Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn,and members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to submit to this Committee on behalf of AMVETS our views on the “Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act” (Act).

Section 101 of the Act will provide presumption of service-connection for veterans who were deployed in support of contingency operation with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This would allow those who engage in combat with the enemy and diagnosed with PTSD to be granted presumption of a stressor for service-connection. AMVETS supports the spirit of this provision, however, due to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ high standard of proof for consideration of engaging in combat with the enemy it will be difficult in many circumstances for the veteran to verify their role in combat. Poor recordkeeping and servicemembers being moved from one unit to another during their deployment could, under current VA internal requirements, make it impossible for a veteran to prove they engaged in combat with the enemy.

Therefore, AMVETS suggests that either the language be changed to more clearly define who and under what circumstances veterans would be granted presumption or amend Section 1101, Title 38 United States Code to clarify who has engaged in combat and to what degree they must support their claim. This would take the subjective nature of the presumptive claim out of the adjudicator’s hands.

AMVETS supports Section 102 of the Act that will allow for parity between mental health disabilities and physical disabilities. Under the current rating schedule, VA decision makers often only focus on occupational impairment and not social impairment when awarding a 100 percent disability rating. AMVETS would support any provision that would require rating specialists to consider both mental and/or physical disabilities as grounds for disability ratings.

AMVETS also supports the study of using codes that are being used by the medical and disability profession as a model for the VA rating code. There are less than 800 diagnostic codes used by VBA and more than 10,000 ICD codes in use. Because of this, it will be imperative that some sort of cross reference be established to simplify the change.

 Concerning Section 103, AMVETS supports the study concerning the work credit system within the VBA, and had testified in the past of the need for change in the current work credit system. AMVETS believes that with quality assurance added to the Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) program oversight of accuracy of decisions will improve the accountability system.

AMVETS supports any effort to improve the quality of claims processing as presented in Section 104.  However, a study on the work management system may not be necessary if Sections 103 and 105 are correctly implemented.

AMVETS wholly agrees with the creation of certification of employees of the VBA who are responsible for processing claims as outlined in Section 105. AMVETS has testified in the past that not only certification, but centralized training and continuing education are important to ensure timely and accurate claims processing. AMVETS believes a large portion of the claims disparities are related to not only the lack of certification but also the human factors that vary from one region to the next. Centralized training will remove a considerable amount of the personality that has been established in these regions. Also, in all medical-related fields continuing education is required. New medical discoveries can change the way a claim is developed. If the developer is unaware to the changes, the veteran will be denied a claim; Therefore, AMVETS supports the idea of continuing education training for VBA employees who handle claims.  

With regard to Section 107, AMVETS has concerns not with outside agents developing claims, but with their ability to access information. VBA employees have access to documents that are not accessible by non-employees. Although the development phase of the claims process would be expedited, it would also increase the rate of remands because of the claims that are improperly developed by those outside the VBA.

AMVETS opposes the study and report on employing medical professionals to assist employees of Veterans Benefits Administration. This would build in redundancy in the system, because VBA staff already has access to medical professionals who can answer any questions. Most claims complications are legal in nature, not medical; therefore, the medical professionals would be giving legal not medical advice in many instances.

AMVETS does not oppose Section 109.

As outlined in Section 110, AMVETS has publicly supported the use of electronic claims filing. AMVETS must reiterate that Information Technology must be used throughout the entire claims process to shorten the claims process.

AMVETS supports Section 111 with exception to the substituting party may designate who receives the benefits of the original claimant.

AMVETS continues to support the provision outlined in Section 201.

The matters relating to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as outlined in Sections 301 and 302 are supported both by AMVETS and the Independent Budget.

Chairman Hall, this concludes my testimony. I am happy to respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have.