- Contact the Committee

Statement of the Honorable Steve Buyer, Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Veterans Affairs
Hearing on VA’s Employment Practice for Personal Background Checks and Credentialing
March 31, 2004

Good Morning. The purpose of today’s hearing is to review the Department of Veterans’ Affairs current employment practices with regard to its procedures for personal background checks and credentialing of its health care practitioners.

In the past the Oversight Subcommittee has touched upon this subject in several hearings, however because there have been repeated serious lapses in the system over the years, we believe this issue warrants further scrutiny. In fact, there are several high profile cases which illustrate why it’s so important to insure that VA has an effective policy in place. One of the most compelling examples involves a Dr. Michael Joseph Swango. In 1993, even though he had a criminal record, Dr. Swango was able to secure a medical residency at the VA facility in Northport, New York. Dr. Swango is currently in prison serving three consecutive life sentences for murdering three veterans at the Northport facility. The question is: At the present time, could someone like Dr. Swango avoid detection and be successful in gaining employment with the VA?

I believe we all recognize that such lapses do not happen solely in the VA, but in my role of providing oversight over the Department of Veterans Affairs, issues affecting the safety of veterans are my major focus.

Let’s look at what the VA’s Office of Inspector General was able to detect through its fugitive felon program that was initiated in 2001. Using the VA benefit system files, the IG was able to identify 9,700 matches for referrals to law enforcement agencies. In addition, over 6,500 fugitive felons identified in these matches have been referred to the Department for benefit suspension. Due to these identifications, 35 VA employees were arrested. Twenty nine other employees were identified as fugitive felons, but were not arrested because they were non-extraditable. They have been referred to the Veterans Health Administration for possible administrative action.

If any of us here today find ourselves in the position of having to seek medical care, we deserve to be treated by health care practitioners who have completed the necessary educational requirements, have passed the boards and are licensed to practice. Veterans deserve to have this same level of confidence when they enter a VA medical facility.

Today’s hearing will show that the VA has been working diligently to improve its credentialing and background checks of applicants seeking employment with the VA.

However, there are several issues that need some clarification. One such issue involves VA’s credentialing program called VetPro. For instance, I wonder if VetPro is working as envisioned. I also wonder why the Federal Credentialing Program initiated by VA and HHS, under whose auspices VetPro was developed and maintained, was dismantled last fall. While representatives of the VA have stated publicly that VetPro is an excellent tool for verifying credentials, I also wonder why the GAO was silent on VetPro in its report. I find it perplexing that such an omission would be made since this is one of chief mechanism used by VA to verify credentials of physicians and dentists. Hopefully, both VA and HHS will shed some light on this.

The VA has several key screening requirements in place for verification of credentials and to investigate personal backgrounds of health care practitioners. These checks include querying the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), the List of Excluded Individuals and Entities (LEIE), and, on a limited basis require finger printing and a background check, which is performed by the Office Personnel Management.

Today’s witnesses include the Department of Veterans, the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Accounting Office. When I spoke with the American Medical Association yesterday about its decision not to testify, I was assured that the AMA will send a representative to hear our concerns. I have also asked them to provide a written statement and respond to post hearing questions, which will be made part of the official record. It would have benefited this Subcommittee to hear AMA’s position on physician credentialing and its interaction with the federal and private health care sectors during the hearing.