|
STATEMENT
OF PAUL A. HAYDEN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE VETERANS
OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES TO
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS UNITED
STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH RESPECT TO H.R. 2792, DISABLED VETERANS SERVICE DOGS AND HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001 AND OTHER PENDING HEALTH-RELATED LEGISLATION WASHINGTON, DC SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.7 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary, I would like to
express our thanks for the opportunity to communicate our positions as
they pertain to the following legislation: H.R.
2792 Disabled Veterans Service Dog and
Health Care Improvement Act of 2001
Section 2 of this bill would authorize the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to provide service dogs for disabled veterans.
Trained service dogs have proven to be useful, cost-effective,
assistive tools in helping individuals with disabilities meet both
personal and social needs. Currently,
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is only authorized to provide
guide dogs to blinded veterans with service-connected disabilities.
It is our position that all disabled veterans suffering from
spinal cord injury or dysfunction or other chronic impairment that
substantially limits mobility deserve an enhanced quality of life
through the independence that a trained service dog can provide.
It is for this reason that the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
fully supports section 2 to expand and provide service dogs to
disabled veterans.
Section 3 seeks to amend VA’s responsibility under the
Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, PL 104-262, to
maintain the capacity to provide specialized treatment and
rehabilitative needs of disabled veterans, including veterans that
require specialized services such as spinal cord dysfunction,
blindness, amputations, and mental illness at the 1996 level.
The VFW supports the language that would require the VA to
maintain capacity within each geographic service area of the Veterans
Health Administration or Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN).
Equal access to specialized services should continue to be a
priority. We,
however, are opposed to the concept that capacity be determined by the
annual amount of dollars expended for care of veterans receiving
specialized care and rehabilitative services.
Instead, we offer that capacity to provide services can only be
truly measured by the number of beds available or dedicated to those
specific specialized services and the number of Full-Time Employee
Equivalents (FTEE) trained and equipped to handle veterans who require
specialized care. Only
then can VA’s ability to maintain capacity under PL 104-262 be
adequately measured. Extending
the annual report requirement through 2004 is essential to maintaining
oversight and compliance and enjoys our full support. Section
4 would increase the income threshold for veterans’ health care
eligibility to reflect locality cost-of-living variations.
The current income threshold utilized by the VA to establish
eligibility is $23,688 for a veteran with no dependents regardless of
geographic location. This
policy is somewhat arbitrary when you consider that a veteran who
earns $23,688 while residing in New York City does not possess the
same purchasing power that a veteran, say, residing in Tucson, Arizona
would enjoy. The VFW
believes that this is an inherent inequity that places undue burden on
certain veterans and we support this legislation designed to create a
more equitable income threshold by taking into account geographic
cost-of-living variations. Sections
5 and 6 both attempt to establish pilot programs: one would coordinate
ambulatory community hospital care; the other would contract
hospitalization and fee basis ambulatory care.
The VFW understands the reality that not every veteran enjoys
equal access to inpatient facilities and we support expanded access
for veterans residing in rural areas.
We also support VA’s obligation to contract out care when
services are not available within VA.
These sections of the bill, however, would shift VA’s
responsibility to provide quality health care to a private sector
third party that has no accountability to the VA with the VA picking
up the bill or the co-payment. We
oppose both of these sections and we challenge the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) to develop new models of direct health-care
delivery.
Section 7 would consolidate and recodify existing VA authority
to provide services to non-veterans.
The VFW supports this administrative change.
Section 8 seeks to extend VA’s authority to collect per diem
nursing home and hospital co-payments from certain veterans, and to
collect third-party payments for the treatment of non-service
connected disabilities of veterans with service-connected
disabilities. The VFW
favors this extension because these funds have proven to be a vital
supplement to annual appropriations. H.R.
1435 Veterans’
Emergency Telephone Service Act of 2001
As we have previously testified before the House Veterans
Affairs’ Subcommittee on Benefits on July 10, 2001, we support this
legislation that would authorize the Secretary of VA to award grants
to companies for purposes of providing a national toll-free hotline to
provide information and assistance to veterans. H.R.
1136 To amend title 38,
United States Code, to require Department of Veterans Affairs
pharmacies to dispense medications to veterans for prescriptions
written by private practitioners, and… The VFW does not
support this proposed legislation that would authorize the VA to
dispense medications to veterans for prescriptions written by private
practitioners. The VA is
not a pharmacy like CVS or Walgreens.
It is a health care system that provides a high standard and
continuity of care. In
order to ensure that veterans receive this level of care, it is
imperative that they regularly see a VA physician.
Aside from the potential budget implications posed by the
highly inflatable cost of pharmaceuticals, the VA’s responsibility
for the care of the veteran, once again, would be shifted to a private
third-party that cannot be held accountable by the VA or Congress. Back to Witness List |