Gimpy
05-10-2002, 07:45 AM
Alright guys & gals, it's time to get off our BUTTS and write Congress and the Whitehouse!
Below is a letter from the DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to the Congress, dated April 2, 2002. It states that:
1. VA adjudicators' reluctance to trust evidence
2. VA adjudicators are by nature unwilling to obtain a medical examination to assist a claimant in resolving an outstanding medical question.
3. Even when a comprehensive medical opinion submitted on behalf of the claimant is from a VA physician, VA adjudicators often seem
unwilling to accept its findings.
And at the same time the VA is also trying to take away the veterans rights of due process, as the letter below states: " VA is rewriting its
regulations to reduce the time in which veterans have to submit evidence and take actions under its claims procedures."
Write to congress and urge them to stop the VA from taking away veterans rights and violating laws to illegally deny claims.
Write in support of Bills: H.R. 4018, the Veterans Judicial Review Improvement Act of 2002.
And H.R. 3733, Veterans' Claims Continuation Act (see previous post about this bill).
Gimpy
##### Start #####
April 2, 2002
The Honorable Mike Simpson
Chairman, Subcommittee on Benefits
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Cannon House Office Bldg., Rm. 337
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you requested during our March 19, 2002, meeting, I am writing to present the views of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) on the
benefits, impediments, and prospects related to increasing the role of veterans' service organizations (VSOs) in assistance to claimants and
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in developing the record for claims.
The VSOs play a vital role in the administration of programs for veterans. Located in VA offices across the country and Department of Defense
separation centers, they counsel veterans and other claimants on potential entitlement to VA benefits, assist in completing their claims
applications, help obtain evidence from public and private sources, shepherd claims through the process, and act as advocates in prosecution
of claims and appeals. The role of VSOs in outreach, counseling on benefit entitlement, and assistance in filing claims became even more
essential in the recent past when, because of budget reductions and reorganization, VA dissolved its own Veterans Services Division and
reassigned its corps of veterans benefits counselors to other tasks. During the same time, VA's increasing difficulties in managing its claims
workload prompted discussion and recommendations of strengthening the partnership between VA and VSOs to facilitate a greater reliance
on VSOs to help with evidence gathering and establishment of claims. VA reduced its workforce based on assumptions about VSO
contributions.
The concept of increasing VSO participation in securing evidence to support claims began in May of 1996 with the Partner Assisted Rating &
Development System (PARDS), implemented as a pilot project in the St. Petersburg, Florida, VA Regional Office. Under PARDS,
representatives of the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, county service officers, and VSOs entered into an agreement with VA in which
VA agreed to give priority to claims and decide them within a few days of receipt when they were submitted with all necessary supporting
documentation and evidence.
In a system-wide effort to bring backlogs under control, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) made its first major attempt to reform
claims processing in its Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Plan. An enhanced partnership between VSOs and VBA, and increased
assistance from VSOs, was one of the key elements of this plan: "The partnership establishes a larger role for them [VSOs] in claim
establishment and development, streamlined claims processing, and more efficient post-decision review. With VBA assistance, veterans and
VSO officials will have access to the same claims development tools as VBA employees." Veterans Benefits Administration, Reengineering
Claims Processing: A Case for Change 4-6 (Dec. 1996).
Studies by outside entities have also recognized the essential role of VSOs in assistance to claimants and VA. Following the principles of the
PARDS initiative and the BPR plan, the Veterans' Claims Adjudication Commission, throughout its December 1996 Report to Congress,
recommended a stronger partnership between VSOs and VA and a greater role for VSOs in claims development. Noting the common goals,
but acknowledging the differing legal and professional obligations to claimants, the Commission made detailed recommendations on the
principles under which such partnership should operate. E.g., id. at 142-46.
A few months later, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) echoed the theme of the need for and benefits of closer
cooperation between VA and VSOs. However, NAPA observed that part of VA's continuing problems stemmed in part from its improvident
staff reductions based on unwarranted assumptions in the BPR plan that increased VSO participation would reduce the level of VA employees
needed. National Academy of Public Administration, Management of Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Processes for Veterans 57, 70-
72 (Aug. 1997). NAPA noted that the Government cannot mandate assistance from nonprofit veterans' organizations. Id. at 71.
A task force established by the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs recommended that VA provide VSOs increased access to VA computer
systems, training on claims development processes, and use of VA equipment to increase participation of VSOs. VA Claims Processing Task
Force, Report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 26, 59-60 (Oct. 2001).
Based on favorable results with the PARDS program, VBA adopted its concepts and introduced them to all regional offices in the Training
Responsibility, Involvement and Preparation of Claims (TRIP) initiative. VA began development of this program in mid 1998 and began
preliminary training and testing in 1999. Complications developed when VA attempted to dictate to VSOs that they must submit evidence
unfavorable, as well as favorable, to claimants. When VSOs declined to participate under those terms, VA relented. Training and certification of
VSOs is ongoing, but VSOs do not have authorization to use claims processing and data exchange systems to establish claims and obtain
evidence as originally envisioned. The current goal of TRIP is not "ready-to-rate" claims but "TRIP claims should be fully developed to the extent
that a service organization representative can develop the claim." VBA Letter 20-00-15 (May 18, 2000).
The advantages of greater VSO participation in the claims process are obvious. The capacity for greater participation varies among the
organizations, however, according to their resources and management authority over their service officers. The DAV, PVA, and, on a smaller
scale, a couple more VSOs employ their own national service officers to assist veterans. Other organizations provide assistance primarily
through service officers accredited by them but employed on the state organization or state government level. The DAV is willing to provide
whatever additional assistance it can and is willing to devote substantial resources to assisting claimants in filing and prosecuting their claims.
We suspect that the other organizations, within their means, are similarly willing to increase their level of participation. However, it must be
remembered that it is ultimately VA's legal obligation to ensure the record is complete and all pertinent laws and regulations are applied. VA
cannot, as it has done in isolated instances before, attempt to shift this legal responsibility to VSOs by requesting VSOs to sign statements
that the record is complete, etc. In the complex world of VA claims and with the lack of uniformity in VA decisions, unassailable judgments on
such issues are difficult to make and outcomes are difficult to predict. Moreover, it would be unwise for VSOs to waive their clients' due process
rights by assuming VA's legal responsibility to assure a fully developed record. Certainly, VA cannot mandate levels of participation by voluntary
nonprofit organizations and state employees. In addition, VSOs are unlikely to take on added responsibilities and shoulder more of the burden
merely to allow VA to reduce its own staffing levels as it did before.
Some VA practices discourage greater VSO participation in evidence gathering. Because of VA adjudicators' reluctance to trust evidence
submitted on behalf of a claimant or their tendency to attempt to refute private evidence, VA will often seek its own examination or medical
opinion even though the evidence provided by the claimant or the claimant's representative is adequate for rating purposes. Oftentimes,
evidence from private physicians is more thorough than VA evidence because it is based on a greater familiarity with the patient from ongoing
treatment, where VA examinations and treatment notes are based on brief examinations or one-time treatment of a particular veteran. Treating
VA physicians often do not have the depth of personal knowledge about, or continuity of experience with, their patients that long-time family
physicians or private specialists do. Even when a comprehensive medical opinion submitted on behalf of the claimant is from a VA physician,
VA adjudicators often seem unwilling to accept its findings. On the one hand, VA adjudicators are by nature unwilling to obtain a medical
examination to assist a claimant in resolving an outstanding medical question, and, on the other hand, they frequently order unnecessary
examinations in cases where the evidence provided by the claimant is sufficient to support a grant of the benefits sought.
Another factor in today's climate causes the DAV, and probably the other VSOs, to be somewhat less enthusiastic about assisting VA.
Through its rulemaking, VA is rewriting its regulations to reduce the time in which veterans have to submit evidence and take actions under its
claims procedures. For example, in its regulations to implement the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 2000
U.S.C.C.A.N. (114 Stat.) 2096, VA prescribed a 30-day time period for claimants to obtain and provide VA with requested documentation. VA
itself typically accomplishes few things in a 30-day period. VA recently published a proposed change to its procedural regulations governing
requests for "de novo review" of regional office decisions. Claimants who disagree with VA claims decisions may elect to request a "second
look" by a different VA regional office decisionmaker before proceeding with an appeal. The goal of de novo review is to resolve the matter
without necessity to resort to the protracted VA appellate process. In this rule, VA proposes to reduce the time for requesting de novo review
from 60 to 15 days. Such reductions in the time for claimants to complete actions do nothing to increase VA efficiency, and we doubt that VA's
protracted claims and appeals processing times can be attributed to delays by claimants. That point is demonstrated by the time it takes VA to
transfer a case to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) after all action is complete at the regional office level. The claimant's filing of VA Form
9 perfects the appeal at the regional office level. The next step is the physical transfer of the file to BVA for a decision. The average time
between the filing of VA Form 9 and the receipt of the file at BVA is 619 days. In one regional office, the average time is 1,377 days, and five
other VA regional offices take an average of more than a 1,000 days to transfer claims files to BVA. Yet, VA seeks to allow claimants only 15
days to request a potentially beneficial de novo review. This and other rule changes seem calculated to reduce veterans' access to the system
and thereby reduce VA's work. Such reductions in the time for actions by claimants do nothing to cultivate a spirit of cooperation between
VSOs and VA. If VA insists on imposing unreasonable restrictions upon VSOs and claimants, VSOs will likely leave it to VA to obtain evidence
for claimants.
We believe the key to strengthening the partnership between VSOs and VA is more access to VA information technology systems for VSOs.
In addition, greater cooperation requires more respect for VSOs' independence and role as advocates, actions which create and demonstrate
more trust between VA and VSOs, and a change of direction away from VA's recent one-sided, self-serving rulemaking. VA must refrain from
making the process more difficult for veterans and their VSOs as a way to reduce its own responsibilities and work. VA sometimes fails to see
that procedures which are beneficial to claimants are generally beneficial to VA in accomplishing its mission.
The DAV already commits a large portion of its resources to claims assistance for veterans and their dependents. Our first priority is assistance
to claimants, but we also welcome ways to assist VA when it aids our clients as well. When cooperation is a "two-way street," we are always
willing to work with VA to more efficiently achieve our common goals.
The DAV sincerely appreciates your interest in improving the claims process and your request for the input of VSOs on this important matter.
We would be happy to work with you and the Benefits Subcommittee to find ways to make the system better serve our Nation's veterans.
Sincerely,
Rick Surratt
Deputy National Legislative Director
http://www.dav.org/voters/surratt_simpson_040202.html
##### END ######
This shit has GOT TO STOP!!! I urge everyone to PLEASE write your Congressperson, Senator & the Whitehouse to show our outrage and disgust with a system (the VA) that is continually and progressively getting WORSE instead of improving!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Below is a letter from the DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to the Congress, dated April 2, 2002. It states that:
1. VA adjudicators' reluctance to trust evidence
2. VA adjudicators are by nature unwilling to obtain a medical examination to assist a claimant in resolving an outstanding medical question.
3. Even when a comprehensive medical opinion submitted on behalf of the claimant is from a VA physician, VA adjudicators often seem
unwilling to accept its findings.
And at the same time the VA is also trying to take away the veterans rights of due process, as the letter below states: " VA is rewriting its
regulations to reduce the time in which veterans have to submit evidence and take actions under its claims procedures."
Write to congress and urge them to stop the VA from taking away veterans rights and violating laws to illegally deny claims.
Write in support of Bills: H.R. 4018, the Veterans Judicial Review Improvement Act of 2002.
And H.R. 3733, Veterans' Claims Continuation Act (see previous post about this bill).
Gimpy
##### Start #####
April 2, 2002
The Honorable Mike Simpson
Chairman, Subcommittee on Benefits
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Cannon House Office Bldg., Rm. 337
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you requested during our March 19, 2002, meeting, I am writing to present the views of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) on the
benefits, impediments, and prospects related to increasing the role of veterans' service organizations (VSOs) in assistance to claimants and
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in developing the record for claims.
The VSOs play a vital role in the administration of programs for veterans. Located in VA offices across the country and Department of Defense
separation centers, they counsel veterans and other claimants on potential entitlement to VA benefits, assist in completing their claims
applications, help obtain evidence from public and private sources, shepherd claims through the process, and act as advocates in prosecution
of claims and appeals. The role of VSOs in outreach, counseling on benefit entitlement, and assistance in filing claims became even more
essential in the recent past when, because of budget reductions and reorganization, VA dissolved its own Veterans Services Division and
reassigned its corps of veterans benefits counselors to other tasks. During the same time, VA's increasing difficulties in managing its claims
workload prompted discussion and recommendations of strengthening the partnership between VA and VSOs to facilitate a greater reliance
on VSOs to help with evidence gathering and establishment of claims. VA reduced its workforce based on assumptions about VSO
contributions.
The concept of increasing VSO participation in securing evidence to support claims began in May of 1996 with the Partner Assisted Rating &
Development System (PARDS), implemented as a pilot project in the St. Petersburg, Florida, VA Regional Office. Under PARDS,
representatives of the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, county service officers, and VSOs entered into an agreement with VA in which
VA agreed to give priority to claims and decide them within a few days of receipt when they were submitted with all necessary supporting
documentation and evidence.
In a system-wide effort to bring backlogs under control, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) made its first major attempt to reform
claims processing in its Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Plan. An enhanced partnership between VSOs and VBA, and increased
assistance from VSOs, was one of the key elements of this plan: "The partnership establishes a larger role for them [VSOs] in claim
establishment and development, streamlined claims processing, and more efficient post-decision review. With VBA assistance, veterans and
VSO officials will have access to the same claims development tools as VBA employees." Veterans Benefits Administration, Reengineering
Claims Processing: A Case for Change 4-6 (Dec. 1996).
Studies by outside entities have also recognized the essential role of VSOs in assistance to claimants and VA. Following the principles of the
PARDS initiative and the BPR plan, the Veterans' Claims Adjudication Commission, throughout its December 1996 Report to Congress,
recommended a stronger partnership between VSOs and VA and a greater role for VSOs in claims development. Noting the common goals,
but acknowledging the differing legal and professional obligations to claimants, the Commission made detailed recommendations on the
principles under which such partnership should operate. E.g., id. at 142-46.
A few months later, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) echoed the theme of the need for and benefits of closer
cooperation between VA and VSOs. However, NAPA observed that part of VA's continuing problems stemmed in part from its improvident
staff reductions based on unwarranted assumptions in the BPR plan that increased VSO participation would reduce the level of VA employees
needed. National Academy of Public Administration, Management of Compensation and Pension Benefit Claim Processes for Veterans 57, 70-
72 (Aug. 1997). NAPA noted that the Government cannot mandate assistance from nonprofit veterans' organizations. Id. at 71.
A task force established by the current Secretary of Veterans Affairs recommended that VA provide VSOs increased access to VA computer
systems, training on claims development processes, and use of VA equipment to increase participation of VSOs. VA Claims Processing Task
Force, Report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 26, 59-60 (Oct. 2001).
Based on favorable results with the PARDS program, VBA adopted its concepts and introduced them to all regional offices in the Training
Responsibility, Involvement and Preparation of Claims (TRIP) initiative. VA began development of this program in mid 1998 and began
preliminary training and testing in 1999. Complications developed when VA attempted to dictate to VSOs that they must submit evidence
unfavorable, as well as favorable, to claimants. When VSOs declined to participate under those terms, VA relented. Training and certification of
VSOs is ongoing, but VSOs do not have authorization to use claims processing and data exchange systems to establish claims and obtain
evidence as originally envisioned. The current goal of TRIP is not "ready-to-rate" claims but "TRIP claims should be fully developed to the extent
that a service organization representative can develop the claim." VBA Letter 20-00-15 (May 18, 2000).
The advantages of greater VSO participation in the claims process are obvious. The capacity for greater participation varies among the
organizations, however, according to their resources and management authority over their service officers. The DAV, PVA, and, on a smaller
scale, a couple more VSOs employ their own national service officers to assist veterans. Other organizations provide assistance primarily
through service officers accredited by them but employed on the state organization or state government level. The DAV is willing to provide
whatever additional assistance it can and is willing to devote substantial resources to assisting claimants in filing and prosecuting their claims.
We suspect that the other organizations, within their means, are similarly willing to increase their level of participation. However, it must be
remembered that it is ultimately VA's legal obligation to ensure the record is complete and all pertinent laws and regulations are applied. VA
cannot, as it has done in isolated instances before, attempt to shift this legal responsibility to VSOs by requesting VSOs to sign statements
that the record is complete, etc. In the complex world of VA claims and with the lack of uniformity in VA decisions, unassailable judgments on
such issues are difficult to make and outcomes are difficult to predict. Moreover, it would be unwise for VSOs to waive their clients' due process
rights by assuming VA's legal responsibility to assure a fully developed record. Certainly, VA cannot mandate levels of participation by voluntary
nonprofit organizations and state employees. In addition, VSOs are unlikely to take on added responsibilities and shoulder more of the burden
merely to allow VA to reduce its own staffing levels as it did before.
Some VA practices discourage greater VSO participation in evidence gathering. Because of VA adjudicators' reluctance to trust evidence
submitted on behalf of a claimant or their tendency to attempt to refute private evidence, VA will often seek its own examination or medical
opinion even though the evidence provided by the claimant or the claimant's representative is adequate for rating purposes. Oftentimes,
evidence from private physicians is more thorough than VA evidence because it is based on a greater familiarity with the patient from ongoing
treatment, where VA examinations and treatment notes are based on brief examinations or one-time treatment of a particular veteran. Treating
VA physicians often do not have the depth of personal knowledge about, or continuity of experience with, their patients that long-time family
physicians or private specialists do. Even when a comprehensive medical opinion submitted on behalf of the claimant is from a VA physician,
VA adjudicators often seem unwilling to accept its findings. On the one hand, VA adjudicators are by nature unwilling to obtain a medical
examination to assist a claimant in resolving an outstanding medical question, and, on the other hand, they frequently order unnecessary
examinations in cases where the evidence provided by the claimant is sufficient to support a grant of the benefits sought.
Another factor in today's climate causes the DAV, and probably the other VSOs, to be somewhat less enthusiastic about assisting VA.
Through its rulemaking, VA is rewriting its regulations to reduce the time in which veterans have to submit evidence and take actions under its
claims procedures. For example, in its regulations to implement the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 2000
U.S.C.C.A.N. (114 Stat.) 2096, VA prescribed a 30-day time period for claimants to obtain and provide VA with requested documentation. VA
itself typically accomplishes few things in a 30-day period. VA recently published a proposed change to its procedural regulations governing
requests for "de novo review" of regional office decisions. Claimants who disagree with VA claims decisions may elect to request a "second
look" by a different VA regional office decisionmaker before proceeding with an appeal. The goal of de novo review is to resolve the matter
without necessity to resort to the protracted VA appellate process. In this rule, VA proposes to reduce the time for requesting de novo review
from 60 to 15 days. Such reductions in the time for claimants to complete actions do nothing to increase VA efficiency, and we doubt that VA's
protracted claims and appeals processing times can be attributed to delays by claimants. That point is demonstrated by the time it takes VA to
transfer a case to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) after all action is complete at the regional office level. The claimant's filing of VA Form
9 perfects the appeal at the regional office level. The next step is the physical transfer of the file to BVA for a decision. The average time
between the filing of VA Form 9 and the receipt of the file at BVA is 619 days. In one regional office, the average time is 1,377 days, and five
other VA regional offices take an average of more than a 1,000 days to transfer claims files to BVA. Yet, VA seeks to allow claimants only 15
days to request a potentially beneficial de novo review. This and other rule changes seem calculated to reduce veterans' access to the system
and thereby reduce VA's work. Such reductions in the time for actions by claimants do nothing to cultivate a spirit of cooperation between
VSOs and VA. If VA insists on imposing unreasonable restrictions upon VSOs and claimants, VSOs will likely leave it to VA to obtain evidence
for claimants.
We believe the key to strengthening the partnership between VSOs and VA is more access to VA information technology systems for VSOs.
In addition, greater cooperation requires more respect for VSOs' independence and role as advocates, actions which create and demonstrate
more trust between VA and VSOs, and a change of direction away from VA's recent one-sided, self-serving rulemaking. VA must refrain from
making the process more difficult for veterans and their VSOs as a way to reduce its own responsibilities and work. VA sometimes fails to see
that procedures which are beneficial to claimants are generally beneficial to VA in accomplishing its mission.
The DAV already commits a large portion of its resources to claims assistance for veterans and their dependents. Our first priority is assistance
to claimants, but we also welcome ways to assist VA when it aids our clients as well. When cooperation is a "two-way street," we are always
willing to work with VA to more efficiently achieve our common goals.
The DAV sincerely appreciates your interest in improving the claims process and your request for the input of VSOs on this important matter.
We would be happy to work with you and the Benefits Subcommittee to find ways to make the system better serve our Nation's veterans.
Sincerely,
Rick Surratt
Deputy National Legislative Director
http://www.dav.org/voters/surratt_simpson_040202.html
##### END ######
This shit has GOT TO STOP!!! I urge everyone to PLEASE write your Congressperson, Senator & the Whitehouse to show our outrage and disgust with a system (the VA) that is continually and progressively getting WORSE instead of improving!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: