MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:

On behalf of the 2.3 million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and our Auxiliaries, I thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the “Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act Of 2008.”  The modernization and improvement of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims processing system is a project that has been long time in the making. 

The mounting backlog of claims, which has grown over the past ten years has not gone unnoticed by the VA, the Congress, the Veterans Service Organization (VSO) Community, or most importantly the veterans waiting months and often years for assistance.  In response to the growing wait times, increasing complexity of claims, and increasing numbers of veterans from current and past wars seeking benefits, a number of commissions in recent years were formed to address these problems. 

The legislation we discuss today represents the most recent substantive step on the long road to reforming and improving a system.  The system has served millions of veterans well over the years, but is now falling farther and farther behind. We are encouraged by many of the ideas outlined in this bill and the spirit with which they are offered.  We sincerely hope that the energy expended to craft this legislation continues to facilitate the necessary follow-through that will ensure implementation of the recommendations contained herein.  The problems that plague the Veterans Benefits Administration were many years in the making and it will take a number of measured improvements and change to cure the system’s ailments. 

We recognize that this is not the final version of the “Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008.” That said, we offer our opinions and analysis of the most current version of the draft this committee has provided.  We thank you for your willingness to incorporate our views on this bipartisan measure to overhaul the disability claims process. 

Section by Section

Section 101: “Presumption of Service-Connection for Veterans Who Were Deployed in Support of a Contingency Operation with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.” 

Today, veterans who seek service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD must have three things: a diagnosis of PTSD, a physician’s opinion that the PTSD was caused by an event in service, and evidence establishing that the event actually occurred.  VA regulations lessen the burden of establishing the third criteria, proving the existence of the event, by allowing the receipt of certain medals awarded for participation in combat to some veterans, along with medals presented for valor, to suffice as evidence of an event (stressor) in service.  Unfortunately, not everyone who engages in combat with an enemy receives a qualifying medal.

Section 101 seeks to establish a presumptive service connection for PTSD for veterans that “engaged in combat with the enemy in active service with a military, naval, or air organization of the United States during a period of war, campaign, or expedition, and who is diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder.”  While well intended, it is our view that this misses the mark.  The VA has no problem granting service connection for PTSD even many years after service.  What it does have a problem with is granting PTSD when a veteran who was in combat cannot prove it by showing receipt of a medal.  It is not uncommon for veterans who served in Vietnam during Tet, during the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, or following a year or more in Iraq, to be forced to wait months, sometimes years, while VA and DoD search unit records for any evidence of combat.

This legislation seeks to redefine how we view and evaluate PTSD as a nation.  As members of our nations largest veterans’ service organization made up of combat veterans, we support the intent of this section and its definition for the creation of a presumption to lessen the burden on disabled veterans who are diagnosed with PTSD.  We suggest a substitution in language from “who engaged in combat with the enemy” to the language of those “who operated in a combat theater or area hostile to U.S. forces.”   This allows veterans exposed to the stressors of living and working, day in and day out, in a combat zone, who driving truck convoys, for instance, across Iraq to require these stressors to be recognized.  We would also suggest substituting “armed forces” for “a military, naval, or air organization.”  In this instance too broad of a definition may include a military organization such as defense contractors or federal employees operating in a military organizational capacity.   In some cases, they would clearly be a military organization of the U.S. and operating on government orders.  For clarity sake, the designation of “U.S. Armed Forces” is identifiable and clearly defined in law.

Section 102: “Readjustment of Schedule for Rating Disabilities.” 

Section 102 would authorize a study of the disability ratings schedule.  The study would be tasked with evaluating an “average loss of a veteran’s earnings…[and] the veteran’s quality of life” measure as determined by specific disabilities.  Information to be used by this study would include, but not be limited to reviewing the Social Security Administration disability ratings, workers compensation systems, and foreign government disabilities compensation systems.  The study would solicit feedback from private industry as well as VSOs.  At the conclusion of the study, the report must be submitted to Congress weighing also this past year’s multiple commission reports in concert with the views of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

The VFW supports a measured review of the ratings schedule, as stated by my colleague, Gerald T. Manar, Deputy Director of the National Veterans Service, before this committee on February 26, 2008.  We firmly believe that a one-time adjustment of the current schedule will not be sufficient to keep pace with the changing nature of “quality of life” and the evolving science of medicine, technology, and warfare. 

We are encouraged by the provision of this bill to establish an Advisory Committee to review and manage the process of adjusting the ratings schedule.  We urge you to ensure this committee is independent, beyond reproach, and represents the interests of veterans.  We ask that prominent experts in the VSO community be appointed to represent the veterans’ voices on the 18 member Advisory Committee.

Section 103: “Study on Work Credit System of Veterans Benefits Administration.” 

Section 103 would require a study of the mechanism that VA uses to award credit for claims worked by claims adjudicators.  During the period of this study the work credit and award system would be suspended pending a report on it to congress.  This section further delineates a timetable for implementation and reporting.  We support and encourage a review of this work and management process; however we are concerned with section (c).

In section (c), this legislation calls for a suspension of award of work credits during the evaluation period.  We believe a wholesale suspension of all work credit would be counterproductive. VA is heavily dependent on its work credit system for tracking and managing its caseload.  We urge this committee to consider banning performance awards based on production during the evaluation, leaving the mechanism for counting and tracking cases intact.

Section 104: “Study on Work Management System.” 

Section 104 would commission a study of the work management system.  This section outlines point specific study contents relating to quality, efficiency, and increased productivity with an eye toward implementation of a rules-based software program to aid in claims processing. 

The VFW supports technological advances within the VA with the goals of improving work processes.  We believe that information technologies (IT) can be used to aid and improve the claims process.  In studying the work management system, all aspects of the work process should be structured to incorporate IT applications where applicable.  With a comprehensive review of VA’s process our veterans can be better served by a more modern and efficient VA. 

Section 105: “Certification of Employees of Veterans Benefits Administration Responsible for Processing Claims.” 

Section 105, would have VBA employees and managers responsible for claims processing to take certification examinations.   The Secretary would develop the exam, in consultation with interested stakeholders, VA employees and managers.  The exam would be administered within one year of the enactment of this provision. 

The VFW strongly supports certification of VA employees and managers.  We view testing as a technical evaluation of the employees’ knowledge specific to their field.   Clearly, team leaders, and Veteran Service Center Managers should be able to demonstrate an expert’s knowledge of the laws and regulations they are tasked with enforcing.  While we believe that higher-level managers at both the local and national levels should have substantial knowledge of the claims adjudication process, we cannot support expanding certification to the highest levels of the VBA.  We feel the VA Secretary should have the latitude to determine the levels examinations should be administered. 

We welcome the inclusionary language granting VSO’s, public, and private entities input into employee certification testing.  Veterans groups represent the core constituents served by this testing regiment.   The end goal remains accurate and timely claims processing, technical evaluations will aid to inform and improve the process.

Section 106: “Annual Assessment of Quality Assurance Program.” 

Section 106 would give the VA Secretary the authority to contract with an independent 3rd party to study and annually review VA’s quality assurance program.  The purpose of this study, beyond improving quality assurance, is to strengthen the employee certification program as prescribed by section 105 of this act.  The Secretary would be tasked with the goals of measuring performance, accuracy, identifying trends in the regional offices with an eye toward automating data transfer and improving work processes.

The VFW supports the comprehensive annual assessment of the quality assurance program.  We are pleased to see independent review of VA processes.  Given the VA admitted error rate of claims approximated between 12 to 14 percent we feel an unbiased review would help VA to identify problems with the goal of producing accurate claims.  We feel an independent body would be free from the countervailing political forces that produce pressures to misreport the error rate.

Section 107: “Expedited Treatment of Fully-Developed Claims and Requirement for Checklist to be Provided to Individuals Submitting Incomplete Claims.” 

Section 107 would establish a mechanism to expedite fully developed claims.  It defines a fully developed claim as one that has received assistance and is submitted to VA from a VSO/county service officer or a claim that states the claimant does not wish to submit additional evidence.  A checklist is prescribed by this section to ensure a detailed description of what may be needed by the VA for processing the claim as a fully developed claim. 

We support this provision and believe that this practice should be encouraged since it reduces the workload on VA staff and ensures that the backlog is not unnecessarily increased.  To guarantee that this practice actually works, VA should require that regional office personnel, managers and veteran service officers are adequately trained to recognize a properly developed claim and understand that receipt of such a claim triggers actions which trigger prompt adjudication. 

We believe that VA should give no preferential treatment to any case which, upon review, is found not to be ready to rate.  This is necessary to ensure that partially developed cases receive no preferential treatment, thereby slowing completion of claims already in process. 

However, one of the purposes of this program is to educate veteran service officers as to the evidence needed to produce a ready to rate case.  We suggest that VA could do this by offering service officers an opportunity to complete development in a case found not ready to rate by telling them exactly what evidence is missing and giving them 10 working days to produce it.  The case could be considered ready to rate if the service officer is able to provide the necessary evidence.  Failure to timely complete the claim would simply mean that the case would receive no preference and be worked under current procedures.

Section 108: “Study and Report on Employing Medical Professionals to Assist Employees of Veterans Benefits Administration.” 

Section 108 would study the applicability and effectiveness of staffing VBA with medical professionals to better inform the claims rating process.  This provision would not employ medical professionals to rate any disability or evaluate a claim, but it would study how medical professionals could assist claims raters from an education standpoint. 

The VFW supports the concept of a better-informed claims ratings process and we support studying the benefits of employing medical professionals to inform the process.  The goal should be the continuing education of those who evaluate evidence and rate cases.  However, we are concerned that medical professionals may inadvertently influence the process with an opinion on a claimed condition over the course of advising of a claims adjudicator.  We ask that this committee clearly express its wishes to further educate and inform the process while avoiding physicians issuing professional opinions on a claimants’ diagnosis. 

Section 109: “Assignment of Temporary Disability Ratings to Qualifying Veterans.”

Section 109 would further grant the VA Secretary the authority to award a stabilization rating and distribute moneys to severely disabled veterans on case-by-case bases.  The Secretary would be allowed to grant 100 or 50 percent temporary ratings for veterans until their full claims folder could be adjudicated.  The determining factors for granting temporary disability ratings are for recently discharged disabled veterans with a disability that prevents them from working or an injury with material impairment. 

The VFW recognizes that this section is intended to offer interim relief to those veterans who may have to wait an extraordinarily long period for a final decision on their claims.  Currently, VA has the authority that this provision of this bill seeks to codify in 38 CFR 4.28, “Prestabilization Rating from Date of Discharge from Service.”  This section of the code already calls for a 50 or 100 percent stabilization rating within 12 months of a veterans discharge from service based on unemployability due to disability. 

We support the concept of pre-stabilization ratings.  We ask this committee to encourage the VA to train claims adjudicators on this provision and encourage its use to the betterment of many seriously injured veterans.  

Section 110:  “Review and Enhancement of Use of Information Technology at Veterans Benefits Administration.”

Section 110 calls for VA to review its processes and to develop a comprehensive plan to incorporate information technology (IT) into the claims adjudication process.  VA is asked to examine how it might transfer all prescribed benefits processing tasks and information into computer software programs that eliminate the need for paper claims folders and to provide remote access to a veteran’s claim by the veteran.  The final report produced by VA would evaluate its current IT and its best practices as well as lessons learned.  The whole of the review of IT should be done with the focus of a three-year implementation timetable for a comprehensive phase-in of new IT processes. 

In our view there is computer programming and “artificial intelligence”.  Nearly everything touted as “artificial intelligence” is really just computer programmers giving answers to a very large number of yes/no questions.  There is, however, ample opportunity to use computers to decide certain evaluations based on established findings.  Evaluations for service connected visual impairment or hearing loss, largely based on loss of visual acuity, fields of vision or decibel loss, could be easily assigned by computers.  We encourage VA to utilize properly programmed computers to apply regulations to discrete data to arrive at concrete evaluations.  This will allow rating specialists more time to work on decisions requiring judgment and experience.

Section 111: “Treatment of Claims Upon Death of Claimant.” 

Section 111 allows a veteran’s next of kin to be treated as the claimant for the purposes of accrued benefits.  This bill allows the next of kin to designate an individual, other than the next of kin, to act in the capacity of the claimant receive the said benefits.  New evidence pertaining to the claimant’s case must be submitted within one year of the veteran’s death. 

We strongly support this provision.  Many veterans have waited years to realize their claim for compensation with the VA.  There is a popular mantra among many of these aging veterans, “the VA is trying to outlive me.”  This provision demonstrates that the government cares about the welfare of its veterans and their families.  

Section 201: “Creation of Single Joint Department of Veterans Affairs and department of Defense Disability Examinations Process.” 

Section 201 would simplify examinations for medically retired members of the military between the Department of Defense (DOD) health care network and VA.  This section calls for one exam conducted by DOD for fitness of duty and one exam conducted by VA to determine the severity of disability for the purpose of compensation.  In creating one process with input for a cross agency development of a simplified evaluation process, it outlines cost sharing guidelines and agency areas of responsibility. 

The VFW enthusiastically supports a simplified process between DOD and VA. 

Section 301: “Annual Reports on Workload of United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.”

Section 301 would establish an reporting standard upon the chief judge of the Court of Appeals.  The reports would consist of the number of appeals, petitions, applications, dispositions, settlements, oral arguments, and decisions.  

The VFW has no position on this provision. 

Section 302: “Modification of Jurisdiction and Finality of Decisions of United State Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.” 

The VFW has no position on this provision. 

Section 401: “Report on Implementation of Veterans’ Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008.”

Section 401 states the VA Secretary would submit a report in under 180 days outlining the Secretary’s plan for implementation of the Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008. 

The VFW supports reporting designed to improve the access to benefits for veterans. 

We thank this committee for this opportunity to submit our views and work closely with staff to improve veterans’ benefits claims processing.  We welcome any questions this committee may have.