Good morning, my name is Nicholas T. Bartzis.  I'm here today as a private citizen, concerned veteran, and employee of the Veterans Benefits Administration.  I have served in the position of Rating Veterans Service Representative (RVSR) for approximately 8 years in the Cleveland VARO.  My relevant past experience included being a training officer in the naval reserves. I possess a joint Law Degree and Master's Degree in Public Administration.  As an employee, I am frustrated that I am forced to choose between (1) doing the right thing for the veteran’s claim before me by ordering all of the needed intermediate work, or (2) meeting arbitrary production quotas imposed by my supervisors.

First, I would like to thank each and every member who voted for HR 5892.  I believe that enactment of this bill into law could go far to correct many of the problems we now face.  Thank you!

Rapid and accurate VA compensation is critical to the quick and efficient transition of former service members and spouses to civilian life.  In my opinion, VA managers and adjudicators can do a better job adjudicating claims for VA disability benefits.  In 2007, claims processing time increased to an average 183 days. It is my experience that most VA adjudicators endure a constant and mounting pressure to increase their processing of claims in spite of the fact that initial training and follow up training has not kept pace with the needs of VA adjudicators.  In general, I and my coworkers do not feel that more decisions equal better individual decisions.

The problems with the VA adjudication process identified by Congress, stakeholders and claimants seeking VA benefits are multi-factored and not exclusively the fault of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) management.  However, the problems created by the adjudication climate fostered by the VBA are the primary problem.  These VBA issues are correctable, and they should be addressed immediately.

In my testimony I will focus on the following four topics:

• VBA Training, both qualitative and quantitative issues.
• Performance management, and a culture that emphasizes quantity of claims processed at the expense of the quality of the decisions made.
• Accountability, who should be held accountable and why.
• Potential solutions, from the perspective of one responsible for ratings claims.

Training is insufficient in quantity and quality

I have been employed as an RVSR for eight years.  I was initially promised formal, centralized training. I have never completed this training because VA management stressed production and did not give raters, such as myself, the time to complete this training.  At each juncture, case production requirements for the station trumped my individual training needs.  I want to stress that one reason cases are not consistently decided by the over 50 VA regional offices (ROs) is that, as I understand it (based on discussions with employees from other ROs and published studies), training varies widely from RO to RO.  Therefore, benefits may be awarded to some veterans but are denied to other veterans who are similarly situated.

Nationwide, for the period of January 1, 2007 through September 5, 2008, the Training and Performance Support System (“TPSS”) Basic Rating Completion Report lists 2115 RVSR employees. Only 124 have completed the TPSS portion of the training. This is a completion rate of 17%.  TPSS training is geared toward newly-hired employees and is seldom completed as assigned. Instead, what I see is that, depending on the production demands of the station, those employees are quickly placed in a production capacity.  Meaning they are assigned to quickly complete work for the station instead of undertaking further training under penalty of removal should they insist on spending time training instead of processing claims. These new employees are charged with making a correct and timely decision on the claim before them without first completing the proper training.

For example, VARO Cleveland has approximately 70 RVSR's.  However, in the period January 1, 2007 through September 5, 2008, the TPSS Basic Ratings Completion Report listed 31 RVSR's scheduled to complete training.  Of those 31 identified, none have completed the assigned training.  This fact clearly shows a lack of commitment to training by local management.

Poor initial training is only half of the problem.  The job itself requires frequent and detailed updates and discussion about various changes in the law or court decisions.  For example, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) spawned numerous lawsuits and significantly changed the way VA operates.   Also, upon issuance of a court decision or law change, VA must provide rapid instructions to its regional offices.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision in Vazquez v. Peake, 05-0355, was decided in January 2008, but the VA did not provide instructions to its regional offices respecting this decision until June 2008.

Performance management is primarily geared towards quantity of claims processed and not quality of benefits decisions.

Performance management may be defined as: “a system for relating the individual performance on the part of the employee, to the organizational objectives and performance of the agency.”  For VA employees, their performance is controlled by two primary documents.  First, is the employee appraisal system, and second, is the employee’s performance plan.  

The Performance Appraisal Program lists the general criteria for how all Title 5 employees will be evaluated.  A subset of the Performance Appraisal Program is the individual's performance plan. The individual’s performance plan describes the work expected from employees and measures that are expected of them.  Presently for RVSR's, there are five stated performance measures:  productivity, timeliness, customer service, quality of work, and organizational support.  A supervisor assigns values to each of these five stated performance measures.

With the exception of productivity, I have seldom seen numerical values assigned to any of the other measures for RVSR's. As such, neither the employee nor any person who reviews their accomplishments after the fact has an accurate description of how much work the employee really did.  In general, RVSR's do not obtain work credit for work such as: deferring the rating for additional development by other VA employees, instructional time for the VSR, or sufficient time for reviewing a claims file and ordering a VA exam or reordering the VA exam if it is insufficient.  This fact is noted in recommendation number two of the Institute for Defense Analysis study entitled Analysis of Differences in Disability Compensation in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Good, knowledgeable RVSR's are, in a sense, punished  when they do work that is not credited by VA management. For example, an RVSR does not get meaningful work credit for analyzing all the evidence in a case and ordering a VA examination, or for reviewing the file and determining that the present VA exam is inadequate, or for reviewing the file and correctly asking a medical question.  Careful review of a VA claims file takes time.  If, however, employees are not rewarded for careful work and are instead rewarded for processing large volumes of claims poorly, then inevitably claims will be improperly adjudicated and veterans will suffer.  For example, if some VA employees are behind in their production, they may go through the file quickly (called top sheeting) and hope that somehow the claim is rated correctly or any error isn't caught. Supervisors, who focus on production, have, in my experience, punished RVSR's who attempt to obtain additional needed development.  This is one way in which quality is emphasized to the detriment of quality.

Recently our post determination team had a 68.4% FYTD production quantity failure rate for all journey level employees.  This means that 68.4% of all the journey level -- the most experienced employees in that team --have been unable to meet their cumulative production quotas for that year.  When brought to their attention, local VA management was highly critical and dismissive of those who identified this issue.  Of course, while an individual employee may be unfairly punished by management, the real loser is the veteran whose claim is not adjudicated properly.

It is my understanding that VBA has not shared with representatives or employees their method for determining how long each discrete step for evaluating a claim should take.

More importantly, they have failed to quantify and provide fair work credit for accomplishing critical intermediate work prior to a claim being decided.  Therefore what is needed is an accurate work credit system, within the performance plan, that addresses each discrete type of work and allows the employee sufficient time to accomplish the work. Under the current system only one small portion of the work is measured, the final product, and that has not worked. 

Performance measures are intended to gauge the employee's contribution to the agency's mission.  Instead, what I see is that the metrics as applied to the relevant VA employees do not adequately address the time it takes to really do the work properly.

Accountability

I believe that Congress wants to know why and who is accountable for our present dilemma of disparate decisions between states and untimely decisions on claims nationwide.  As I indicated above, the problem has several causes. Many parties shoulder the burden of our current dilemma. However, the primary burden for accountability for the disparate decisions and long waiting times lies squarely with VBA.

Should VBA undertake and scientifically measure the discrete steps it really takes to decide a claim correctly and seriously address the problem with concerned stakeholders, much would be done to alleviate the current problem.  Instead, what I see is that the science not being applied and the results shared. Without the science, the number of employees needed to do the work is only an approximate guess based on historical precedent. Without the science, how long it takes to actually complete a typical claim and all its discrete steps is an approximate guess.

I believe that most of the problems stem from one issue and one issue only:  Station performance goals that are not established based on the time it takes to do the work.  Instead what I see is that station performance goals are set by the VA Central office using historical and suspect data. A station’s director and service center manager will sacrifice every activity that interferes with the employee deciding cases, including training, in order to make stations monthly performance goals.

Potential solutions

I believe that congress is well on  the way to correcting many of the problems faced by veterans and the VBA employees who decide  their claims. While the process takes time, unnecessary delays pose real hardships for veterans who are losing their houses or unable to feed themselves and their families while solutions are devised and adopted.  With that in mind:

1. I strongly encourage the passage of HR 5892. This wide-ranging bill is critical to addressing the root cause of the disparity in disability compensation. Specifically, the study on employee work credit and the agency work management system.
2. Increased oversight on VBA programs by Congress to insure compliance with the letter and spirit of programs by the VA managers assigned to accomplish the task.  
3. Immediate implementation of a mandatory interim training program for all employees. Within the next 12 months, each employee must complete all identified but unaccomplished formal training per job category.  
4. Voluntary increased training by VBA to interested stakeholder like County Veteran Service Officers and service organizations.

Thank you for your invitation to testify. I am available to answer any questions of the committee.