Is this the new VA?

[dennishoddy]

In my humble and very unpopular opinion, there should be very limited VA treatment for non-service connected conditions. God bless our vets but when I enlisted I don't recall being promised healthcare for the rest of my life unless I managed to successfully retire (retirees don't even actually get it for life. They move them to Medicare when they reach that age) or sustained some sort of injury/condition as a result of my service. Non-service connected treatment should be reserved for extreme cases involving indigent veterans and/or very limited space available programs.

The VA's primary mission should be caring for those who were somehow made less than whole as a result of their service to our country. Right now that script is flipped and they treat more non-service connected patients each year than they do service connected.

Imagine how much care would be improved for our war/service injured brothers if all of those resources were spent on them? It would be amazing.

Fixing the VA, and funding for it, would be much easier if we eliminated that mission creep.

The VA does not provide free healthcare for every veteran. They will offer discounted services on some issues, and if you have additional insurance, they will bill them. Some veterans are not eligible at all for non-serviced related health care because of their income level.
Priority 3,4,& 5, Non-service connected, and service connected with less than 40% disability have to make copay's on pharmaceuticals. Sometimes walmart's drug program is cheaper than the VA for certain drugs.
It's not widespread free healthcare because you're a Veteran. Far from it.

 

[SMS]

The numbers don't lie. Go to the VA's website and look at their patient care numbers. Reimbursed or not, non service connected veterans predominately occupy the VA's limited time and resources.

In many cases, it is common and free. I had a drug addicted and socially inept uncle who served for two years in Germany during the Vietnam era. He ended up getting multiple surgeries, counseling, housing and all sorts of care from the VA at the end of his days before he finally drugged himself to death around 2002...all because he classified as a Vietnam era veteran. None of his issues were service connected.

Throwing more money at the VA isn't going to "fix it". Redefining who and how they get care will.

 

[dennishoddy]

The numbers don't lie. Go to the VA's website and look at their patient care numbers. Reimbursed or not, non service connected veterans predominately occupy the VA's limited time and resources.

Throwing more money at the VA isn't going to "fix it".

Well, lets see the numbers since you researched it. While you're at it, break it down by priority care numbers. That's the only way to make your case.
I'm not arguing the point, just wondering how the numbers don't lie compared to the overall number of veterans still alive and the ones actually receiving some level of care from the VA at at what level they are getting it at.

 

[SMS]

It's all out there on the VA's website. I'm on mobile right now but here's a snip from 2003 with projections (yeah it's old but it paints the picture):

The greatest growth in expenditures from FY 2002 to FY 2012 occurs with Priority Group 7, driven largely by the increase in Priority 7 enrollment. Priority 7 expenditures will increase 268 percent (from $2.6 billion to $9.6 billion);

Expenditures for Priority 4-6 are expected to increase 89 percent for the same time period.

Taken from: https://www.va.gov/HEALTHPOLICYPLANNING/enroll02/Fnl925Doc.pdf

There's another section that shows the patient breakdown by priority group. 4 through 8 vastly outnumber 1 through 3. I'll try to find it later.

I love vets. I'm officially a disabled vet (I don't receive extra compensation since I'm below 50% and am a retiree). My family is filled with vets. I just think we can do better by those who where truly affected by their service. I personally don't use the VA hospitals for that reason.

At a time when our country is broke, one very logical way to fix it is to reserve healthcare expenditures for those who who have truly service connected issues. I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I may have to take issue with your comment about time limits to some extent.
If it is in your military medical records at the time of discharge, there is no time limit I'm aware of.
...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I stand corrected; I believe you are right.

As for me, from the time I left the service in 1970 up until about 2000, I provided for my and my family's health care needs. Healthcare took a big dive when HMO's came along(Thanks Ted K.; may you reside down wind of Satan's ass for the rest of eternity). The VA was and is the best choice for me. After all, I earned it.

Despite all the top choice, first line healthcare programs I endured, I get the best care I ever had with the VA since the time I grew up in - when doctors made house calls. EVERY plan I had was managed by health insurance companies with an eye toward budget before care. The Prudential Tower in Boston showed me where my insurance dollars were going. With an insurance company between you and your doctor --- well, you do the math. Insurance companies are not in business to help you. They are in business to make a profit.

Fee for service was the best way to receive healthcare and probably will be again.

Woody

 

[SMS]

https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Uti..._Patients_by_HC_Priority_Groups_2000_2014.xls

Quick math:

2.8 million in groups 1-3

3.3 million in non-service connected groups 4-8 AND 300k non-vets.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

SMS

In the Veteran Healthcare Enrollment and Expenditure Projections for 2002-2012 you linked to, it does state that 70% of new enrollment would be in group 7 but that 70% block of new enrollees would only comprise 30% of the expenditures predicted. It is probably true today that those in Group 7(and now 8) only use up roughly the same percentage of expenditures.

A new rule that went into effect for 2003 stated that if a non-service connected health need veteran didn't enroll within a certain period(10 years?), he could not enroll, and any such person who hadn't enrolled regardless of his date of discharge prior the enactment of the new rule could not sign up after some date in 2003(I don't remember the specific month or day). The projections in that report are moot. The projections were made prior to the new rule.

Woody

 

[SMS]

True. But see my next post.

Patient data as of 2014. Half a million more patients treated that year in the non-service connected groups than in the service connected groups.

That HAS to be a burden on a system that was originally designed and intended to be a system to care for our nation's war wounded.

The common talking point in regards to the VA is always substandard care and/or long waiting lists for care. Opinions vary, but my opinion is that the quality of care and timeliness of care could be drastically improved for our wounded brothers and sisters if we ensured they were truly the highest priority in the system. Priority groups only partially serve that purpose.

When you have almost 3 1/2 million nonservice connected patients using the system that has to have an impact.

But, like TRidiot said, they'd probably just end up cutting the budget and impacting those we're trying to help. So in the end they'll probably just throw more money at it and 10-20 years from now when the GWOT bill comes due, we'll be complaining about the same things.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

True. But see my next post.

...

That HAS to be a burden on a system that was originally designed and intended to be a system to care for our nation's war wounded. My Response: Apparently Congress and the American People decided to include the rest of the veterans somewhere along the line and included the necessary funding to go with it.

The common talking point in regards to the VA is always substandard care and/or long waiting lists for care. Opinions vary, but my opinion is that the quality of care and timeliness of care could be drastically improved for our wounded brothers and sisters if we insured they were truly the highest priority in the system. Priority groups only partially serve that purpose. My Response: Do you have first hand evidence of this? I have been pushed aside to make room for a higher priority vet. While there have been problems of late, they are not system wide and are attributable to poor local management and oversight.

When you have almost 3 1/2 million nonservice connected patients using the system that has to have an impact. My Response: Not if funding and staffing are up to the challenge. Don't forget the experience and expertise the staff receives from serving the non-service connected patients. They won't get 'rusty' by sitting around doing nothing waiting for the next service connected patient to come along.

But, like TRidiot said, they probably just end up cutting the budget and impacting those we're trying to help. So in the end they'll probably just throw more money at it and 10-20 years from now when the GWOT bill comes due, we'll be complaining about the same things. My Response: No doubt..

Click to expand to see my responses are in red.

Woody

 

[John6185]

I worked at the OKC VA Hospital and I'm retired now but when I worked and had a task, I gave it my all and some of the other workers weren't as fast (?dedicated) as I was and the supervisor would come and ask me to go help out-so-so who was behind in her work. I don't; like to help slackers and this gal was one, she would go to minority activities and again we would have to perform her duties and of course, we didn't go to any committees or activities. They have what I call an "attaBoy" award which is an award for superior performance. The interior decorator who is highly paid received $7,000 and others received money to lesser degree.
The way I look at it, you were hired at the VA at a certain pay grade +steps and that should be it-period. These superior performance awards are garbage and a waste of money that could be spent in other ways aiding the veterans-isn't that why we're there anyway to help the veterans? A gal I know that worked on one of the wards was written up by her supervisor for assisting a veteran in a wheelchair to the parking lot-that's helping a veteran yet, she received a letter of reprimand. A lot of times people complain of the wait and they fail to realize that this particular VA is teaching hospital. If it weren't, far fewer people would be seen. But this hospital has the residents for oU Medical School who are in training and along with that has the latest in medical equipment-lasers, cardiac equipment etc.
It has it's faults but what institution doesn't? Other hospitals make mistakes and the VA Hospitals make mistakes. A hospital on Memorial Road (you know the one) performed surgery on one of the Physician Assistants and he developed a very bad infection and to correct the problem went to OU Medical Center across the street. I've spoken to many veterans who have told me that "this VA saved my life." The bottom line is we are indeed fortunate to have such a hospital for veterans in Oklahoma City but for those that complain of waiting, I always tell them that "they can forget the bill, we aren't going to send you one this time." They understand.
Addendum: If it weren't for the Non-Service Connected veterans there would be less money, fewer doctors and fewer services provided to all, both NSC and SC veterans.