GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, House of

Representatives

April 2000 VETERANS’

BENEFITS

Promising

Claims-Processing

Practices Need to Be

Evaluated

GAO/HEHS-00-65

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 18

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Veterans

Affairs 19

Tables Table 1: Regional Office Practices by Broad Area of Focus 7

Table 2: Summary of Types of Regional Office Practices 9

Abbreviations

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

SDN Service Delivery Network

STAR Systematic Technical Accuracy Review

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

VBA Veterans Benefits Administration
Page 2 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices
Page 3 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services

B-282849 Letr

April 7, 2000

The Honorable Lane Evans

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Evans:

In fiscal year 1999, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) paid about $21

billion in compensation and pension benefits to more than 3 million

disabled veterans and their dependents and survivors. Under the direction

of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), 58 regional offices receive

and process veterans’ compensation and pension disability claims. For

many years, VBA’s disability claims processing has been the subject of

concern and numerous studies—particularly its outmoded processes and

long waits for claims decisions. As a result, VBA has been exploring ways

to reengineer the regional offices’ business processes and improve their

claims-processing performance. More recently, the accuracy of regional

office claims processing has been the subject of concern and attention

within VA and from the Congress and veterans’ service organizations. Such

questions arose because, in more than half the cases when veterans

appealed regional offices’ decisions, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals either

reversed the regional offices’ decisions or remanded them to the regional

offices for further development and reconsideration.

Amid such concerns, you asked us to report on (1) practices that individual

regional offices believe have helped them improve the accuracy of their

disability decisions and remand rates, and (2) VBA’s efforts to evaluate and

disseminate information on individual regional office practices that hold

promise for improving accuracy and remand rates of regional offices

nationwide. To address these issues, we met with VBA officials and

reviewed VBA program guidance, procedures, policies, and quality

assurance data. We also surveyed all regional offices and visited six of them

to discuss their practices in more detail. We did not evaluate the

effectiveness of individual practices, but discussed the benefits of these

practices with regional office and VBA headquarters officials. (See app. I

for more information on scope and methodology.) We conducted our

review between May 1999 and February 2000 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards.
B-282849

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Results in Brief The 55 regional offices responding to our survey reported a total of 238

practices that they believe have helped improve the accuracy of their

disability decisions and remand rates. We grouped these practices into four

broad areas of focus: (1) efforts to improve staff training, guidance, or

accountability; (2) changes in supervisory or staffing structure; (3) efforts

to develop evidence accurately and fully; and (4) efforts to communicate

more effectively with veterans. While many practices were similar, the mix

and number of practices varied from office to office, and the regional

offices viewed some practices as more effective than others in improving

accuracy and remand rates. However, the regional offices generally had not

conducted evaluations to demonstrate a link between a specific practice

and improvements in accuracy or remand rates.

Similarly, VBA has not systematically evaluated regional office practices to

identify best practices that hold the most promise for improving the claimsprocessing performance of regional offices across the nation. In a 1995

report, we emphasized that VBA needed to systematically evaluate the

effectiveness of regional offices’ claims-processing practices to identify

those that hold promise for improving the performance of regional offices

nationwide.1 VBA took steps in 1997 to identify potentially promising

practices; however, it has neither followed up on this effort nor developed a

system for evaluating promising practices and disseminating the results to

regional offices. Regional office and VBA officials stated it would be

beneficial if VBA evaluated and identified best practices so that regional

offices could use their limited resources to try only the most promising

practices. VBA officials told us they are planning to develop a system for

evaluating promising practices but, to date, evaluation efforts have been

limited to a few initiatives related to VBA’s efforts to reengineer its business

processes for adjudicating disability claims. We recommend that VBA

establish timeframes for developing and implementing a formal plan for

evaluating and disseminating information on practices that hold promise

for improving the claims-processing performance of regional offices

nationwide.

1

Veterans’ Benefits: Better Assessments Needed to Guide Claims Processing Improvements

(GAO/HEHS-95-25, Jan. 13, 1995).
B-282849

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Background VBA formulates the policy and guidance followed by regional office staff

who develop and adjudicate veterans’ compensation and pension claims.

The compensation program pays monthly benefits to veterans who have

service-connected disabilities (injuries or diseases incurred or aggravated

while on active military duty), based on degree of disability, regardless of

whether they are employed or have earnings.2 When it receives an initial

disability claim, the regional office must establish that the claim is well

grounded—that is, that there is evidence supporting a plausible case that

the veteran has a current disability that is related to a service-connected

impairment. If the claim is well-grounded, the regional office has a duty to

assist the veteran in fully developing the claim. After obtaining required

evidence, the regional office must evaluate the veteran’s degree of

disability for each service-connected impairment and assign a percentage

of disability ranging from zero to 100 percent.

After the regional office notifies the veteran of its decision, the veteran, if

dissatisfied, can ask for a hearing before a regional hearing officer. The

veteran also can submit a Notice of Disagreement to the regional office and

file an appeal asking for a review of the decision by VA’s Board of Veterans’

Appeals, which makes final decisions on behalf of the Secretary. Veterans

may appeal regional office decisions for a variety of reasons. For example,

a veteran may disagree with a regional office’s ruling to deny a

compensation claim because his or her impairment is not serviceconnected; or, even if the regional office grants the claim, the veteran may

disagree with the percentage of disability that the regional office assigns to

his or her impairment. (Overall, veterans appeal relatively few regional

office decisions—in fiscal year 1997, for example, they appealed 5.4

percent of all initial decisions.) When deciding an appeal, the Board can

grant or deny benefits, or remand (return) the case to the regional office for

further evidentiary development and reconsideration. For remanded

decisions, the regional office completes the additional development and

either grants the claim or returns it to the Board for a decision.

2

The pension program pays monthly benefits—based on financial need—to wartime

veterans who have low incomes and are permanently and totally disabled for reasons not

service-connected.
B-282849

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Until the passage of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act in 1988, the Board’s

decisions on veterans’ appeals were not subject to judicial review. This act

established what is now called the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims and gave veterans the right to appeal the Board’s decisions to the

Court.3 Before the Court was established, the Board annually remanded 12

to 24 percent of the cases it reviewed back to the regional offices for

rework. However, since the Board’s decisions became subject to review by

the Court, the Board has annually remanded about 31 to 51 percent of the

cases back to the regional offices.4 In recent years, the remand rate has

been declining—for the first 4 months of fiscal year 2000, the remand rate

was about 29 percent.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires

agencies to clearly define their missions, set goals, and measure

performance. Under GPRA, agencies submit to the Congress (1) annual

performance plans and (2) annual reports on success in achieving program

performance goals. In its fiscal year 2000 performance plan, VA stated that

one of its top priorities is the improvement of the quality and timeliness of

disability claims processing.

Over the years, VBA has sought ways to improve program performance.

For example, in 1995, VBA published a concept report calling for

reengineering the business processes used for adjudicating disability

claims. This effort is still ongoing and includes, among other initiatives,

implementing a case management approach to claims processing,

contracting for veterans’ medical examinations, and developing computerbased training modules. Also, VBA has restructured its 58 regional offices

into nine Service Delivery Networks (SDN). The regional offices that

compose each SDN are expected to collaborate, provide mutual support,

share resources, use team-based principles, and share collective

responsibility and accountability for the SDN’s overall performance of all

assigned work.

In fiscal year 1999, VBA instituted a “balanced scorecard” approach to

measure program performance. Under this approach, VBA assesses

performance on the basis of five factors: claims-processing accuracy,

3

If dissatisfied with the Court’s decision, either the veteran or VA may appeal the decision to

the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

4

Not every remand indicates that the regional office made an error. For instance, remands

can result from changes in regulations that occur after an appealed case is sent to the Board.
B-282849

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

claims-processing timeliness, unit cost, customer satisfaction, and

employee satisfaction and development. The balanced scorecard gives

more relative weight (25 percent) to accuracy than to any other factor. In

fiscal year 1999, VBA also implemented a new accuracy measurement

system, known as Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR). Using

STAR, VBA calculated a national accuracy rate of 68 percent (or a 32-

percent error rate) for decisions requiring disability ratings, which VBA

views as the core workload of the compensation and pension program. The

STAR error rate includes incorrect regional office decisions on whether to

grant or deny claims, but it also includes errors that stem from procedural

and technical issues such as failure to (1) include all required

documentation in the case file, (2) compute payment amounts correctly,

and (3) properly notify veterans of their decisions. Acknowledging the need

to improve the accuracy rate, VBA’s compensation and pension program

has set a goal of achieving 81 percent accuracy for its core workload in

fiscal year 2000. The long-term strategic goal is 96-percent accuracy.

Regional Offices

Reported Practices

They Believe Have

Helped Improve

Performance

Our survey asked managers of all regional offices to identify practices they

believed had helped them improve their accuracy or reduce their remand

rates. In response, managers from 55 regional offices reported a total of 238

practices, which we grouped into four areas of focus (see table 1).

Table 1: Regional Office Practices by Broad Area of Focus

Source: GAO’s survey of VBA regional offices.

Broad area of focus

Practices reported

Number Percentage

Efforts to improve staff training, guidance, or accountability 101 42

Changes in staffing or supervisory structure or assignments 62 26

Efforts to accurately and fully develop evidence 56 24

Efforts to communicate effectively with veterans 19 8

Total 238 100
B-282849

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

In many instances, a specific practice reported by one regional office was

the same as or similar to a practice reported by one or more other regional

offices; however, the mix and number of reported practices varied widely

among the regional offices. For example, the number of practices identified

by individual regional offices ranged from zero to as many as 12. Because

there were similar practices within the four broad areas of focus, we

classified the 238 practices into 24 categories (see table 2).
B-282849

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Table 2: Summary of Types of Regional Office Practices

Types of regional office practices

Number of regional

offices reporting

practicesa

Efforts to improve staff training, guidance, or accountability

Evaluate error data from STAR reviews, reviews of appeals/remands, or other case reviews 32

Communicate directly with Board members or Court employees to clarify reasons for remands 15

Provide information or training to staff on Court and Board decisions and other issues that affect claims

processing development and ratings 10

Include accuracy as an element in staffs’ performance appraisals to ensure that processing quality standards are

considered 8

Establish a formal training coordinator position or related training function 6

Develop a specific regional office emphasis on claims-processing accuracy as documented in local strategic plans

and other management activities 4

Require skills certification or other mandatory staff training 3

Require staff to participate in VBA conference calls that discuss the effect of Court decisions on claims processing 2

Changes in staffing/supervisory structure or assignments

Establish special unit or positions to process and/or analyze reasons for appeals/remands 37

Establish other specialized teams or staffing assignments to focus on certain types of claims or issues 6

Establish additional supervisory positions, reassign staff to fill existing supervisory positions, and/or redefine

management responsibilities 5

Establish additional rating specialist positions or reassign staff to fill existing rating positions 5

Utilize case management principles to facilitate claims processing 4

Make temporary staff assignments to deal with claims backlogs 4

Efforts to accurately and fully develop evidence

Communicate/interact with VA medical centers to ensure veterans’ exams are performed in an accurate and

thorough manner 25

Use manual or automated checklists to track development/assure full development of veterans’ claims 15

Do special reviews to assure veterans’ claims are fully and accurately developed 7

Create new staff positions, such as rating analysts, responsible for ensuring veterans’ claims are fully and

accurately developed 6

Coordinate with veterans service organizations and other entities to ensure veterans’ claims are accurately and

fully developed 3

Efforts to communicate effectively with veterans

Prepare pamphlets, brochures, letters, or other means to inform veterans about the claims process, evidentiary

requirements, and how long it should take to process their claim 6

Use reader-focused writing principles to generate standardized, user-friendly letters to veterans notifying them of

the status/decision of their claim for benefits 6

Continued
B-282849

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

a

In some cases, an individual regional office had more than one practice that fell into a single practice

category.

Source: GAO’s survey of VBA regional offices.

Our survey results and visits to regional offices indicated that regional

offices generally had not conducted assessments of the effects of specific

practices on their accuracy and remand rates. As a result, the regional

offices’ views on the benefits of specific practices were based primarily on

managers’ observations or inferences, rather than evaluations that could

demonstrate a link between a specific practice and improvements in

accuracy or remand rates. Even so, we found that regional office officials

regarded some practices as being more helpful than others in improving

accuracy and remand rates. For example, 25 regional offices reported they

were communicating with VA medical centers to ensure that veterans’

examinations were performed accurately and thoroughly. Of these 25

offices, 28 percent rated such practices as being among the most helpful in

improving their accuracy or remand rate. In contrast, 15 regional offices

reported that they used manual or automated checklists to track

development or assure full development of veterans’ claims. Of these 15

offices, only 13 percent rated such practices as being among the most

helpful.

During our visits to regional offices, the managers highlighted some

specific practices that they believed had been critical in improving their

accuracy or remand rates. In all but one case, however, 10 or fewer regional

offices mentioned using practices similar to the ones highlighted by

regional offices we visited. The practices highlighted by these offices

include those discussed in the remainder of this section.

One practice highlighted is to provide information or training to staff on

Court and Board decisions and other issues that affect claims-processing

development and ratings (mentioned by 10 regional offices). One of the

offices we visited had prepared written directives for about 25 major

topics, such as well-grounded claims, effective dates, lay evidence, and

medical opinions. To formulate these directives, regional office

Make special efforts to contact veterans regarding the status of their appeals/remands 3

Contact veterans via telephone to discuss evidentiary requirements and ensure accurate claims processing 2

Redesign personal interview procedures to facilitate greater communication with claimants 1

Types of regional office practices

Number of regional

offices reporting

practicesa

Continued from Previous Page
B-282849

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

management relied on a variety of relevant legal authorities—including

decisions by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, opinions of VA’s

Office of General Counsel, VA’s regulations, and legislation. Regional office

management synthesized these sources into a single directive for each

topic. Providing such guidance averts the need for regional office staff to

individually consult a multitude of sources, which could lead to errors and

inconsistent decisions. As changes occur in any legal authorities, regional

office management revises the directives to provide up-to-date guidance.

Another highlighted practice is to establish a special unit or positions to

process and/or analyze reasons for appeals and/or remands (mentioned by

37 regional offices). Two of the offices we visited had formed teams that

handled all appealed cases, including all decisions for which veterans had

submitted notices of disagreement, and all remanded decisions. These

regional offices reported that they believed their appeals teams had

reduced the remand rates because they became experts in meeting

requirements for submitting appealed cases to the Board, and they also

could apply lessons learned from analyzing the reasons for remanded

cases. This viewpoint is consistent with the results of a 1999 VBA study

that, while not broad enough to be conclusive, observed that the quality of

appeals submitted to the Board was consistently excellent for regional

offices that had instituted designated appeals teams.

A third highlighted practice is to establish specialized teams or staff

assignments to focus on certain types of claims or issues (mentioned by six

regional offices). One of the offices we visited had teams that specialized

by claim type, such as original claims and reopened claims. Another

regional office had staff who specialized in the most difficult rating issues,

such as post-war traumatic stress syndrome and Gulf War undiagnosed

illnesses, and the least frequently filed rating issues, such as radiation and

mustard gas. Both regional offices believed this approach had allowed staff

to gain sufficient expertise to process claims in their specialty more

accurately than otherwise could have been achieved.

A fourth highlighted practice is to create new staff positions, such as rating

analysts, responsible for ensuring veterans’ claims are fully and accurately

developed (mentioned by six regional offices). Two of the offices we visited

had established new positions for developing and documenting the

evidence needed to make a fully supportable decision. One office had

identified inadequate development of evidence as a major contributing

factor in the increasing number of appeals by veterans. Therefore, the

regional office created a rating analyst position to specialize in developing
B-282849

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

three types of claims that accounted for many appeals: post-traumatic

stress disorder, secondary service-connection claims, and individual

unemployability.

VBA Lacks Systematic

Process to Identify and

Evaluate Best

Practices

Although the regional offices reported many practices that they believe

have helped improve their accuracy or remand rates, VBA has not

systematically evaluated and disseminated information on practices that

hold promise for improving regional office claims-processing performance

nationwide. While VBA has taken steps to identify potentially promising

practices, it has not followed up on this effort and does not yet have a

system for evaluating the effect of such practices and disseminating the

evaluation results to regional offices. Regional office and VBA officials

stated that it would be beneficial if VBA evaluated and identified best

practices so that regional offices could focus their attention on trying only

the most promising ones. This is important because many regional offices

reported that their ability to try new practices is limited by factors such as

insufficient number of staff, lack of experienced staff, and high workload

levels. VBA officials recently acknowledged the need to develop a plan for

systematic evaluation of regional office practices in order to identify those

that hold promise for improving nationwide performance.

Potentially Promising

Practices Not Evaluated

In a 1995 report, we emphasized that VBA needed to systematically

evaluate the effectiveness of claims-processing practices in regional offices

in order to identify those that hold promise for improving the performance

of regional offices nationwide. Since that time, VBA’s evaluation efforts

have been limited to several initiatives related to the reengineering of its

business processes for adjudicating disablity claims, such as instituting

case management, using a paperless claims folder process, having regional

decision review officers review appeals, contracting for veterans’ medical

examinations, and developing computer-based training modules. For

example, VBA’s evaluation of the case management initiative includes its

effect on the balanced scorecard performance measures, including

accuracy.
B-282849

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

In 1997, VBA asked regional office and central office staff to submit

innovative practices affecting service and operations efficiency in all five of

VBA’s business lines, including compensation and pension disability

claims.5 VBA issued a publication that catalogued the practices submitted

and established a website providing an electronic copy of this publication

on its internal network. Neither the publication nor the website has been

updated to include other practices. Moreover, VBA did not evaluate the

effect of the practices before issuing the publication. Also, as we found in

our survey and visits to regional offices, the regional offices themselves

generally had not conducted assessments of the extent to which a specific

practice affects accuracy or remand rates.

Evaluation System Not Yet

in Place

In our survey, the regional offices indicated that they consider direct

contacts with other regional offices to be useful ways to learn about each

others’ practices. Such direct contacts come about through regional office

working relationships within an SDN, and through regularly scheduled

meetings with regional offices in other SDNs. The regional offices also

establish informal relationships when, for example, staff from various

regional offices meet at training courses and workgroups. VBA also has

established two “communities of practice” on internal network websites

that regional offices can use to informally share information about efforts

to enhance their staffs’ technical skills and develop teamwork. Such

information sharing, though desirable, does not provide any way for

regional offices to obtain information on practices that have been shown

through systematic evaluations to hold the most promise for improving the

performance of regional offices nationwide.

According to staff in VBA’s Office of Field Operations, VBA recently began

efforts to establish an Operations Center website that would include

information on best practices. VBA intends to evaluate practices before

posting information about them on the website. VBA officials also told us

that their evaluations would assess the effect of a practice on all of the

performance measures outlined in the balanced scorecard, including

accuracy. However, VBA is in the initial stages of its effort to develop this

5

In contrast with our survey’s focus on practices that helped improve accuracy and remand

rates in the compensation and pension program, VBA’s 1997 study focused on practices

related to “service and operations efficiency” improvements in all of VBA’s programs—the

compensation and pension, loan guaranty, education, vocational rehabilitation, and

insurance programs. Based on its survey, VBA issued a publication, entitled “Best

Practices,” which catalogued a combined total of 191 practices for its five programs.
B-282849

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

plan, and has not yet established a timeframe for developing and

implementing an evaluation plan; according to Office of Field Operations

staff, the effort to develop a plan still has to address such fundamental

questions as the following:

• How will ideas with quantifiable documentation that they improve

operations be identified?

• What entity will evaluate the ideas?

• How can ideas be best communicated, including their strengths,

weaknesses, and implementation considerations?

• How can the information be kept current?

• How will VBA develop evaluation skills?

Evaluation of potentially beneficial practices (such as some of those

reported by regional offices) is needed to help regional offices focus their

attention on the most promising. In a significant number of survey

responses, regional offices reported that their ability to try new practices is

hindered by large workloads, the need for more staff, and their current

staff’s inexperience. Some regional office and VBA officials stated that

evaluation of practices by VBA would enable regional offices to devote

their energies and limited resources to trying only the most promising

practices. Also, the manager of VBA’s reengineering effort stated that the

most effective practices should be considered for incorporation into the

reengineering effort.

Conclusions and

Recommendations

While VBA has taken some steps to identify potentially promising

practices, it has neither followed up on this effort nor developed a system

for evaluating such practices and disseminating the results to regional

offices. While regional offices reported a variety of practices that they

believe have helped improve their claims-processing performance, regional

office and VBA officials agreed that it would be beneficial if VBA evaluated

and identified best practices so that regional offices could use their limited

resources to try only the most promising practices. Although VBA officials

told us they are in the initial stages of planning a system for evaluating

promising practices, VBA had not established specific timeframes for

developing and implementing such a plan.

To help ensure that VBA proceeds expeditiously, we recommend that the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for Benefits to

establish timeframes for development and implementation of a formal plan

for evaluating and disseminating information on practices that hold
B-282849

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

promise for improving the claims-processing performance of regional

offices nationwide. The Secretary should also consider including

information on goals for and results of disseminating information on

promising practices in the annual reports submitted under GPRA.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

In commenting on our draft report, VA generally agreed with our

recommendations. (The text of VA’s letter appears as app. II.) While VA

agreed that VBA historically has not had good mechanisms for capitalizing

on best practices, VA stated it is committed to improving this situation and

believes that VBA is well on its way to developing good systems to do so.

VA also commented that our report did not fully address VBA’s current

initiatives, such as its business process reengineering efforts. While we in

fact did discuss VBA’s initiatives, our work focused on potential best

practices that regional offices developed on their own, apart from

initiatives directed by VBA.

Regarding our recommendation to establish timeframes for developing a

plan for evaluating and disseminating best practices, VA said that VBA has

prepared a draft procedure for receiving, evaluating, and disseminating

best practices. While the draft plan is not specific about the criteria or

analysis that will be used to identify best practices, it is a step in the right

direction that should, when finalized, enhance VBA’s potential for

improving performance through the widespread adoption of best practices.

With respect to our recommendation to include in its annual GPRA reports

VBA’s efforts to disseminate information on best practices, VA said that

VBA was considering adding a section to its GPRA submission to the

Department. If this information is included in VA’s annual reports, it should

heighten awareness of best practices and the importance of agency-wide

implementation of them.

As agreed with your office, we plan no further distribution of this report

until 30 days from its date of issue, unless you publicly announce its

contents earlier. We will then send copies of this report to the Chairman of

the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Secretary of the Department

of Veterans Affairs, other congressional committees, and others who are

interested. We will also make copies available to others upon request. If

you have questions about this report, please call me at (202) 512-7101 or
B-282849

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Irene P. Chu, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7102. Other major contributors

to this report were Ira B. Spears, Steve D. Morris, Paul C. Wright, and

Deborah L. Edwards.

Sincerely yours,

Cynthia A. Bascetta

Associate Director, Veterans’ Affairs and

Military Health Care Issues
Page 17 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices
Page 18 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To identify claims-processing practices that the Veterans Benefits

Administration (VBA) regional offices believe have helped them improve

their accuracy and remand rates, we sent a survey questionnaire to 57

regional offices, of which 55 responded.1 To examine reported practices

and related issues in more detail, we visited six responding regional offices:

Columbia, South Carolina; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Montgomery, Alabama;

New York, New York; Oakland, California; and Waco, Texas. While we did

not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of individual practices that

regional offices reported, we discussed the benefits and limitations of

practices with officials of the regional offices we visited and VBA

headquarters.

The six regional offices we visited were judgmentally selected to provide a

mix of offices based on a combination of factors, including remand rates,

Service Delivery Network (SDN) affiliation, geographic location, and

workload level. We did not use technical accuracy rates produced under

Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) as a factor in selecting

regional offices because VBA has not yet ensured that the STAR system

provides reliable accuracy rates for each regional office. As we reported in

1999, VBA reviews samples of cases from each SDN and is able to produce

accuracy rates with reasonable statistical precision for each SDN and the

nation as a whole; however, VBA does not review enough cases from each

regional office to produce accuracy rates for each office with reasonable

statistical precision.2 Instead, each regional office does self-reviews of its

work to produce its own accuracy rate. Because the rigor and standards of

the regional offices’ self-reviews could vary from office to office, VBA is

reviewing for each office a limited number of cases that the office has

already self-reviewed in order to gauge the reliability and consistency of

regional office accuracy rates. Although this process will not enable VBA to

validate regional office accuracy rates with reasonable statistical precision,

VBA believes it will provide a reasonable indicator of regional office

accuracy rate reliability. At the time of our review, VBA had not completed

enough reviews to reach firm conclusions about regional office accuracy

rate reliability.

1

Although VBA has an office in Cheyenne, Wyoming, this office reports administratively

through the Denver regional office, and for the purposes of accuracy measurement, the

Cheyenne office is treated as part of the Denver regional office. Therefore, we sent a survey

questionnaire to the Denver regional office only.

2

Veterans’ Benefits Claims: Further Improvements Needed in Claims-Processing Accuracy

(GAO/HEHS-99-35, Mar. 1, 1999).
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices

Appendix II

Comments From the Department of Veterans

Affairs ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of Veterans

Affairs

(105774) Letr Page 20 GAO/HEHS-00-65 Promising Claims Processing Practices
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00