Top 10 Conclusions About the VA Crisis

Vietnam War veteran Bernie Klemanek of Louisa County, Virginia salutes with fellow veterans during a Veterans Day event at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the National Mall November 11, 2013 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Norm Ornstein
Add to Briefcase
Norm Ornstein
June 4, 2014, 4:09 p.m.

What are we to make of the VA?

Over the past few weeks, I have read a lot about the scan­dal and the over­all story sur­round­ing the agency (it is ac­tu­ally the Vet­er­ans Af­fairs De­part­ment and the Vet­er­ans Health Ad­min­is­tra­tion, but we will call both the VA for short). I have tried to make sense of what is real, and what les­sons we can learn. Here are my con­clu­sions.

1. There clearly is a scan­dal here, not a faux one like the IRS or Benghazi. There were at least some malevol­ent act­ors, who cre­ated an elab­or­ate sys­tem to cov­er up the delays in schedul­ing doc­tor vis­its for vet­er­ans, in Phoenix and oth­er places. And these act­ors were en­abled by lots of oth­er VA em­ploy­ees, who either suc­cumbed to in­tim­id­a­tion or wanted to avoid in­tern­al hassles. Some of the miscre­ants be­nefited fin­an­cially from their wrong­do­ing; wheth­er the reas­on for the cov­er-up was fin­an­cial gain or avoid­ance of em­bar­rass­ment, de­mo­tion, or sanc­tion does not really mat­ter.

2. The root of the prob­lem — i.e., the long delays between ap­point­ments re­ques­ted and doc­tor or nurse vis­its re­ceived — was not in the cov­er-up plan. It was in the stark mis­match between de­mand and sup­ply, between the surge in vet­er­ans seek­ing med­ic­al care through the VA and the sup­ply of doc­tors and nurses to care for them. The surge dur­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion oc­curred for sev­er­al reas­ons. One was the highly com­mend­able ef­fort by the ad­min­is­tra­tion to open up care to more vet­er­ans; the second was the sharp in­crease in de­mand from re­turn­ing vet­er­ans from Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan. Plus, there are these re­lent­less demo­graph­ic real­it­ies: The re­main­ing vet­er­ans from World War II and Korea re­quired more care as they got older, and there has been an in­crease in the num­ber of middle-aged and older vet­er­ans from the Vi­et­nam era.

3. The short­age of doc­tors and oth­er med­ic­al pro­fes­sion­als is not just a prob­lem at the VA, but is so­ci­ety-wide. We face a phys­i­cian short­age that will grow more acute as the Af­ford­able Care Act achieves its goals of more Amer­ic­ans covered and more of them seek­ing care. Lots of oth­er things are con­trib­ut­ing to the doc­tor short­age, in­clud­ing soar­ing costs of med­ic­al edu­ca­tion and lower com­pens­a­tion for phys­i­cians, along with im­mig­ra­tion is­sues that are re­du­cing the sup­ply over time of for­eign-born med­ic­al pro­fes­sion­als. Wait times in the private sec­tor are noth­ing to write home about. But the prob­lem is worse for the VA, which can­not eas­ily com­pete with the private sec­tor for doc­tors in terms of either pay or be­ne­fits. And, of course, the prob­lem has fed on it­self in two ways. One is that few­er doc­tors and more pa­tients lead to more work­load and more pres­sure on doc­tors, in­du­cing many to quit. A second is that the way the VA has been ad­min­istered — in­clud­ing via a man­age­ment cul­ture that pre­cip­it­ated the dis­hon­esty and scan­dal — has ad­ded to the frus­tra­tion of doc­tors in­side the sys­tem.

4. As many in­side and out­side the sys­tem point out, care at the VA — as op­posed to get­ting ap­point­ments to get care — is out­stand­ing and highly re­garded by vet­er­ans who re­ceive it. By many stand­ards, it is bet­ter than that provided in most places in the private sec­tor. A main reas­on for this, which I have seen first-hand in the VA care provided to my fath­er-in-law, a World War II vet­er­an, is that the care is hol­ist­ic. In the private sec­tor, one can see a car­di­olo­gist, a uro­lo­gist, an in­tern­ist, a gast­roen­ter­o­lo­gist, etc., with each pre­scrib­ing med­ic­a­tions and dia­gnos­ing prob­lems with little or no con­tact or co­ordin­a­tion among them, with no one to see the forest for the trees or to mon­it­or drug in­ter­ac­tions. At the VA, doc­tors com­mu­nic­ate and in­ter­act much more.

5. While the VA has seen a sig­ni­fic­ant in­crease in its fund­ing over the past sev­er­al years, it is still very much un­der­fun­ded — and much of the money go­ing to the VA is mis­al­loc­ated, mak­ing the prob­lems worse. As Peter Schuck has poin­ted out, the root of this prob­lem is more with Con­gress than any­one else. Con­gress has jumped whenev­er vet­er­ans’ groups say so, and that has in­cluded de­fin­ing dis­ab­il­it­ies that can re­ceive com­pens­a­tion far more broadly and gen­er­ously than is af­ford­able. This has left the agency swamped with claims. When people in­side the VA poin­ted out that we now have 150,000 vet­er­ans re­ceiv­ing bundles of money for sleep apnea — not ex­actly a ser­vice-re­lated dis­ab­il­ity — Con­gress shrugged. That is money that could be spent deal­ing with real and deep prob­lems. When Con­gress tried to cre­ate new med­ic­al cen­ters to re­spond to the de­mand, Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress re­fused to fund them. Con­gress has cre­ated the rules that make it vir­tu­ally im­possible to fire or dis­cip­line em­ploy­ees — not just a VA prob­lem, of course — and has failed to do the kind of vig­or­ous over­sight that would have un­covered these prob­lems much earli­er, and res­ul­ted in con­gres­sion­al ac­tions.

6. The en­dem­ic and sys­tem­ic prob­lems in the VA go back dec­ades. Pres­id­ents from George H.W. Bush on have struggled to bring func­tion­al­ity to the VA, both when it was an agency and after it be­came a Cab­in­et de­part­ment. Some pres­id­ents, not­ably Bill Clin­ton, did bet­ter than oth­ers, but none suc­ceeded in cre­at­ing an agency that worked smoothly and well. Of course, the fail­ure to co­ordin­ate between the De­fense De­part­ment and the VA over care for cur­rent and former mil­it­ary per­son­nel, along with the sharp in­crease in vet­er­ans re­quir­ing com­plex care for phys­ic­al and men­tal in­jur­ies and trau­mas, has not helped. But neither has the re­l­at­ive in­dif­fer­ence of ad­min­is­tra­tions, in­clud­ing Obama’s, or the fail­ure, gov­ern­ment-wide, to mod­ern­ize in­form­a­tion tech­no­logy, which it­self is at the root of many of the VA’s health and dis­ab­il­ity sys­tem prob­lems.

7. The prob­lems are there in sig­ni­fic­ant part be­cause of the size and com­plex­ity of the agency and the prob­lems it is sup­posed to ameli­or­ate. As Phil­lip Carter poin­ted out in Slate, “The VA is the second-largest Cab­in­et agency, and the na­tion’s largest health care and be­ne­fits pro­vider, with an over­all fisc­al 2015 budget of $165 bil­lion (great­er than the State De­part­ment, USAID, and en­tire in­tel­li­gence com­munity com­bined), in­clud­ing $60 bil­lion for health care. The VA em­ploys more than 320,000 per­son­nel to run 151 ma­jor med­ic­al cen­ters, 820 out­pa­tient clin­ics, 300 store­front ‘Vet Cen­ters,’ more than 50 re­gion­al be­ne­fits of­fices, and scores of oth­er fa­cil­it­ies. This massive sys­tem provides health care to roughly 9 mil­lion en­rolled vet­er­ans, in­clud­ing 6 mil­lion who seek care on a reg­u­lar basis.”

8. Gen­er­al Eric Shin­seki was neither the cause nor the per­pet­rat­or of this. He had flaws. He was too pass­ive in his pub­lic per­form­ance, did not show enough in­dig­na­tion when he be­came aware of the prob­lems, or push Con­gress strongly enough for the re­sources he needed. He was too trust­ing of his sub­or­din­ates (al­though it is now clear he did not sit in his ivory tower, but traveled reg­u­larly to VA sites, in­ter­view­ing em­ploy­ees and im­plor­ing them to be hon­est with him). His prob­lem, as a mil­it­ary man, was the same as the one Dwight Eis­en­hower faced when he moved from gen­er­al to pres­id­ent; as Harry Tru­man poin­ted out: “Poor Ike, he is used to say­ing, ‘Do this, do that,’ and ac­tu­ally hav­ing it hap­pen.” Shin­seki also had many strengths, and he did some re­mark­able and pos­it­ive things for home­less vet­er­ans and many oth­ers. Giv­en the nature of mod­ern polit­ics and me­dia, where politi­cians and pun­dits call for heads to roll and journ­al­ists cov­er the blood­s­port far more than the real prob­lems, it was in­ev­it­able that he would resign. But it was not very fair and does not solve much of any­thing.

9. There is an im­me­di­ate prob­lem re­quir­ing triage, and a longer-term set of is­sues to deal with. Privat­iz­ing the VA, giv­en its high qual­ity of care and fo­cus on the unique prob­lems of vet­er­ans, may sound good, but it is fool­ish. The VA does need more money, and more flex­ib­il­ity from Con­gress to al­loc­ate it to fix the prob­lems. But it makes im­me­di­ate sense to give vet­er­ans who can­not get ap­point­ments for care or con­sulta­tion on a timely basis tem­por­ary Medi­care cards to find pro­viders now un­til the wait times can ac­tu­ally be re­duced. More broadly, we must take a truly ser­i­ous look at civil-ser­vice rules and a con­cer­ted ef­fort, per­haps led by top tech pro­fes­sion­als out­side gov­ern­ment, to find ap­pro­pri­ate ways to cre­ate 21st cen­tury in­form­a­tion sys­tems. And we need a bet­ter way to at­tract and keep med­ic­al pro­fes­sion­als, and tech­nic­al ex­perts, in gov­ern­ment. Mul­ti­year pay freezes and blanket deni­al of bo­nuses is not the an­swer.

10. It is far more im­port­ant to get a good ex­ec­ut­ive, a top ad­min­is­trat­or, to head the VA then it is to get a dec­or­ated vet­er­an. The VA needs someone who knows something about health de­liv­ery but even more about how bur­eau­cra­cies work and how to work with, or nav­ig­ate around, Con­gress. The VA needs someone who knows that es­tab­lish­ing met­rics for per­form­ance re­quires more than rub­ber-stamp­ing the com­pli­ance forms that come in. My top choice: Donna Shalala, pres­id­ent of the Uni­versity of Miami, co­chair with Bob Dole of the Bush com­mis­sion to deal with the Wal­ter Reed scan­dal, former HHS sec­ret­ary, and one of the world’s ex­perts on pub­lic ad­min­is­tra­tion. Donna is not a mil­it­ary vet­er­an — but, more im­port­antly now, she is a seasoned vet­er­an of bur­eau­crat­ic and policy wars.

What We're Following See More »
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
1 days ago
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
2 days ago
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
2 days ago

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
3 days ago

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
3 days ago

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.