Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to submit for the record, the views of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) on the issue under consideration today. In accordance with our congressional charter, the DAV’s mission is to “advance the interests, and work for the betterment, of all wounded, injured, and disabled American veterans.” We are therefore pleased to support various measures insofar as they fall within that scope.

Regarding the implementation of an electronic claims’ processing system, the DAV is not opposed to VA utilizing a test facility to begin implementation of such software on an experimental and limited basis. We will limit our support for this type of project in this manner until such time as adequate research and testing has been completed that provides evidence that a massive rollout of such technology is feasible. Additionally, while we support this novel idea, we caution Congress not to act in haste whereby legislation becomes law that imposes on the VA a requirement to implement such technology within a specific timeframe, especially when the potential technology has not been sufficiently identified. Imposing too short of a time limit for VA to implement such a virtual structure will only thwart its long-term success.

A more reasonable approach would be to enact legislation that requires VA to submit to Congress a broad and over-arching plan by a reasonable date outlining the technology identified and the manner in which such technology will be utilized. Once this plan is complete, the groundwork will be laid for VA to coordinate with various entities, i.e., Congress, Veterans Service Organizations, Department of Defense, etc., in order to begin turning the plan into reality on a larger scale. The DAV would welcome the opportunity to work with the Agency, to include any contractors, in order to assist in the development of an electronic claims process system.

The DAV also feels that using the term “artificial intelligence” is inappropriate as it is defined as “the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior.”[1] The goal of any form of electronic claims process should be to automate, and thereby shorten as much as possible those portions of the claims process that currently consume the majority of time. Expecting a form of technology to imitate intelligent human behavior with respect to the decision-making process of VA’s benefits delivery system, particularly where evidence weighing and judgment calls on such evidence are required, appears as an untenable goal—automation rather than human imitation is the first logical phase of this undertaking.

Contrary to some beliefs, the majority of time spent by VA on disability claims is in preparing the case for a decision. This includes receiving the claims by VA, establishing the claim in VA’s current computer systems, and developing the evidence to support the claim. Evidence development, whether in the form of gathering military service records from the service department, military records from the Records Processing Center, private health records, VA health records, VA or private medical opinions, and stressor verification through the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center for claims of service-connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, consumes the vast majority of the claims-processing time. Therefore, any viable electronic claims-processing system implemented with real expectations of shortening the claims process must focus on all VA functions and development leading up to the rating decision more so than just the rating decision itself.

As far as automating functions of the decision-making process, caution must be exercised. Obviously, the first reasonable step in automating the final decision-making process would be to start with strict fact-based scenarios wherein a set of mandatory fact patterns equates to a mandatory award of benefits. The DAV believes that any attempt to go beyond this level of automation in the beginning phases of implementation, would likely cause more problems than it would solve. For example, rating decisions are required to contain adequate reasons and bases that explain to the claimant the purpose behind a particular decision. [2] This becomes especially important when VA denies benefits. Without a detailed explanation of why a claimant is not entitled to a benefit sought, veterans and their dependents will have no recourse to correct what may only be minor deficiencies in their claims. Judgment necessary to communicate this type of explanation on a case-by-case basis will be inherently problematic for an automated process.

Additionally, any authorizing legislation concerning the issues herein must be accompanied by sufficient appropriations required to carry out such authorizations. To do otherwise would be tantamount to legislation incorporating its own veto.

Ultimately, the DAV believes that proper utilization of technology has the potential for positive change by yielding the type of assistance that could bring the VA claims process into the 21st Century. Nonetheless, to be highly successful, Congress must avoid any proclivity to view this as a purely VA problem. The VA merely sits at the bottom of a whirlpool fueled by outside information. Automating the processes within the VA without automating the processes by which the VA acquires and assembles its information—information on which its end product is dependent—will do little to expedite VA’s claims process.

We appreciate the Committee’s interest in these issues, and we appreciate the opportunity to present the DAV’s views, which we hope will be helpful.

[1] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., Pg 66., Merriam-Webster, Inc. Springfield, Massachusetts

[2] 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(b)(2006) (“Claimants . . . are entitled to notice of any decision made by VA affecting the payment of benefits . . . . Such notice shall clearly set forth the . . . the reason(s) for the decision . . . .”) (emphasis added).