor the Recovery Act dollars that went to VA?
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right.
Mr. WALZ. Okay. Well, you have come to the right people who believe in you. We believe that there is some money—we believe it is the proper role of oversight of government of taxpayer dollars.
I have one question to you and it is somewhat subjective, but it came up in a round table discussion with the VSOs. They are firm supporters of yours. They want—accountability is the word I am hearing from them this year—accountability, accountability, accountability.
The Vietnam Veterans of America made a comment to me that got me thinking on this because I was touting the OIG’s office, touting this Committee’s—the Ranking Member and the Chairman’s continuous push together to get more money into this and they said they think you do a wonderful job on fraud and abuse. They question the waste side of things, and I am wondering, do you think that’s coming from a perception of, as you said, it is very difficult for you to do proactive things when you barely can chase down the fires that are started or do you think that is a mischaracterization on their part, on the waste side of things?
I just want to get at it so I have a way to go back to them.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I think the old buzz words from the OIG, active waste, fraud and abuse, are probably tired. I think if it is fraud, that is waste to me, if people are being abused in our medical facilities or on the job or whatever. That is a waste of taxpayer’s money because that is not what we are supposed to be about.
Mr. WALZ. I think they were getting at if there is illegal activity going on, we are great at it. If there is just simply redundant programs that are not providing patient care increases, we don’t do a very good job of stopping that because if it is not illegal and it is under the auspices of the Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN) director or the hospital director, you don’t really get involved with telling them we could streamline.
When the next panel comes up, I have got some folks that ask me, with all that money we spent on IT, how come the private sector can do it better. And we will ask them. They are saying that part of it could be done better. Do you think that is just because that is not really your area to comment on?
Mr. GRIFFIN. No. I think that some of the initiatives that we have undertaken several years ago and we started doing our medical center inspections under the CAP program. The outpatient clinic reviews, the benefit inspection reviews that audit is doing now, so we can get out to regional offices (ROs) and see what is going on there.
And as Dr. Daigh alluded to earlier, after 6 or 12 months where we have been to a number of facilities where we found the same issue at 90 percent of the facilities, and you are not talking about an anecdotal problem. You are talking about something that is crying out for a systemic fix.
Mr. WALZ. That’s right.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And when we can roll those things up and take it to the Under Secretary and say, look, this is what we found at the last 20 facilities we have been to, then it is not just, you know, one individual hotline that somebody came in with. It is a systemic problem, and by addressing those systemic problems, that is when you can get at the waste.
Mr. WALZ. Okay.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And you need to have the capability to continue to do those things and not just be like responding to a fireman’s call every time, you know, some issue that none of us can predict comes up because every year there is something that was not on the radar screen that winds up consuming resources.
Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you. And again, I want to thank each and every one of you. The job you do as taxpayer advocates, of advocates for the care of our veterans is appreciated by this panel, so thank you.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.
Mr. Buyer?
Mr. BUYER. Thank you. First of all, I don’t view any of you as big brother. I view this as a very important function of accountability and one particular question I am going to ask is, the endoscopy review, what did that cost, do you know? I know it is not completed, but give me a ballpark figure.
Mr. DAIGH. I am going to say it cost between 3 and 4 man years of time, so it probably cost $700,000.
Mr. BUYER. That is on the cheap.
Mr. DAIGH. It was two reports. The first report was a statistical review where we came up with, identified a problem. The second report we visited about 153 medical centers personally, so that took about 40 of my people about a week to accomplish, so.
Mr. BUYER. You know, even if you, by the time you complete your work, let us say it is $1 million, what we have to pay out on the back end on claims on this one alone is going to shock you, how much we are going to have to pay on claims on this one. So I agree, Sergeant Major. Your comments about the payoff—actually both of you also talked about the multiplier effect, Mr. Chairman. That level of investment, the ability to have an office that can do that type of oversight so we can get ahead of the curve before it ends up costing us more money in the end.
Let me ask this question. Our staff is, on the Republican side, is we are preparing our views and estimates and we will work together with the majority. You have been shorted, with regard to your budget, as it went over to the Office of Management and Budget in final analysis. If we take the President’s budget number and were to plus it up $50 million, what would that $50 million do for you?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Fifty million dollars?
Mr. BUYER. We would plus it up $50 million, so actually we cover your hole. Your hole is what, about $19?
Mr. GRIFFIN. We requested 122 in our initial submission which is, you know, a matter of record. That 122 would have covered the $4.4 million that we needed to maintain current services over fiscal year 2010 and it would have allowed us to bring on 44 additional full-time employees, 20 of whom we had intended to dedicate to the health care area, 6 which we intended to dedicate to beefing up our IT audit capacity and 18 for proactive investigations.
Mr. BUYER. So Mr. Griffin, if we were to plus it up 50, then you have a hole—your boggy is 12, so we actually plus you up by 38. What would that plus of $38 million do for you?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, the $38 million, certainly in view of my comments about a 20 year cycle to see outpatient clinics, we would try to shrink that to something that is more comparable to the CAP reviews where we are getting to every facility every 3 years. We are going to try to shrink the Regional Office cycle. It is a new initiative. When we started out with the initial resources, we are able to get to 12 Regional Offices a year. Of course, there are 57. We would like to cut that cycle in half, so we would do that.
There are—the criminal investigative work, which again is reactive, but even though their job is to put people in jail that need to be there, our criminal investigators return about $1.6 million a year in addition to locking people up. So we could staff up our criminal investigative unit. We could staff up our audit personnel and in health care to get into homelessness and elderly care and to look at non-VA care. Dr. Daigh’s people recently did a study in Montana of mental health care and they found that 85 percent of the mental health care provided in Montana is by non-VA physicians.
Well, we need to make sure—it is good that we are making care available in rural areas. I know that is a big issue, but we want to make sure that it is quality and that is correct from the standpoint of what we are being charged for.
Mr. BUYER. I think, as I work with the majority on this one, I think we will probably come together on a number. We would—any plus-up that is headed your way, we would want it to be more on the, I would ask, that it be more on the front end to bringing those efficiencies and economies to scale and being proactive rather than being reactive and that would be the purpose of that form of plus-up. Would the gentlemen on the Committee agree?
All right. I yield back.
Mr. MITCHELL. Well. Thank you very much. We want to excuse you and thank you again for your service and what you are doing. I think we all know and I have said many times, as I use to teach government in high school, and we all know that you teach that the legislative branch’s main job is to make laws, but I am finding out here that right up there next to it is what we are doing here and that is holding people accountable for what we do and making sure that the laws are carried out the way we intended and making sure that the government is getting what it should.
So we thank you very much, and as Mr. Walz said, that you have got a real friend up here because you help us. Well, I guess we help each other. It is one of those situations that you let us know and we will bring it to light. So thank you very much.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your continued support.
Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to welcome Panel Number 2 to the witness table and for our second panel we will hear from the Honorable Roger W. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Baker is accompanied by Rom Mascetti, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Technology Resource Management, as well as the Acting Deputy Chief Information Officer for Information Technology Enterprises Strategy, Policy, Plans and Programs with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
And I would like to recognize Mr. Baker for up to 5 minutes and we appreciate you being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER W. BAKER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY ROM MASCETTI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, AND ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE STRATEGY, POLICY, PLANS AND PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to note my oral testimony will be somewhat different from my written.
So thank you for the opportunity to present the Department of Veterans Affairs fiscal year 2011 Budget for the Office of Information and Technology. As you noted, I am accompanied by Mr. Rom Mascetti, the Department Assistant Secretary for IT Resource Management of VA.
I would like to start by thanking the Members of this Committee for the substantial role you have played in creating the consolidated IT organization. My first encounter with the House Veterans Affairs Committee was in 2006. It was in this room in a meeting called with industry to discuss the pros and cons of IT consolidation.
Your leadership was critical and you helped create something unique in the Federal Government, the Department level IT organization under a single Chief Information Officer (CIO). And while the process of consolidation may have been painful, in 2010 I can report to you that the consolidated IT organization at VA is functioning effectively.
More importantly, I can tell you the consolidated IT organization has given us a platform to drive necessary changes. Our goals for 2010 and 2011 is to establish the VA as the best managed IT organization in government. I believe we must first achieve that goal before we can achieve our long-term goal, which is for VA to have the best IT organization in government. That is what our veterans deserve.
President Obama and Secretary Shinseki have set forth two over-arching goals for the Department, to transform VA into a 21st Century organization, and to ensure that we provide timely access to benefits and high quality care for our veterans.
To achieve the transformation of VA into a 21st Century organization, we must effectively leverage the power of information technology. IT is absolutely integral to everything we do at the Department and it is imperative that VA have a strong IT organization, one capable of creating and operating the new technologies required.
Simply put, an effective IT organization is essential to achieving VA’s mission. Over the last 8 months, we have focused on implementing five key management approaches to improve the results of VA’s IT investments. They are the Program Management Accountability System (PMAS), a prioritized IT operating plan, transparent operational metrics, a next-generation IT security plan and a customer service focus in every area of IT.
While my written testimony provides detail on each of these approaches, I would like to make two key points. First, that taken together, these management approaches will instill in the organization the level of discipline seen in well-run private sector IT organizations.
When these approaches are fully implemented during fiscal year 2010, we will be able to track every IT project and ensure that it is on schedule, we will be able to track every IT dollar to the results we expect from its expenditures, we will be able to track operational metrics across the enterprise to ensure our systems and processes are functioning well, we will have increased visibility into and control over the security of our IT systems and information to better protect veterans privacy, and most importantly, we will work closely with the administrations as our customers to ensure that we are a strong partner in our joint mission to serve our Nation’s veterans.
My second point is that none of this would have been possible without the consolidated IT organization, combined with the strong leadership and support of Secretary Shinseki.
As we steadily improve our management effectiveness, our customer service and the results of our IT investments, I hope that the Members of this Committee will take great pride in the benefits that both taxpayers and veterans are seeing for the work you have done.
The VA 2011 budget provides $3.3 billion for IT, the same level of funding provided in 2011. The IT budget request for 2011, while level with 2010, is fully supportive of our goals, and I note that it is a 32 percent increase over our 2009 IT appropriation.
The new management approaches we have implemented over the last 8 months will help ensure we obtain maximum value for veterans from taxpayer dollars invested.
While we are realizing the benefits from these changes during fiscal year 2010 and 2011, we expect the full implementation will result in substantial performance improvements and cost avoidance. In effect, by implementing approaches to maximize the value of every dollar we spend, we are giving ourselves a budget increase without asking for an increased appropriation.
As an example, our implementation to the Program Management Accountability System on 45 of our IT projects, which we announced last July, has generated $54 million in cost avoidance during fiscal year 2010.
Of the 45 projects we placed under PMAS last July, we restarted 17 immediately, we replanned and eventually restarted 15 and we terminated 12. For 2010, we will use the $54 million to fund other higher priority projects that create more value for veterans.
Today we will announce that effective February 15th, all VA IT projects will be placed under PMAS. As we fully implement PMAS for all of our projects, I expect further savings. PMAS gives us much greater insight into our IT projects and ensures that they continue to meet their scheduled milestones. Projects that are not meeting milestones are stopped and either replanned or terminated.
I expect that we will see continued improvement of the results of our systems development projects throughout 2010 and 2011 and an increased probability that each project will stay on track and continue to meet its scheduled milestones.
In closing, I would like to thank you again for your continued support and for the opportunity to testify before this Committee on the important work we are undertaking to improve VA’s IT results. We will use these more rigorous management approaches as we create the new IT systems necessary to support the President’s vision of a 21st Century VA, committing to serving those who have selflessly served our Nation.
I will now address any questions you might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears in the Appendix.]
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker. I have got a couple of questions.
Even though the IT budget was the same from last fiscal year to this, can you explain the decrease? If there is going to be a negative effect on the medical IT and the benefits IT, with this cut or the budget being flat, do you expect to see a negative effect on both the medical IT and the benefits IT?
Mr. BAKER. I actually do not expect to see that. I think of the budget in three main areas. There is operational support and sustainment or, I phrase it, keeping the lights on in the facilities. Clearly, we will not see any decrease in that. That is a mandatory spend from our standpoint.
The second is the development of new projects. We are going to spend a lot of dollars on the Veterans Benefit Management System (VBMS), the paperless system, and several other projects inside of the VA, both health and benefits. That is where I expect to see the major savings come in. VA in the past has not been good at delivering IT projects on budget and on schedule.
In that area, I expect to spend fewer dollars and get better results. That is the main focus of what we are doing and why I feel comfortable with a flat-lined budget. The third area is on information security. We are going to make certain that we spend the appropriate amount of dollars in there. We have got a lot of work to do still in information security. We have come a long way. We have a long way to go. It is an area we can’t compromise on.
I believe for 2011 that number, when you take out some investments, is relatively flat. If we see that we are not spending enough dollars there, we will find ways to move dollars, either from infrastructure or development into that area. We cannot compromise that information security and privacy.
Mr. MITCHELL. The corporate IT support investment is decreased by over $25 million. What negative impact does this have on the VA?
Mr. BAKER. Let me, for a moment, turn to Mr. Mascetti, and just look at—we have just today, I believe, set up a fiscal year 2010 baseline letter that adjusts the numbers for 2010 per the appropriation. We make certain that we are actually in that baseline seeing a reduction and then from there I can address what I believe is probably occurring in that area.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.
Mr. MASCETTI. Under the corporate IT investments, our appropriation is 2 years. We had a significant carry over from our 2009 into fiscal year 2010, such that, for example—and corporate IT is our FLITE initiative and we have a substantial amount of dollars that we have carried forward into fiscal year 2010, so that such that, that when you look at 2011, compared to 2010, it may look like it is down, decreased, but we have funds going forward, using fiscal year 2009 funds to support the corporate IT systems within our appropriation.
Mr. BAKER. I would also comment that we are being very careful on the FLITE program. One of the things that we are clearly implementing—we have slowed that project down substantially to make certain that we can deliver on the initial project, which is the asset management project before we spend the significant dollars on the integrated financial system. And so those dollars, while I believe they are appropriated in 2010, are likely to roll into 2011 for actual expenditures, presuming that the FLITE project stays on the schedule it is on right now.
Mr. MITCHELL. One last question. First of all, are you satisfied with the IT budget, and if you had more money, what would you spend it on?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking that question. I am, I guess I would say a number of things, but I am a taxpayer. I believe we have to have some fiscal discipline in the government and, I guess, looking in the mirror, my organization is a good place to start.
I think we can give ourselves a budget increase by spending the dollars better. We did get a substantial increase in 2010. We had a substantial carryover from 2009 to 2010. I have to recognize that it is likely we will carryover from 2010 into 2011.
My goal, before I come back to this Committee and ask for substantial additional dollars, is to be able to tell you that for every dollar we spent, I know we spent it well, that the results are documentable and that they are well known.
I think we have the things in place to move that forward. I think by the time we come in for our 2012 request, I will be able to make that representation very forthrightly to this Committee.
Right now we have a lot of work to do in that area and I think that there are places where we can tighten down and, as I said, give ourselves an increase.
Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. ROE. Mr. Baker, thank you for your remarks. I appreciate that and all the taxpayers in the United States should appreciate that, and I think you have one of the most important jobs in the VA system. When I first came here, I didn’t realize the enormity of the IT problem, being able to manage all this data and information and reams of when—and the Chairman and I visited in Detroit to see this enormous amount of paperwork.
And it also has a lot to do with the customer service part. When you can’t—when you start digging through a veteran’s chart this thick and you can’t find the paper chart and you don’t know where it is, I mean, I think it is absolutely critical going forward that you be successful and you have the resources to be successful.
I think that is why the Chairman asked the question, "Do you have the resources you need," because what we hear in the—I am sure what every Member up here on this Committee when they go home and visit the VAs, is about "how I can’t get my claim looked at," "I don’t have my education benefits, it is all messed up," "I can’t track it." Is it possible with this IT system—and I was thinking about that this morning. Fedex can track where your package is. You know you can order your coat from L.L. Bean and you know exactly where it is before it gets to you. Will it be possible when a veteran puts in for their benefits to track where their claim is with this current system that we are setting up, so that a veteran will know you don’t have to call my office, my office has to call the VA, take up all these man hours, is it possible to use technology just to say, hey, it is in Nashville, we will hear something from it in 3 weeks and I, as a customer, know exactly where that is?
Mr. BAKER. Absolutely. Let me give you an example. Where we are going with Veterans Benefit Management, I am confident, will include that, but an example I can speak very straightforward to because I know the project plan is on the Chapter 33 education benefits long-term solution.
The final deliverable of that system in fiscal year 2010 will be a Web site to which veterans can come and see the exact status of their claim from the point where it is received by the VA from the school, to the point where the check is cut and sent to the veteran and be able to tell them everywhere along the process where they sit in that.
So self service is a large part of good service for our customer service organization. So absolutely, that part has to be there for the Veterans Benefit Management System as well.
Mr. ROE. Will that be on time? The Veterans Benefit package is supposed to up and operable by December of this year, as I read in the packet. Is that correct? December 2010?
Mr. BAKER. I don’t know if the initial pilot of the VBMS—the Chapter 33, the long-term solution that I know is scheduled for December 2010 is on schedule—
Mr. ROE. Okay.
Mr. BAKER [continuing]. And will make December 2010. The date I have in my head for VBMS is the full roll-out, which we are still committing to Congress, will occur throughout 2012, that we will move to a fully paperless system in that time frame. There are interim milestones along the way, but I can’t speak to whether there is one in December of 2010 on that.
Mr. ROE. Right. Well, in the FLITE program, just, I had a chance to look at that a little bit. That is now entering into its almost teenage years. It is not a toddler anymore. When is that going—how much have we spent on that?
Mr. BAKER. I will tell you that there is a difference of opinion as to whether or not the previous Core Financial and Logistics System (CoreFLS) should be viewed as a precursor to FLITE, but let us just say that it should because we have tried to implement at VA an integrated financial management system in the past and we failed. And I think anybody who goes into this project looking at FLITE has to recognize that track record.
The discipline that I am trying to drive and the transparency I am trying to drive is to talk about the reality of where we are and what the best thing for the taxpayer is, given that we need a new financial system at the VA, but we have a problematic process and project to get there, you know, the combination of those.
We have delayed further large expenditures on the integrated financial system part of FLITE because we have not yet demonstrated that we can successfully deliver the asset management part of FLITE. And I really want to credit the Deputy Secretary, Secretary Gould, on this, for making a very hard decision to decide we are going to take the hard path. Sometimes the right path for the taxpayer is the hard path, which is we are just going to prove we can succeed or prove that we are going to fail on the small project before we get to the big project, so we are working through that. I liken it to a swamp fairly frequently. You know, I am hoping that the water gets lower, but sometimes it seems to get a little bit higher as we go through it.
Mr. ROE. Will you sort of keep, could you keep us informed about where in the swamp we are?
Mr. BAKER. Yes, absolutely. I can tell you there are alligators right now.
Mr. ROE. Okay. Thank you for your testimony.
And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Minority Counsel sit following Mr. Buyer’s comment. I am going to run over to another Committee for just about 10 minutes. I will be right back.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Walz?
Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, and thank you, both, for the work you are doing. I am a broken record around here about seeing this transition. I believe it is the systemic change that needs to happen between DoD and VA, and a large part of that, not all—it is cultural, it is integration on a different level, but a large part of it is tech and so I have just a couple of questions here and before this hearing, in preparation, I met with a group of folk from IAVA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and what they know is, is given—they understand the demographics of this. The vast majority, 90-plus percent of our incoming warriors never lived in a world without the internet. They never lived in a world without social networking.
And the question that I have is several on this and I would go back to where Dr. Roe was at. We have been developing paperless claim systems, whether it was RBA 2000 Virtual VA and all that. By the time they come online, the technology is gone and they are outdated.
And my question today is, and I will be the strongest advocate for the money that is needed to get this done, but there are some questions that I have that trouble me with the amount that we put into IT and the lack of progress that I see.
Mr. Baker, you talk about 2006, meeting with those professionals on the IT sector. Is the VA up to industry standards on software development?
Mr. BAKER. No.
Mr. WALZ. Okay. Because my question was, is how can Google come up with Chrome and Android in months and we are 15 years into things and those are obviously powerful. I look today and I think of this group that is out there. I have my iPhone here and I go to this and I have an app here call VA and I can open it up and go down here and it says "VA Office of Inspector General," and I can go to that. Is this yours?
Mr. BAKER. No, that’s an encrypted device, so it wouldn’t be possible to—
Mr. WALZ. It wouldn’t be possible for me to look up Title 38 and my benefits as I am seeing here and I see an official time, Northridge Chicago VA Medical Center, what is going on and things like that. I am talking about where veterans can get this. I go to IAVA Web site and there has been a calculator on there for months, months and months and months for every college in my district to say exactly what their benefits were going to be, how they applied and all of that. Does your site do that as easily?
Mr. BAKER. I actually believe that in the last week we brought up a site that has a benefits calculator on it. I just saw an email on that in the last 2 or 3 days.
Mr. WALZ. They did all this, plus their social networking for $200,000. They are having hundreds of thousands of hits from veterans going there, but we are going to be asked to budget $3.3 billion in care of our veterans improving their lives. It is medical records and all that, but what does a returning Iraq veteran who wants to go to college get from your site in IT up until a week ago?
Mr. BAKER. So from a detail standpoint, I will start with, I am not satisfied. I resonate with what you are saying. We do have an online application for the Chapter 33 benefits. We did have when we did the emergency payments, an online site to request the emergency payment check. And I will tell you that our Chief Technology Officer, Peter Levin, is really trying to drive exactly that point, which is why it can’t be quicker and bring up things that people expect, with that said.
Mr. WALZ. Are we doing something to inhibit that? Is there some reason we are not doing that because I am going to be the advocate here for the multiplier effect of the private sector and the non-profits to maybe be able to pick up some of this because I have to tell you right now, I have a hard time going home justifying it when IAVA is actually a better site right now for these guys on the GI Bill. I would recommend it to them and that is at no cost to the government.
Mr. BAKER. Well, let me tell you that we certainly appreciate what
Sign Up for Committee Updates
Stay connected with the Committee