U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37-969 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–215

HEARING ON VA HEALTH CARE FUNDING ISSUES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 25, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JON TESTER, Montana 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Ranking Member 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

WILLIAM E. BREW, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 25, 2007

SENATORS 

Page 

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Hawaii ........................... 1

Prepared statement ..........................................................................................

Craig, Hon. Larry E., Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from Idaho ..................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from Vermont ........................................... 6

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 8

Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington ........................................... 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9

Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia ........................ 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11

Smith, Hon. Christopher, House Representative from New Jersey .................... 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

WITNESS 

Reinhardt, Uwe E., Ph.D., Professor of Political Economy, Economics, and 

Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, 

Princeton University ............................................................................................ 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Kizer, Kenneth W., M.D., M.P.H., Chief Executive Officer and Chairman 

of the Board, Medsphere Systems Corporation ................................................. 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Violante, Joseph A., National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans, on Behalf of the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform ....................................................................................................................... 52

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54

Cox, J. David, R.N., National Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of 

Government Employees, AFL–CIO ..................................................................... 65

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67

Kussman, Michael J., M.D, M.S., M.A.C.P., Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs ....................... 72

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74

APPENDIX 

Manley, Joseph M., VA Medical Center Director (Retired), on behalf of funding for VA healthcare; prepared statement ....................................................... 79

Perreault, Robert A., former VA official; prepared statement ............................. 80

(1)

HEARING ON VA HEALTH CARE

FUNDING ISSUES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka, Rockefeller, Murray, Tester, Sanders, 

and Craig. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Chairman AKAKA. Aloha and welcome to everyone. This hearing 

is in order. 

I welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing. I will be brief. I 

know that Members have some time constraints this morning. And 

several of our witnesses do, as well. 

We are here today to discuss ways to improve how the VA health 

care system is funded every year. As we all know, budget shortfalls, continuing resolutions, and other funding constraints have 

taken their toll on VA in recent years. 

Make no mistake, this is not simply about numbers, budget models, and inflation. What we are talking about is ensuring that VA 

can provide the highest quality patient care and services for our 

Nation’s veterans. 

Appropriations battles, political maneuvering, and planning errors have stalled the flow of needed monies for the past 7 years in 

a row. We all remember the crisis VA faced in 2005 when it was 

revealed that the Department was short by $1 billion. 

There is no other health care system in the country that enters 

each fiscal year unsure of its budget. No other beneficiaries must 

come to Congress, hat in hand, to ask for billions of dollars to keep 

their health care system afloat. No other hospital managers must 

plan in an atmosphere of complete uncertainty and raid maintenance funds so as to furnish care. Innovative solutions must be examined so that veterans are no longer subject to such whims. 

Today, we will hear from incredibly well-qualified witnesses. I 

know we can conduct a fruitful dialogue about what can be done 

now, as well as what we can do in the future. Thank you very 

much. 

Chairman AKAKA. And now, Senator Craig for your statement. 

2

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, RANKING MEMBER

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and for all 

who have assembled, we want to thank you for being here this 

morning for this important hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, while you and I have always done our best to 

maintain a strong bipartisan approach to this Committee’s issues, 

I think this issue in particular has lent itself to some serious partisan maneuvering. For example, I can’t help but recall that over 

the past several years, there have been Senate bills introduced 

each year to address mandatory funding and there have been a 

number of attempts to add some form of mandatory funding to the 

Defense Authorization Act. I recall an effort a few years ago by 

Senator Daschle to do so, and last year and the year prior, I believe 

it was left to Senator Stabenow. There were full-page ads urging 

Congress to act on mandatory funding, yet with the new majority 

taking over control of Congress this year, oddly, there were no 

amendments from the majority to the Defense Authorization Act to 

provide mandatory funding. I have not seen a bill introduced, and 

now full-page ads are bought to urge the President, not the Congress, to act on mandatory funding. 

I also can’t help but notice that we are holding this hearing almost exactly 1 month after the Committee marked up its health 

care legislative package for this session. I have often wondered in 

debating the amendments on the floor over the past few years how 

much politics was behind them, and I think I have learned a little 

about the answer that I have questioned myself on as we speak. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you and other 

Members of this Committee that I take this issue very seriously 

and my comments today reflect concerns with the issues as they 

pertain to health care policy and fiscal prudence. It is no secret 

that I don’t support mandatory funding legislation, and that has 

been introduced in all of the Congresses. I simply think it is bad 

policy. In fact, I articulated many of my views and thoughts on this 

matter in a letter I sent to Senators Johnson and Thune last year. 

That letter became fairly widely circulated among veterans’ advocates, so I know many have read it. But for the record of this hearing, I would like to once again articulate some of my concerns with 

the legislation that was previously put forth to the Senate. 

First and foremost, of course, is the question of whether it would 

improve the health care delivery by VA to provide funding on the 

basis of a formula laid out in the legislation. I realize there hasn’t 

been any bill introduced in the Senate this year, but the bill before 

the House is identical to those introduced in previous Congresses 

here in the Senate, so I am working from that premise. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I see how the bill will improve 

health outcomes for veterans. In fact, I think it could have some 

adverse effects on the health care system. 

First, as I have noted many times before, the formula is based 

on the number of enrollees in the health care system, yet according 

to VA’s budget, there are 7.9 million enrollees and only 5.7 million 

users of the system. We would be basing a budget on 2.2 million 

veterans who don’t use VA’s health care system at all. Of course, 

if, for example, 300,000 of the 2.2 million began using VA in the 

3

middle of the fiscal year, we would be in real trouble. We would 

be increasing the patient population by about 5 percent but not increasing the budget available to the system. 

Another large problem would be what happens when the number 

of enrollees begin to shrink but the overall user population does 

not? I certainly have suggested that we control VA’s spending increases over the past few years, but I can’t imagine that I have 

ever advocated that we reduce the budget from one year to the next 

simply because the number of people who don’t use the VA system 

is shrinking. It makes, in my opinion, no sense, and I certainly do 

not see how it would improve care. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, in my view, the formula is rather arbitrary. It just takes the previous year’s budget and adds 30 percent to it, then divides it by the enrollees to get a per enrollee cost. 

Then I suggest that amount is deemed to be adequate. So the bill 

adds a medical care inflator to the per enrollee amount every year. 

Of course, the formula has changed with successive introductions 

of the bills over the years and I think that fact only supports my 

view that it is arbitrary and, therefore, more political than substantive. 

Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I have brought a chart 

along, and I know I am already giving you more than you had 

hoped for in this opening statement. But the chart shows the 

amount of money that would be available to VA if we had enacted 

mandatory funding when Senator Johnson first introduced the idea 

in the 107th Congress. Next, we see the amount of funding if we 

had passed last year’s version of the bill. 

I also compared those two numbers, which you will see as fairly 

different, to the amounts provided in appropriations for each year 

and the amounts requested by the Independent Budget. As I hope 

is clear, there are four different numbers for each fiscal year. Interestingly, by 2008, you will see that the amount of appropriations 

recently provided in the Senate, which was called manna from 

heaven by one VSO, is actually more than the Independent Budget. 

But it is anywhere from $5 to $6 billion less than what would have 

been available under different mandatory funding bills.

Mandatory Funding for VA Medical Care—Hit and Miss Budgeting? 

(All in billions; actual approps include supplemental funding) 

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY081

Actual Discretionary Approps + Collections ..................................... $28.1 $31.5 $31.4 $36.8 $39.6

Independent Budget + Collections ................................................... 29.5 32.2 33.7 35.2 39.2

Mandatory Funding (S. 2903 107th) + Collections .......................... 30.8 37.0 39.8 42.7 44.5

Mandatory Funding (S. 331 109th) + Collections ............................ NA NA NA 42.1 45.1

1Estimates. 

Sources: VA Budget Submissions; Independent Budget Recommendations; and Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Senator CRAIG. So my question is, are we short this year? Was 

the Independent Budget too low? Or is it possible that mandatory 

funding would have over-funded VA, and if it did by as much as 

$6 billion, how should the overage be handled? Those are legitimate and responsible questions to be asked when we begin to talk 

about the scheme of mandatory funding. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues do not mistake my views for 

suggestions that money doesn’t matter. I concede that money has 

4

some bearing on the overall quality of care provided to our veterans. We need quality staff, quality facilities to provide quality 

care and money can help us get there. But there have been incredible improvements over the past 10 years in VA’s health care delivery system. It is ranked amongst the best in the Nation. It did so 

not by mandatory funding, but by discretionary funding. It was a 

model that worked. It is a model that is working. And it is a model 

that will continue to work if Congress keeps its focus. 

I think much of those improvements are related to systematic 

changes in health care models delivered by Dr. Kizer or implemented by VERA to a more exacting model as envisioned by Dr. 

Roswell. I also believe the integration of the electronic health 

records and the clinical outcome studies and so on are significant. 

There is much more to be said. 

But to suggest that the system is broken and, therefore, we need 

to change the funding model is simply, in my opinion, an exaggeration of the reality at hand. Congress has been faithful to increased 

funding and we have seen it going 11 and 12 percent annually, this 

year, a phenomenal boost in the reality. I have gone on long 

enough. I think my opinion and my observations are clear and I 

think they are valid and I will be more than happy to question and 

hear from those who have come. 

I will ask unanimous consent that the balance of my statement 

be a part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And, of course, thank you for scheduling 

this important hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, while you and I have always done our best to maintain a strong 

level of bipartisanship on this Committee, I think this issue in particular has lent 

itself to some serious partisan maneuvering. 

For example, I cannot help but recall that over the past several years there have 

been Senate bills introduced in each Congress to address mandatory funding. And 

there have even been a number of attempts to add some form of mandatory funding 

to the Defense Authorization Act. I recall an effort a few years ago by Senator 

Daschle to do so, and last year and the year prior, I believe it was left to Senator 

Stabenow. 

There were full page ads urging ‘‘Congress’’ to act on Mandatory funding. Yet, 

with the new Majority taking over control of Congress this year, oddly there were 

no amendments from the Majority to the Defense Authorization Act to provide mandatory funding. I have not seen a bill introduced and now full page ads are bought 

to urge ‘‘The President’’ not Congress to act on mandatory funding. 

I also can’t help but notice that we are holding this hearing almost exactly one 

month after the Committee marked-up its health care legislative package for the 

first session. I’ve often wondered in debating the amendments on the floor over the 

past few years, how much politics was behind them. I think I’ve learned a little 

about the answer to that question this year. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you and other Members of this 

Committee that I take this issue very seriously. And my comments today reflect concerns with the issues as they pertain to health care policy and fiscal prudence. 

It is no secret that I do not support the mandatory funding legislation that has 

been introduced in previous Congresses. I simply think it’s bad public policy. In fact, 

I articulated many of my views and thoughts on the matter in a letter I sent to 

Senators Johnson and Thune last year. That letter became fairly widely circulated 

among veterans’ advocates so I know many have read it. But, for the record of this 

hearing, I’d like to once again articulate some of my concerns with the legislation 

that was previously been put forth to the Senate. 

First and foremost—of course—is the question of whether it would improve the 

health care delivered by VA to provide funding on the basis of the formula laid out 

5

in the legislation. I realize there hasn’t been any bill introduced in the Senate this 

year. But, the bill before the House is identical to those introduced in previous Congresses here in the Senate. So, I am working from that premise. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I see how that bill will improve health outcomes 

for veterans. In fact, I think it could have some adverse effects on the health care 

system. 

First, as I’ve noted many times before, the formula is based on the number of enrollees in the health care system. Yet according to VA’s budget there are 7.9 million 

enrollees and only 5.7 million users of the system. We’d be basing a budget on 2.2 

million veterans who do not use VA’s health care system at all. 

Of course, if for example 300,000 of the 2.2 million began using VA in the middle 

of a fiscal year, we’d be in real trouble. We would be increasing the patient population by about 5 percent, but not increasing the budget available to the system at 

all. 

Another large problem would be what happens when the number of enrollees begins to shrink, but the overall user population does not. I certainly have suggested 

that we control VA’s spending increases over the past few years. But, I can’t imagine that I’d ever advocate that we reduce the budget from one year to the next simply because the number of people who don’t use the VA system is shrinking. It 

makes no sense. And I certainly do not see how it would improve care. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in my view, the formula is rather arbitrary. It just takes 

the previous fiscal year’s budget, adds 30 percent to it, then divides it by enrollees 

to get a per enrollee cost. Then, I guess that amount is deemed to be adequate. So, 

the bill adds a medical care inflator to the per enrollee amount every year. 

Of course, that formula has changed with successive introductions of the bills over 

the years. I think that fact only supports my view that it is somewhat arbitrary. 

Mr. Chairman, if you’ll allow me, the chart behind me shows the amount of 

money that would be available to VA if we had enacted mandatory funding when 

Senator Johnson first introduced this idea in the 107th Congress. Next, we see the 

amount of funding if we passed last year’s version of the bill. I have also compared 

those two numbers, which you’ll see are fairly different, to the amounts provided 

in appropriations for each year and the amounts requested by the Independent 

Budget. 

As I hope is clear, there are four different numbers for each fiscal year. Interestingly, for 2008, you’ll see that the amount of appropriations recently provided in the 

Senate—which was called ‘‘manna from Heaven’’ by one VSO is actually more than 

the IB. But, it is anywhere from $5 to $6 billion less than what would have been 

available under different mandatory funding bills. 

So, my question is: are we short this year? Was the IB too low? Or is it possible 

that mandatory funding would have ‘‘over funded’’ VA? And, if it did by as much 

as $6 billion, how should the overage be handled? 

Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues do not mistake my views for a suggestion 

that money doesn’t matter. I concede that money has some bearing on the overall 

quality of care provided to our veterans. We need quality staff and quality facilities 

to provide quality care. And money can help us get that. 

But, there have been incredible improvements over the past 10 years in VA’s 

health care system—all under the discretionary funding model. I think much of 

those improvements are related to systemic changes in the care delivery model designed by Dr. Kizer, or the implementation of VERA to a more exacting model as 

envisioned by Dr. Roswell. I also believe the integration of the electronic record with 

clinical outcomes studies implemented by Dr. Perlin has had a significant effect. In 

other words, it was as much leadership and vision as it was money to hire the right 

staff that has led to VA’s wonderful improvements. I don’t see how a mandatory 

budget improves that leadership. 

I said earlier that the most important question was whether mandatory funding 

would improve the health care provided to our veterans. But, the second question 

is whether it makes sound fiscal policy for our Nation. On this question, I truly believe that it does not. 

We already have three very large programs that are considered to be funded by 

‘‘mandatory spending.’’ Namely: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. So, it is 

appropriate for us to consider the fiscal implications of these programs in assessing 

the likely fiscal effects of adding another mandatory program. I think we all know 

the national fiscal picture of the three programs I’ve just mentioned. 

But, allow me to highlight just a few thoughts. For example, this past January 

when discussing entitlement programs in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman, Bernanke stated ‘‘If early and meaningful action 

is not taken, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations 

bearing much of the cost.’’ And in response to a question from Senator Conrad of 

6

‘‘how urgent is it we address the imbalance [between income and spending], Chairman Bernanke went on to say ‘‘the time to start is 10 years ago’’. 

Senator Conrad, himself, has called the current health care entitlement programs 

‘‘the 800 pound gorilla of federal spending.’’ And David Walker, our Comptroller 

General has said ‘‘we have a fiscal cancer’’ growing in the United States. 

Yet, we as a Congress have been completely unwilling to address those fiscal calamities. Amazingly, in spite of that, here we are contemplating adding another 

tumor to the problem! It’s baffling! 

Please keep in mind that this move would provide a mandatory budget to a federal agency. And the money would be ‘‘no year money.’’ Meaning, if the formula 

‘‘over budgets’’ as I noted above it just might, then VA just keeps the extra and we 

send them a bigger check the next year. I can think of no precedent for that. Even 

agencies like the Social Security Administration are funded with discretionary appropriations. A mandatory agency budget would, in my judgment, be horrible national fiscal policy. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I’ve taken up enough time this morning with my statement. 

But, I’ve read the testimony of our witnesses and I look forward to hearing from 

them and to asking some questions as well. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Chairman AKAKA. It will be included in the record. 

Senator Craig, as you know, we have worked very well together 

over the years and we will continue to do that. I want you to know 

it is clear to me, Senator Craig, that we have lots to do to bring 

VA and all its services about to help our veterans throughout the 

country, and funding is one of them. Today, we expect to hear from 

witnesses about how to best fund VA health care and I hope we 

will hear some answers from you out there and look upon this as 

not being a political hearing but a hearing to try to find the best 

methods of dealing with the responsibilities of VA. 

Now, I would like to call on Senator Sanders for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

going to have to apologize to you and our guests because I am 

going to have to be running off soon for an important markup. 

In a certain sense, while I disagree with much of what my friend, 

Senator Craig, said, he is right about politics and he is right about 

priorities, and the essence of the issue to my mind is that when 

somebody joins the Armed Forces of this country and puts his or 

her life on the line, do we make a commitment to that person and 

say that the U.S. Government and the VA will always be there for 

them, or do we not? 

As the Chairman mentioned, several years ago, we had an absolute crisis where the VA virtually ran out of money. Four or five 

years ago, the President of the United States in his wisdom said, 

yes, we have hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the 

wealthiest 1 percent, but if you have a non-service-connected disability, if you don’t have a service-connected disability and you 

make more than $27,000 a year, we are shutting the doors of the 

VA to you. That is politics. I happen to disagree with those priorities. 

The truth of the matter is, that in my State of Vermont and all 

over this country today, there are waiting lines for veterans to get 

the health care that they need. Very often, people have to wait long 

periods of time to get the care that they are entitled to. 

7

To my mind, I would very strongly agree with the Chairman and 

say that when you are running what I believe is the largest health 

care organization in the world, it is pretty hard to hire the staff 

and buy the equipment and do all of the things that you need when 

you do not know what your budget will be. How do you plan for 

the future? 

The reality is also that when you are talking about veterans, you 

are talking about a special population. What we are learning from 

the War in Iraq and certainly what we have learned from Vietnam 

is that many of the problems that arise, when medical problems 

arise, take place years after somebody served in the military. 

In May of this year, media reports, for example, told us, and I 

quote, that ‘‘from 125,000 to 150,000 U.S. troops may have suffered 

mild, moderate, or severe brain injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan.’’ 

The Defense Department’s Task Force on Mental Health states 

that it found, ‘‘38 percent of soldiers and 31 percent of the Marines 

report psychological concerns, such as Traumatic Brain Injury and 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after returning from deployment. 

Among members of the National Guard, the figure is 49 percent.’’ 

Does anyone seriously believe that today we have anywhere near 

the capability of addressing that very serious problem? I would 

argue we certainly do not. 

I would also argue that because of lack of money, what we have 

seen over the last many decades are shameful acts on the part of 

the U.S. Government. Who in this room can be proud that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Government of the United 

States of America fought as hard as they could against those Vietnam veterans who said, Hey, we came back from Vietnam. We 

were exposed to Agent Orange. Our people are dying. Our people 

are getting sick. And what the U.S. Government has said, sorry, 

that is not the case. You have got to go to court to win your rights. 

And a lot of that has to do with funding. 

Now, I think I speak for many Members of Congress who say 

that perhaps the most difficult vote that any Member has to make 

is whether or not we send our young men and women into war, and 

what I would simply say, if we are not—when we make that vote, 

if we are not prepared to understand that the cost of war is a lot 

more than planes and tanks and guns but is to understand what 

happens to that soldier when he or she comes back from war, 20 

years later or 50 years later, that is the cost of war and we have 

got to own up to it. 

I think that the Chairman is right, Larry Craig is right in saying 

that, in many ways, we have a good system. When people get into 

the VA, they generally feel that the service they get is good. The 

problem is the waiting lines. The problem is that we have thrown 

over a million veterans off of VA. So if we are serious about, in 

fact, keeping the promises made to our veterans, taking care of 

them, I think we have to move toward mandatory coverage. I 

strongly support it and will do my best to see that that happens. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Sanders. 

Senator Tester? 

8

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Saturday, I 

chaired a VA Committee field hearing in Great Falls addressing 

the needs of rural veterans. I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member for sending two outstanding staff 

members to that hearing, Kim Lipsky and Jeff Gall. I appreciate 

you sending those staff members there. They did a very, very nice 

job and I am much appreciative of it and I want the record to show 

that. 

Once again, we had the opportunity to hear from a number of 

Montana veterans who said that once they get into VA, the care 

they get is very good. The problem is getting in the door. We heard 

concerns about distance for veterans, in between veterans and veterans’ facilities. We heard about inadequate staffing levels at the 

VA facilities as well as inadequacy in addressing the mental health 

issues that revolve around the returning veterans from Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

One thing that struck me in particular is learning that when the 

VA adds outpatient clinics to a region, the region doesn’t always 

get more money. They have to figure out how to do it with what 

they have been getting, and that makes adding these facilities to 

a State or to a region to address some of the problems that I spoke 

of earlier an extremely difficult proposition. 

The President’s budget, remember, for Fiscal Year 2008 assumed 

a 2 percent decrease in Fiscal Year 2009. They would essentially 

remain frozen for 3 years in a row after that. This proposal was 

rejected by the Congressional Budget Resolution, but it should be 

a serious concern that the White House is not providing a clear picture of the likely future of VA funding needs. 

So to me, it is clear that we find a way to increase lead time for 

capital projects. We have got to get some more assurances in the 

system that the dollars will be there so that the regional and Statelevel administrators can make decisions about how best to serve 

the unique needs of veterans and their area, and to me, that means 

guaranteed funding for VA. 

I look forward to hearing the views of the witnesses and I hope 

that we can have a good discussion on mandatory funding. I understand it is going to be much harder to address this issue at this 

point in time with pay-go, but I think it is due time to restart this 

dialogue. 

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. 

Senator Murray? 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I will 

submit my opening statement for the record, and let me just say, 

as Senator Tester said, I think the one point we all agree on is once 

you get in the door of the VA, you do get excellent health care and 

that is exactly what our veterans should be getting. Their focus on 

patients, the integrated delivery model the VA has, the first-rate 

9

IT system that manages the patients is something that is a model 

for everyone and we want to make sure veterans get that. 

But as Senator Tester said, it is getting in the door that is a 

challenge and that really goes to the budget and how we budget 

and how we look at the long-term costs that we need to be able to 

meet for our veterans, both ones from previous wars to the coming 

generations that will be impacted, that we need to be looking at 

how we do that. 

I look forward to today’s testimony from all of our witnesses and 

hope we can have a good discussion. Clearly, on the table, looking 

at the proposals, we have to make sure that each one of them that 

we look at is done responsibly and in a way that allows both the 

flexibility for the future but also requires that we have that funding there and it isn’t continuing resolutions that we have to go to 

or supplemental funding because we haven’t planned correctly. 

That doesn’t serve our veterans well. 

So I really appreciate the hearing today and look forward to the 

testimony from our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murray follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

Chairman Akaka, thank you very much for holding today’s hearing on funding for 

veteran’s health care. I applaud you and Ranking Member Craig for holding this 

important hearing and I look forward to the testimony from our distinguished witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I often say that the VA provides excellent care to veterans, once 

they get in the door. The VA’s long term focus on patients, its integrated delivery 

model, and its first-rate health IT system provide distinct advantages over private 

sector care, and we need to keep it that way. But too often, getting in the door is 

a problem. All of us have heard from constituents who have waited months to see 

a primary care doctor. Some veterans have even had to wait years to get surgery. 

And all of us have surely heard from veterans who were denied enrollment because 

of the Bush Administration’s decision in 2003 to deny VA healthcare access to new 

Priority 8 veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, this country has a moral obligation to care for those who have 

served this country in uniform. That means providing access to the VA health care 

system for all veterans. The men and women who have served in our military have 

born significant burdens of war. They have assumed great risk for our country, and 

they have sacrificed life and limb to protect our freedoms. They kept their promise 

to serve our Nation. It is only right that we keep our promise to serve them. 

For too many years under this Administration, veterans have been ‘‘last in line,’’ 

and we in Congress have had to fight the Administration tooth and nail to meet 

their needs. That has to change. I am tired of having to fight and fight and fight—

to just barely meet the needs of veterans. I want to get to a point in this country 

where we don’t have to fight to provide the resources that meet our veterans’ needs, 

but where it is just plain understood and done. 

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR VETERANS

It is clear that this new Congress and the American people want to do what’s 

right by our veterans. In the most recent Iraq war supplemental funding bill, we 

included $1.8 billion in emergency funding for veterans programs—the first time 

veterans funding has ever been included as a cost of this war. And the FY 2008 

VA funding bill that has passed the Senate Appropriations Committee provides a 

$3.6 billion increase over the President’s request. It meets nearly all of the funding 

recommended by the Independent Budget. 

Despite this good news, we can’t stop there. We have to take a long term view 

of how to best meet the needs of veterans. And that starts at today’s hearing. As 

the massive shortfall in 2005 and 2006 demonstrated, the VA’s budget model is not 

flexible enough to meet changing realities and take into account new costs. And we 

simply cannot continue the pattern of falling back on Continuing Resolutions, which 

hamstring the VA and force them to scrape by on inadequate resources. Some of 

our witnesses today have proposed that we make VA health care funding mandaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
10

tory. This is an idea that merits strong consideration. But as we consider this option, we need to make sure that any formula created gives the VA enough flexibility 

to meet the needs of veterans and respond to any unforeseen consequences. 

I appreciate the participation of all of today’s witnesses and I look forward to 

hearing their testimony.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

Senator Rockefeller? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I will submit my opening statement for 

the record. I just want to praise two people, and I don’t mean to 

leave you out, Congressman. I would be happy to praise you, too, 

but it will be based upon a little bit less knowledge. 

Number one, Ken Kizer, I have been wanting to say this for 

years. I have been on this Committee for 23 years and I remember 

when you came and mostly we met in the regular meeting room. 

I looked upon you as another one of those people who were coming 

through and who were going to serve, in your case, a substantial 

amount of time. Something I have rarely seen in government before, and it is suddenly clear to the American people are two 

things. One is that the VA health care system is the best in the 

country, the most efficient. I read at length only your testimony. 

But you did it. You did it, and that has now become clear to people. While you didn’t do it all by yourself, you were the person in 

charge of the health services and you took a hold of things which 

the rest of us simply didn’t understand and which the rest of the 

VA bureaucracy was not willing to deal with or wasn’t fully aware 

of. You exercised, I think, supreme leadership. I think you should 

have gotten one of those Medals of Freedom. I could have named 

two or three that probably shouldn’t have, but you are somebody 

who should have gotten one. I mean that and I wanted to say that 

to you. You did a spectacular job—and your face is showing no 

emotion whatsoever as I pour my heart out to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. But at least I want that to sink in. 

And then I want to say to Dr. Reinhardt, who has always understood things about 40 years in advance of the rest of America, and 

you have laid out questions here, including sustainability and all 

kinds of things. Senator Murray raised this huge question of budgeting, which I want to ask you about in your role as an economist. 

But I think that you are also one of those, in a different way from 

Ken but on a very, very broad range, one of those people who has 

led our Nation for years in thinking controversially, out of the box, 

and I think almost always completely correctly. So you are both national assets. Congressman, you would be, too, if I knew you better. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. You understand that I mean that, and I 

want you to give my regards to May and I am very much aware 

of where your son is. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller follows:]

11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

Chairman Akaka and Senator Craig, as always I want to thank you for your leadership and commitment to oversight. This is an important hearing on VA health 

care funding and you have a series of thoughtful and impressive witness—their 

views will help us more than my opening statement so I will be brief. 

Dr. Kizer, you should be proud of the changes at VA. Dr. Reinhardt, welcome my 

friend and I value your insights on American health policy for VA and our system 

at large. Each part of our health care system interacts with other aspects so your 

testimony provides important context. 

Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the full hearing, but I will have written questions 

and I will carefully review the testimony of each witness. And to Joe Violante, the 

DAV and all members of the Partnership, thank you for your leadership and your 

commitment—it matters.

Mr. Reinhardt. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman AKAKA. Senator Murray? 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just inform the Committee, I just came from the floor of the Senate where we passed 

by unanimous consent the Dignified Troop Wounded Warriors Act 

out of the Senate. I think that is a major step forward. Many of 

us on this Committee worked on it. Mr. Chairman, you did along 

with the Armed Services Committee in order to address that gap 

between the Department of Defense and the VA and the different 

rating systems and the lack of services for our wounded warriors. 

It is a great step forward and I think that we all should really be 

proud of the work that is done in a bipartisan manner to move that 

forward efficiently after we heard about the Walter Reed scandals, 

and we will keep working until we get it signed by the President. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you so much, Senator Murray. 

In addition to the witnesses that we have listed, we are joined 

today by Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey. The Committee looks forward to your statement on health care funding. 

I also want to say that the full statements of Senator Murray 

and Senator Rockefeller will be included in the record. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Amended statements. 

Chairman AKAKA. Amended statements. Thank you. 

Congressman Smith, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY 

Congressman SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

to Senator Craig and all the Members, and to Senator Rockefeller, 

it is nice to be a potential national asset, so I think I thank you. 

It is a very, very rare privilege to be here and I thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on the compelling need to reform VA health 

care funding. 

As former House Chairman, I deeply appreciate and respect all 

the work that this Committee has done and is doing to ensure that 

our men and women who have served in uniform have all the benefits and services they need and have earned. No one on earth, Mr. 

Chairman, as you know and as Members of the Committee know, 

has done more to protect and preserve freedom, democracy, and 

fundamental human rights than our veterans. When the dust settles, it is the veteran and his or her family who bear the physical 

12

and emotional scars of war, and for some, it is paying the ultimate 

price. A grateful Nation, therefore, must at all times and in every 

circumstance put veterans first. 

As we may hear this morning, the President’s Commission on 

Care for Returning Wounded Veterans and Warriors is meeting 

with President Bush to provide its recommendations on how to improve the transition, health care and benefits for injured 

servicemembers and veterans. I commend Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala and all the members of that Commission for their 

service and look forward to reading their recommendations. 

However, unless we resolve the underlying funding problems 

that have plagued VA health care since at least 1990, I am not optimistic about the prospects of seeing any meaningful reforms implemented. Notwithstanding a potentially huge plus-up in Fiscal 

Year 2008 medical appropriations, the funding mechanism remains 

broken. 

As I am sure most of you know, this is not the first commission 

or task force created to address problems in the delivery of care to 

injured and disabled servicemembers and veterans. In fact, it is not 

even the first convened by President Bush. Four years ago, the 

President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our 

Nation’s Veterans presented two dozen solid recommendations on 

how to resolve the decades-old problems of cooperation and collaboration between the VA and DOD in order to improve health care. 

That Task Force, chaired by Dr. Gail Wolensky, who is also a member of the President’s new commission, spent almost two years 

studying both the VA and DOD health care systems. 

Among the Commission’s key findings, even though it was not 

part of their original mandate, but they had to deal with it because 

it was staring them right in the face, was the conclusion that, ‘‘The 

mismatch between funding for the VA health care system and the 

demand for services from enrolled veterans affects the delivery of 

timely health care.’’

Mr. Chairman, even a cursory look at recent shortfalls in veterans’ health care funding shows that the mismatch remains a serious and vexing problem. Remember the summer of 2005. First, 

$975 million had to be added to the 2005 budget, only to be followed just one month later by an over $1.9 billion increase for Fiscal Year 2006 appropriation. Unless we fix the funding process for 

VA health care, all efforts to improve its delivery will continue to 

be impeded, and worse, we risk new Walter Reed-like problems at 

VA facilities in the future. 

From 2001 to 2004, Mr. Chairman, I had the honor of chairing 

the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee during a time when usage 

of the VA health care system rose dramatically. The consequence 

of expanding coverage and eligibility, the VA’s low copayment for 

prescription drugs, and the huge growth in the Community Based 

Outpatient Clinics made utilization skyrocket. If you build access 

points, men and women will use the system. It was and is a great 

news story and Dr. Kizer deserves a lot of credit for having created 

this modern system. 

Thus, no single issue garnered more of our Committee’s attention 

than ensuring that VA received the funds it required to provide the 

services veterans needed. Both my good friend and colleague and 

13

Ranking Member Lane Evans and I spent hundreds of hours examining the Administration’s budget request and made bipartisan recommendations to the Budget Committee, Appropriations, and all of 

our colleagues on the proper level of funding. 

We began not with the Administration’s budget request, however, 

but rather with the VA’s full demand model, which is its, as you 

know, internal projection of the level of funding needed each year 

based upon their latest actuarial and cost data. Our analysis 

showed that VA’s full demand model was extraordinarily accurate. 

However, the process that occurred along the way from VA’s internal estimate to the President’s budget submission to final Congressional appropriations is one that is often replaced by—that often 

replaces sound data with other agendas. 

As a result, the VA budget requests under both Presidents Clinton and Bush have often been lackluster, deficient, and infirm. Virtually every year, Congress has had to add millions, sometimes billions, to the Administration’s request. Compounding the problem, 

Congress’s budget and appropriations process has been consistently 

late and totally unacceptable. 

It is astonishing to me that since 1990, 16 of the 18 VA appropriations were late. On two occasions, 5 months late. Once, it was 

7 months late. How can the Secretary, the VISN Directors, and 

medical directors plan and execute delivery of medical services 

under those adverse circumstances? No one can honestly look at 

that and dispute the evidence that VA’s health care funding has 

been woefully inadequate. Persistent shortfalls have resulted in 

long waiting lines, a cutoff of Priority 8 veterans, and very public 

and very embarrassing admissions by the last two Secretaries that 

budget requests were sometimes a billion dollars less than needed. 

There are also an array of budget gimmicks routinely employed 

to cover the shortfalls, such as billions of dollars of so-called savings through what is euphemistically called management efficiencies and overly rosy expectations of third-party collections that 

never materialized, as well as repetitive and unrealistic annual policy proposals to shift the cost of care to veterans with new user fees 

and copayment increases. 

The effect on the VA has been extremely harmful, leading to 

huge management and staffing problems as well as construction 

funding shortfalls that threaten VA’s physical infrastructure. The 

VA health care system, the system that Senator Rockefeller and 

others have pointed out is the best health care system in America 

and has been shown that by a number of authoritative studies and 

leading publications, could very well be threatened if we do not correct the underlying funding problem. 

That is the very same conclusion that the President’s task force 

came to back in 2003 when they recommended a full funding system and offered two alternatives, a mandatory funding system or 

the establishment of an independent panel of experts charged with 

submitting the Administration’s request absent OMB vetting and 

veto. 

In the summer of 2002, Mr. Chairman, I introduced legislation, 

H.R. 5250, to move VA’s health care funding from discretionary, 

which is subject to political forces in both Congress and the Administration, to one that is mandatory and driven by formula, measVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
14

uring demand for care and the cost of care. Opposition to new entitlement spending in the House, however, was strong, and there 

were admittedly some potential weaknesses in this approach. But 

our goal was to jump-start the debate to ensure full funding that 

is predictable and delivered on time. 

In 2005 and again this year, I have introduced another bill, H.R. 

1041, based on this second model offered by the President’s Task 

Force. My current bill would create an independent expert panel 

called the Veterans Health Care Funding Review Board, to determine the level of funding required to meet projected demand with 

accepted access standards. The Board’s estimate would bypass 

OMB and be submitted to Congress as the Administration’s budget 

request. Although Congress would still have the discretion to adjust that amount either up or down, the imprimatur, it seems to 

me, of an impartial and ex parte body would make it very hard 

from a political standpoint to go below the Board’s spending floor, 

although further increases would certainly be possible. 

Despite some drawbacks, and Senator Craig did mention a few, 

I believe that either of these bills, or perhaps a hybrid of both, 

would be a dramatic improvement over the status quo. 

Finally, while the aggregate number of veterans is likely to decline, the number of veterans who rely on VA continue to rise, and 

this trend is likely to continue over the next decade and beyond. 

Furthermore, with the devastating types of injuries being suffered 

in war today and the long-term care needs of so many veterans on 

the rise, we must ensure that the VA continues to provide world 

class medicine far into the future. It must be sufficient, it has to 

be timely, and we need predictability. I thank the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, HOUSE REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY

Chairman Akaka, Senator Craig, Members of the Committee, It is a rare privilege 

to testify before the Committee today on the compelling need to reform VA health 

care funding. 

As former House Chairman, I deeply appreciate and respect all the work that this 

Committee has done and is doing to ensure that our men and women who have 

served in uniform have all of the benefits and services they need and have earned. 

No one, on earth, has done more to protect and preserve freedom and democracy 

than our veterans. And no one, has had to bear the physical and emotion scars—

for some even death—to protect our liberties, as have our veterans. A grateful Nation must put veterans first. 

As we meet here this morning, the President’s Commission on Care for Returning 

Wounded Warriors is meeting with President Bush to provide its recommendations 

on how to improve the transition, health care, and benefits for injured 

servicemembers and veterans. I commend Senator Dole and Secretary Shalala and 

all the members of that Commission for their service and I look forward to reading 

their recommendations. 

However, unless we resolve the underlying funding problems that have plagued 

VA health care since at least 1990, I am not optimistic about the prospects of seeing 

any meaningful reforms implemented. Notwithstanding a potentially huge plus-up 

in FY 2008 VA Medical Appropriations—the funding mechanism remains broken. 

As I am sure most of you know, this is not the first commission or task force created to address problems in the delivery of care to injured and disabled 

servicemembers and veterans. In fact, it is not even the first one convened by President Bush. 

Four years ago, the President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for 

Our Nation’s Veterans presented two dozen solid recommendations on how to resolve decades old problems of cooperation and collaboration between VA and DOD 

in order to improve health care. That Task Force, chaired by Dr. Gail Wilensky, who 

15

is also a member of the President’s new Commission, spent almost two years studying both the VA and DOD health care systems. Among that Commission’s key findings—even though it was not part of their original mandate—was the conclusion 

that, ‘‘the mismatch between funding for the VA health care system and the demand 

for services from enrolled veterans affects the delivery of timely health care. . . ’’

Even a cursory look at the recent shortfalls in veterans health care funding acknowledged by VA and Congress shows that the ‘‘mismatch’’ remains a serious problem. Remember the summer of 2005? First $975 million had to be added for FY 

2005 only to be followed just one a month later by over a $1.9 billion increase for 

Fiscal Year 2006. Unless we fix the funding process for VA health care, all efforts 

to improve its delivery will continue to be impeded, and worse, we risk new Walter 

Reed-like problems at VA facilities in the future. 

From 2001 through 2004, I had the honor of chairing the House Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee during a time when usage of the VA health care system rose dramatically. The consequence of expanding coverage and eligibility, the VA’s low copayment for prescription drugs, and the huge growth in Community Based Outpatient 

Clinics made utilization skyrocket. It was—and is—a great news story. 

Thus, no single issue garnered more of the Committee’s attention than ensuring 

that VA received the funds it required to provide the services veterans needed. Both 

my good friend and Ranking Member, Lane Evans, and I spent hundreds of hours 

examining the Administration’s budget requests and made bipartisan recommendations to the Budget Committee, Appropriations Committee and all our colleagues at 

large, on the proper level of funding required to allow VA to faithfully discharge its 

functions. We began not with the Administration’s budget submission, but rather 

with VA’s ‘‘full demand model’’, which is its internal projection of the level of funding needed each year, based upon their latest actuarial and cost data. 

Our analysis showed that VA’s full demand model was extraordinarily accurate. 

However, the process that occurs along the way from VA’s internal estimate to the 

President’s budget submission to final Congressional appropriations is one that 

often replaces sound data and prudent policy with other agendas. 

As a result, VA’s budget requests—under both Presidents Clinton and Bush—

have often been lackluster and infirm. Virtually every year Congress has had to add 

millions, sometimes billions, of dollars to the Administration’s request. 

Compounding the problem, Congress’ budget and appropriations process has been 

consistently late and totally unpredictable. 

Since 1990, sixteen of the eighteen VA appropriations were late—on two occasions 

5 months late, once 7 months late. How can the Secretary, VISN directors and medical directors plan and execute delivery of medical services under those adverse circumstances? 

No one can honestly look at and dispute the evidence that VA’s health care funding has been woefully inadequate. It has resulted in long waiting times, a cutoff for 

Priority 8 veterans, and very public and embarrassing admissions by the last two 

Secretaries that budget requests were sometimes a billion dollars less than needed. 

There has also been an array of budget gimmicks routinely employed to cover 

these shortfalls—such as billions of dollars of so-called ‘‘savings’’ through ‘‘management efficiencies’’ and overly rosy expectations of third party collections that never 

materialized, as well as repetitive and unrealistic annual policy proposals to shift 

the cost of care to veterans with new user fees and copayment increases. 

A GAO analysis done last year of the VA health care budget process concluded 

that:

Unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimate, and insufficient data were key 

factors in VA’s budget formulation process that contributed to the requests 

for additional funding for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006.

Moreover, GAO concluded that:

VA’s total projected management efficiency savings in the President’s budget request for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 were used to fill the gap between the costs associate[d] with VA’s projected demand for health care 

services and anticipated resources.

In plain English, when VA’s internal estimates of what it would cost to provide 

health care services to veterans was greater than the amount of budget authority 

that OMB designated for VA health care, they plugged it with unspecified ‘‘management efficiencies.’’ And during the four years I was Chairman, despite repeated requests, VA failed to document any significant savings through these so-called efficiencies, much less the billions of dollars they had plugged into their budget requests. 

16

The effect on VA has been extremely harmful, leading to huge management and 

staffing problems, as well as construction funding shortfalls that threaten VA’s 

physical infrastructure. The VA health care system—system that has been hailed 

as the best health care in America by authoritative studies and leading publications—could be threatened if we do not correct the underlying funding problems. 

That’s the very same conclusion that the President’s Task Force came to back in 

2003 when they recommended a ‘‘full funding’’ system, and offered two alternatives: 

a mandatory funding system; or the establishment of an independent panel of experts charged with submitting the Administration’s request absent OMB vetting 

and veto. 

In the summer of 2002, I introduced legislation H.R. 5250 to move VA’s health 

care funding from a discretionary system—which is subject to political forces in both 

Congress and the Administration—to one that is mandatory and driven by formula 

measuring demand for care and the cost of care. Opposition to new entitlement 

spending in the House however was strong and there were admittedly potential 

weaknesses in this approach. But our goal was to jumpstart the debate, to ensure 

full funding that is predictable and delivered on time. 

In 2005, and again this year, I have introduced another bill, H.R. 1041, based 

upon the second model offered by the President’s Task Force. My current bill would 

create an independent, expert panel—the Veterans Health Care Funding Review 

Board—to determine the level of funding required to meet projected demand with 

accepted access standards. The Board’s estimate would bypass OMB and be submitted to Congress as the Administration’s budget request. Although Congress 

would still have discretion to adjust that amount either up or down, the imprimatur 

of an impartial and expert body would make it very hard from a political standpoint 

to go below the Board’s spending floor, although further increases would certainly 

be possible. 

Despite some drawbacks in both approaches, I believe that either of these bills—

or perhaps a hybrid of both or perhaps some other alternative—would be a dramatic 

improvement over the status quo. 

Mr. Chairman, while the aggregate number of veterans is likely to decline, the 

number of veterans who rely on VA continues to rise, and this trend is likely to continue over the next decade. Furthermore, with the devastating types of injuries 

being suffered in war today, and the long term care needs of so many veterans on 

the rise, we must ensure that the VA continues to provide world class medicine far 

into the future. 

I want to commend this Committee for holding this hearing on this most important issue and I urge you to move forward with recommendations for a systemic reform of VA’s health care funding system that provides sufficient, timely, and predicable funding. 

I’d be happy to address any questions you may have.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Congressman Smith, 

for your statement. 

I am pleased to welcome our first panel. It would be very hard 

to overstate the credentials and accomplishments of its members. 

Dr. Kenneth Kizer, as most of you know, was VA’s Under Secretary for Health from 1994 to 1999. Dr. Kizer is credited with 

turning around the Veterans Health Administration, which in the 

early 1990s was seen as overly centralized and inefficient. We are 

very fortunate to have access to his perspective at this hearing. 

I also welcome Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, who teaches at Princeton 

University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is a renowned expert on health care, economics, and a 

true leader in his field, and I thank you both for being here. 

Your full statements will appear in the record of the hearing, and 

I would like to call first on Dr. Reinhardt for your statement and 

then we will hear from Dr. Kizer. Dr. Reinhardt? 

17

STATEMENT OF UWE E. REINHARDT, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF

POLITICAL ECONOMY, ECONOMICS, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 

WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 

DR. REINHARDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of this Committee. My name is Uwe Reinhardt. I am the 

James Madison Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at the 

Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the 

Department of Economics at Princeton University. My research 

over the years has been on health economics and policy, and I had 

the privilege of serving in the early 1980s on the Special Medical 

Advisory Group of the Veterans’ Administration. Hence my longstanding interest in this system. 

In my written statement, I have focused mainly on the part of 

the VA budget that deals with health care, because that is my expertise. The other part is disability payments and cemeteries, 

which I think are separate issues. 

It is true, as I show in Figure 1 of my statement, that in the last 

10 years, the VA budget has doubled. When you plot that on a 

graph and if you scale the axis over a narrow range of numbers you 

can always draw a really scary picture, because you can make that 

line pretty steep. 

Of the VA budget, only less than half is actually going to health 

care proper. But, as I said, we see in Figure 2 that this VA health 

care budget did rise 100 percent in the last decade, which means 

it doubled. But national health spending under private health insurance rose by 124 percent, faster than the VA budget, and Medicare by 110 percent. Overall national health spending in that period rose by 105 percent. 

So of those bars in Figure 2, the VA budget was actually not the 

fastest-rising, in spite of the fact that in that last decade, the VA 

had to cope with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with 

veterans who bring trauma of a sort that earlier wars had not produced in these numbers, also psychological trauma. This trauma is 

deepened because we are recycling the same troops time and time 

again as not enough of other Americans volunteer to stand tall for 

America. The Congress just voted against giving soldiers a longer 

break between combat missions, which I find quite astounding, and 

that wears on the troops’ minds, too. So even if their body comes 

home in good shape who knows what happens to the mind. 

On top of it, during the last decade, my colleague Ken Kizer reformed the VA health system and made it worldwide. I just came 

from the International Health Economic Association, where everyone talks about the VA as a model of how to run health care, and 

Ken deserves so much of the credit, but also all the men and 

women who are so motivated that worked with him in modernizing 

the VA. 

Although the VA is expensive, it is expensive because it is 

imbedded in the most expensive health system in the world. As 

shown in Figure 3 of my written statement, we spend per capita 

(in purchasing power parity) roughly twice as much as Canadians 

do, more than twice what Germans do, although Germany is a 

much older country, and even the Swiss, who have a system, they 

have more of everything, spend much less than we do. The reason 

18

is that we pay higher prices for the same goods and services partly 

because we have a higher GDP and can afford to spend so much 

on health care. And secondly, in our wisdom, we have created a 

health system where the market power all lies on the supply side 

of the market. That supply side can dictate volume and prices to 

the demand side, which is splintered, fragmented, and weak. We 

chose this as a people, and the VA has to buy inputs in that system 

and be part of it. 

The next point I address in my testimony is whether it is sustainable in the future. The VA health care budget is now only onefifth of one percentage point of GDP. That is a round-off error, I 

think. The VA health budget is 1.15 percent of the Federal budget. 

So in a way, that budget really doesn’t scare me ever. If one had 

to err on the side of generosity, it would not be a big deal and it 

might actually be appropriate to err a bit on the generous side for 

our veterans. 

In Figure 4 of my testimony, I extrapolate current trends in VA 

health spending to 2055. Even under worst-case scenario, VA 

health spending will not exceed one percent of GDP. It will also remain less than 4.5 percent of the Federal budget. 

So the bottom line here is this is not a budget that is going to 

overwhelm either the Federal Government or the people of the 

United States, especially when we consider what we get for it in 

return. How many Americans actually still serve and fight for our 

country? These veterans have or were willing to do so. When they 

come back, if they do, should they not have an entitlement to good 

health care? I really use that word judiciously. If any time, anyone 

ever deserved an entitlement, it would surely be the people who put 

their lives at risk out there on behalf of the rest of us. 

To highlight how often we get hung up on this word ‘‘sustainable,’’ I used the Medicare program just by way of illustration. It 

is often said the Medicare program is not sustainable, but I have 

a chart in my testimony—I think it is Figure 7—that says even if 

we ran Medicare as inefficiently as we now do, and I am not recommending that, even if we did, the Gross Domestic Product per capita of Americans 50 years from now will be almost double what it 

is now. One way to put it, if you took 9 percent of that budget from 

Medicare, the amount of money left over for all other stuff that our 

descendants in 2050 will have is still 80 percent more than what 

we now have after the current Medicare haircut of about 3 percent 

of GDP. 

The way I put it to my students, I will be doggone if I now lose 

sleep over people who will have 80 percent more than I do have 

when we have waitresses in America with kids who are uninsured. 

So that is my view on this. I agree that this is a subjective personal 

statement—that is, a purely political statement—but so is the argument that Medicare is not financially sustainable. The program 

is eminently sustainable in our country if the young are willing to 

share their good fortune with the old. 

I do, however, point out in Figure 8, Section 5 of my testimony, 

that the Medicare program and all other health care in America is 

not cost effectively delivered now. We all know this. All health 

services researchers know that we could probably shave 20 percent 

off national health spending and do no harm to patients, if we 

19

knew how to get at the current waste. In fact, I think we will do 

this. But even if we didn’t, we will be all right. I hope the young 

people in this room, once they run the country, will do better than 

my generation on the issue of sharing good fortune. 

In concluding, I have said if there is pressure on the Federal 

budget, yet we are the least-taxed nation in the world, as is shown 

in Figure 8 of my testimony. Japan and the U.S. have the lowest 

tax rate as a percent of GDP in the world. So I don’t think there 

has to be this pressure on the Federal budget, we certainly could 

raise taxes, but if there is, there are many other trade-offs we could 

make. 

One of these, I mentioned in my statement, agricultural subsidies. I don’t think you can find an economist in this country who 

would defend the agricultural subsidies we now pay on either the 

basis of equity or efficiency. So, if you had to cut the Federal budget you may consider cutting there and not the VA health care

budget. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reinhardt follows:]

20

PREPARED STATEMENT OF UWE E. REINHARDT, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL

ECONOMY, ECONOMICS, AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WOODROW WILSON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY


37969.002
21


37969.003
22


37969.004
23


37969.005
24


37969.006
25


37969.007
26


37969.008
27


37969.009
28


37969.010
29


37969.011
30


37969.012
31


37969.013
32


37969.014
33


37969.015
34

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Reinhardt. 

Dr. Kizer? 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Chairman, if Dr. Reinhardt has to 

leave at 10:30 to catch a 11:45 plane—how he is going to manage 

that, I have no idea—would it be possible to ask him a question 

or two, because he does have to leave. 

DR. REINHARDT. Well, actually, I booked a back-up plane, so——

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. OK. 

DR. REINHARDT. This, to me, is more important, so I booked a 

back-up plane. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. Kizer? 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. KIZER, M.D., M.P.H., CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, 

MEDSPHERE SYSTEMS CORPORATION 

DR. KIZER. Chairman Akaka, Members of the Committee, good 

morning. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on 

the health care funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Senator Rockefeller, thank you for your very kind comments. I 

deeply appreciate those. Any lack of expression should not be cause 

for concern. 

At the outset of these comments, I think I should echo what others have said in different ways. In considering funding for VA 

health care, I think that it is worth reminding ourselves that the 

benefits and services provided for veterans are inherently an extended cost of maintaining the Armed Forces and one of the longterm costs of national security. Likewise, since establishing and 

maintaining the Armed Forces are the responsibility of the Federal 

Government, the Federal Government has an enduring obligation 

to pay for the costs of veterans. The Federal Government creates 

veterans and the Federal Government must pay for veterans. 

In considering funding for VA health care in the near-term, I believe we should also keep in mind that based on the nature of the 

injuries and illnesses seen so far from veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom—with their high incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury, multiple amputations and mental health problems—the relative costs of caring for these veterans 

will almost certainly exceed anything that we have ever seen before. From a veterans’ health care perspective, the per capita or relative costs of caring for veterans of the War in Iraq is likely to be 

the most expensive of any war in history. 

There are many aspects of health care funding for VA that we 

could discuss this morning. I would like to associate myself with 

many of the comments that have been made by Professor 

Reinhardt, both in his oral and written testimony. I think he has 


37969.016
35

done an excellent job of putting recent increased VA health care 

spending in context with increased spending for Medicare and 

health care overall. He has done an excellent job of summarizing 

information about the disproportionately greater spending for 

health care in the U.S. compared to other developed countries and 

the inverse relationship between Medicare per capita expenditures 

and the quality of care. 

He has also commented, I think quite correctly, on the sustainability of both VA health care, and perhaps the more important 

question of whether the costs of U.S. health care overall is sustainable. I would also reaffirm his comments that substantial evidence 

shows that a considerable fraction of U.S. health care spending 

cannot be justified on the basis of either clinical outcomes or service satisfaction. Indeed, probably 25 to 30 percent of all of the 

health care spending in the United States is simply wasted. If even 

a relatively small portion of these wasted funds could be recovered, 

I believe there would be more than enough money to ensure that 

all Americans had guaranteed access to health care. 

And if we might digress for one moment and talk about the VA 

health care experience in this regard, during the 5 years that I was 

Under Secretary for Health, the VA medical care budget increased 

a total of 6 percent. We went from $16.3 billion to $17.3 billion in 

a 5-year interval. During that same period of time, the number of 

veterans who received hands-on care increased by 24 percent. We 

were able to demonstrate dramatic improvements in quality as well 

as service satisfaction. I am not recommending that we continue 

that trend of increase, but the point there is simply that during 

that time, we were able to recover inefficiencies and waste, redirected those funds to taking care of more veterans and doing a better job of doing so at the same time. 

I am mindful of the clock, and I would like to use my remaining 

time to comment on a couple of issues not addressed by Professor 

Reinhardt. The first of these is whether VA could achieve greater 

cost effectiveness with its funds without compromising quality or 

service satisfaction. I believe that it could. Notwithstanding the 

huge savings that were wrung out of the system in the latter 1990s 

and VA’s admirable cost effectiveness today compared to Medicare 

and private health insurance, I think the VA should assiduously 

seek to achieve cost savings wherever it is reasonable to do so, and 

especially in those non-patient-facing areas such as the procurement of supplies and services. The VA spends many billions of dollars each year on goods and services. 

The VA could achieve substantial savings almost immediately by 

doing two things in particular. 

The first would be to do as most of the top hospitals in the Nation have been increasingly doing in recent years, and that is to 

start reprocessing selected medical devices that are approved for 

marketing in the United States as single-use medical devices. Although this might appear at first impression to be unwise, the 

reuse of medical devises that are labeled ‘‘for single use only’’ is a 

well-established and safe practice regulated by the FDA and utilized by most of the hospitals that are rated in America as the 

‘‘best hospitals.’’ The two major benefits of using reprocessed singleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
36

use devices are the lower cost of the devices and the decreased 

amount of biomedical waste that has to be disposed of. 

Currently, as a matter of policy, VA does not use reprocessed

single-use devices, although the management of a number of VA 

hospitals would like to do so. I estimate that the VA could easily 

achieve savings of $25 to $30 million in Fiscal Year 2008 if it started to reprocess these single-use devices, with potentially substantially larger savings in the out years, depending on the number and 

types of reprocessed devices it utilized. 

The second cost savings step that VA could take would be to utilize state-of-the-art technology to optimize sourcing in the procurement process in what is now generally known as expressive commerce or expressive bidding. This technology is difficult to explain 

in limited time, but expressive commerce and sourcing optimization, as it is known, are based on a set of highly sophisticated algorithms that allow buyers to present more of their demand at one 

time and that allow sellers to be more creative in their responses. 

This has been made possible by software that allows literally thousands of options for combinations of goods and services at different 

pricings and other specifications to be processed in a single

bidding run. 

Expressive commerce and sourcing optimization is now an established best practice in private companies such as 3M, Proctor and 

Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Unilever and many other companies. It has recently been adopted by the U.S. Postal Service, where 

they are achieving savings of about 10 or 11 percent on their procurement. It is just starting to be used by hospitals and health care 

providers, including the U.K.’s National Health Service and the 

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. 

In private hospitals where it has been utilized to date, expressive 

bidding is typically achieving savings in the range of 12 to 18 percent. Based on VA’s budget for medical and surgical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and other things, and factoring in their already preferred government pricing, I would anticipate the VA could achieve 

savings in the range of several hundred million dollars a year in 

the first year after starting to utilize expressive bidding, i.e., somewhere in the range of $500 million to $700 million in areas that 

would be not noticed by patients at all, and possibly much larger 

savings as experience was gained with the technology. 

The last issue I would like to raise in these comments has to do 

with the challenges imposed upon VA health care managers by the 

unpredictability of the Federal budget and the increasing rigidity 

of the VA health care budget. A number of Members have commented on this, as well as Congressman Smith in his comments. 

It seems that more often than not, the Federal budget is not passed 

in time, forcing the government to operate under continuing resolutions, sometimes for several months into the fiscal year. 

While this may be a mild inconvenience for some agencies or departments, it has definite untoward consequences for agencies like 

the VA that must provide life support and mission critical services 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Typically, when 

VA is forced to operate under a continuing resolution, it must impose hiring freezes and take other personnel options that will likely 

37

impede the delivery of services or planned improvements in

services. 

I don’t propose to have a solution to this at the moment, but this 

is something that unquestionably has deleterious effects on the delivery of services. This matter should be further investigated by 

this Committee. 

Likewise, the increased compartmentalization of the VA health 

care budget in recent years into medical services, medical administration, medical facilities, and information technology, combined 

with the earmarking of funds in VA’s central office, reduces field 

management’s flexibility to spend on what may be the most needed 

priorities locally. While I think I understand the intent of the 

compartmentalization of VA health care funds, and I am very sympathetic to the needs and desires of VA program leadership to ensure adequate and appropriate spending for high-priority programs 

like prosthetics, geriatrics and mental health, the increased rigidity 

of the budget produced by these practices has the effect of imposing 

unintended artificial spending limits. 

Again, I urge the Committee to look into finding mechanisms 

that can both ensure accountability and appropriate spending for 

priority VA healthcare programs but which also give local field 

management the flexibility to spend their limited budget on the 

most important needs of the veterans that they serve. 

With that, let me stop, and I will be pleased to address any questions that there might be. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kizer follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH W. KIZER, M.D., M.P.H., CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, MEDSPHERE SYSTEMS CORPORATION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today about healthcare funding for the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

FUNDING FOR VETERANS HEALTHCARE—A LONG TERM COST OF NATIONAL SECURITY

In considering the funding of VA healthcare we should always remind ourselves 

that the benefits and services provided for veterans are inherently an extended cost 

of maintaining the Armed Forces and one of the long term costs of national security. 

The cost of VA healthcare is part of the price of our foreign policy. 

Since establishing and maintaining the Armed Forces are the responsibility of the 

Federal Government, the Federal Government has an irrevocable obligation to pay 

for the costs of veterans. The Federal Government creates veterans, and the Federal 

Government must pay for the cost of veterans. 

THE HIGH COST OF OEF/OIF VETERANS

In considering funding for VA healthcare in the near term I believe that we 

should also keep in mind that based on the nature of the injuries and illnesses seen 

so far among veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom (OIF)—i.e., with their high incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury, multiple 

amputations and mental health problems, in particular—the relative cost of caring 

for these veterans will almost certainly exceed anything that we have ever seen before. That is, I believe the per capita or relative cost of healthcare for OEF/OIF veterans will exceed the cost of healthcare for veterans of any prior conflict. From a 

veteran’s healthcare perspective, the war in Iraq is likely to be the most expensive 

of any war to date. 

Because the nature of the morbidity being experience by OEF/OIF veterans is significantly different than what has been seen in prior wars it should also be understood that projecting the costs of services for these veterans will be more difficult 

than projecting the costs for veterans of prior conflicts. There is much to learn about 

how best to care for these veterans. 

38

During the next several years, until the VA gains more experience in caring for 

the types of polytrauma and mental health problems seen among OEF/OIF veterans, it should be expected that budget predictions for the cost of caring for these 

veterans are probably not going to be as precise as desired, and there is likely to 

be greater need for supplemental funding or reprogramming of funds than in prior 

years. 

THE MANY FACETS OF VA HEALTHCARE FUNDING

In considering funding for VA healthcare, there are multiple policy and pragmatic 

aspects of the topic to which we could direct our attention this morning, including 

the adequacy of current funding; the reasons for increased spending for OEF/OIF 

veterans; the sustainability of recent spending trends; the ability to reliably project 

future spending needs; the seeming paradox of rising costs in the face of a declining 

veteran population; the value and cost-effectiveness of VA healthcare; and the effect 

of the budget appropriations process on the delivery of VA healthcare services, to 

name some of the issues. 

Since Professor Reinhardt has done such an excellent job of putting recent increased VA healthcare spending in context with increased spending for Medicare 

and healthcare overall I will not further comment on that in these prepared remarks. Likewise, he has done an excellent job of summarizing information about the 

disproportionately greater spending for healthcare in the U.S. compared to other developed countries and the inverse relationship between Medicare per capita expenditures and quality of care. 

I observed a similar inverse relationship between expenditures and quality in VA 

healthcare in the 1990s, and I am pleased to say that some of the changes implemented as part of the transformation of VA healthcare in the latter 1990s have resulted in VA’s demonstratively greater cost-effectiveness today compared to Medicare or private indemnity insurance. 

I will also defer to Professor Reinhardt’s comments on the sustainability of VA 

healthcare funding, and the more important question of whether the cost of U.S. 

healthcare overall is sustainable. 

I would echo Dr. Reinhardt’s comments that substantial evidence shows that a 

considerable fraction of U.S. healthcare spending cannot be justified on the basis of 

clinical outcomes or service satisfaction. Indeed, probably 25 percent to 30 percent 

of all healthcare spending in the U.S. is wasted. 

If even a relatively small portion of these wasted funds could be recovered there 

would be more than enough money to ensure that all Americans had guaranteed 

access to healthcare. 

In this regard, I think it is unfortunate that Medicare and private insurers have 

not expended more effort to understand and learn from the changes that occurred 

in VA healthcare in the latter 1990s. The evidence of VA’s improved performance 

as a result of those changes is incontrovertible. 

And while I do not want to overstress the point, it may be worth pointing out that 

during the 5 years that I served as Under Secretary for Health in the Department 

of Veterans Affairs, the VA healthcare budget increased a total of 6 percent, rising 

from $16.3 billion in FY 1995 to $17.3 billion in FY 1999. During this time there 

was a 24 percent increase in the number of patients who received hands-on care, 

as well as dramatic improvements in the quality of care and service satisfaction. (In 

the preceding 5 years, VA’s healthcare budget increased 41 percent, rising from 

$11.6 billion in FY 1990 to $16.3 billion in FY 1995, although the number of veterans served in FY 1990 was not much different than in FY 1995.) 

During the same 5-year time period, non-VA healthcare spending increased well 

over 30 percent—an increase of more than 5 times greater than VA healthcare. 

Since FY 1999, the VA healthcare budget has increased 131 percent, rising from 

$17.3 billion in FY 1999 to a projected $40.0 billion in FY 2008. Of course, the number of veterans using the system has essentially doubled during this time. 

POTENTIAL INCREASED VA HEALTHCARE COST-EFFECTIVENESS

I would like to address a couple areas not commented upon by Professor 

Reinhardt. 

The first of these is whether VA could achieve greater cost-effectiveness without 

compromising quality or service satisfaction. I believe that it could. 

Notwithstanding the huge savings that were rung out of the system in the latter 

1990s and VA’s admirable cost-effectiveness today compared to Medicare and private health insurance, as noted by Professor Reinhardt in his testimony, I believe 

VA should assiduously seek to achieve cost savings wherever it is reasonable to do 

so, and especially in non-patient-facing ways such as in the procurement of supplies 

39

and services. In this regard, I believe VA could achieve substantial savings almost 

immediately by doing two things. 

The first would be to do as most of the top hospitals in the Nation have been increasingly doing and that is to start reprocessing selected medical devices that are 

approved for marketing in the United States as Single-use Medical Devices (SUDs). 

Although this might appear on first impression to be unwise, the reuse of medical 

devices that are labeled for ‘‘single-use only’’ is a well established and safe practice 

regulated by the FDA and utilized by many of the nation’s premier medical centers. 

Indeed, for many years, most of the hospitals rated as America’s best hospitals have 

been reprocessing SUDs. 

Reprocessing involves taking a medical device that has been used (or sometimes 

only the package has been opened and the device not used), cleaning and disinfecting it, verifying that it functions properly, repackaging it, sterilizing it and returning it for use. The more commonly processed SUDs are sequential compression 

device (SCD) sleeves used to prevent blood clots from forming in the legs of immobile patients; orthopedic drill bits, burrs and saw blades; biopsy forceps and snares; 

and endoscopic or laparoscopic scissors, graspers, dissectors and clamps. 

According to the FDA, about one-fourth of all hospitals and nearly half of large 

hospitals use reprocessed SUDs today. When these reprocessed devices are re-sold 

they are significantly cheaper than the original new device. 

The two major benefits of using reprocessed SUDs are the lower cost of the devices and the decreased biomedical waste that must be disposed of. The latter both 

reduces hospital operationing costs and helps preserve landfill capacity. 

Currently, as a matter of policy, VA does not use reprocessed SUDs, although the 

management of a number of VA hospitals would like to do so. I estimate that VA 

could achieve savings of $25 to $30 million in FY 2008 if it started to reprocess 

SUDs, with potentially significantly larger savings depending on the number and 

volume of reprocessed devices it ultimately utilized. 

In considering reprocessing, it is important to understand that ‘‘single use’’ is a 

designation chosen by the manufacturer typically for economic reasons without consideration for the suitability of the device for reuse or reprocessing. As the GAO has 

noted, approval of a device as single-use simply means that the device can be safely 

and reliably used at least once, not that it cannot be used safely and reliably more 

than once. When you consider the nature of many of the items targeted for reprocessing (e.g., orthopedic drill bits and stainless steel external fixation rods) it is obvious that they should be reusable. 

The second cost-savings step that VA could take would be to utilize state-of-theart technology to optimize sourcing in the procurement process in what is generally 

known as expressive commerce or expressive bidding. 

Expressive commerce and sourcing optimization are somewhat difficult to explain. 

They are sometimes confused with what is known as a reverse auction; however, 

sourcing optimization is not a reverse auction. 

Expressive commerce and sourcing optimization are based on a set of highly sophisticated algorithms that allow buyers to present more of their demand at one 

time and allow sellers to be more creative in their responses. This has been made 

possible by software that allows literally thousands of options for combinations of 

goods and/or services at different pricings and other specifications to be processed 

in a bidding run. 

While expressive bidding and sourcing optimization is an established best practice 

in private companies such as 3M, Proctor & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson, and 

it recently has been adopted by the U.S. Postal Service, it is just now starting to 

be used by selected hospitals and healthcare providers, including UK’s National 

Health Service and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. 

The potential savings associated with expressive commerce are huge because of 

the vast arrays of options made possible by the technology. 

Private hospitals that have used expressive bidding are typically seeing savings 

in the range of 12 percent to 18 percent. Based on VA’s budget for medical and surgical supplies, pharmaceuticals and facilities maintenance, and factoring their already preferred government pricing, I would anticipate VA could achieve savings in 

the range of several hundred million dollars in the first year after starting to utilize 

expressive bidding (i.e., $500 million to $700 million), with probably much larger 

savings as experience was gained with the technology. 

I believe that VA should vigorously pursue the above types of cost savings strategies as rapidly as possible, and they should rigorously look for other such opportunities. Just as we should expect VA healthcare to be a leader in quality and service 

satisfaction, it should also be a leader in cost-effectiveness and efficiency. We should 

expect VA to be a leader in providing best healthcare value. 

40

THE NEED TO MAKE THE VA HEALTHCARE BUDGET

MORE PREDICTABLE AND MORE FLEXIBLE

The last issue I would like to raise in these comments has to do with the challenges imposed upon VA healthcare managers by the unpredictability of the Federal 

budget and the increasing rigidity of the VA healthcare budget. 

More often than not, it seems, the Federal budget is not passed on time, forcing 

the government to operate under a continuing resolution (CR)—sometimes for several months into the budget year. While this may be a mild inconvenience for some 

agencies or departments, it has definite untoward consequences for agencies like the 

VA that must provide critical services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a 

year. 

Typically, when VA is forced to operate under a CR it must impose hiring freezes 

and take other personnel actions that will likely impede the delivery of services, or 

planned improvements in services, because it does not have its planned budget. 

Such forced practices often degrade services at the point of care. 

While I do not have a suggested solution to this problem at the moment, I believe 

the unpredictability of the Federal budget process does have significant deleterious 

effects on the delivery of VA healthcare on the front lines and this should be further 

investigated by this Committee. 

Likewise, the increased compartmentalization of the VA healthcare budget in recent years (i.e., into medical services, medical administration, medical facilities, and 

information technology accounts) and the earmarking of funds in VA’s Central Office (i.e., for prosthetics, mental health, geriatrics, etc.) combine to reduces field 

management’s flexibility to spend on what may be most needed locally. 

While I think I understand the intent of the compartmentalization of VA 

healthcare funds, and while I am sympathetic to the needs and desires of VA program leadership to ensure adequate and appropriate spending for their high priority 

program areas, the increased rigidity of the budget produced by these practices has 

the effect of imposing unintended artificial spending limits. I would urge the Committee to look into finding mechanisms that can ensure accountability and appropriate spending for priority programs but which also give field management the 

flexibility to spend their limited budget on the most important needs of the veterans 

they serve. 

That concludes my prepared testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions that the Committee might have.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Kizer. 

As you know, Dr. Reinhardt has a time problem here, and we are 

trying to move it along so that we can ask Dr. Reinhardt questions, 

so I am going to veer from our normal procedure here and I am 

going to ask a question of Dr. Reinhardt and ask other Members 

here who have questions for him to ask that so we can let him go. 

We had made a deal with him that we would let him go at 10:30. 

I am glad to hear that he has a back-up plan. 

Dr. Reinhardt, last August, you wrote a column for the Washington Post that was widely read entitled, ‘‘Who Is Paying For Our 

Patriotism?’’ in which you argue that the Iraq War imposes no sacrifice of any sort on well over 95 percent of the American people. 

Do you believe we would be here talking about finding adequate resources for VA if that figure was, let us say, 50 percent? 

DR. REINHARDT. No, I don’t. In fact, the article that you refer to 

uses a concept that is now used in health insurance, namely, 

‘‘moral hazard.’’ We have people saying, we have too much health 

insurance coverage. Therefore, we have to have high-deductible 

policies, supplemented with HSAs to make patients feel the cost 

their health care imposes on others. Well, if that is all true, that 

people who don’t bear the cost of health care are reckless in their 

use of health care, then I would say that a political elite that can 

start wars but doesn’t have to pay either taxes for it or bear the 

blood cost of it might be much too reckless into rushing into war. 

So that was the first point in my editorial. I sincerely believe this 

41

moral hazard led Congress to rush us into this war without adequate preparation. 

If more children of our political and moneyed elite had been in 

uniform, our soldiers wouldn’t have been sent there without flak 

jackets, as ours were, without adequate equipment, without armored Humvees. People would have risen up and protested. You 

marginalize the problem when you make it your neighbor’s problem, and then you can go happily on your way. 

So I am convinced and I am on record as saying that this entire 

decade, the Iraq war will go down as one of the more shameful episodes of American history on account of the sacrifice it imposed on 

only a few Americans, while the rest of us got tax cut and went 

shopping. I read in the Trenton Times that they had a pancake 

bake in order to raise money for food pantries for military families. 

Those were National Guardsmen. And I asked my students, what 

nation would possibly send the wives and the husbands of people 

who are serving in Iraq to a food pantry essentially begging for 

food? That is not true in Germany. I asked German military people. When a Reservist gets called there, the employer keeps paying 

his or her salary and the government reimburses the employer. 

Not here. These Guardsmen’s and Reservists’ families take huge 

hits on their income when the family’s breadwinner is called up for 

combat duty. We did a survey with the Kaiser Foundation. Quite 

a few Guard families and Reservists are struggling financially. Is 

it uncouth to wonder what kind of nation have we become, that we 

would allow military families to struggle financially as their loved 

ones face bombs and bullets. That is what that editorial was about, 

although not, of course, my testimony this morning. 

Chairman AKAKA. I may have some other questions that I will 

put in the record for you. 

Senator Craig? 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Reinhardt, a couple of questions. First of all, I guess when 

I said earlier, and I know it is frustrating for my Chairman to suggest that when we work so bipartisanly together that I felt this 

hearing was political. Certainly, your last statement might confirm 

my beliefs. That was a very political statement that I take a certain amount of disagreement with, when you make those kinds of 

observations, and if that is true, then it is possible that your observations from an economic and political standpoint might be prejudiced a bit by that. 

But having said that, I am going to take you at face value and 

at the word you have said and let me ask you the following questions. I have put up a chart that I think demonstrates the reality 

of where we are with Federal revenues and Federal spending. It is 

arguable by some and a fairly broad range of economists that if you 

hold a historic tax rate of about 18.2, 18.5 percent GDP, that is 

where our economy performs at its best. And certainly I would 

hope you would not disagree that this economy, like almost no 

other, provides the greatest work opportunity, the greatest economic opportunity for individuals in the world. It is well proven. 

It is why we are 25 percent of the world GDP today and I am not 

very embarrassed by that. In fact, I am very proud of that. 

42

But having said that, if we accept as a norm somewhere around 

18 percent, 18.5 percent GDP taxed out of the economy into government and then government begins to allocate that resource back 

out, and that is what we do here. That is part of the job of the authorizing cmmittee. I am an appropriator. It is part of my job as 

an appropriator. 

Then we do have to make some determination as to where we 

spend the money. 

In your chart on page eight in your testimony, you project the 

spending of VA health care out for many years. 

Then you show it as a percentage both of total Federal budget 

and the total GDP of the U.S. VA health grows from just over 1 

percent of total Federal budget to about 3.5 percent 45 years from 

now. And then you suggest that a moral Congress can easily sustain that. 

My first question is, am I correct in assuming that under the scenario you present, Congress would need to take money from other 

Federal programs in order to meet that increased share of the Federal budget going to VA health care if you don’t assume a higher 

percentage of GDP coming into government for the purpose of that 

funding? 

DR. REINHARDT. I have——

Senator CRAIG. You mentioned agriculture. 

DR. REINHARDT. Permit me, Senator Craig, to respond first to 

your statement that my testimony might be political before coming 

to the economic issue you raise. Senator Akaka had asked me a 

specific question about an op-ed piece I had written in August of 

2005, and I responded to the Senator’s question about the issues 

raised there. I would agree that the op-ed piece and my responses 

on it reflect my subject, moral values, which do make such statements political. But if showing chagrin over military families under 

financial distress or combat soldiers and marines without adequate 

armor is political, then I am not ashamed for having been political 

on behalf of fighting men and women in that op-ed piece. 

On the other hand, the economic and budgetary data I include 

in the statement submitted to you today are factual. The numbers 

come from reputable sources, and I have followed the scholar’s 

habit of fully describing the sources of the data I present, so that 

anyone can audit what I present for accuracy. You need not worry 

about bias here. 

Senator CRAIG. Well—go ahead. 

DR. REINHARDT. In this particular case, there is no question that 

if taxes stay at the same ratio of GDP in the United States, if one 

takes that as a given, you are totally correct. Then there have to 

be very painfull trade-offs. 

You raise the question, Senator, on what is the optimal tax rate 

for our Nation. You mentioned that 18 percent is optimal. 

Senator CRAIG. No, I am not. I am suggesting that that has been 

the average and it has been suggested by many economists as a tax 

rate that keeps the economy optimized. 

DR. REINHARDT. OK. Fair enough. I recently asked my Princeton 

colleague, Harvey Rosen, who is a tax expert, on this very issue, 

because I am not a tax expert, and he sent me some literature. I 

was astounded that actually the issue of what taxation does to ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
43

nomic growth is a lot more controversial among economic experts 

than I would have thought. I would have actually thought higher 

taxes arrest growth, but it is not necessarily the case. It depends 

how you raise the taxes. If you have high marginal tax rates, that 

is known to blunt incentives. But depending on how you raise the 

taxes, average tax levels and economic growth may be inversely related. 

Unfortunately, when a society becomes older, and particularly 

where so many Americans go into old age without much or any 

savings, you will have these old people and you must feed and care 

for them somehow. If you have endless wars with very seriously injured veterans on top of it, you face this problem. You either have 

to cut something else, and I suggest agricultural subsidies, or you 

must raise taxes. 

Senator CRAIG. And you, like I, would agree, you make political 

statements and so does Congress. 

DR. REINHARDT. Saying you must either cut the budget or raise 

taxes is not political. Saying that you might consider cutting welfare to agriculture is political, I agree with you there. 

Senator CRAIG. All right. 

DR. REINHARDT. I am saying, these agricultural subsidies cannot 

be justified on economic grounds. That is what I am saying. On 

grounds of horizontal equity, economists find it difficult to defend 

these subsidies as well. But, no, it is a purely political decision to 

grant these subsidies. And, of course, yes, I don’t think politics is 

a dirty word. I think politicians are there, they were put there by 

God precisely to make the moral trade-offs that the rest of us are 

not entitled to make or don’t have the power to make or don’t want 

to have to make. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, let me make one comment and move on, because time is limited, over to Dr. Kizer. Thank you for that observation. 

I would make this observation, and this is part of our difficulty. If you choose agriculture, of the $47 billion spent in agriculture last 

year, only $8.6 billion of it went to commodities. The rest of it went 

to food stamps. That is a caring Nation paying for its poor to eat. 

So the biggest part of agriculture today are food stamps. So the 

$8.6 billion that went into commodities, we just increased this 

budget by $6 billion. So within one year’s time, you eat up the commodity portion of agriculture. Then what do you do in the outyears? That becomes the obvious of the trade-offs. 

So, really, politically, you have got a problem. And then you have 

an economic and a budget problem that is a reality that you start—

you go to agriculture first. You take those away. Then where do 

you go the next year and the next year and the next year as you 

have all of these other programs, based on your observation, and 

I don’t disagree. A caring nation is going to fund Social Security 

and Medicare and Medicaid. Where do we go next? We obviously 

go to the revenue flow. We have to go to the revenue flow to begin 

to justify and fund the model that you present to us or you can’t 

get there, is my observation. 

DR. REINHARDT. I think it is correct. I would predict that taxes 

in the United States as a percent of GDP will rise over the next 

30 years. I can’t see how we can avoid it. If you try to avoid it, 

44

some very tough trade-offs will have to be made. I doubt the voters 

will accept such tough trade-offs. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, you have been very kind with your time. 

Let me ask one question, if I can, Mr. Chairman, of Dr. Kizer. 

Chairman AKAKA. Can you hold with that——

Senator CRAIG. I will. My time is up. Let me move back to you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Senator Rockefeller? 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Let me make one observation in defense 

of the good James Madison Professor. One of our problems in making policy in this country is that we have—anytime somebody disagrees with a point of view which is earnestly felt, we call it political. And as soon as we call it political, it is discarded as such. Senator Craig used that technique, I thought unkindly and inappropriately with you. If he had read the piece which you wrote, the advice which you gave to your son (who is in Iraq) do what you must, 

but be advised that this Nation will never truly honor your service 

and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap 

should you ever get seriously wounded. The intervening years have 

not changed my views, they have reaffirmed them. 

I find myself in total agreement with that. 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, I did read his 

comments. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Well, I am proud of you. Thank you. But 

you didn’t take them in. In other words, it is a fact. You have made 

a fact. It took Dana Priest and the Washington Post to make this 

Committee and this Nation, and for the first time this Congress 

aware of the fact that we have been acting outrageously, in spite 

of what Dr. Kizer did, in terms of our veterans. That is not my 

question. 

You quote Stiglitz and then Linda Bilmes at Harvard. They esti- mate that just Iraq and Afghanistan are going to end up being $2 

trillion. That is what they are going to cost. What we all do around 

here is we talk about $500 billion, and that sets up the question 

that I want to ask you, because that seems like an almost 

unpayable amount. 

We in the Finance Committee have just been through an arduous 

three months of almost non-stop work, to the exclusion of virtually 

everything else, to try and add, and now we have done it successfully in that Committee, four million more uninsured children onto 

the six million which had been previously uninsured but which 

under the Children’s Health Insurance Program started in 1997 got 

health insurance. So we now have, in fact, about somewhere—I 

don’t know what the percentage would be, but 22 percent of all of 

the people who are uninsured in this country if this bill passes who 

will have health insurance. 

What is extraordinary about that is that it is an amazing 

achievement, and second, the biggest problem we had was trying 

to pay for it. There is even argument as yet whether we have. 

Why? Because just at the time that the Democrats take over the 

Congress, we go to a pay-go system, which condemns us to doing 

nothing, because we went from a $5.6 trillion surplus under President Clinton, who failed to fence in the surplus. I wanted threequarters of this surplus spent for national reconstruction, including 

45

universal health care system, kids zero through five and on up in 

education, and everything else you can think of, including homeland security and many other aspects. 

I am really wondering, where do we go? Isn’t this all talk? If we 

had to spend all that time trying to find money for four million 

children, totaling $35 billion, then how can we possibly be talking 

about making substantial improvements in health care and other 

subjects? 

I strongly agree with you. I mean, I can remember, and this is 

sort of embarrassing for me to say, not to myself but perhaps to 

my integrity, but my father was paying 91 percent of his personal 

income taxes, to the Federal Government and thought that it was 

the right thing to do. I admire him for that and I think he was 

right then and I think he would feel the same way now. 

Now, we have just been through an orgy because President Clinton didn’t fence in that surplus, an orgy of tax cuts, the vulgarity 

of which I have never seen in my entire public life. It was as if the 

Nation was suddenly put to sleep and everybody said it was a good 

thing to do. One group had control of the Congress. There is not 

a single Democrat who ever for a period of 6 years went to a single 

conference Committee on any subject at any point, not one, not 

even in intelligence. So it was a one-party control. They ran the tax 

cuts through. The tax cuts are simply the most obscene thing I 

have ever seen. My guess is that my colleague from Montana would 

agree with me. 

I don’t know where we go on pay-go. I rail against this in caucuses and get shouted down unanimously because we have become 

fiscally responsible. Well, we may be fiscally responsible, but we 

are making it impossible to give anybody a fair shot at life or to 

do anything of any significance in this country. We have condemned ourself to irrelevance. I don’t know where one goes other 

than what you talked about, the agricultural subsidies, which are, 

of course, sacred and which could never pass, but that is never an 

excuse, is it? That is just a mantra which sort of builds up on its 

own and becomes theological because it affects people who don’t 

want to go home and face other folks. 

I have watched our steel industry and our coal industry disappear in West Virginia and I have complained about it, but that 

is sort of the way life works and I regret that. But I think that you 

are quite right. I think we are going to have to go back to that tax 

system and take the vulgarity of what was done over the past 6 

years and do it wisely, which I think we would be able to do, to 

get some revenues from that as well as some of the suggestions 

that you have made. 

You cut down, Dr. Kizer, you said, enormous amounts of money, 

30 percent or something like that of waste and inefficiency that you 

just mentioned. Now it is not just a question of cutting out waste 

or inefficiency or programs that are politically difficult to cutoff, 

but to go back and undo tax cuts. I will just say this because I am 

mad. I walk into the office of somebody on the 86th floor of some 

huge building in New York, who is obviously very senior, at his invitation and he gives me a very cold look, and so I decide it is not 

going to be a very warm meeting. 

46

So I start off by asking him, how much money are you going to 

make this year? That is not usually the way I start a conversation, 

but that is the way I started that one. And he said, ‘‘$183 million, 

he said, ‘‘but I could make more if you would defer my compensation through a variety of means.’’ And then I explained to him I 

represented a State where the average working family of four, their 

income was $26,600 and they worked and they paid taxes and they 

did everything that this fellow did. And I said, how do I take your 

situation over here and the West Virginian situation over there and 

then somehow stitch that together and call it either just or America? You can’t do it. You simply can’t do it. There is greed in this 

country. There is an unwillingness to face problems. There is a lack 

of leadership. I guess that wasn’t much of a question. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I would sort of like you to comment on it, 

and I apologize to Senator Tester. 

DR. REINHARDT. Well, first, this famous quote, it did happen. Before our son graduated from Princeton, he announced that he was 

going to join the Marines. He then was 21 years old. I said to him, 

‘‘Look, you are 21. It is your decision, but be advised that my experience has been—actually, Rudyard Kipling wrote about it eons 

ago—that soldiers are usually not well treated by their society, and 

don’t forget, I grew up here in this country or came to this country 

during the Vietnam period. I was appalled by what I saw, son.’’ 

That is indeed what I told him. I have always been very pro-military, ever since I was a kid in Germany learning country music 

from American Forces Network. My wife from Taiwan is the same. 

We were appalled by how Vietnam veterans were treated when 

they came back. And our daughter, who is now a physician, tells 

me many, many of the homeless, helpless old men she treats are 

Vietnam veterans that were neglected. So there was that memory 

and I warned my son about not expecting much gratitude for his 

service. He went into the Marines just the same. 

Now, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, who has a blog 

there, accused me of being disrespectful to my son for making that 

statement. I thought it was a ridiculous statement for him to make, 

but I guess that hell hath no fury like a chicken hawk scorned. I 

suspect that Mr. Taranto is a member of that class of Americans. 

I had written about chicken hawks in some op-ed pieces and said 

I think more young people who are for this war should step up to 

the breach and fight and give the guys who already did three tours 

a break. That is what I was writing about and that, I guess, what 

provoked Mr. Taranto and led him to make the ridiculous statement that I do not respect my son’s service. 

I did not show any disrespect for my son. On the contrary, I 

thought my statement to him showed respect. It merely showed a 

certain disrespect to the people of the United States who would 

allow veterans going without the right care, who would allow military families to lapse into financial distress. 

On these larger trade-offs that you talk about, those, I guess, will 

be debated in the forthcoming Presidential election, and I have 

very little to say about it other than the observation that the ratio 

of GDP going to taxes is not God-given. It is something that a body 

47

politic chooses, and one has to respect whatever choice is made by 

the body politic as long as a democracy works all right. 

And in that regard, Senator Craig is right. Given the reluctance 

to pay more taxes by the American people, you, the politicians, 

have a tough job to make these trade-offs, given you can’t just raise 

the taxes. And I often sympathize very much with that. There is 

a fair amount of waste in health care which we know about—I alluded to it in my testimony—that maybe we should address more 

seriously than we have. 

There may be other areas where we could be more efficient, including possibly military procurement of the weapons systems that 

don’t work. I recall a gun being made that was so heavy that it 

couldn’t cross a bridge in Europe. 

But my testimony here basically said if you have to make tradeoffs, the VA health budget ought to be last the budget you would 

look to cut, and if you over-budgeted it a bit in a given year, that 

is not what I would lose sleep over because the VA would use it 

smartly. The VA is one of the great trainers of young doctors. They 

do wonderful medical research. It is hard to think that the VA 

would actually waste a lot of money and you could even make sure 

that they don’t by the management systems Ken talks about. 

That was really the thrust of my remarks. If you must cut, be 

careful when it comes to veterans. Some of us, and I hope all Americans, have a very soft spot for them. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. Reinhardt. 

Senator Tester for your questions for Dr. Reinhardt? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When is your next plane, Dr. Reinhardt? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate your testimony, and quite honestly, 

I have sat on a lot of committees. This has been an interesting one 

today. Perspective versus political statement is interesting to me. 

But I appreciate your honesty and I appreciate your forthrightness 

in your testimony and calling it as you see it. I, too, have a problem 

with our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids paying for a war 

that we are fighting today. I particularly agree with what you mentioned in your testimony about the benefits that we give our veterans being a relatively small measure of gratitude. It, indeed, is 

right on the mark. And, by the way, I don’t necessarily agree with 

everything you say. I happen to be a farmer in my real life——

[Laughter.] 

Senator TESTER [continuing].—so agriculture subsidies are something that we maybe have a debate for another time. 

Maybe we can get you in front of the Agriculture Committee, but 

I am not on that, so another issue. 

But I do have a couple of questions. Twenty-seven percent of the 

deaths or casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are from rural America. That is compared to only 19 percent of the United States population comes from rural America. So we are over-represented in the 

war, and when kids are critically injured, they go back to rural 

America, farms, small towns. I was wondering if there has ever 

been any work done, and Dr. Kizer, you might address this, too, 

when we get to you, to see if this really is a problem in the VA 

system, if it really is a problem that we have a smaller percentage 

48

of resources than what is actually in the service as far as rural 

America goes and the kind of access to health care that they get 

and if there has ever been any work done to point this out as being 

a problem, or is this just something that is a statistic for statistic’s 

sake? 

DR. REINHARDT. Well, I think it has been known. There have 

been sundry studies of the origin, the socio-economic origin of the 

Armed Forces and that rural America is very heavily represented 

in those ranks. Part of that is tradition, that they have this very 

patriotic tradition. Part of it may be that the Army is a good opportunity for them. The economic opportunities in rural America are 

not as great as elsewhere in the economy. 

As far as health care is concerned, sometimes it may cause problems if there are no VA facilities nearby, and then one has to really 

worry either about transportation or one has to worry about having 

other health care facilities who could substitute for the VA nearby. 

But the other thing that is sometimes overlooked is how easy it 

is for families to visit wounded veterans. When our son was wounded in the Landstuhl hospital in Germany, my wife and I jumped 

on a plane and flew there and stayed in a nearby hotel. How easy 

would that be for people with lower incomes? 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

DR. REINHARDT. How easy is that when sometimes even with a 

veteran, when he is in a VA that is very, very good, how far is that 

for relatives to visit, and yet those visits are crucial to the healing. 

So it is a real problem. 

We even have a problem with the active military service. The 

program for the TRICARE pays rates that are roughly equivalent 

to Medicare. Now, anywhere near a base, that doesn’t cause a problem because the military has made sure that there are health care 

providers who serve the military. But for families of Reservists who 

are not near a military base, I have read and I have heard that 

doctors—it was in the Wall Street Journal, no less—that doctors 

sometimes refuse to take care of these families because the 

TRICARE fees are so low. 

See, that again, whether you call it political or whatever, this 

would outrage a pro-military man like me. As I said before, I have 

been pro-military ever since I was a kid. We Germans loved those 

GIs. My wife and I took our own kids to American military cemeteries abroad, we stood there with them to pay our respects for 

these fallen ones. So when I see a military person not properly 

cared for in this country, I do get angry and possibly political and 

I don’t apologize for it. 

Senator TESTER. One last one, and I am about out of time, but 

you had mentioned in your comments to begin with that you said, 

and correct me if I am wrong, because I could be, in the VA budget, 

half goes to VA health care proper. I looked through your written 

and I could not find that again. Is that what you did say? And my 

question is, where does the other half go? 

DR. REINHARDT. There are disability pensions and regular pensions, and cemetery services and there is a whole lot——

Senator TESTER. Oh, OK. I have got you. I understand. 

DR. REINHARDT. I probably have it somewhere here. 

49

Senator TESTER. That is not important. You clarified it. The part 

that goes to the VA health care portion of the budget, I would assume that we are getting 90 percent or higher that gets to the veterans that need the health care. In other words, the documents I 

have seen is that the Administration—VA is very, very good in 

their administrative costs. They keep it very, very low. And I just 

want to make sure that is still the way it is. Dr. Kizer can answer 

that later. Thank you very much. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

We have used this method, Professor Reinhardt, so that you can 

leave to get your plane. I know that you have been planning to do 

that, and we will continue, then, with the questions to Dr. Kizer. 

I am going to limit my questions to you, Dr. Kizer, and place others 

in the record for you. 

Thank you very much, Dr. Reinhardt. 

DR. REINHARDT. And I would like to thank you for putting up 

with a guy like me. Free speech, I probably take it too far. 

[Laughter.] 

DR. REINHARDT. But I enjoy it and I——

Senator CRAIG. Dr. Reinhardt, we may disagree, but free speech 

is never taken too far. 

DR. REINHARDT. And I want to thank you, in particular, for being 

very gracious with my remarks, and Senator Rockefeller for his 

kind remarks, my rambunctiousness over the years, I guess. And 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me. 

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. Kizer, CBO estimates that the cost of moving VA health care funding from discretionary to mandatory is 

roughly the amount currently being spent. What effect would this 

have on the overall Federal budget? 

DR. KIZER. I am not sure I can answer the question that you 

pose. I think the real question in my mind as far as VA health care 

funding is three-part: Is funding adequate? Is it on time? And does 

it come with enough flexibility that field management can do what 

they need to do to serve the veterans in their communities? 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Kizer, when you were Under 

Secretary for Health, you developed many relationships. In this 

particular case, let me ask this. 

How was your relationship with OMB? How strong was the pressure to limit annual budget requests? 

DR. KIZER. How does one answer that? OMB has a perspective 

and important role. I was fortunate, I think, in that our program 

budget person was understanding of our needs and actually we cut 

a deal that historically had not been possible. I am referring to 

Nancy Ann Min, who very much understood what we were trying 

to do in VA and allowed us to retain the savings that we were able 

to achieve. Historically, OMB had not agreed to this. Nancy did 

some other things that made the job a little bit easier. 

Now, obviously, not everyone in OMB agreed with her perspective, and we had some spirited discussions—and we didn’t always 

come out on the top side of those discussions. But this is a government of checks and balances, and the Congress has its role in the 

appropriations process as does OMB and in the end, you hope that 

the—in this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs gets what is 

needed to serve the needs of the veterans. 

50

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. Kizer, recent VA budgets have proposed 

substantial savings from what VA refers to as management efficiencies. GAO has found that there is no methodological justification for the figures put forward under this term. As one who is 

credited with making VA more efficient, what is your view of these 

efficiencies and of using them to justify a lower budget request? 

DR. KIZER. Well, ‘‘management efficiencies’’ is one of those terms 

that means a lot of things to different people. Most often, I think, 

it means that you don’t know where the hell you are going to get 

the money from but you need to reduce your appropriation request 

that is going to the Congress. 

And in other cases, it means there are actually known savings 

that can be achieved. In my comments, I highlighted two areas 

where I think the VA could achieve real savings in things that they 

are not doing now, and some of that is simply because of new technology that has only recently become available. I don’t know about 

all of the management efficiencies that they are referring to, but 

I think we are all aware of the budget process and the give and 

take that is involved in that process between the respective parts 

of government. 

Chairman AKAKA. I have other questions I will place in the 

record for you. Senator Craig? 

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I will be brief. I have many one question, one follow-up, and I, too, 

want to recognize the phenomenal work that Dr. Kizer has done in 

VA over the years and what he produced as a result of it. And I 

think your testimony in general has been imminently fair to the reality of where we are and what we try to do for our veterans. 

Let me ask you this question. You talk about efficiencies in 

health care based on technological changes, and that is valid and 

it often times comes to pass. And then you can go to Dr. 

Reinhardt’s chart that shows, if you will, probably the greatest efficiencies may be occurring as a result of your leadership in VA compared to the private sector, where I won’t argue that there is unlimited funding, but there is certainly no pressure in part against 

cost increases, or less pressure. 

When you talk about how the VA budget for health care rose 

only 6 percent total during your time and the fiscal pressures you 

had to deal with to produce what you did, could you have produced 

the efficiencies you did and the quality of health care you produced 

had you not had the fiscal pressures on you? 

DR. KIZER. I think that is an interesting academic question. The 

reality is that I did have those pressures and that is what we had 

to deal with and the outcome is as it is. And frankly, I think the 

fiscal pressure certainly helped adjust attitudes and sometimes get 

people to the same page or the same place in their thinking so that 

we could advance some of the new ideas and newer concepts that 

were introduced at that time that previously were impossible, and 

I think that that is not unlike in many other situations where new 

fiscal realities or other new realities force one to change their 

thinking. 

Certainly, and I am changing gears a little bit, technology should 

be looked to for where it can save funds, but on the other hand, 

we should be mindful that technology is also going to drive costs 

51

up dramatically. Just to give you a couple of examples, during my 

tenure at VA, the protease inhibitors came out and suddenly our 

pharmacy budget increased by hundreds of millions of dollars overnight. Likewise with Hepatitis C and interferon and treatment for 

that. Again, hundreds of millions of dollars suddenly was added to 

the pharmacy budget, and this is going to continue the trend. 

If you look at the technology coming down the pipeline in health 

care overall, there are just dramatic things that are going to be 

possible to do to improve people’s lives and improve their functioning. All of those things are going to come with a cost. So I think 

that recognizing that we continuously have to be mindful of the 

need to be looking for opportunities to save dollars and to make the 

system more cost effective wherever possible, and particularly in 

areas that don’t or are non-patient-facing, those areas that the patient doesn’t necessarily see and doesn’t affect service satisfaction 

or the quality of care. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I appreciate that comment because I think 

that is a fair judgment. 

Last question, we are falling into the habit, whether it is for political purposes or for high-profile issues, beginning to earmark certain health care funds flowing through to the VA. Is that good business? It may be politically good for us here. Will it result in good 

administrative work or the ability to spread money and get where 

you need to get with health care delivery at the VA? 

DR. KIZER. Well, I think that is a really important question that 

you ask and I have to put on my epidemiology hat, I guess, for you, 

on the one hand and on the other hand, because certainly from a 

VA headquarters perspective, I think earmarking funds makes a 

lot of sense, and certainly as one sits down the street on Vermont 

Avenue and you are looking at your needs, whether they be mental 

health, historically a very underserved area and where we haven’t 

given appropriate resources, it might make sense to earmark that 

and make sure that those monies are going for behavioral or mental health problems, or whether it is geriatrics or whether it is 

prosthetics. There are multiple areas where you might want to do 

that. 

However, if you happen to be in Twin Falls or someplace where 

the needs of the veterans in that community are different and you 

don’t have the ability or the flexibility to go back and forth, then 

it becomes very difficult for management in the real world and on 

the front lines of health care to do what they need to do to provide 

service to the veterans in that community. 

So I think this is a real challenge for the VA in assuring both 

the appropriateness and the accountability of dollars go to those 

high-priority areas, but at the same time you don’t want to hamstring your management so that they then can’t pay for the services that may be needed on Maui or some other local community 

that just has a different patient mix that has different priority 

needs. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. Thank you for that observation, Doctor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. 

52

I want to thank you so much for your statement today and also 

for your responses, Dr. Kizer. Your responses have been valuable 

to us. Thank you very much. 

DR. KIZER. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Good 

luck. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

At this time, I would like to welcome our second panel. Joe 

Violante is the National Legislative Director for the Disabled 

American Veterans, and Joe, you have been here many times before. Again, I want to welcome you back. 

And also, J. David Cox is the National Secretary and Treasurer 

of the American Federation of Government Employees and has 18 

years of experience representing VA staff in the field. I look forward to hearing his perspective on the effects of Washington budget struggles and VA at the ground level. 

Thank you again, both of you, for being here and for being patient. Your full statements will appear in the record of the hearing. 

Mr. Violante, will you please begin with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOE VIOLANTE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, ON BEHALF 

OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE

BUDGET REFORM 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to testify on the funding system for 

the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. I am testifying on behalf of the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget 

Reform, made up of nine national veterans service organizations. 

First, I want to thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Craig, for holding this critical and historical hearing. Fourteen 

years ago, the original Partnership for Veterans Health Reform 

was established. In the early 1990s, as eligibility reform was being 

discussed, we urged Congress to also reform VA’s discretionary 

budgeting system. Today, we remain unified in this position. We 

are equally unified that the VA health care system needs to be protected and sustained for the millions of veterans who depend on it 

as their only health care provider and will do so for many decades 

to come. 

The Partnership acknowledges and applauds the support of this 

Committee and your Appropriations Committee colleagues for funding increases in recent years, including this year’s likely increase 

of $6 billion. However, with the August recess looming and the new 

fiscal year starting October 1, we see a strong possibility that VA’s 

regular appropriations for 2008 will be late again, as it has been 

for 12 of the past 13 years. 

To resolve our concern, Congress must not only provide yearly 

appropriations that are sufficient to meet known needs, but those 

funds must arrive on time and be provided in a predictable manner. These are our three principles for funding reform: Sufficiency, 

timeliness, and predictability, and I believe those are the same elements that Dr. Kizer mentioned. 

Without reform, we see no prospect for improvement in the current budget structure. Inadequate submissions from Presidents of 

both parties, proposals for new fees, copayments, and management 

53

efficiencies, annual continuing resolutions, offsets and across-theboard cuts, supplementals, and even dire emergency appropriations 

provided late in the year, all of these anomalies have become so 

regular that they are now normal and expected activities each year. 

Aside from an insufficient level of funding, today’s budget process 

itself has basically paralyzed VA officials from more properly managing, planning, and operating the VA system. 

Not knowing when or what level of funding they will receive 

from year to year or how Congress would deal with policy proposals 

directly affecting the budget severely impairs their ability to recruit 

and retain staff and conduct planning and administrative matters 

across a wide path of necessary and even routine matters. We ask, 

is there an American business today that could operate and remain 

viable if it had to operate under these same conditions year after 

year? 

Mr. Chairman, there is much at stake. A young American 

wounded today, particularly one with severe injuries such as limb 

loss, blindness, or Traumatic Brain Injury, must be able to rely on 

the VA health care system for decades. The goal of the Partnership 

is for Congress to enact a long-term funding solution that guarantees all enrolled veterans will have a dependable VA health care 

system, and not just today while the war is in the news, but far 

in the future when the headlines of these wars have faded from our 

national memory. 

Opponents of this reform have made a number of charges. Specifically, that it would create a new entitlement, that too many new 

veterans would rush in to enroll, that Congress would lose its oversight power, that it would cost too much. The Partnership rejects 

these skeptics. Shifting VA health care to a mandatory status 

would not create an individual entitlement for veterans, nor would 

it change the current health benefit package. Most veterans today 

have private health insurance and would not seek VA care merely 

because of a change in the funding mechanism. Congress would retain all oversight authority. What the shift would do is remove politics from determining the budget for VA health care. 

Most importantly, the Partnership rejects the argument that it 

would cost too much. Our proposal is designed to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to provide health care services to 

veterans whom VA enrolls, no more, no less. Funding VA health 

care is a continuing cost of national defense. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Partnership 

looks to this Committee for leadership. In your forthcoming Fiscal 

Year 2009 Views amd Estimates to the Budget Committee, we ask 

that you inform them of this Committee’s intention to report legislation creating a mandatory and guaranteed funding system for VA 

health care to become effective in 2009. We ask that you recommend that the Budget Committee reserve sufficient funds to 

make that change. 

If the Committee chooses a different method than offered in H.R. 

2514 or a future Senate companion bill, the Partnership will study 

that proposal to determine whether it meets our three key standards for reform: Sufficiency, timeliness, and predictability. If that 

alternative measure meets our standards, the Partnership will supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
54

port it with a great deal of enthusiasm and appreciation. If it does 

not, we will tell you why not. 

The time for change is now. Please stand up for veterans, and 

thank you for holding this critical and long-awaited hearing. I will 

be pleased to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Violante follows:] 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Violante.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, ON BEHALF OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR VETERANS

HEALTH CARE BUDGET REFORM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the funding process for the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. I am testifying not only 

on behalf of Disabled American Veterans (DAV), but also the eight other national 

veterans service organizations along with DAV that make up the Partnership for 

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform (hereinafter, the Partnership): The American 

Legion; AMVETS; Blinded Veterans Association; Jewish War Veterans of the USA; 

Military Order of Purple Heart of the U.S.A.; Paralyzed Veterans of America; Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; and, Vietnam Veterans of America. 

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Craig 

for holding this critical, and even historic, hearing. For more than a decade the 

Partnership has urged Congress to address and reform the basic discretionary appropriations system of funding VA health care. The VA health care system must be 

protected for millions of veterans who depend on it now as their only health care 

resource and will do so for many decades. This hearing is a key moment for Congress. There is an opportunity to create an enduring legacy of commitment to the 

long-term viability of the health care system dedicated to meeting the unique needs 

of our Nation’s veterans. 

While we have waited a long time for today’s hearing, the Partnership acknowledges and applauds the support of this Committee and your Appropriations Committee colleagues who have elevated VA discretionary health care funding over the 

past several budget cycles and in particular this year’s prospective increase of $6 

billion in additional health care funding. Nevertheless, I hope to make clear to the 

Committee why funding problems persist and how Congress can solve this issue by 

enacting a reform that results in sufficiency, predictability and timeliness of VA 

health care funding. 

Each year the President proposes a prospective budget and accompanying policies 

for the Federal Government. Based on the Views and Estimates reports from authorizing committees, including this Committee in the case of Budget Function 700, 

Veterans Benefits and Services, the Budget Committees create a Concurrent Resolution as a blueprint to execute that budget. The Appropriations Committees allocate 

funds to carry out the purposes of that budget, guided by the Concurrent Resolution. 

The whole Congress and the President underwrite this system. Executive Branch 

agencies carry out policies approved by Congress by spending the funds Congress 

appropriates for those purposes, approved through that process. It is intended to be 

a balanced system, but for a variety of reasons that we will discuss in our testimony 

today, it does not work in the case of veterans health care. 

No matter how accurate and precise the formulation methodology for the budget 

may be, the budget process itself impacts the appropriateness of the final resource 

outcome. For example, although the budget process is designed to accommodate 

multiple reviews and approvals it is often too cumbersome and long requiring seven 

review levels (the Veterans Health Administration; VA; the Office of Management 

and Budget; Congressional Authorizing Committees (House and Senate) and Congressional Appropriations Committees (House and Senate); and 21 months (at a 

minimum) from initial formulation to the beginning of the budgeted fiscal year. The 

resultant budget, after multiple tactical adjustments, often lacks a clear strategic 

direction. Updates in estimates (during the 21-month span) are not encouraged after 

review officials lock-in to their approved levels. Review adjustments often lack precise calculations. Finally, the resultant budget is subject to delays in appropriations 

enactment often unrelated to veteran policy issues. 

All veterans’ programs, including its health care system, are dependent upon sufficient funding for the benefits and services provided by Congressional authorization. If Congress awards a benefit to veterans, that benefit or service should be appropriately funded by Congress. Finally, a level of funding should be provided to 

55

guarantee that benefits or services are actually available to a veteran in need. Unfortunately, the VA discretionary appropriations process often fails against that 

standard. 

VA has been unable to manage or plan the delivery of care as effectively as it 

could have, as a result of perennially inadequate budget submissions from Presidents of both political parties; annual Continuing Resolutions in lieu of approved appropriations; late arriving final appropriations; offsets and across-the-board reductions; plus the injection of supplemental and even ‘‘emergency supplemental’’ appropriations to fill gaps. We challenge this Comm ittee to identify an American business that could operate successfully and remain viable if, in 12 of 13 consecutive 

years, it had no advance confidence about the level of its projected revenues or the 

resources it needed to bring a product or service to market, no ability to plan beyond 

the immediate needs of the institution day-to-day, and no freedom to operate on the 

basis of known or expected need in the future. In fact, this has been the situation 

in VA, with 12 out of 13 fiscal years beginning with Continuing Resolutions, creating a number of challenging conditions that are preventable and avoidable with 

basic reforms in funding. We believe that no commercial business in America could 

have withstood the degree of financial insecurity and instability VA has endured 

over a decade. The Partnership believes this situation needn’t exist, and that Congress can make vast improvements with funding reform legislation. 

The Partnership is especially concerned about maintaining a stable and viable 

health care system to meet the unique medical needs of our Nation’s veterans now 

and in the future. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are producing a new generation of wounded, sick and disabled veterans, and some severe types at a poly trauma 

level never seen before in warfare. A young American wounded in Central Asia 

today with brain injury, limb loss, or blindness will need the VA health care system 

for the remainder of their lives. The goal of the Partnership is to see a long-term 

solution formed for funding VA health care to guarantee these veterans will have 

a dependable system for the foreseeable future, not simply next year. Reformation 

of the whole funding system is essential so Federal funds can be secured on a timely 

basis, allowing VA to manage the delivery of care, and to plan effectively to meet 

known and predictable needs. In our judgment a change is warranted and long overdue. To establish a stable and viable health care system, any reform must include 

suficiency, predictability, and timeliness of VA health care funding. 

In past Congresses we have worked with both Veterans’ Affairs Committees to 

craft legislation that we believe would solve this problem if enacted. The current 

version of that bill is a House measure, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health 

Care Act, H.R. 2514, introduced on May 24, 2007, by Representative Phil Hare of 

Illinois with 77 original cosponsors and the Partnership’s full endorsement. We note 

for the record that no Senate companion measure has been introduced in this Congress due to the illness of the expected chief sponsor, Senator Tim Johnson of South 

Dakota, a Member of this Committee. A number of public criticisms have been made 

of this bill and its predecessors, and I will address those concerns later in this statement. Suffice it to say that the Partnership believes even if each of those assertions 

about the bill were literally true, veterans still would have an improved funding system were that bill enacted than the one they have today under the current discretionary appropriations system. 

We ask the Committee to consider all the actions Congress has had to take over 

only the past three years to find and appropriate ‘‘extra’’ funding to fill gaps left 

from the normal appropriations system. Please also consider the Administration’s efforts to explain to Congress why VA was shortchanged by billions of dollars each 

year. These admissions were often very reluctantly made. In one case, the President 

was reduced to formally requesting two budget amendments from Congress within 

only a few days of each other. 

Some Members have opposed mandatory funding because it would cost too much; 

however, the recent Congressional Research Service report to Congress detailing the 

running expenditures for the Global War on Terror since September 11, 2001, revealed that veterans affairs-related spending constitutes 1 percent of the government’s total expenditure. Without question, there is a high cost for war and caring 

for our Nation’s sick and disabled veterans is part of that continued cost. A report 

by a researcher at Harvard’s Kennedy School predicted that Federal outlays for veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will arc between $350 billion and $700 

billion over their life expectancies following military service an amount in addition 

to what the Nation already spends for previous generations of veterans. Thus, it is 

clear the government will be spending vast sums in the future to care for veterans, 

to compensate them for their service and sacrifice, but these funds will still only 

constitute a minute fraction of total homeland security and war spending. We believe funding VA health care is a cost of defense and war no less important than 

56

1The creation of the new VISNs began in 1995 in anticipation of the passage of the Act. 

2 ‘‘the extent and in the amount provided in advance in appropriations Acts for these purposes. 

Such language is intended to clarify that these services would continue to depend upon discretionary appropriations.’’ Taken from the Committee Report (H. Report 104–690) of the P.L. 104–

262.) 

the weapons systems Congress authorizes in direct prosecution of the Nation’s defense. 

From this hearing, after considering the testimony of witnesses and based thereon, we ask the Committee, in your FY 2009 Views and Estimates to the Budget 

Committee that you inform them of your intention to report legislation creating a 

mandatory and guaranteed funding system for VA health care in 2009, and that you 

recommend that they reserve sufficient funds to make that seminal change. If the 

Committee chooses a different method than offered in H.R. 2514 or a future Senate 

companion bill that is similar, we will examine that proposal to determine whether 

it meets our three essential standards for reform: suficiency, predictability, and 

timeliness of funding for VA health care. If that alternative fully meets those standards, our organizations will enthusiastically support it. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND FURTHER JUSTIFICATION FOR REFORM

In 1996, Congress passed the Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 

1996, Public Law 104–262, which changed eligibility requirements and the way 

health care was provided to veterans. Greater numbers of veterans became eligible 

for health care benefits as a result of this Act. As P.L. 104–262 was moving through 

Congress, Dr. Kenneth W. Kizer, the then-Under Secretary of Health of the Veterans Heath Administration (VHA), submitted a major administrative reorganization plan to Congress under Title 38 United States Code, Chapter 5, Section 510(b). 

Since Congress expressed no disapproval of this proposal, this plan created 22 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) 1 to replace the VA’s four regional management divisions. 

The decentralization of operations was seen as essential to prepare VA to function 

more effectively in manageable and integrated delivery networks networks that 

would be more patient-centric and would rely on primary and preventive care rather 

than more intensive modes. Accentuated by authorities provided by P.L. 104–262, 

the VA health care system thereabout underwent significant reforms from an episodic and bed-reliant system of care to one in which veterans were enrolled and 

could expect continuity of care and health maintenance, including preventive services. The shift in focus from medical intervention in diseases afflicting veterans, to 

primary care to maintain their health, reflected a broader trend co-occurring in 

America’s private health care sector. The shift allowed VA to close thousands of unnecessary hospital beds while establishing new facilities called Community Based 

Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) to provide more veterans more convenient access to 

care. With encouragement from many Members of Congress as well as your Committee 

and national veterans service organizations, the VISNs outreached to veterans to 

enroll in a reformed VA health care system. As a result millions of veterans enrolled 

in VA health care for the first time in their lives. A decade later, VA health care 

is a remarkable success story of how to transform a troubled and overburdened system into a state-of-the-art provider. Harvard University’s School of Public Health 

and the National Quality Research Center at the University of Michigan have both 

scored VA at the very top of American health care systems in terms of patient safety 

and medical outcomes. Mainstream publications, including Time, Newsweek, US 

News and World Report, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, 

Washington Post, Fortune, and the Washington Monthly, have all written major stories detailing VA’s transformation over the past decade. Their investigations have 

confirmed that VA today is the highest quality, lowest cost health care system in 

the Nation. 

While Congress intended veterans to be able to secure an improved continuum of 

care, P.L. 104–262 underscored that VA health care operations would still be dependent upon appropriated resources. 2 As early as 1993, the Partnership urged 

Congress to ‘‘guarantee’’ funding for VA health care if Congress decided to reform 

eligibility for that care. Unlike other health care benefits available to non-VA beneficiaries, this VA benefit is not ‘‘guaranteed.’’ This has probably been the single most 

significant problem for VA during the past decade and the reason we appear here 

today. In sum, as a result of eligibility reform veterans have been rewarded with 

a more integrated VA health care system, a more comprehensive health care benefit 

and high quality, safe health care services. However, gaining and keeping access to 

that system is a continuing dilemma due to the uncertainty of duration of an indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
57

vidual’s enrollment, VA’s hobbled planning from lack of secured and predictable 

funding; budgetary gimmicks employed by VA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials. Additionally, because of the Administration’s policies, VA is constrained from publicly stating their true funding requirements. 

Most importantly, eligibility reform eliminated fragmented care provisions in the 

statute and enabled VA to appropriately streamline care for its veteran patients. It 

eliminated a tangled web of rules and internal VA policies that made individual 

health care eligibility decisions bureaucratic, complicated, confusing, and harmful to 

the health of veterans who depended on VA to meet their needs. Reforming eligibility corrected the artificial inefficiencies of the system, allowed it to treat more 

veterans, and enabled it to preserve the system, primarily for service-connected veterans, low income veterans and veterans with special needs. We believe that goal 

was, and still is, a sound one. Without question VA’s success has led to unprecedented growth in the system but we disagree with some who allege that eligibility 

reform created ‘‘the current funding problem’’ by enticing too many veterans to enroll. In our judgment the problem is not eligibility reform, but inadequate funding 

through the discretionary appropriations process. 

PRESSURE BUILDS ON THE SYSTEM

In 2002, VA placed a moratorium on its facilities’ marketing and outreach activities to veterans and determined there was a need to give the most severely serviceconnected disabled veterans a priority for care. This was necessitated by VA’s realization that demand was seriously outpacing available funding and other resources, 

and service-connected veterans were being pushed aside as VA’s highest priority. On 

January 17, 2003, the Secretary announced a ‘‘temporary’’ exclusion from enrollment of veterans whose income exceeds geographically determined thresholds and 

who were not enrolled before that date. This directive denied health care access to 

164,000 so-called ‘‘Priority Group 8’’ (PG8) veterans in the first year alone following 

that decision. To date, over one million veterans have been denied access to VA 

health care under that policy. The then-Ranking Member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee was correct when, in response to the Secretary’s decision to restrict 

enrollments of these veterans he stated, ‘‘The problem isn’t that veterans are seeking health care from their health care system it’s that the Federal Government is 

not making the resources available to address their needs.’’ We agree. 

Mr. Chairman, the decision to exclude PG8 veterans from VA health care enrollment at the beginning of 2003 also must be taken into historical context. While VA 

was in the midst of unprecedented systemic—even revolutionary—change, Congress 

passed the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, Public Law 105–33. That Act was 

intended to flatline domestic discretionary Federal spending, across the board, including funding for VA health care. As the effects of the BBA took hold during the 

3-year life of that law, VA’s financial situation shifted from challenging to that of 

crisis. In 2000, at the urgings of both this Committee and your House counterpart, 

Congress relented and provided VA health care a supplemental appropriation of 

$1.7 billion. Nevertheless, a 3-year funding drought built up conditions that could 

not easily be surmounted by one infusion of new funding. VA began queuing new 

veteran enrollees, the waiting list lengthened and rationing of care was commonly 

reported. Eventually, by 2002, the list of veterans waiting more than 6 months for 

their first primary care appointment inched toward 300,000 nationwide. Given an 

Administration that would not permit additional funding to stem the waiting list 

buildup, then-VA Secretary Principi, using the policy available to him, closed new 

enrollments of PG8 veterans and set about a plan to get the waiting list under control. 

Another consideration important to this discussion is that the BBA also authorized a ten-site ‘‘Medicare subvention’’ demonstration project within the Department 

of Defense (DOD) health care system as a precursor to the advent of Medicare subvention in VA. This program eventually failed in DOD and, later known as 

‘‘VA+Choice Medicare’’ and later still, ‘‘VAAdvantage,’’ never got off the ground due 

to opposition from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Health and Human Services. This failure meant that no Medicare funds 

would ever be received by VA for the care it had been providing (and is still providing) to fully Medicare-eligible veterans receiving care as enrolled VA patients, at 

a huge cost avoidance savings to the Medicare trust fund. At least 55 percent of 

VA’s enrolled population is concurrently eligible for Medicare coverage. Many PG8 

veterans, in and out of VA, would be Medicare eligible as well. 

58

PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE

An additional perspective to consider with respect to addressing funding reform 

is that of the President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation’s Veterans (PTF). Dr. Gail Wilensky, Co-Chair of that task force, testified before 

the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on March 26, 2003, two months following 

the exclusion of PG8 veterans from VA enrollment. She stated:

As I noted earlier, as the Task Force addressed issues set out directly in 

our charge, we invariably kept coming up against concerns relating to the 

current situation in VA in which there is such a mismatch between the demand for VA services and the funding available to meet that demand. It 

was clear to us that, although there has been a historical gap between demand for VA care and the funding available in any given year to meet that 

demand, the current mismatch is far greater, for a variety of reasons, and 

its impact potentially far more detrimental, both to VA’s ability to furnish 

high quality care and to the support that the system needs from those it 

serves and their elected representatives. 

The PTF members were very concerned about this situation, both because 

of its direct impact on VA care as well on how it impacted overall collaboration [with DOD]. Our discussion on the mismatch issue stretched over 

many months and, as anyone following the work of the Task Forces already 

knows, it was the area of the greatest diference of opinion among the members. 

Although we did not reach agreement on one issue in the mismatch 

area—that is, the status of veterans in Category 8, those veterans with no 

service-connected conditions with incomes above the geographically adjusted means test threshold—we were unanimous as to what should be the 

situation for veterans in Categories 1 through 7, those veterans with service-connected conditions or with incomes below the income threshold.

While the Partnership supports opening the system to new PG8 veterans who 

need care, we must surmise based on the above historical recounting and our analysis that the readmission of PG8 veterans to VA, absent a major reformation of VA’s 

funding system, could stimulate and trigger a new funding crisis in VA health care. 

While Congress is poised to add a significant new discretionary funding increase to 

VA medical accounts for FY 2008—one that we deeply appreciate—we are uncertain 

that even that generous increase will be sufficient to offset all of VA’s financial 

shortfalls. Also, it should be pointed out that the needs of re-admitted veterans 

would be challenging for VA’s human resources and capital programs. We are concerned whether sufficient health professional manpower could be recruited to enable 

VA to put them into place in an orderly fashion to meet this new demand. Also, 

VA’s physical space may be insufficient to accommodate the new outpatient visits 

that PG8 patients would likely generate. These practical problems are but additional proof that funding reform should accompany readmission of PG8 veterans 

into the system. 

The question about PG8 veterans reenrolling in VA health care is not a question 

only about them and their needs for health care. It is also a larger question about 

the sufficiency, reliability and dependability of the current system of funding VA 

health care through the domestic discretionary appropriations process. Until those 

reforms are enacted to guarantee that on October 1 of each year, VA will have a 

known budget in hand, will have the means and methods to spend those funds in 

accordance with need, and that VA’s budget will be based on a stable, predictable 

and sufficient methodology, we are concerned about immediate readmission of PG8 

veterans. 

FACTS ON ASSURED FUNDING FOR VA HEALTH CARE

Mr. Chairman, in recent years we have heard a number of reasons put forward 

as to why converting VA health care to mandatory funding would fail, whether from 

the bill we recommend or through other models to achieve that purpose. We summarize those concerns here and ask the Committee to consider them and our responses. 

Myths and Reality 

Myth: Congress would lose oversight over the VA health care system if VA shifted 

from discretionary to mandatory funding. 

Reality: While funding would be removed from the direct politics, uncertainties, 

and capriciousness of the annual budget-appropriations process, Congress would retain oversight of VA programs and health care services—as it does with other Federal mandatory programs. Guaranteed funding for VA health care would free MemVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
59

bers of Congress from their annual budgetary battles to provide more time for them 

to concentrate on oversight of VA programs and services.

Myth: Mandatory funding creates an individual entitlement to health care. 

Reality: The Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act would shift the current funding for VA health care from discretionary appropriations to mandatory 

budget status. The Act makes no other changes. It does not expand eligibility for 

an individual veteran, make changes to the benefits package, or alter VA’s mission.

Myth: Guaranteed funding would open the VA health care system to all veterans. 

Reality: The Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 theoretically opened the 

VA health care system to all 27 million veterans; however, it was never anticipated 

that all veterans would seek or need VA health care. Most veterans have private 

health insurance and will likely never elect to use the system. The Secretary is required by law to make an annual enrollment decision based on available resources. 

This bill would not affect the Secretary’s authority to manage enrollment, but would 

only ensure the Secretary has sufficient funds to treat those veterans enrolled for 

VA health care.

Myth: Guaranteed funding for VA health care would cost too much. 

Reality: Guaranteed funding under the Act would utilize a formula based on the 

number of enrolled veterans multiplied by the cost per patient, with an annual adjustment for medical inflation to keep pace with costs for medical equipment, supplies, pharmaceuticals and uncontrollable costs such as energy. The Act would ensure that VA receives suficient resources to treat veterans actually using the system.

Myth: Veterans in Priority Group 7 and 8 are using up all of VA’s health care 

resources; and it therefore costs too much to continue to treat these veterans. 

Reality: Among the 7.9 million enrollees in the VA health care system, 2.4 million 

veterans from Priority Groups 7 and 8 account for only 30 percent of the total enrolled population but use only 11 percent of VA’s expenditure for all priority groups.

Myth: The viability of the VA health care system can be maintained even if VA 

only treats service-connected veterans or the so- called ‘‘core group,’’ Priority Groups 

1–6. 

Reality: VA health care should be maintained and priority given to treat these 

veterans, since many of the specialized services they need are not available in the 

private sector. However, to maintain VA, a proper patient case mix and a sufficient 

number of veterans are needed to ensure the viability of the system for its so-called 

core users and to preserve specialized programs, while remaining cost effective.

Myth: Providing guaranteed funding for VA health care will not solve VA’s problems. 

Reality: With guaranteed funding, VA can strategically plan for the short-, 

medium- and long-term, optimize its assets, achieve greater efficiency and realize 

savings. VA continues to struggle to provide timely health care services to all veterans seeking care due to insufficient funding, and always uncertain funding beyond 

the operational year. The guaranteed funding formula in the bill provides a standardized approach in solving the access issue and permitting more rational planning.

Myth: Veterans health care should be privatized because the system is too big, 

inefficient, and unresponsive to veterans. 

Reality: VA patients are often elderly, have multiple disabilities, and are chronically ill. They are generally unattractive to the private sector. Also, such patients 

pose too great an underwriting risk for private insurers and health maintenance or 

preferred provider organizations. While private sector hospitals have lower administrative costs and operate with profit motives, a number of studies have shown that 

VA provides high quality care and is more cost-effective care than comparable private sector health care. VA provides a wide range of specialized services, including 

spinal cord injury and dysfunction care, blind rehabilitation, prosthetics, advanced 

rehabilitation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, mental health, and long-term care. 

These are at the very heart of VA’s mission. Additionally, VA supplies one-third of 

all care provided for the chronically mentally ill, and is the largest single source of 

care for patients with AIDS. Without VA, millions of veterans would be forced to 

rely on Medicare and Medicaid at substantially greater Federal and state expense.

Myth: Under a mandatory funding program, VA would no longer have an incentive to find efficiencies and to supplement its appropriation with third-party collections. 

Reality: Mandatory funding will provide sufficient resources to ensure high quality health care services when veterans need it. It is not intended to provide excess 

funding for veterans health care. VA Central Office (VACO) would still be responsible for ensuring local managers are using funds appropriately and efficiently. NetVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
60

work and medical center directors and others would still be required to meet performance standards and third-party collections goals. These checks and balances 

will help ensure accountability. 

DECISION POINT: A CALL FOR ACTION

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we ask for your leadership, support and commitment to resolve this keystone issue in veterans’ affairs. 

Only strong leadership from the Committee can address the current workload and 

resource imbalance reported to the Administration and Congress in 2003 by the 

President’s Task Force, a mismatch confirmed nearly every day since in media accounts, learned reviews and research studies that are readily available to the Committee. We urge you to guide the Department out of this unnecessary but real and 

continuing dilemma. We hope, as leaders on veterans’ issues, the Members of this 

Committee will remember the needs of America’s veterans and take action to remedy this serious problem. 

This Committee knows best the enormous fiscal distress that VA has faced and 

still faces. We hope that Congress in a bipartisan manner will be willing to break 

the vicious cycle that has undermined the veterans’ health care system. Your action 

on this issue will determine what level of health care is available to meet the needs 

of current and future generations of American veterans. We believe guaranteed 

funding through a mandatory formula would provide the most comprehensive solution to VA’s chronic health-care funding problem. It would ensure the viability of 

the system. The hopes of the entire veterans’ community for a more stable future 

were rekindled when you, Mr. Chairman, scheduled this important Committee hearing. We trust it represents the beginning of the end of these annual budget battles 

we all have to fight. 

Mr. Chairman, attached to this statement are legislative statements or resolutions adopted by member organizations of the Partnership urging funding reform in 

VA health care. We hope as you debate this crucial matter the Committee will recognize that our organizations are unified in our interests in calling for budget reform. 

This concludes my testimony. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Partnership, and I thank the Committee for its continuing 

support for veterans, especially those who are sick and disabled as a result of serving the Nation.

[Attachments to Mr. Violante’s prepared statement follow:]

EIGHTY-EIGHTH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION,

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AUGUST 29, 30, 31, 2006

RESOLUTION NO. 254

Subject: The American Legion Policy on Assured Funding for VA Medical Care

Origin: California

Submitted by: Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation

WHEREAS, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) annual budget consists of 

both mandatory and discretionary funding; and 

WHEREAS, mandatory funding refers to a process where the level of funding is 

governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation rather than by 

appropriations; and 

WHEREAS, under budget law, a mandatory program is one that requires provision of benefits to all who meet the eligibility requirements of the law; and 

WHEREAS, mandatory funding is provided for programs such as Social Security, 

Medicare, and VA compensation and pension; and 

WHEREAS, in contrast, discretionary funding is ‘‘all other’’ funding subject to the 

annual appropriations process; and 

WHEREAS, discretionary funding in VA’s current annual budget provides for programs such as medical care, major and minor construction, National Cemetery Administration, State Extended Care Facility Grants, and State Cemetery Grants; and 

WHEREAS, there have been annual struggles to obtain sufficient funding to provide access to quality care for eligible veterans seeking care in VA facilities; and 

WHEREAS, a method to provide dependable, stable and sustained funding for veterans health care is needed; and 

61

WHEREAS, assured (mandated) funding is one component of a combination of 

funding mechanisms to ensure adequate Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 

funding: Now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, By The American Legion in National Convention assembled in Salt 

Lake City, Utah, August 29, 30, 31, 2006, That Congress designate assured funding 

for VA medical care; and, be it further 

RESOLVED, That Congress continue to provide discretionary funding required to 

fully operate other programs within the Veterans Health Administration’s budgetary jurisdiction; and, be it finally 

RESOLVED, That Congress provide, if necessary, supplemental appropriations for 

budgetary shortfalls in VHA’s mandated and discretionary appropriations to meet 

the health care needs of America’s veterans. 

RESOLUTION NO. 08–01

Subject: Assured Funding for VA Health Care

Source: National Headquarters

WHEREAS, each year, veterans service organizations fight for sufficient funding 

for VA health care and a budget that is reflective of the rising cost of health care 

and increasing need for medical services; and 

WHEREAS, our nation’s veterans are continuing to suffer because the system 

they depend on has been routinely under funded; and 

WHEREAS, the FY 2006 funding shortfall of more than $1 billion in health care 

services for sick and disabled veterans requires a long term fix; and 

WHEREAS, the current discretionary funding method for veterans’ heath care is 

broken and the needs of our nation’s sick and disabled veterans are not being met; 

and 

WHEREAS, without assured funding, VA will continue to remain under funded 

and unable to provide timely access to quality health care to many of our Nation’s 

veterans; and 

WHEREAS, taking VA’s budget out of the discretionary budget would eliminate 

the year-to-year uncertainty about funding levels that have prevented VA from 

being able to adequately plan for and meet the constantly growing number of veterans seeking treatment: Now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, That Congress enact legislation to make VA health care funding 

mandatory, thereby guaranteeing sufficient resources to cover expenses of the veterans health care system.

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

AMVETS National Headquarters. 

BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION RESOLUTION ON MANDATORY FUNDING

FOR VHA APPROVED AT OUR CONVENTION 2006

RESOLUTION NO. 60–02

WHEREAS, veterans health care is funded annually by discretionary appropriations decided by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, AND 

WHEREAS, each year the Department of Veterans Affairs fails to receive adequate funding for Veterans Medical Care from Congressional appropriations, AND 

WHEREAS, this lack of adequate funding causes veterans of all categories, delays 

and denials of critical medical care services: Therefore be it 

RESOLVED, That the Blinded Veterans Association, in convention assembled in 

Buffalo, NY on this 19th day of August, 2006, hereby support H.R. 515, Assured 

Funding for Veterans Health Care Act of 2005. 

SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO MAKE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING MANDATORY

RESOLUTION NO. 074

WHEREAS, the funding for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care 

under the Federal budget is a discretionary program, meaning that it is within the 

discretion of Congress to determine how much money it will allocate each year for 

veterans’ medical care; and 

62

WHEREAS, title 38, United States Code, section 1710(a), provides that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ‘‘shall’’ furnish hospital care and medical services, but 

only to the extent Congress has provided money to cover the costs of the care; and 

WHEREAS, the Disabled American Veterans firmly believes that service-connected disabled veterans have earned the right to VA medical care through their 

extraordinary sacrifices and service to this Nation; and 

WHEREAS, the Disabled American Veterans, along with the other Independent 

Budget service organizations, has fought for sufficient funding for VA health care 

and a budget that is reflective of the rising cost of health care and increasing need 

for medical services; and 

WHEREAS, despite our continued efforts, the cumulative effects of insufficient 

health care funding have now resulted in the rationing of health care; and 

WHEREAS, VA reports that it has now reached capacity at many of its health 

care facilities; and 

WHEREAS, VA is unable to provide timely access to quality health care to many 

of our Nation’s most severely disabled service-connected veterans; and 

WHEREAS, it is disingenuous for our government to promise health care to veterans but then make it unattainable because of inadequate funding; and 

WHEREAS, making veterans’ health care funding mandatory would ensure the 

government meets its obligation to provide health care to service-connected disabled 

veterans and ensure all veterans eligible for care in the VA health care system have 

access to timely quality health care; and 

WHEREAS, making veterans’ health care funding mandatory would eliminate the 

year-to-year uncertainties about funding levels that have prevented VA from being 

able to adequately plan for and meet the constantly growing number of veterans 

seeking treatment; and 

WHEREAS, by including all veterans currently eligible and enrolled for care in 

the mandatory health care funding proposal, we protect the overall viability of the 

system and the specialized programs VA has developed to improve the health and 

well-being of our nation’s service-connected disabled veterans: Now, therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, That the Disabled American Veterans in National Convention assembled in Chicago, Illinois, August 12–15, 2006, supports legislation to make VA 

health care funding mandatory thereby guaranteeing Congress provide sufficient resources to cover the expenses of the veterans’ health care program. 

JEWISH WAR VETERANS RESOLUTION ON MANDATORY FUNDING

MANDATORY FUNDING

The Jewish War Veterans of the USA strongly endorses and supports the efforts 

of several Members of Congress to provide required funding for veterans’ health 

needs through the introduction of H.R. 515, the Assured Funding for Veterans 

Health Care Act of 2005. 

The Jewish War Veterans of the USA agrees in the strongest possible terms with 

these friends of the veterans’ contention that ‘‘We can no longer allow the VA to 

be hostage to the administration’s misplaced priorities and the follies of the Congressional budget process. This bill would place veterans’ health care on par with 

all major Federal health care programs by determining resources bases on programmatic need rather than politics and budgetary gimmicks.’’

Under the current system, funding for veterans’ health care is subject to reduction 

at any time due to political and programmatic pressures to take money earmarked 

for the care of those who have served the country, many on the field of battle, and 

divert those funds to other programs. In this way, the most deserving among us, 

those who have fought to defend our basic freedoms, are often denied the care which 

they have earned, which they have been promised, and which they deserve. 

The lack of prompt access to the care they deserve and have earned is not acceptable. As the wounded come home in ever-increasing numbers from the battlefields 

of Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem will only worsen in the years to come. Therefore, it is imperative that all those who honor our brave fighting men and women 

come together to support Representative Lane Evans’ bill. 

It is not enough to mouth support for our current troops and those who fought 

the brave fight before them. We must all support mandatory funding to ensure their 

future needs as set out in the legislation proposed by our friends. The Jewish War 

Veterans of the USA urges everyone to contact his/her senators and representatives 

to urge their support for this bill and corresponding legislation in the Senate. Our 

country owes health care to our veterans who must not be dependent on the whims 

63

of the political process to get the benefits they have earned. We must remove funding for veterans’ health care from the vagaries of political maneuvering. 

MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART

Tom Poulter, National Commander, March 29, 2007, Testimony Before the Joint 

Senate and House Committees on Veterans Affairs 

Chairman Akaka, Chairman Filner, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen. 

ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR THE VA HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

The Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) is on record as supporting the 

Independent Budget, which is developed and submitted to Congress by the Veterans 

of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), Paralyzed Veterans of 

America (PVA) and American Veterans (AMVETS). 

I am the fourth MOPH National Commander in a row to present as our number 

one priority Adequate/Assured funding for the VA Health Administration. MOPH 

joins our fellow VSOs in urging Congress to find a long-term solution to the annual 

funding crisis at the VA. The VA deserves a system that delivers funds on time to 

allow for long-term planning. With the ongoing War on Terror and our 

servicemembers returning home from war with medical conditions requiring treatment at VA hospitals, the VA needs the capability to meet their needs. 

Demand for VA healthcare still outpaces the capacity to deliver care in a timely 

manner. Within the priority system established by law, Congress should appropriate 

sufficient funds for all veterans the VA has agreed to treat through the enrollment 

process. This is not happening today as more and more veterans are triaged for care 

on waiting lists. A Presidential Task Force (May 2003) strongly recommended full 

funding for all veterans enrolled in the VA health care system. Thus far, the Administration and Congress have ignored this recommendation. 

Each year the VA is to receive funding for the next fiscal year by October 1 so 

that they may plan for personnel and programs. Over the last several years this has 

not occurred and the Appropriations Act has not passed until well into the fiscal 

year. The 2007 Appropriations Act has not passed and the VA is currently operating 

on a Continuing Resolution. While MOPH appreciates the fact that Congress mandated that the VA received a $3.6 billion increase in the Continuing Resolution, for 

which we commend Congress, this is a perfect example of why the funding of the 

VA health system needs to be changed. 

MOPH urges Congress to pass legislation which will fully fund the VA health care 

system through modifications to the current budget and appropriations process, either by using a mandatory funding mechanism, or by some other changes in the 

process in order to achieve the desired goal of providing care to those veterans who 

are enrolled in the VA health care system. 

On another health care note, MOPH, like the majority of Americans is appalled 

by the conditions that those heroes returning from the ongoing conflicts had to endure at Walter Reed Army Hospital. There is no excuse for this episode. When our 

country commits its military to a mission then it must be ready to see to the needs 

of those warriors when they return home. We must never accept less than the best 

health care and treatment for these men and women. MOPH will not ‘‘pile on’’ this 

issue as it seems that Congress and the Administration are trying to correct the 

problems. We will closely monitor the process. 

ASSURED FUNDING FOR VETERANS HEALTH CARE

RESOLUTION NO. 610

WHEREAS, there must be continued and sustained investment by Congress and 

the Administration in the national resource of the VA health care system, including 

improving veterans access to timely care, protecting and strengthening specialized 

services, and ensuring that the infrastructure is functional; and 

WHEREAS, while the Secretary of Veterans Affairs sets standards for quality, access to health care is often constrained by the level of appropriated funding; and 

WHEREAS, the amount of annual funding, and not the demand for services, defines overall access to VA health care; and 

WHEREAS, without a statutory veterans’ entitlement to VA health care, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has no clear obligation to deliver a defined amount of 

health care nor estimate the physical capacity in response to the demand; and 

64

WHEREAS, the lack of adequate and inconsistent appropriated funding has now 

resulted in the actual denial of mandated VA health care to veterans, leaving the 

VA also unable to justify reciprocal capital investments sorely needed to support the 

efficient access to health care; and 

WHEREAS, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is accordingly limited to enhancing 

quality of health care for some veterans by reducing access for other veterans; and 

WHEREAS, as long as the annual appropriation is the statutory determinant of 

access to quality health care, inconvenience, delay and denial remain the de facto 

cost control mechanisms restricting any initiative to improve performance; and 

WHEREAS, it is now obvious that veterans need a dependable entitlement to high 

quality health care not only for a basis of proper fiscal and economical planning but 

also to fulfill the moral mandate to ‘‘care for those who have borne the battle’’: Now, 

therefore, be it 

RESOLVED, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, That we urge 

Congress to establish a statutory entitlement for veterans health care as a means 

to assure veterans receive the care they justly deserve, obviate diminished access 

as the current primary method of cost control, and provide a basis for justification 

of those capital investments needed to streamline processes for efficiency improvements.

Submitted by Commander-in-Chief to Committee on Veterans Service Resolutions 

The intent of this resolution is: 

To have Congress establish the funding for entitlement to veterans health care 

as insured rather than discretionary appropriations. 

APPROVED by the 107th National Convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars 

of the United States. 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA

VETERANS HEALTH CARE (V–1–05)

Issue 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Veterans Health Care Administration, 

Veterans Integrated System Network/VISN is responsible for providing health care 

to veterans with service-connected disabilities and others as determined by eligibility rules established by Congress. Concerns continue regarding quality of health 

care, access, and eligibility for services. 

Background 

Many veterans have been adversely affected by what has been described as a 

health-care system ‘‘in crisis.’’ This, in part, is due to budget and resource limitations. Other significant factors are directly related to the massive size of the centralized DVA health-care system, its bureaucratic inertia, and its inability to organize 

itself into an effective instrument to meet the changing health-care needs of all veterans under its care. Both service-connected and non-service-connected veterans 

have experienced a consistent unavailability of access to DVA health care, including 

mental health, outpatient contract, and inpatient cares. 

Issues of access involve the need for many veterans to travel long distances to obtain care, as occurs with veterans living in rural communities or on island communities in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Hawaii. Non-U.S. citizen veterans 

of the U.S. Armed Forces may receive DVA treatment for service-connected disabilities only if residing in the U.S. the statute allows payment for the treatment of 

service-connected disabilities outside the U.S. for veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces, 

only if such veterans are U.S. citizens, reside in the Republic of the Philippines, or 

are Canadian nationals. 

The quality of health care in DVA remains suspect as revelations of questionable 

practices and adverse outcomes continue to emerge. DVA has lost sight of its obligation to provide quality health care as defined by veterans and there families, opting 

instead for quality as defined by health administrators and medical school affiliations. 

This resolution amends V–1–95

Resolved, That: 

Vietnam Veterans of America maintains that:

1. Veterans who have sustained injuries or illnesses during and/or as a result of 

their military service have the right to the highest quality medical and psychological 

services for treatment of those injuries and illnesses. 

65

2. The first priority of the DVA must be to provide the highest quality medical 

and psychological treatment at no cost to veterans for illnesses and injuries incurred 

during and/or as a result of military service. 

3. DVA must insure the highest quality of care provided in DVA health-care facilities. Monitoring activities conducted by Quality Assurance Programs must be scientifically based and include regular and consistent review by the director and chief 

of staff of the institution. 

4. When DVA cannot provide the highest quality care within a reasonable distance or travel time from the veterans home (fifty miles) and in a timely manner 

(thirty days). DVA must provide care via fee-basis provider of choice for service-disabled veterans. Additionally, DVA must provide beneficiary travel reimbursement at 

the government rate. 

5. Restrictions against providing DVA medical care to non-citizen, service-connected disabled veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces must be removed in order to 

treat equitably all those who served in the U.S. Armed Forces regardless of their 

country of origin, citizenship, or current country of residence. 

6. DVA health-care policies must allow the veteran client to have input in DVA 

Medical Center/Outpatient Clinic operations. This should include establishment of 

veteran’s advisory boards at the local level. 

7. DVA health-care policies must be based on veteran patient needs. Health-care 

implementation should be decentralized to the local level, and budgeting should 

allow local facilities to plan for their own needs with significant consultation by the 

local veterans advisory board. 

8. The Congress must enact and the President must sign into law legislation that 

creates an assured reliable funding stream for the DVA health are programs, indexed to medical inflation and the per capita use of the VA Health Care System. 

9. VVA questions the philosophy and the language that limits the delivery of the 

VA healthcare treatment and services to a ‘‘core constituency’’. VVA is committed 

to protecting the rights of veterans and access to VA programs and services as defined in Title 38 U.S. code.

Financial Impact Statement: In accordance with motion 8 passed at VVA January 

2002 National Board of Directors meeting which charges this committee with the 

reviewing its relevant Resolutions and determining an expenditure estimate required to implement the Resolution, presented for consideration at the 2003 National Convention; this committee submits that implementation of the foregoing 

Resolution be at no additional cost to the organization.This Resolution states in effect what has been a long standing part of VVA’s advocacy and legislative programs. 

Adopted at Vietnam Veterans of America 12th National Convention in Reno, Nevada August 9–14, 2005.

Mr. Cox, your statement. 

STATEMENT OF J. DAVID COX, NATIONAL SECRETARYTREASURER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT

EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO 

Mr. COX. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Craig, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to present AFGE’s views on the VA health care funding process. I 

ask that my written statement be submitted for the record. 

I would also like the privilege of thanking Representative Chris 

Smith for his fine leadership in the House and Dr. Kizer, that I 

had the privilege of working with many years in the VA, for his 

insight to always involve the union and the employees in his programs and the development of those programs that has made the 

VA what it is today. 

AFGE unequivocally supports the Partnership for Veterans 

Health Care Budget Reform in calling for an assured funding approach that uses mandatory dollars to guarantee sufficient funds 

for all veterans who need medical care. The discretionary funding 

process is broken, so broken that it no longer supports the demands 

that are being placed on it. I worked for this amazing health care 

system as a registered nurse for 25 years before becoming an 

66

AFGE officer a year ago. I am so proud of what the VA health care 

system has accomplished in recent years. 

It breaks my heart to see what this funding roller coaster called 

discretionary funding is doing to the VA. Our members working at 

VA medical centers and clinics see firsthand the cumulative, corrosive effect of discretionary funding. Opponents contend that the 

costs of assured funding will be unmanageable, but they fail to 

point out the enormous cost of the stop-gap solutions that managers turn to when discretionary funds are scarce, including feebased care, agency nurses, and diversion to non-VA medical centers. 

Over the long haul, these policies will undermine the gains of the 

past and hurt VA’s ability to provide quality care to veterans or 

contribute as a national leader in best practices, research, and 

medical training. 

What I am hearing from the front lines is very disturbing. Primary care physicians were chastised for making referrals for 

screening colonoscopies, even though a new VA directive says that 

all veterans age 50 and over should be screened. Management 

wanted them to use stool cards that are less effective at detecting 

colon cancer when it is still treatable. 

Nurses working in new spinal cord injury units were told there 

were no funds to send them to training or to observe best practices 

at other facilities. When new PTSD and suicide prevention programs drew staff away from other mental health units, the vacant 

positions were not back-filled. 

The VA is a world leader in safe patient handling, but fails to 

provide patient lifting equipment to most of its own medical centers 

and nursing homes, leading to workplace injuries, patient skin 

tears, and lost work time. 

The VA is in desperate need of workforce succession planning, 

but I fear that it will never be undertaken in a serious manner so 

long as the discretionary funding process continues to focus on the 

short-term and generates great financial uncertainty. The average 

age of the VA health care workforce is 48.3 years and it is going 

up every year. In 5 years, 44 percent of the entire VA health care 

workforce will be eligible to retire. 

The statistics on VA registered nurses are frightening, especially 

in light of the national nursing crisis. 

According to an American Hospital Association report just cited 

in USA Today, this country had 118,000 nurse vacancies last year. 

Can the VA health care system, which has to fight for funding 

every year, compete for nurses in the face of this national crisis? 

I am doubtful. Yet the VA isn’t doing what it can to hold on to its 

current nurses. Almost 22,000 of the 36,000 registered nurses who 

work at the VA will be eligible to retire by 2010. That is 3 years 

away. And newer nurses are leaving in droves. In Fiscal Year 2005, 

nearly 78 percent of all R.N. resignations at the VA occurred within the first 5 years of employment. 

A systematic funding methodology goes hand-in-hand with systematic staffing methodology that counts what needs to be counted, 

like patient acuity, staffing needs for new health directives, and 

costs of staying competitive with the private sector. Unfortunately, 

67

VA’s track record for implementing a nurse staffing methodology in 

a discretionary funding environment has been dismal. 

In 1991, VHA collaborated with experts to develop a new staffing 

methodology, but it was implemented in a very few facilities. A decade later, the National Commission on VA Nursing, on which I 

served, called for a national staffing methodology, but like almost 

every other Commission recommendation, it went nowhere. 

The one Commission recommendation that was enacted into law, 

nurse locality pay legislation, has not significantly boosted VA 

nurse recruitment or retention because of cash-strapped managers 

who are either reluctant to conduct pay surveys or increase pay for 

front-line nurses, even when surveys prove they are needed. By 

contrast, they are quite willing to conduct pay surveys and top-load 

the pay of nurse executives and managers. 

Nurse scheduling met a similar fate. In 2004, a law to allow 

nurses to have compressed work schedules and limit overtime has 

been circumvented by politics and chronic staffing shortages. 

Funding problems also took precedence over Congressional intent 

when it came to addressing physician shortages. Under legislation 

that took effect last year, local pay panels were supposed to set 

competitive market pay for different specialties. But many managers told their physicians they had no money for pay raises, even 

before the pay panel started deliberating. The law also set fixed 

maximums for performance pay awards, but most physicians got 

minimal awards, at best, regardless of their performance, again, 

justified by management claims that the well had run dry. 

Chairman Akaka, we thank you for pursuing a GAO study on the 

use of agency nurses at the VA. Besides being costly, agency nurses 

are not familiar with VA patient care directives or its health care 

IT system, such as electronic health records, computerized bar code 

medication coding, clinical reminders, which compromise patient 

care and further burden staff nurses. 

In closing, we urge you to reform the current funding process so 

that the VA is funded with mandatory dollars just like almost 

every other Federal health care system. Only a systematic approach to funding based on actual need and cost will be effective 

in alleviating the VA health care workforce crisis that is looming 

on the horizon. 

Thank you very much, sir, and I would be glad to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. DAVID COX, R.N., NATIONAL SECRETARY-TREASURER, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO 

Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO (AFGE), which 

represents more than 600,000 Federal employees who serve the American people 

across the Nation and around the world, including roughly 150,000 employees in the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is honored to testify today regarding the current process for funding veterans’ health care and alternative funding approaches. 

It is also an honor to participate in this important discussion along with the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform (Partnership). AFGE is a long 

time supporter of the principles endorsed by the veterans’ organizations that comprise the Partnership and the Independent Budget, including the need for an assured funding approach that uses a systematic methodology for funding veterans’ 

health care. 

68

The Partnership has presented a very compelling case for assured funding. The 

Nation’s largest integrated health care system must receive its funding through a 

predictable, needs-based funding formula if it is to remain a leader in health care 

quality and respond to growing demand. Assured funding is the only approach that 

can utilize a systematic methodology; a systematic discretionary funding methodology is practically an oxymoron. 

What I would like to address through my testimony today is the perspective of 

AFGE nurses, physicians, and other Title 38 professionals who see first hand the 

harm caused by the discretionary funding process. As a registered nurse at the 

Salisbury, North Carolina VA Medical Center for almost 25 years and a long time 

union president and officer of the National VA Council, I have received a great 

many reports from VHA employees struggling to care for veterans under a constant 

cloud of continuing resolutions and unpredictable funding. 

The wear and tear of a broken funding process on the VA health care system is 

cumulative, steadily depleting its infrastructure and workforce at a time of burgeoning demand from veterans of the Global War on Terror and an aging population. Facilities remain in disrepair, hospital beds stay closed, and staffing shortages and workforce morale worsen. The occasional emergency supplemental infusion 

of cash leads to a rush to spend, without adequately addressing long term needs. 

Opponents of assured funding contend that the VA budget will reach unmanageable levels, but they fail to point out that a discretionary funding process results 

in great misallocation of health care dollars, and threatens the VA’s exemplary quality record. Facilities with hiring freezes and noncompetitive physician and nurse pay 

rates, and delayed purchases of medical equipment must contract with the private 

sector at much higher costs. Facilities with unstaffed hospital beds and too few specialists spend huge sums of money diverting patients to non-VA hospitals. 

The following troubling reports were recently provided by members working in 

VHA facilities:

• Delays and cutbacks in diagnostic testing: VA pay scales for scarce medical specialists are far below the private sector. Facilities address unfilled positions by turning to high priced fee basis care. Shortages in gastroenterologists are impacting the 

VA’s ability to implement a new policy to offer screening colonoscopies to all veterans age 50 or older, regardless of prior risk factors. Primary care physicians attempting to make colonoscopy referrals according to the new guidelines are being 

pressured to cut back, and offer stool cards—a far less effective tool for detecting 

cancer at early stages—instead. • Reduced access to state-of-the-art treatment: A primary care physician reports 

that her patients who are in extreme pain are not able to receive the most effective 

injection-based pain treatment because her facility is unable to hire an anesthesiologist at current VA pay levels and management has capped spending on fee basis 

care. • Budget driven equipment purchases: During months of the fiscal year when dollars are short, money needed to update or repair medical equipment is used for payroll. Then, at the end of the fiscal year, the rush to spend and justify next year’s 

budget results in hasty, lower priority purchases such as furniture. • Inadequate training in specialty care: Nurses working in new spinal cord units 

were told that there was no money to send them to conferences or other facilities 

where they could observe best practices. Similarly, ICU nurses were not permitted 

to attend cardiology training due to a shortage of funds and staff. • Inadequate time with patients: Many VA providers are working with patient 

panel sizes (some as high as 1,400 patients or more) that exceed VA’s own recommended ceiling. Nurses are discouraged from setting multiple follow up appointments even when the veteran’s health problems warrant close monitoring. In addition, facilities set fixed time limits for examining each patient regardless of the individual’s needs. • Psychiatric care: Staffing shortages result in delays in treatment of PTSD and 

other mental health conditions, and constrain the amount of time staff can spend 

with each patient or visit veterans in other locations such as homeless shelters. New 

PTSD and suicide prevention programs have drawn staff away from patients in 

other mental health units; the positions they vacate are not filled, leaving remaining 

staff with larger patient loads. 

• Safe patient handling. Although VA is a world leader in state-of-the-art patient 

lifting equipment, sufficient funds to equip all VA hospitals and nursing homes have 

not been provided. The costs: more nurse back injuries, lost work time, patient skin 

tears, and workers compensation claims. 

• Nonmedical tasks divert time away from patients: Budget problems have resulted in widespread hiring freezes and lags for support positions, for example, 

clerks who check in patients, schedule reminders for future appointments and anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
69

1 J. Needleman, et al., ‘‘Nurse Staffing in Hospitals: Is there a Business Case for Quality? ’’ 

Health Affairs No. 1(2006): 204–211. 

swer phones. Team leaders of new health care initiatives lack staff support for 

added duties. 

• Understating access problems: The current funding process encourages management to hide the true gap between patient need and available resources through patient appointment processes that ‘‘shape demand’’, manipulation of wait list data 

and empty ‘‘ghost beds’’ that lack staff. 

• Discretionary style diversion policies: Patient care is compromised when decisions whether to divert to non-VA facilities are based on budget problems rather 

than good medicine. When VA beds are unavailable, and dollars are tight, patients 

who need to be admitted wait in ERs and hallways instead. 

THE IMPACT OF THE CURRENT FUNDING PROCESS ON STAFFING

VHA’s aging workforce should provide a wake up call to management to take succession planning more seriously than it has. Unfortunately, yearly funding fluctuations and shortfalls have undermined succession planning efforts in the past. The 

average age of VHA employees has risen from 45.4 years to 48.3 years over the past 

decade, and 44 percent will be eligible to retire at the end of 2012. 

Adequate nurse staffing is a critical component of improved patient outcomes, e.g., 

decreases in urinary tract infections, pneumonia and shock or cardiac arrest, avoided hospital stays and fewer in-hospital deaths. 1 The impending RN workforce shortage at the VA is startling: almost 22,000 of the RNs caring for our veterans will 

be eligible to retire by 2010 while 77 percent of all RN resignations occur within 

the first 5 years. 

In 1991, in response to a growing nurse shortage, VHA collaborated with a panel 

of staffing experts to recommend a complete overhaul of VHA’s staffing methods. 

Unfortunately the new methodology was sparsely implemented, due in part to a lack 

of resources. 

In 2002, Congress sought to address the growing nurse staffing crisis by establishing the National Commission on VA Nursing. As a member of that Commission, 

I participated in extensive discussions about the need for a systematic staffing 

methodology. Our final recommendations included a call for VHA to ‘‘develop, test 

and adopt nationwide staffing standards that assure adequate nursing resources 

and support services to achieve excellence inpatient care and desired outcomes.’’ Unfortunately, the Commission’s recommendation met the same fate as the previous 

attempt: a national staffing methodology was never implemented. 

Ironically, the one Commission recommendation that was enacted into law—2001 

nurse locality pay legislation—has not achieved its potential due to the reluctance 

of cash-strapped managers to conduct pay surveys or provide increases commiserate 

with private sector pay surveys. The significant inequity between locality pay increases for the rank and file and supervisory nursing staff hurts morale and worsens VA’s nurse shortage. 

The greater problem is that any staffing methodology operating in a system with 

unpredictable funding is bound to fail. Without a sound funding methodology for the 

larger health care system, it is our firm belief that VHA will not have the resources 

to adopt the Commission’s important staffing recommendations. In contrast, an assured funding approach would enable the VA to base staffing on all relevant criteria, including patient acuity, the impact of alternative work schedules, the staffing 

needs generated by new health care directives and the impact of nursing shortages 

nationwide on nurse pay and other incentives. 

The discretionary funding process took its toll again when Congress tried to address the VA nursing shortage through 2004 legislation that increased the availability of RN alternative work schedules and restricted mandatory overtime, in 

order to become more competitive with private sector nurses. Management operating under hiring freezes and uncertain funding streams continue to require or 

pressure RNs to work overtime and are reluctant to offer alternative work schedules, further contributing to recruitment and retention problems. 

We thank Chairman Akaka for requesting a GAO study of the cost and quality 

impact of agency nurses in the VA. Facilities continue to over utilize costly agency 

nurses rather than adopt policies to improve recruitment and retention of staff 

nurses. Agency nurses are unfamiliar with VA’s specialized care, new directives on 

Traumatic Brain Injury, mental health and hospital infections, and the VA’s bar 

code medication administration system, electronic health records or clinical reminder systems. They lack security clearances to access certain computer files. As 

70

a result, they cannot work as independently as staff nurses and must be given more 

desirable day shifts sought by senior in-house nurses. 

Provisions in 2004 legislation that addressed pay for physicians and dentists have 

met a similar fate. The law established new systems for setting competitive salaries 

(‘‘market pay’’) and for performance pay awards. The chaos of the current budget 

process struck again. Even before the compensation panels to set new market pay 

rates were in place, management in many locations told physicians not to expect 

much of any pay increase because of budget problems, and that is just what happened on a widespread basis. 

When we asked about the pay surveys that facilities used to set physician market 

pay, we were told it was too confidential to reveal. What we do know, however, is 

that the process was anything but systematic. Each facility chose its own pay surveys and had complete discretion to select compensation panel members, the resultant variations in pay decisions were often suspect. More generally, the current process is flawed in that raises for VHA employees are not addressed until after the projected budgets are submitted, leaving the facility director to absorb proposed salary 

increases. 

The impact of a flawed budget process was even more obvious in the implementation of the physician performance pay provisions in the 2004 law. Congress set a 

yearly award of up to $15,000 or 7.5 percent of salary to reward quality performance. However, in the first year, the VA revised the national cap downward to 

$5,000 and local management has continued to play the budget card by setting even 

lower caps (in many cases, under $1000 or no awards at all). 

Needless to say, these pay policies have failed to improve the VA’s ability to recruit and retain health care professionals or reduce spending on fee basis physicians 

and other contract care. 

In the words of one of our primary care physicians, ‘‘physicians would flood the 

VA’’ if pay rates were competitive because they are attracted to this patient population, the computerized medical record, single drug formulary and the ability to 

provide high quality care without worrying whether the patient will be able to pay 

his out-of-pocket share of services and medications. 

In closing, AFGE has sadly concluded that the VA will not be able to undertake 

meaningful succession planning, effectively address recruitment and retention problems, or engage in strategic, long range planning for other aspects of health care 

delivery so long as discretionary funding is creating a constant state of financial uncertainly and the demand for and cost of delivering health care to our veterans is 

based on a yearly political fight rather than a systematic funding methodology. 

CONCLUSION

AFGE greatly appreciates the opportunity to submit our views and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. We look forward to working 

with Chairman Akaka and the Committee on short term and long term solutions 

to the VA’s health care funding problems.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox. 

Mr. Cox, you have spent a considerable part of your career representing VA employees in the field. You have seen many things 

happen there. You have just mentioned in your statement about 

what you expect to happen with retirements and the huge percentage of retirements that will be occurring. Could you speak a little 

bit more on the effects of continuing resolutions and hiring freezes 

on employee morale and motivation? 

Mr. COX. Every year when we had the continuing resolutions, 

there was the inability to replace staff that had left, retired, or 

quit, moved to other jobs, or moved from one section of the medical 

center. Medical center directors were told to hold the line. They did 

not have the budgets to act on. We had to reach out to use agency 

employees, fee basis, which cost a whole lot more. And then again, 

many of the schools of nursing, many of the physicians, many of 

the health care professionals that were available that were graduating and eligible and available to be hired, the VA was not able 

to reach out to them and to offer them employment because of conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
71

tinuing resolutions and the lack of funds. And therefore, it has 

greatly hampered the ability to recruit and retain. 

And obviously, nothing is any more upsetting to a nurse or any 

health care provider, to be there on the front line providing care 

to veterans and have insufficient staff to meet those needs. 

Chairman AKAKA. We are very concerned about morale and motivation, as well. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, sir. Morale is a very serious problem, and 

I think the employee morale in the VA has gone down in the last 

several years because of the budget process and the inability to replace the staff and to get the staff that is needed to take care of 

the veterans. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Violante, after hearing you, you did use 

the word ‘‘mandatory.’’ Is your Partnership proposing an entitlement to VA health care for veterans? If so, what effects do you 

think this would have on the overall Federal budget process, including on the role of this Committee and the Appropriations Committee, as well? 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, we are not asking 

for an individual entitlement. The entitlement is to the VA. It is 

a Department entitlement. There is a distinction. We are not 

changing in any way how VA provides services, who they provide 

them to, or the benefit package. It doesn’t entitle me as a serviceconnected disabled veteran to go anywhere I want to go for care. 

It requires me still to go to the VA. 

What it does do is provide VA with a sufficient level of funding. 

It also provides predictability and it provides timeliness. We have 

heard earlier about some of the funding situations that Congress 

is going to have to deal with if they move the VA health care discretionary funding to a mandatory account. There are pay-go implications. We would hope that Congress could somehow use the 

money that is being saved on the discretionary side to offset the 

costs. 

Congress is going to have to deal with the costs of health care. 

We have heard it from the first witnesses, including former Chairman Smith. It is going to continue to cost our government quite a 

bit of money to fund veterans’ care and we can’t see how VA can 

sustain its programs under the current system. 

Chairman AKAKA. Let me ask both of you the simple question 

that to which you have alluded. Would you agree that the amount 

for VA for next year—now coming out of both the Senate and the 

House—is it adequate? 

Mr. VIOLANTE. I think we believe that the level of funding that 

you are considering right now is in line with what we believe VA’s 

needs are. Our concerns, again, are when is VA going to receive 

that money or know, in fact, what amount they are getting it. So 

that is still a concern. But certainly, the level of funding is adequate, and we greatly appreciate all the hard work that went into 

reaching that level of funding. It is very helpful. Six billion dollars 

more for health care is line with what we believe VA needs. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. Mr. Cox? 

Mr. COX. AFGE is very excited about the budget that we have 

seen for the VA and applaud all the Members of Congress for their 

efforts and work on that. But again, we would like to see that 

72

budget delivered today so that we can begin preparing and the staff 

is prepared, but also there is still an element of caution because 

every day, we are creating brand new veterans and making a 40-

, 50-, or greater-year commitment. And these veterans, as Dr. Kizer 

and others said earlier, are going to require a great deal of specified care and services, and to anticipate those needs, I am not sure 

that anyone has the ability to calculate all of that. 

But we are excited about the funding, and the employees nationwide, from housekeeping aides to doctors and nurses, you know, 

have an element of joy in their heart that there is going to be 

greater funding, that they can go out and do their job every day 

serving veterans. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, and I want to thank 

both of you for your statements. You have been very helpful. I ask 

you to convey our best wishes to the groups that you represent. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COX. Thank you. 

Mr. VIOLANTE. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate it. 

Chairman AKAKA. I am very pleased to welcome the Honorable 

Michael J. Kussman, VA’s current Under Secretary for Health, and 

his colleagues as today’s third panel. Dr. Kussman is accompanied 

by Patricia Vandenberg, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Health for 

Policy and Planning, and Paul Kearns, Veterans Health Administration Chief Financial Officer. I want to thank you all for being 

here with us today and for being so patient. 

Dr. Kussman, your full statement will appear in the record of 

this hearing, so will you please begin with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, M.D, M.S., M.A.C.P., 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICIA VANDENBERG, ASSISTANT DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR HEALTH FOR 

POLICY AND PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS; AND PAUL KEARNS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Well, aloha, Mr. Chairman. I guess you are the 

only one here, so I don’t have to acknowledge the other Members 

of the Committee. But before I get into my prepared remarks, I 

would like to make a quick comment. 

I am very thankful of the first two panels because I really appreciated their continual validation of the quality of care and the magnificent work of the 200,000 people who work for me in the Veterans Health Administration, so I truly appreciate that. 

I would also like to say that, Dr. Reinhardt is not here, but I 

would also like to thank his son for his magnificent service in defense of our country on the Global War on Terrorism. He is truly 

an American hero. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs’ current funding process for its medical care program, including budget formulation, Congressional appropriations, and alternatives to the existing process, such as moving such funding from the mandatory side of the Federal ledger. 

73

Joining me today is Paul Kearns, Chief Financial Officer of the 

Veterans Health Administration, and Patricia Vandenberg, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Policy and Planning. 

And again, thank you for submitting my written testimony for the 

record. 

Prior to enactment of the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, the VA’s medical care budgets were based on past 

expenditures adjusted for inflation. This historical approach, however, was inconsistent with the practices of large, integrated, private sector health plans, which VA began to resemble as we transformed into an integrated system of care, providing a full range of 

comprehensive health services. For this new model of health care 

delivery, the VA adopted a rational and predictive budget to meet 

the needs of veterans. These budgets are able, then, to continually 

adjust budgetary projections to account for shifting trends in the 

veteran population, increasing demands for services, and escalating 

costs of health care. 

Pivotal to this entire enterprise is the VA Enrollee Health Care 

Demand Model, which develops estimates of future veteran enrollment, enrollees’ expected utilization for 55 health care services, and 

costs associated with utilization. The model projects future demand 

for health care services based on private sector benchmarks adjusted for the unique demographic and health care characteristics 

of the veteran population in the veteran VA health care system. 

Each year, the model is updated with the latest data on enrollment, health care service utilization, and service costs. VA has integrated the model projection into our financial and management 

processes. 

VA believes the use of actuarial projections for budget development is the most rational way to project the resource needs of our 

veterans. As noted earlier, this approach is consistent with the private sector. 

Unlike the private sector, VA must develop budgets 21⁄2 to 3 

years into the future. Furthermore, VA receives its medical care 

budget in three separate appropriations: Medical services, medical 

administration, and medical facilities. The Congress created this 

funding structure in 2004, replacing the previous single appropriations structure. This change has significantly increased operational 

complexity without improving financial accounting accuracy. In addition, the new structure has introduced unintended inefficiencies 

and increased complexities into the VA’s budget management processes and procedures. 

There are two commonly considered alternatives to the existing 

appropriations process. First, VA’s current multiple appropriations 

could be combined into a single medical care appropriation. The 

second option is the one that we have heard on mandatory funding. 

A single appropriation for medical care would enable VA managers 

at every medical center and network to optimize resources flexibly 

and ensure timely delivery of high-quality care to veterans. 

We believe the other alternative, mandatory funding, would not 

be in the best interests of our veterans. Since there is no concrete 

proposal describing in detail how a mandatory funding approach 

would actually work, we can only hypothesize about its effects. 

However, a mandatory funding approach, in our view, is neither reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
74

flective nor adaptable to changes in enrollee priority level and age 

mix, enrollee morbidity and mortality, enrollee reliance, and advances in state-of-the-art technologies and medical practices. Additionally, a mandatory funding approach potentially limits the ability of either the executive or legislative branches of government to 

match policy with financial circumstances or to execute its inherent 

oversight responsibility. 

VA believes the current processes of budget formulation provides 

the best methodology for estimating the VHA budget. However, a 

return to a single appropriation would significantly improve VHA’s 

ability to deliver timely, high-quality health care to our Nation’s 

veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement and my 

staff and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kussman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, M.D, M.S., M.A.C.P., UNDER

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good morning and thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) current funding 

process for its medical care program including budget formulation, Congressional 

appropriations, and alternatives to the existing process, such as moving such funding to the mandatory side of the Federal ledger. Joining me today are Paul Kearns, 

Chief Financial Officer for VHA, and Patricia Vandenberg, Assistant Deputy Under 

Secretary for Health for Policy and Planning. 

Following the enactment of the Veteran’s Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 

1996, VA’s health care system has undergone significant transformation from one 

that provided episodic, inpatient care to an integrated system of care that provides 

a full range of comprehensive health care services to its enrollees. The focus on 

health promotion, disease prevention, and chronic disease management has produced more effective and more efficient health care for our Nation’s veterans. As a 

result, the range of health care services utilized by VA patients began to mirror that 

of other large health care plans. Therefore, VA decided to follow private sector practice of large health care plans and use a health care actuary to help predict future 

demand for health care services. Mr. Chairman, transforming VA from an inpatient, 

hospital-based system to a fully integrated health care system has enabled VA to 

take a leadership position in health care quality in the United States. 

Prior to eligibility reform, VA medical care budgets were based on historical expenditures that were adjusted for inflation and increases were based on new initiatives. However, this historical-based approach was not consistent with the practices 

of large, integrated, private-sector health plans. The private sector budget practices 

based on projected demand appeared better suited for our mission, so VA adopted 

a rational and predictive budget to meet the needs of veterans in this new transformed health care system. We appreciated the need to be able to continually adjust 

budgetary projections to account for shifting trends in the veteran population, increasing demand for services, and escalating costs of health care, e.g., pharmaceuticals and changing utilization of health care services. 

CURRENT FUNDING PROCESS VA’S ENROLLEE

HEALTH CARE DEMAND MODEL

The VA Enrollee Health Care Demand Model (model) develops estimates of future 

veteran enrollment, enrollees’ expected utilization for 55 health care services, and 

the costs associated with that utilization. These projections are available by fiscal 

year, enrollment priority, age, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), market, 

and facility and are provided for a 20–year period. This produces over 40,000 individual utilization and budget estimates per year. 

The model provides risk-adjustment and reflects enrollees’ morbidity, mortality, 

and changing health care needs as they age. Because many enrollees have other 

health care options, the model reflects how much care enrollees receive from the VA 

health care system versus other providers. This is known as VA reliance. Enrollee 

reliance on VA is assessed using VA and Medicare data and a survey of VA enrollVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
75

ees. The VA/Medicare data match provides VA with enrollees’ actual use of VA and 

Medicare services, while the survey provides detailed responses from enrollees regarding private health insurance and use of VA and non-VA health care. The graphic on the next page provides a conceptual overview of the actuarial model and the 

key data and analyses supporting it.

The model projects future utilization of numerous health care services based on 

private sector utilization benchmarks adjusted for the unique demographic and 

health characteristics of the veteran population and the VA health care system. The 

actuarial data on which these benchmarks are based represent the health care utilization of millions of Americans and include data from both commercial plans and 

Medicare, and are used extensively by other health plans to project future service 

utilization and cost. 

The model produces projections for future years using health care utilization, cost, 

and intensity trends. These trends reflect historical experience and expected 

changes in the entire health care industry and are adjusted to reflect the unique 

nature of the VA health care system. These trends account for changes in unit costs 

of supplies and services, wages, medical care practice patterns, regulatory changes, 

and medical technology. 

Each year, the model is updated with the latest data on enrollment, health care 

service utilization, and service costs. The methodology and assumptions used in the 

model are also reviewed to ensure that the model is projecting veteran demand as 

accurately as possible. VHA and in partnership with Milliman, Inc., develop annual 

plans to improve data inputs to the model and the modeling methodology. 

VA has integrated the model projections into our financial and management processes. Eighty-four percent of the VA health care budget request for FY 2008 was 

based on these detailed actuarial projections; the remaining sixteen percent is for 

health programs not yet included in the actuarial projections because of the unique 

characteristics of these programs. Some examples include: readjustment counseling, 


37969.017
76

dental services, the foreign medical program, and non-veteran medical care (such as 

CHAMPVA and spina bifida). The budget estimates for these programs are developed by the respective program managers. 

VA believes the use of actuarial projections to develop its budget estimates is the 

most rational way to project the resource needs for our veterans. As noted earlier, 

this approach is utilized by the private sector. Unlike the private sector, however, 

where projections are used to formulate budgets for the next year or even the next 

‘‘open season,’’ the Federal budget cycle requires budget formulation using data 21⁄2

to 3 years ahead of budget execution. 

CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

VA receives its medical care budget in three separate appropriations (Medical 

Services, Medical Administration, and Medical Facilities). This is a funding structure created by Congress in Fiscal Year 2004. This structure replaced the previous 

single appropriation structure and has significantly increased the operational complexity without improving the accuracy of financial accounting. In addition, the new 

structure has introduced unintended inefficiencies and increased complexities into 

VA’s budget management processes and procedures. VA does not believe the benefits 

of this structure are superior to the previous one. 

ALTERNATIVES TO THE EXISTING PROCESS

The two most considered alternatives to the existing process are: (1) combining 

VHA’s current multiple appropriations structure into a single medical care appropriation and (2) mandatory funding. VA supports a single appropriations structure 

for medical care but does not support a mandatory funding approach for veterans’ 

health care. 

A single appropriation for medical care would enable VA managers at every Medical Center and Network level to optimize resources flexibly and ensure timely delivery of high quality health care to veterans. It would also reduce the complexity of 

current financial management processes and procedures. 

On the other hand, mandatory funding we believe would not be in the best interests of our veterans. A mandatory funding approach, in our view, is neither reflective of nor adaptable to changes in: enrollee priority level and age mix, enrollee morbidity and mortality, enrollee reliance, and advances in state-of-the-art technologies 

and medical practice. While we can only hypothesize at this time since there is not 

a concrete proposal to review regarding a mandatory funding model, this type of 

funding mechanism can be reactive in nature consequently may be out of date with 

rapidly changing best clinical practices and developments. Additionally, a mandatory funding approach potentially limits the ability of either the Executive or Legislative branches of government to match policy with financial circumstances or to 

execute their inherent oversight responsibility. 

We believe the current process of budget formulation provides the best methodology for estimating the VHA budget and a single appropriation would significantly 

improve VHA’s ability to deliver timely, high-quality health care to our Nation’s veterans. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Kussman. 

We have heard today strong testimony about the budget failures 

of recent years, the inability of VA managers to plan ahead, the uncertainty, and the impact on care. I realize that you are required 

to support the current process, but in your personal view, do you 

believe that VA employees and ultimately VA patients are well 

served by it? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Sir, the real issue is do we get adequate funding 

to do the job that we are supposed to do in any way that you 

choose to do it. I believe that we are getting adequate funding. 

With your support and the Administration’s support, we have been 

very appreciative of the very significant increases in the budget 

over the last couple of years. 

As I mentioned in my both prepared and oral testimony, there 

are some things that would allow us to be more efficient and better 

in our development of our budgets, such as the single appropriation 

77

and other things of that sort that would allow us to be more flexible and nimble in our ability to do the role that we are expected 

to do. 

Chairman AKAKA. Yes. Dr. Kussman, please describe to me your 

approach for providing the best possible care to every patient and 

at the same time dealing with pressure from OMB to limit spending on health care. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Sir, as you know and I testified, I think, in my 

confirmation process, my job is to be straightforward and honest 

and assess what I believe and the Veterans Health Administration 

believes is our needs to take care of our veterans. That is a passion 

of mine, as you know. We are committed to doing that. 

The process is that we then go through OMB and ultimately the 

Administration and to the Congress. Over the last couple of years, 

particularly in 2007 and 2008—2006 and 2007, we are not in 2008 

yet, I don’t think, maybe—we formed, I believe, an unprecedented 

and close relationship with OMB. We go there on a monthly basis 

with these two members of my staff and others to go over with 

them on our monthly review of where we are. They understand, I 

think, much better what we are doing and our assessment process 

and we believe that the 2008 budget, as approved, was really unprecedented in its accuracy with what we had requested and it was 

a very good budget. 

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. Kussman, you have heard other Members 

today mention once veterans come in the door, they get the best 

care, but accessibility is one of the problems that veterans have. 

But I do note that the quality of care is good, and it has been good 

over the years. 

I truly believe that VA health care is largely a success story. VA 

facilities have been more successful than private sector providers 

in holding down costs while providing quality care. In your view, 

does VA provide a better return on each dollar than Medicare, 

Medicaid, or the private sector? And additionally, is VA an economical way to provide health care services? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if it would be presumptuous of me to say that we are better than anybody else in 

the country, but I believe that the performance standards and data 

confirm that we lead the country in our ability to provide services. 

I have a passion and truly believe that if you are a veteran in this 

country, you have a much better chance of getting the full depth 

and breadth of services that you need as a veteran than if you were 

in any other delivery system in the country. 

We are very efficient in delivering our care. I think we give a 

magnificent ‘‘bang for our buck,’’ so to speak, and I am very proud 

of the delivery of care, not only the quality, but the caring attitude 

that our 200,000 people provide. 

Chairman AKAKA. I think you know that the Committee has been 

working hard on what we are calling ‘‘seamless transition’’ between 

active and civilian life. I have been working diligently on this. Part 

of this is changing because people at VA and DOD are starting to 

talk, as you mentioned here. I was so glad to hear a report that 

Gordon England and Gordon Mansfield have been chatting on some 

of these seamless transition issues. So that is really great, and I 

78

hope that continues to go on. As it does, it will certainly help our 

cause. 

Dr. Kussman, do you anticipate that VA’s resource needs will follow the general trend in U.S. health care and continue to grow at 

over 5 percent annually for the foreseeable future? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. I believe that the growth in expenditures for 

health care is a mix of inflation that is just a price that you have 

to pay to keep business going and then a combination of the needs 

that are for new services, new enrollees, new techniques, and 

things of that sort. I believe that we are consistent, generally, with 

the civilian community for the total amount of expenditures being 

in that range. 

Chairman AKAKA. Well, we really appreciate what you are doing 

and we look forward to working together to try to improve care. We 

are looking and focusing on invisible wounds, we really need to 

help to put together policy that can deal with these. Mental health 

issues affect people and their families. So it is something that is 

serious. 

And so I thank you for what you are doing and what VA is doing 

and I look forward to continuing to work with you and to continue 

to try to help our veterans. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

We again have come to the close of another good hearing of three 

panels, and I would like to thank all of our witnesses for joining 

us today. I want you to know that we do appreciate your taking 

time to share your views on the VA health care budget. Without 

question, this will help us to make VA the best in our country. 

Thank you very much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(79)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. MANLEY, VA MEDICAL CENTER DIRECTOR

(RETIRED), ON BEHALF OF ‘‘FUNDING FOR VA HEALTHCARE’’

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity share my perspective on the VA budgeting process and its impact on providing healthcare to our Nation’s veterans. I am 

Joseph Manley, the former Director of the VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington. I retired in 2007 after 35 years of VA service. As a VA manager, I had the 

opportunity to work at all levels of the organization from coast to coast, including 

large and small VA hospitals, in urban and rural settings and in senior staff positions at our national headquarters. I am also a veteran having retired at the rank 

of Full Colonel after 25 years of active and reserve duty with the U.S. Army. 

I would like to state for the record that I am not submitting this document to find 

fault or place blame with any individuals. I am proud of my VA service and feel 

fortunate to have had the privilege of working with the dedicated and professional 

people of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I believe that there are systemic problems within the governmental budgeting process that create undesirable outcomes 

and prevent good people from doing their jobs and providing the services the veterans of our Nation rightfully deserve. 

The reasons for the budgeting system failures are complex and varied but some 

of the key drivers are: the political nature of the Governmental budget process; the 

lack of multiyear appropriations; the lack of real time data on VA workload and demand; and the lack of an accurate internal budget distribution mechanism. I believe 

that all of these shortcomings could be resolved if the government decided to fund 

veterans’ healthcare as an entitlement and base reimbursement for the VA system 

on enrollment (HMO model) and/or the actual work performed (fee for service 

model). 

For the past 13 years, I served as the Director of the Spokane VA Medical Center. 

This primary and secondary care hospital is the only VA facility serving the needs 

of veterans living throughout a 60,000 square mile region of Eastern Washington, 

Northern Idaho and Western Montana (a geographical area the size of the state of 

Pennsylvania). 

During my tenure, the number of patients seeking care at the Spokane VA medical center grew at a rate of more than 10 percent per year due to declines in the 

economy of the region (mining, timber and farming) and to the growth and aging 

of the veteran population. A third of our patients traveled more than 100 miles (one 

way) to obtain primary care from the VA. Patients needing specialty care, such as, 

neurosurgery, orthopedics, neurology, radiation therapy, etc., were forced to travel 

an additional 300 miles (one way) to our nearest VA tertiary care centers in Seattle 

or Portland, Oregon. The VA was the only affordable health care option for most 

of this deserving population and it troubled my staff greatly when we were not able 

to meet the patent’s needs in a timely manner, nor were we able to provide services 

within a reasonable distance from the patient’s home. 

In all but one year of my tenure as Director, we began the budget cycle in a continuing resolution. With employment and other expenditures restricted to the prior 

year budget levels, there was no way to adequately meet the continuing waves of 

new patients and to properly maintain operations at the facility. As a result, we 

were forced to defer capital expenditures, delay employment, restrict local purchases, limit maintenance and otherwise constrain costs for the first half of the 

year. Worst of all, when funds ran short, we were forced to place veterans on waiting lists for our services. At one point, we had over 3,000 veterans who had waited 

a year or more for their initial medical appointment. 

The availability of drop money or budget increases late in the year triggered frantic efforts to purchase equipment, implement construction projects and catch up on 

patient care that had been delayed by the funding constraints. Unfortunately, the 

80

‘‘lean’’ years often ran for 3–4 consecutive years and we were forced to helplessly 

watch waiting lists grow as our physical plant declined. When the situation grew 

extreme, our appeals for supplemental funding would be politically recognized and 

we would see a couple of years of relief. 

The uncertainty of budgeting at the Congressional level was compounded by management actions within the VA. At the national level, the VA Headquarters often 

required that enhancements be made to existing programs or that new programs be 

implemented at the local level without an increase in funding to pay for the new 

service. These unfunded mandates were often in response to Congressional pressures or to appease a special interest group. Whatever the impetus for the new initiatives, the result was erosion in our ability to properly support our existing core 

services. 

As you know, the Congress provides the VA with resources via the appropriation 

process. Once the VA has received these lump sums, they divide the resources 

among the 22 Networks and program offices on a ‘‘zero sum’’ basis. The VA’s national budget allocation model theoretically divides the resources among the Networks based upon each Network’s actual workload from a prior year. This modeling 

process has many flaws (workload data for the model is not real time, the allocation 

process is often distorted by agency imposed caps, corridors and ceilings, etc.), but 

overall, the allocation process does appear to slowly shift money from areas of the 

country with declining patient workload to areas of growth. 

While each Network’s share of the national budget is based upon this workload 

model, the parceling of money to the individual medical centers within each Network is left to the discretion of the individual Network director. To my knowledge, 

no two Networks use the same method for determining what resources their medical 

centers will receive. Most of the Networks have changed their allocation processes 

over the past 10 years, some multiple times. All of this creates uncertainty among 

the VA staff and prevents any meaningful long term planning at the local level. 

During my tenure at Spokane, I worked for four Network Directors. Each of these 

individuals had a different set of priorities, each faced differing problems and each 

had a different budgeting style. For example, one felt that Education and Research 

within the Network was inadequately supported, so he reduced the medical center 

clinical allocations to shift money to support these endeavors. Another of my Network Directors felt that patients needing high cost tertiary care was a priority, so 

he shifted money from the rural hospitals to the urban centers. A third felt that 

sub-specialty care was a priority and spent large amounts of the Network budget 

purchasing these services at inflated prices in the community. 

The current Network Director has recognized the need for primary care services 

in rural areas and to increase access—thus, he is shifting significant amounts of 

money within the Network to open Community Based Outpatient Clinics and to expand services at those medical centers experiencing increased enrollment or who 

have low penetration rates for the veteran populations of their respective geographical areas. 

Please don’t misunderstand me—I am not faulting any of my past leaders for 

their decisions. I think their actions were properly motivated and well intentioned. 

The real problems were insufficient resources overall and the absence of a sophisticated allocation system; so they were forced to respond to recognized organizational 

shortcomings as best they could with the limited means at their disposal. 

The VA has one of the most advanced electronic medical records systems in the 

world. If the Congress has the will to act on mandatory funding, I believe that our 

electronic record could be adapted to create a real time, workload based reimbursement mechanism at the medical center level to ‘‘pay’’ each facility for the work that 

is actually performed. This would ensure that each of our medical centers is appropriately funded for the services provided to our Nation’s veterans. By utilizing a single, uniform payer approach for VA Healthcare, further adjustments, supplementals, 

and other budgeting actions would no longer be needed unless the Congress desired 

to add programs or services. VA Medical Center Directors would also be held to the 

same accountability as their community counterparts—that is to operate using 

sound business principles and deliver high quality services in a timely manner. 

Thank you for considering my views on this subject. This concludes my statement. 

FORMER VA OFFICIAL’S PERSPECTIVE ON VA HEALTH CARE APPROPRIATIONS

OPERATIONAL DIFFICULTIES AND POLITICAL DEMANDS

For as long as I can remember during my career as a senior executive in either 

VA Central Office or at the four VA Medical Centers (health care systems) that I 

had the privilege of directing, VA funding and the appropriations process is a procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:05 Dec 18, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\37969.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
81

ess no effective business would tolerate. I believe it will require great political will 

for there to be substantial improvements, especially given the pay go and discretionary nature of VA health care funding. 

In the 1980s and early 1990s VA appropriations were insufficient to maintain current services (in several years the appropriation did not even cover approved cost 

of living and pay increases) and supplementals were expected as a ‘‘way of doing 

business.’’

In certain years VA was ordered through appropriations language to maintain 

employment floors. In one instance a Chief Medical Director refused to order the 

field to maintain the employment floor as there was insufficient money to do so. VA 

was ‘‘rewarded’’ by a slashing of the MAMOE appropriation. 

In the mid 1990s, the practice of expecting supplementals changed. Proposed VA 

funding levels at the ‘‘mark’’ provided VA by OMB were still insufficient. The 

‘‘mark’’ was increased in at least three years before the President’s request was finalized only after the Secretary made direct appeal to the President. 

Since the mid 1990s appropriations have rarely been passed by the beginning of 

the fiscal year. This fact leads to numerous operational difficulties. Most years facilities were required to operate at the prior year level until the appropriation passed, 

despite inflation and increased patient demand. Hiring freezes were typical and patient delays were common, equipment and other needed purchasing was delayed. In 

many years the appropriation was not passed for at least 6 months after the fiscal 

year began. In some of those years there were substantial increases so management 

of staffing, inventories, and other significant purchasing was very ineffective. With 

sometimes very large sums included in the new appropriation we were many times 

guided to have no carry over funds. So we’d buy ahead pharmacy and medical supplies inventories that were not required at the moment in order to use those funds. 

In years where there was so much money that it was inevitable to have unobligated 

funds at the end of the fiscal year carry-overs were requested. Most times OMB or 

the Congress or both would expect the carry over as an offset for the current budget 

year. Getting ‘‘two bites out of the apple’’ was politically convenient, but practically 

the money could have been well managed had it been approved at the beginning 

of the fiscal year. 

The Fiscal Year 2005 Budget, in my view, was a typical situation that got out 

of hand. The OMB mark and ultimate President’s request was far short of current 

services. Even though I had left the VA, when I learned of the number proposed 

around September of 2004, well before the President’s request was approved. I 

knew, as did many of my former VA colleagues, the request was in my estimate $1–

$1.3 billion short of current services. I attended with dismay the appropriations 

hearings where VA testified there were sufficient funds, only to then suggest the 

big gap in money was suddenly discovered in April or May due to insufficient consideration of the demand from OEF/OIF. I’d suggest that was a political smoke 

screen. 

In one year without an appropriation or a continuing resolution facilities were required to identify ‘‘non-essential’’ staff, they were furloughed without pay, while ‘‘essential’’ staff continued to work. The non-essential staff was ultimately made whole, 

but the effect of determining ‘‘non-essential’’ staff had a significant negative impact 

on morale. 

There were several years where money was ‘‘earmarked’’ for special purposes. 

Probably well intended but, frequently dysfunctional at an operational level as those 

local situations differed widely in terms of patient demand for particular services. 

VA health care budgeting is a very complex issue. Changes in eligibility and the 

absence of a defined population of beneficiaries who will be served will always contribute to uncertainty about demand and lead to errors in budget estimation. Facilities struggle with priorities, while at the same time having to deal with eligible patients for which there are many times insufficient funds. To deny access to care 

based on a low priority is not a simple or sometimes medically ethical practice. VA 

facility staff face this dilemma every day. 

There is frequently a disconnect between authorizing and appropriations committees. Authorizing committees legislate new programs, but they sometimes didn’t get 

appropriated. We used to refer to these programs as unfunded mandates. 

In other situations access is determined based on funds available. During the period of dramatic increases in the number of Community Based Outpatient Clinics 

oftentimes directors were faced with absolute enrollment limits, e.g., as Director at 

Charleston when we opened the CBOC in Myrtle Beach we had enough money for 

approximately 3,500 patients. When we enrolled that panel we stopped accepting 

new patients, as there was insufficient money to add more. Rather than outright 

deny the patients we told them they could be seen in Charleston, a two-hour or 

82

more drive depending on time of day. We knew most of those patients would not 

want to drive to Charleston so they’d seek other sources for their care.

[Note: Robert A. Perreault held the following positions at VA: VHA Chief Business 

Officer, VACO, 2002–2003; Director, VAMC Charleston, SC 2000–2002; Director, 

VAMC Atlanta, GA 1995–2000; Director, Health Care Reform, VACO 1994–1995; 

Director, VAMC Philadelphia, PA 1993–1994; Director, VAMC Newington, CT 1990–

1993; Executive Assistant to the Chief Medical Director, VACO 1989–1990.]

Æ