U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

98–065 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–252 

HEARING ON PENDING HEALTH AND BENEFITS 

LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 18, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia, Chairman 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut, Ranking 

Member 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

TOM BOWMAN, Staff Director 

JOHN KRUSE, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 18, 2015 

SENATORS 

Page 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Georgia ............................ 3 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from Connecticut ... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from South Dakota ......................................... 18 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii ............................................... 20 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from Ohio ..................................................... 22 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arkansas .............................................. 24 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 25 

Tillis, Hon. Thom, U.S. Senator from North Carolina .......................................... 27 

Moran, Hon. Jerry, U.S. Senator from Kansas ..................................................... 28 

WITNESSES 

Ernst, Hon. Joni, a United States Senator from the State of Iowa ..................... 1 

Coy, Curtis L., Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied 

by Maureen McCarthy, M.D., Acting Assistant Deputy Under Secretary 

for Health for Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration; and 

Meghan Flanz, Deputy General Counsel, Legal Operations and Accountability .................................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Response to request arising during the hearing by Hon. Richard 

Blumenthal .................................................................................................... 32 

Response to posthearing questions submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal 33 

Hempowicz, Elizabeth, Public Policy Associate, Project On Government Oversight ....................................................................................................................... 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Response to request arising during the hearing by Hon. Richard 

Blumenthal .................................................................................................... 60 

Hubbard, William, Vice President of Government Affairs, Student Veterans 

of America ............................................................................................................. 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Morosky, Aleks, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of 

Foreign Wars of the United States ..................................................................... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Porter, Thomas, Legislative Director, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America .......................................................................................................................... 52 

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

Response to request arising during the hearing by Hon. Richard 

Blumenthal .................................................................................................... 66 

Zumatto, Diane, National Legislative Director, AMVETS ................................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

APPENDIX 

Kirk, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Illinois; prepared statement ...................... 67 

American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA); prepared statement ......... 69 

Clarno, Germaine, LCSW, CADC and Local President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); prepared statement ..................... 70 

Varela, Paul R., Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American 

Veterans (DAV); prepared statement ................................................................. 72 

Page

IV 

Grundmann, Susan Tsui, Chairman, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

(MSPB); prepared statement ............................................................................... 76 

Nee, Lisa M., MD, Interventional Cardiologist; prepared statement .................. 83 

Lerner, Carolyn N., Special Counsel, United States Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC); prepared statement .................................................................................. 85 

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); prepared statement ................................ 86 

Wilkes, Christopher Shea, VA Truth Tellers; letter ............................................. 88 

Halliday, Linda A., Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Office of Inspector General (OIG); letter .............................................. 94 

Ochinko, Walter, Policy Director, Veterans Education Success (VES); prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 98 

(1) 

HEARING ON PENDING HEALTH AND 

BENEFITS LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Johnny Isakson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Isakson, Moran, Boozman, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Blumenthal, Brown, Tester, and Hirono. 

WELCOME BY HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Chairman ISAKSON. I call this meeting of the Senate Veterans’ 

Affairs Committee come to order. 

Since our distinguished Senator from the State of Iowa is here 

early, in a timely fashion, I do not want to make her wait any 

longer, and it is always our tradition to have members of the Senate who are not on the Committee who have bills to be testified 

about speak first, and we always honor them by not asking them 

any questions. That is not because we know they do not have the 

answers. It is because we do not want the hearing to go so long. 

So, Senator Ernst, we are delighted to have you here. You are 

our first witness and we will be glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it very 

much, and thank you for your service and, of course, your service 

to our veterans, as well. Thank you, as well, Senator Sullivan. 

I do wish to thank all of the Members of the Committee who 

have worked so hard for our veterans. This is one of the most important Committees, I feel, to making sure that we honor our commitments to the men and women that have served in our Nation’s 

military. Again, thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

I want to specifically thank my lead Democratic sponsor, Senator 

Hirono, for her help with this legislation, which is designed to improve the access and quality of care we provide our veterans. The 

bill is called the VETS Act for a reason, and that is because we all 

want to honor and help those that served and sacrificed for our 

country. 

The VA has been practicing telemedicine since 2001 and they are 

largely cited as leaders and innovators in the field. Their efforts in 

2 

telemedicine have saved money and veterans’ time by eliminating 

often an hour or more long drives to the VA and reducing bed days 

at the VA. For example, according to the VA, in fiscal year 2014, 

telehealth reduced bed days of care by 54 percent, reduced hospital 

admissions by 32 percent, and saved $34 per consultation in travel 

savings. 

Our legislation is straightforward, common sense, and builds 

upon this work that the VA is already doing in telemedicine. It allows VA doctors to conduct telemedicine across State lines for patients in their homes, something they are already able to do within 

State lines. Unfortunately, current law allows doctors to call patients at their homes if they are in the same State but prevents 

them from doing so if their veteran patient lives across State lines. 

VA doctors wishing to treat patients via telehealth across State 

lines must have the patient drive to a Federal facility. This is the 

case even though there is no special licensing requirement for VA 

doctors to practice in different States. 

For example, a veteran in my small town of Red Oak, Iowa, who 

wishes to have a telemedicine appointment with a doctor at the VA 

hospital in Omaha, Nebraska, that is closest to my home town, an 

hour away, that veteran must drive to the VA center in Des 

Moines, a 2-hour drive. By contrast, if the doctor was based in Des 

Moines, the patient could remain in their home in Red Oak and 

have a telemedicine appointment. 

Back in Iowa and in many other States, rural veterans are often 

faced with the struggle of making it to a VA facility in the city. Increasing opportunities for telemedicine is a great way to tackle this 

challenge for services ranging from mental health treatment to 

post-surgery follow-up. 

In addition, this bill includes language we worked with the VA 

on to ensure policymakers have up to date information on the VA’s 

telehealth program. This report language is designed not to have 

a cost or create any extra work as this is data that the Department 

already collects on its telehealth program. 

As you may know, this legislation has broad bipartisan support, 

with 12 cosponsors, three from this Committee, and is supported by 

the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, Concerned 

Veterans for America, the Paralyzed Veterans Association, Iraq 

and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the American Telemedicine Association, and Health IT Now. 

I hope you all are able to see the common sense behind this legislation and I greatly appreciate all of you taking time to consider 

this legislation and listen to my remarks today. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Ernst, we appreciate your leadership, and Senator Hirono, your cosponsorship of the legislation—— 

Senator HIRONO. I am proud to. 

Chairman ISAKSON. A proud cosponsor. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mazie, very much, Senator Hirono. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I think we have five other Committee Members who are also cosponsors of the bill. 

Senator ERNST. Wonderful. 

Chairman ISAKSON. It does address a critical need. We have had 

some input, which I will go over with you, but we want to move 

3 

forward as soon as we can. It is a great suggestion that really helps 

us solve a problem in a most economical way, but it also benefits 

mostly our veterans, which is why we are here to begin with. 

So, thank you very much—— 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON [continuing]. For submitting the legislation. 

We will be with you shortly, when we do a markup. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you. 

We will go ahead and do opening statements by the Chairman 

and Ranking Member and then we will go straight to our first and 

second panels, if that is OK. Thanks again to Senator Ernst for 

being here today and her legislation. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Chairman ISAKSON. Today’s agenda touches on a variety of areas, 

including whistleblower protection, educational benefits, vocational 

rehabilitation, and improving medical staffing and care. I want to 

commend Senator Ernst and Senator Kirk, who are not Members 

of the Committee but have come forward with legislation we will 

consider today, as well as each Member of the Committee who has 

had input on the hearing today. 

VA has come under increasing fire recently for treatment of 

whistleblowers and this Committee wants to see to it that whistleblowers who truthfully come forward to testify have the protection 

and the ease necessary to accomplish what they do. It is a valuable 

service to make the Veterans Administration better. 

The Committee will continue to look closely at all the programs 

that support the transition from service to private sector employment and do everything we can to see to it we are fostering the 

type of transition that is necessary. It is important to evaluate new 

ideas to staff VA facilities adequately and connect veterans with 

health care providers. Most importantly, it is important that we always make sure that we are providing our veterans with the services they need from the Veterans Administration when they leave 

the military. 

I appreciate our members that have submitted legislation today. 

We will have five pieces that we will take up. We will hear from 

six witnesses who will testify, and I will now recognize the Ranking 

Member, Richard Blumenthal. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

RANKING MEMBER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this hearing and for including priorities from the minority 

side on today’s agenda. Also, that you for continuing to work with 

us in a bipartisan way to address the many important bills that 

have been referred to the Committee. 

I am particularly proud of the whistleblower protection bill that 

Senator Kirk and I have introduced last night. It was the result of 

many hours of painstaking and sometimes painful work to accommodate the interests involved and balance the rights on both sides 

4 

to make sure that whistleblowers are protected against potential 

reprisal and retaliation. I know from my work as a State Attorney 

General as well as a Federal prosecutor how important whistleblowers are as a source of information and evidence and how vulnerable they may be when they speak truth to power. 

Therefore, I felt strongly and deeply about this measure, and I 

recognize there may not be unanimity and support for it. But I 

think it makes some critically important advances in providing the 

safeguards that are needed for whistleblowers to step forward and 

do what they have done throughout our history in protecting the 

public interest which sometimes includes putting that public interest ahead of their own personal welfare. At the very least, they 

ought to be protected from reprisal and retaliation, which has happened in the VA, it has happened in the government as a whole, 

and that is why we have the system of whistleblower protection 

that we do. 

In addition, I am very pleased today that the Committee is considering my legislation S. 2253, the Veterans Education Relief and 

Reinstatement Act. Again, I want to thank colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle, Senator Tillis of this Committee as well as Senator 

Brown, for cosponsoring this legislation. 

The catastrophic collapse of Corinthian Colleges earlier this year 

left thousands of students, literally thousands of young people, who 

had not received an education of any value, let alone a degree, 

stranded under mountains of debt. Four-hundred-and-twenty-two 

of the students impacted were beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 G.I. 

Bill, which rightfully provides our veterans and other dependents 

with the opportunity to pursue higher education after military 

service. 

Not only did Corinthian’s closure mean that these veterans had 

wasted a semester of Post-9/11 G.I. Bill entitlements at a college 

that closed, forgoing credit for their coursework, but this unexpected closure also led the VA to cutoff housing allowance benefits 

for them and their dependents. This monthly educational housing 

assistance is a crucial component of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefit. 

When this benefit is abruptly terminated, it can leave beneficiaries 

stranded and without supplemental income for housing, food, utilities, and other basic necessities. 

I introduced the Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement 

Act to give the VA Secretary authority to restore Post-9/11 G.I. Bill 

entitlements and provide housing relief to those who have been 

harmed by the permanent closure of an educational institution 

such as Corinthian. I am hopeful we can consider to advance this 

bill and other important education legislation, such as the Career 

Ready Student Veterans Act, through this Committee to ensure 

that our veterans have not wasted hard-earned education benefits 

and are given the opportunity to complete their degrees. 

This June, along with Senate and House colleagues, I urged the 

VA to provide more information to veterans on the G.I. Bill comparison tool to warn users when schools are under accreditation 

probation, facing heightened cash monitoring from the Federal 

Government, or under probation from the Department of Defense 

Military Tuition Assistance Program. 

5 

I have more to say on a number of these bills. I am going to ask, 

with the Chairman’s permission, that I enter my full statement in 

the record—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. Without objection. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. And simply again thank him 

for his consideration in permitting us to move forward on these 

critical measures. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Blumenthal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, RANKING MEMBER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

OPENING REMARKS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on pending legislation before this Committee, and thank you to all of the witnesses providing testimony 

today. We appreciate your dedication to the veteran communities that you serve and 

thank you for sharing your insight. 

Today’s hearing agenda reflects the commitment of Members on both sides of the 

aisle to do right by this Nation’s veterans and their families. As this Congress continues, it is increasingly apparent there is much work to be done. 

I want to thank the Chairman for including priorities from the minority side on 

today’s agenda, and for continuing to work with us in order to address the many 

important bills that have been referred to the Committee. 

I thank my Senate colleagues for their work to advance important bills through 

this Committee—specifically related to the vocational rehabilitation program, physician assistants and workforce shortages at VA, accountability, and education—and 

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to discuss these legislative measures 

today. 

Given the number of bills and legislative proposals on today’s agenda, I will briefly highlight a few bills we’ll consider today. 

EDUCATION BENEFITS

I am especially pleased that the Committee is considering consider my legislation, 

S. 2253, the Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement Act. I thank my colleagues, particularly my distinguished Committee colleagues, Senator Tillis as well 

as Senator Brown, for cosponsoring this legislation. 

The catastrophic collapse of Corinthian Colleges earlier this year left thousands 

of students, who had not received an education of any value, stranded under a 

mountain of debt. 

422 of the students impacted were beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which 

rightfully provides our veterans and their dependents with the opportunity to pursue higher education after their military service. 

Not only did the Corinthian closures mean that these veterans had wasted a semester of Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement at a college that closed, forgoing credit for 

their coursework. But this unexpected closure also led VA to cutoff housing allowance benefits. 

This monthly educational housing assistance is a crucial component of the Post9/11 GI Bill benefit. When this benefit is abruptly terminated, it can leave beneficiaries stranded and without supplemental income for housing, food, utilities, and 

other basic necessities. 

A recent investigation by the Department of Education and California Attorney 

General Kamala Harris determined that Corinthian Colleges repeatedly falsified job 

placement rates and preyed on veterans and taxpayers. These predatory practices 

took advantage of veterans using Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to facilitate the transition to civilian life, and we must do more to protect the student veterans adversely 

impacted by such predatory practices and resulting school closures. 

I introduced the Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement Act to give the VA 

Secretary authority to restore Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement and provide housing relief to those who have been harmed by the permanent closure of an educational institution, such as Corinthian. 

No veteran should have to suffer, or lose their hard-earned educational benefits, 

due to the unsound financial practices and predatory actions of schools like Corinthian. 

6 

I’m hopeful that we can continue to advance this bill and other important education legislation, such as the Career-Ready Student Veterans Act, through this 

Committee to ensure that our veterans have not wasted hard-earned education benefits and are given the opportunity to complete their degrees. 

This June, along with Senate and House Colleagues, I urged VA to provide more 

information to veterans on the GI Bill Comparison Tool to warn users when schools 

are under accreditation probation, facing heightened cash monitoring from the Federal Government, or under probation from the Defense Department’s military tuition assistance program. 

VA recently updated the GI Bill Comparison Tool with yellow caution flags to 

warn users that certain schools, notably the University of Phoenix, are under probation. This is a good first step to ensure that veterans are provided with the resources they need to make informed education decisions to best use their Post-9/11 

GI Bill benefits. 

We must do more to ensure that our Nation’s heroes are using GI Bill education 

benefits to receive education training, and are not squandering these benefits on incapable institutions. I am pleased that the Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement Act has broad support from VA as well as the veteran service organizations 

represented at our hearing today and in written testimony. 

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS

The agenda also includes legislation to strengthen whistleblower protections at 

VA. I’d like to thank my colleague Senator Kirk for introducing this critically important bill. 

The Government Accountability Project has referred to the provisions in this legislation as ‘‘a major breakthrough in the struggle for VA whistleblowers to gain credible rights when defending the integrity of the agency mission and disclosing quality 

of care concerns.’’ 

In addition, this legislation would hold supervisors accountable for retaliating 

against whistleblowers. 

I’m proud to co-sponsor this legislation, and I’d like to again thank Senator Kirk 

for working with me and introducing this bill. I’d like to thank the Veterans Service 

Organizations, the Government Accountability Project, and other good government 

organizations for their leadership on this issue. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I again would like to thank our many witnesses for joining us 

today. I look forward to our continued cooperation and bipartisan collaboration with 

Chairman Isakson to work toward better serving those who have served our 

country. 

Thank you and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

If our first panel will come forward, I will introduce our first 

panel. 

First is Mr. Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic 

Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs; Dr. Maureen McCarthy, Acting Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Patient Care Services, Veterans 

Health Administration, Washington, DC; and Meghan Flanz, Deputy General Counsel, Legal Operations and Accountability. 

We appreciate you all being here today. Mr. Coy, please limit 

your testimony to about 5 minutes. 

7 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

ACCOMPANIED BY MAUREEN McCARTHY, M.D., ACTING ASSISTANT DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH FOR PATIENT CARE SERVICES, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; AND MEGHAN FLANZ, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, 

LEGAL OPERATIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

Mr. COY. Mr. Chairman, we will do just that. Good afternoon, 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. We are pleased to 

be here today to provide the views of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs on pending legislation affecting VA’s programs. Accompanying, as you mentioned, are my colleagues Dr. Maureen McCarthy, Acting Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health, and Ms. 

Meghan Flanz, Deputy General Counsel. 

S. 2106, the Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act of 

2015, would require the Secretary to develop and publish an action 

plan for improving VA’s vocational rehabilitation and employment 

(VRE) services. While VA appreciates the support the Committee 

has for our VRE program, we do not believe that a new action plan 

is necessary. 

VA’s recent and planned efforts in this area are extensive. For 

example, we have already conducted a business process reengineering initiative from 2011 to 2014, resulting in streamlined 

workload and outreach strategies, new performance metrics, developed an automated resource center, eliminated redundant forms, 

and a staffing model; developed national training modules for VRE 

staff that include TBI, PTS, and other mental health issues, and 

have worked with VHA on these specialized trainings; developed 

partnerships with VHA, Department of Labor and Defense on a variety of issues, to include homelessness, mental health, telecounseling, disability and employment, and the Integrated Disability 

Evaluation System, or IDES, stationing counselors at 71 military 

installations for transitioning servicemembers. 

We agree with AMVETS’ written testimony today and have expanded our public-private partnerships for VRE. Of note, publicprivate partnerships are of particular interest to Secretary McDonald. He has recently engaged with over 100 different organizations 

to develop MOUs or agreements with more on the way. We have 

expanded our Vets Success on Campus Program to 94 campuses. 

As one might imagine, it has been a very busy and transformational few years. 

S. 2134, the Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act of 2015, would establish a pilot program to provide educational assistance to former members of the 

Armed Forces for education and training as physician assistants 

within the VA. While VA supports the entire concept, the cost, as 

we laid out in our written testimony, associated with the legislation 

causes concern within our available resources. 

With respect to S. 2170, the Veterans eHealth and Telemedicine 

Support Act of 2015, VA supports the section of the bill that allows 

VA employed or contracted health care professionals to provide 

health care and to support the provision of health care to the VA 

patient by telemedicine. As outlined in more detail in our written 

8 

testimony, VA supports certain reporting requirements but does 

not support other reporting requirements that would be overly burdensome on VA operations. 

S. 2253, the Department of Veterans Affairs Veterans Education 

Relief and Restoration Act of 2015, would provide veterans affected 

by school closures with certain relief and restoration of education 

benefits if the VA finds that the individual was forced to discontinue a course or courses as a result of permanent school closure. VA supports this bill and appreciates the leadership of Senator Blumenthal and the Committee in helping those veterans who 

deal with a school closure through no fault of their own. 

The draft bill regarding whistleblower complaints would define a 

whistleblower complaint to include not only a VA employee’s disclosure of wrongdoing, but also a complaint made by a VA employee 

assisting other employees to disclose wrongdoing. Amongst many 

other requirements, we do note that it would establish a process for 

employees to file whistleblower complaints with their immediate 

supervisor and establish a central whistleblower office which is not 

part of VA’s Office of General Counsel that would be responsible 

for investigating all whistleblower complaints. 

In recent months, the Department has taken several important 

steps to improve how we address operational deficiencies and to ensure that those who disclose such deficiencies are protected from 

retaliation. In the summer of 2014, the Secretary reorganized and 

assigned new leadership to VA’s Office of the Medical Inspector, 

which reviews whistleblower disclosures related to VA health care 

operations. The Secretary also established the Office of Accountability Review to ensure leadership accountability for whistleblower 

retaliation and other serious misconduct. 

While we appreciate the Committee’s efforts to assist the Department in these endeavors, we believe the specific whistleblower disclosure and protection procedures provided by this bill would be 

unworkable and current whistleblower protections are effective. 

From a legal perspective, our analysis suggests that portions of the 

draft bill present due process problems and conflicts with other 

laws. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today and we will be pleased 

to respond to any questions you or other members may have, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC

OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION (VBA), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to 

be here today to provide the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on 

pending legislation affecting VA’s programs, including the following: S. 2106, 

S. 2134, S. 2170, S. 2253, and a draft bill regarding whistleblower complaints. At 

this time, VA is unable to develop cost estimates for the ‘‘Department of Veterans 

Affairs Veterans Education Relief and Restoration Act of 2015;’’ however, we will 

provide these to you as soon as they are available. Accompanying me this morning 

are Maureen McCarthy, Acting Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Patient Care Services, Veterans Health Administration and Meghan Flanz, Deputy 

General Counsel, Legal Operations & Accountability. 

9 

S. 2106

S. 2106, the ‘‘Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act of 2015,’’ would require the Secretary to develop and publish an action plan for improving VA’s vocational rehabilitation services and assistance. Section 2(b) would require the action 

plan to include: (1) a comprehensive analysis of, and recommendations for, remedying workload management challenges at VA’s regional offices (ROs), including 

steps to reduce counselor caseloads of Veterans participating in a rehabilitation program, particularly for counselors who are assisting Veterans with Traumatic Brain 

Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and for counselors with 

educational and vocational counseling caseloads; (2) a comprehensive analysis to address the reasons for the disproportionately low percentage of Veterans, with service-connected disabilities and military service after September 11, 2001, who opt to 

participate in a rehabilitation program under chapter 31 of title 38, United States 

Code (U.S.C.), relative to the percentage of such Veterans who use their entitlement 

to educational assistance under chapter 33, including an analysis of barriers to 

timely enrollment in rehabilitation programs under chapter 31 and any barriers to 

a Veteran enrolling in the program of that Veteran’s choice; (3) recommendations 

for encouraging more Veterans who have military service after September 11, 2001, 

and have service-connected disabilities to participate in rehabilitation programs 

under chapter 31; and (4) a national staff training program for Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors (VRC) to include: (a) training to assist VRCs in understanding the 

profound disorientation experienced by Veterans with service-connected disabilities 

whose lives and life plans have been complicated due to service-connected disabilities; (b) training to assist VRCs in working in partnership with Veterans on individual rehabilitation plans; and (c) training on PTSD and other mental health conditions and on moderate to severe TBI that is designed to improve the ability of VRCs 

to assist Veterans with these conditions, including providing information on the 

broad spectrum of such conditions and the effect of such conditions on an individual’s abilities and functional limitations. 

VA does not believe that a new action plan is necessary to improve vocational rehabilitation services and assistance provided under chapter 31 and accordingly does 

not support S. 2106. VA’s recent and planned efforts in this area are already 

extensive. 

The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program conducted a 

business process re-engineering initiative from 2011 to 2014 to examine workload 

issues, training, roles, responsibilities, and outreach. As a result, workload management strategies were streamlined and a new staffing model was developed. VA has 

an outreach campaign underway to increase awareness of and access to chapter 31 

services. This includes the August 2015 deployment of an online application for 

chapter 31 and chapter 36 benefits through eBenefits and Enterprise Veterans SelfService. VR&E places VRCs in colleges and universities across the Nation as part 

of the VetSuccess on Campus (VSOC) initiative. VSOC VRCs provide information 

on VA benefits to a variety of populations on campus, including Veterans, Servicemembers, and dependents. VR&E is an integral part of the joint Department of Defense and VA Transition Assistance Program and the Integrated Disability Evaluation System, with VRCs placed on military installations for early outreach and delivery of vocational rehabilitation services to transitioning Servicemembers. VA’s national training curriculum for VR&E staff covers a variety of topics related to job 

duties, which includes information on working with individuals with TBI, PTSD, 

and other mental health issues. VR&E partners with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) on many of these specialized trainings. 

Our VR&E program has also recently implemented two major initiatives to improve services to Veterans and ensure that those services are accurately measured. 

The first, TeleCounseling, fielded nationwide in May 2015, is an optional method of 

coordinating case management and supportive services for Veterans participating in 

a program of vocational rehabilitation. This initiative allows the VRC and Veteran 

to have more frequent face-to-face contact. The second, the implementation of new 

performance measures, fielded nationwide in July 2015, ensures that the daily activities and operations of employees who provide direct service to Veterans are 

linked to program measures that define successful outcomes for those Veterans. 

VR&E is developing a new case management system (CMS), VRE-CMS, that will 

streamline responsibilities, enable a paperless environment, and improve data 

integrity. 

The cumulative impact of these processes, trainings, outreach programs, and initiatives encourages more Servicemembers and Veterans with service-connected disabilities to participate in chapter 31 services by ensuring that VR&E staff understands the specialized needs of Veterans with service-connected disabilities; provides 

10 

appropriate and timely rehabilitation services to meet those needs; provides Servicemembers and Veterans information necessary to make an informed choice on available VA benefits to which they may be entitled; and removes barriers to accessing 

rehabilitation services. 

The chapter 33 program is an educational benefit for individuals who served on 

active duty after September 10, 2001. The chapter 31 program is a benefit that assists individuals with service-connected disabilities meeting certain statutory guidelines, with a focus on obtaining and maintaining employment and/or achieving the 

maximum possible level of independence in daily living. Congress has mandated 

that, in addition to a service-connected disability, the Servicemember or Veteran 

must also have an employment handicap, defined as impairment to one’s ability to 

prepare for, obtain, or retain employment, to qualify for services under chapter 31. 

Also, chapter 31 is required by law to ensure that the vocational goal for which services are provided is a suitable goal. The training that individuals receive for a specific occupation should assist them in performing the duties of that occupation. Not 

all Veterans with a service-connected disability will meet these criteria or have an 

interest in pursuing a suitable vocational goal. For those individuals, chapter 33 is 

often the program of choice, as it provides access to education benefits regardless 

of level of impairment or suitability of the educational or vocational goal. 

There are no mandatory costs associated with this legislation. To conduct a new 

analysis and develop an action plan as outlined in the proposed legislation, VA 

would need to use administrative funds to procure a contract. The estimated cost 

to procure a contract for these services is approximately $2 million. 

S. 2134

S. 2134, the ‘‘Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act of 2015,’’ would establish a pilot program to provide educational assistance to certain former members of the Armed Forces for education and training as 

physician assistants within the VA. While VA supports the concept, the cost associated with the legislation would cause concern within our available resources. 

S. 2134 would require the Secretary to provide information on the pilot program 

to eligible individuals. An eligible individual would be defined as an individual who: 

(1) has medical or military health experience while serving as a member of the 

Armed Forces; (2) has received a certificate, associate degree, baccalaureate degree, 

master’s degree, or post-baccalaureate training in a science related to health care; 

(3) has participated in the delivery of health care services or related medical services; and (4) does not have a degree of doctor of medicine, doctor of osteopathy, or 

doctor of dentistry. 

S. 2134 would also require the Secretary to select no less than 250 eligible individuals to participate in the program with a minimum of 35 scholarship participants 

per year. Priority would be given to: individuals who participated in the Intermediate Care Technician Pilot Program of the Department that was carried out by 

the Secretary between January 2011 and February 2015, and individuals who agree 

to be employed as a physician assistant for VHA in a community designated as a 

medically underserved population and in a State with a per capita Veteran population of more than 9 percent. Although VA supports the minimum requirement of 

scholarship participants, VA is concerned that the applicant pool of eligible individuals may be insufficient to meet the required number. 

S. 2134 would also require the Secretary, in carrying out the pilot program, to 

provide educational assistance to individuals participating in the program to cover 

the costs to the individuals of obtaining a master’s degree in physician assistant 

studies or a similar master’s degree. The legislation would call for the use of the 

Health Professionals Educational Assistance Program (HPEAP) and other educational assistance programs the Secretary considers appropriate, to administer a 

5-year pilot program. 

S. 2134 would also require each individual participating in the pilot program to 

enter into an obligated service agreement with the Secretary to be employed as a 

physician assistant with VHA for a period of time that is either specified in the 

HPEAP or other educational assistance program or, if the individual is participating 

through a program where an obligated service period is not specified, a period of 

at least 3 years or such other period as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

The bill would also provide that where an individual who participates in the pilot 

program fails to satisfy the period of obligated service, he or she shall be liable to 

the United States, in lieu of the obligated service, for the amount that has been paid 

or is payable to or on behalf of the individual under the pilot program, reduced by 

the proportion that the number of days the individual served for completion of the 

11 

period of obligated service years to the total number of days in the period of obligated service of such individual. 

The bill would also require the Secretary to ensure that a physician assistant 

mentor or mentors are available for individuals participating in the pilot program 

at each facility of VHA at which a participant in the pilot program is employed. 

The bill would require the Secretary to seek to partner with not less than 15 institutions of higher education that offer a master’s degree program in physician assistant studies or a similar area of study accredited by the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant. These institutions would also 

agree to guarantee seats in such master’s degree program for pilot program participants, and to provide pilot program participants with information on admissions criteria and process. VA recommends that it be granted flexibility with the final number of partnerships/affiliates as less than 15 institutions may be sufficient to meet 

these requirements. 

The bill would also require four new employees to administer the pilot program: 

a Deputy Director of Education and Career Development of Physician Assistants; a 

Deputy Director of Recruitment and Retention; a recruiter; and an administrative 

assistant. All positions would be aligned with VHA’s Office of Physician Assistant 

Services. 

This pilot program would require scholarship recipients to complete a service obligation at a VA health care facility after graduation and licensure/certification. VHA 

has had difficulty recruiting and retaining physician assistants for several years. 

Additionally, VHA Workforce Succession Strategic Plan and Reports have listed 

physician assistants in the top ten critical occupations, and VA’s Office of Inspector 

General’s Critical Occupation Staffing Shortage Report has listed physician assistants in the top five most critical occupations shortages. 

The total cost of the Health Professional Scholarship Program for 450 awards over 

5 years would be $56,573,810. 

The total cost associated with administering the pilot program over 5 years would 

be $2,764,667. 

The total cost associated with establishment of pay grades for physician assistants 

and the requirement of providing competitive pay would be $374,921,436 over 10 

years. 

S. 2170

Section 2(a) of S. 2170, the ‘‘Veterans E-Health and Telemedicine Support Act of 

2015,’’ would amend title 38, U.S.C., to add a new section 1730B, which would permit a covered health care professional to practice their health care profession at any 

location in any State, regardless of where such health care professional or the patient is located, if the health care professional is using telemedicine to provide treatment under chapter 17 of title 38. New section 1730B would specify that this authority would apply regardless of whether the covered health care professional is located in a facility owned by the Federal Government. In addition, new section 

1730B would state that nothing in that section would be construed to alter any obligation of the covered health care professional under the Controlled Substances Act 

(21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.). New section 1730B would define ‘‘covered health care professional’’ to mean an individual ‘‘authorized by the Secretary to provide health care 

under [Chapter 17 of title 38], including a private health care professional who provides such care under a contract entered into with the Secretary, including a contract entered into under section 1703 [of title 38]’’ and ‘‘licensed, registered or certified in a State to practice the health care profession of the health care professional.’’ In addition, ‘‘telemedicine’’ would be defined to mean ‘‘the use of telecommunication technology and information technology to provide health care or support the provision of health care in situations in which the patient and health care 

professional are separated by geographic distance.’’ 

Section 2(b) would provide a clerical amendment to the table of sections at the 

beginning of chapter 17 of title 38. 

Section 2(c) would require the Secretary, not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of the Act, to submit to Congress a report on VA’s effective use of telemedicine. The report would require specific elements such as the assessment of the 

satisfaction of Veterans and health care providers with VA telemedicine; the effect 

of VA-funded telemedicine on the ability of Veterans to access health care, the frequency of use by Veterans of telemedicine, the productivity of health care providers, 

wait times for appointments, and any reduction in the use of other services by Veterans; the types of appointments for telemedicine that were provided; the number 

of requested appointments for telemedicine disaggregated by Veterans Integrated 

Service Networks; and any VA savings, including travel costs. 

12 

VA supports section 2(a) of the bill. Section 2(a) would allow VA employed or contracted health care professionals who are professionally licensed in a State and 

practicing within the scope of their VA employment or contract, to provide health 

care and to support the provision of health care to the VA patient by telemedicine, 

without regard to where the health care professional is licensed or where the patient and the health care professional are physically located. Section 2(a) would also 

permit VA employees and contract health care professionals and VA patients to be 

located anywhere during such telemedicine, including in a non-VA facility. In addition, section 2(a) would clarify that the title 38 licensure requirements apply to both 

VA employed or contracted telemedicine practitioners during the performance of 

their official duties, whether they are on-station or not. In these ways, Section 2(a) 

would remove the barriers that might be imposed by local licensure laws of the 

places where the patient or the covered health care professional are located, or the 

State of licensure of the health care professional. Further, section 2(a) would make 

clear that any telemedicine services that involve prescribing controlled substances 

would have to be provided in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act. 

VA supports section 2(c) of the bill in part. Specifically, VA supports reporting on 

elements identified in paragraphs (A); (C) subparts (i), (ii), (iii), and (v); and (D) of 

section 2(c)(2). However, VA does not support the reporting required elements in 

paragraphs (B), (C) subpart (iv), (E), and (F) of section 2(c)(2). Reporting on these 

elements would be overly burdensome on VA operations because VA lacks the resources to routinely measure and assess this type of data over the reporting period. 

VA does not have a cost estimate for section 2(a) of the bill at this time. VA estimates that implementation of the one-time reporting requirement in section 2(c) of 

the bill would cost $17,000. 

S. 2253—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VETERANS EDUCATION RELIEF AND

RESTORATION ACT OF 2015

This bill would amend title 38, U.S.C., to provide Veterans affected by school closures with certain relief and restoration of education benefits. The bill would add 

a new subsection (d) to section 3312 of title 38, U.S.C., to allow for the restoration 

of entitlement to educational assistance and provide other relief for Veterans affected by a school closure. More specifically, no payment of educational assistance 

would be charged against an individual’s entitlement to educational assistance 

under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, or counted against the aggregate period for which an 

individual may receive educational assistance under two or more programs, if VA 

finds that the individual was forced to discontinue a course or courses as a result 

of a permanent school closure and did not receive credit, or lost training time, toward completion of the program of education being pursued at the time the school 

closed. 

S. 2253 also would amend section 3680(a) of title 38, U.S.C., authorizing VA to 

prescribe regulations allowing VA to continue a monthly housing allowance stipend 

under the Post-9/11 GI Bill during a temporary school closure or for a limited period 

following a permanent school closure. The housing allowance would be payable until 

the end of the term, quarter, or semester during which the school closure occurred, 

or 4 months after the date of the school closure, whichever is sooner. 

VA supports S. 2253, as it would allow VA to restore entitlement and continue 

monthly housing allowance stipend payments to Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries impacted by school closures. While VA currently has authority to continue payments 

to beneficiaries when schools are temporarily closed due to an emergency or under 

an established policy based on an Executive Order of the President, there is no similar statutory authority upon which to continue benefit payments in the event of a 

permanent school closure. Furthermore, regardless of whether a school closure is 

temporary or permanent, there is no statutory authority that allows VA to restore 

entitlement for a term, quarter, or semester for which a beneficiary fails to receive 

credit toward program completion due to such a closure. VA would interpret the bill 

to apply only to a course or courses in which an individual was enrolled in FY 2015, 

and all current or future enrollments. VA would also interpret the bill as currently 

written to provide that the portion of a course or courses that a beneficiary has participated in through the time of the school’s closure (e.g., the portion of an incomplete college semester that has already passed at the time of a school closure) is 

not charged against the beneficiary’s entitlement. We note that there appears to be 

a discrepancy between the new subsection (d)(2), which applies to an individual who 

meets the criteria of both (A) and (B) of that subsection, and the applicability provision in section 2(a)(2) of the bill, which describes new subsection (d) as applying if 

the criteria of either paragraph (A) or paragraph (B) of subsection (d)(2) are met. 

13 

The closure of educational institutions while GI Bill beneficiaries are actively pursuing approved programs of education or training negatively impacts Veterans and 

eligible dependents in a number of ways. First, their monthly housing benefits are 

suddenly and unexpectedly discontinued in the middle of the term. In many cases, 

these payments are the primary (or sole) source of funds for paying for housing, 

food, utilities, and other basic necessities while attending school. Second, while VA 

can pay benefits for the term, quarter, or semester up to the time of the school’s 

closure, the student is still charged entitlement for that period, even though he/she 

does not earn any credit toward program completion. In some instances, this could 

result in a beneficiary exhausting his/her entitlement before being able to complete 

his/her program at another institution. 

We will be pleased to provide for the record an estimate of the cost of enactment 

of this bill. 

DRAFT BILL REGARDING WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS

Section 2 of the draft bill would add a new subchapter to title 38, U.S.C. on whistleblower complaints. Section 731 would define a ‘‘whistleblower complaint’’ to include not only a VA employee’s disclosure of wrongdoing, but also a complaint made 

by a VA employee assisting another employee to disclose wrongdoing. 

Section 732 would establish a process for employees to file whistleblower complaints with their immediate supervisors; require supervisors to notify employees in 

writing, within 4 business days of receiving a complaint, whether there is a reasonable likelihood the disclosure meets the statutory definition of whistleblowing; permit employees to elevate complaints if the employee determines the action taken 

was inadequate; require the Secretary to notify whistleblowing employees of the opportunity to transfer to another position; and establish a Central Whistleblower Office, which is not a part of VA’s Office of the General Counsel, that would be responsible for investigating all whistleblower complaints. 

Section 733 would require the Secretary to discipline any employee found to have 

committed an offense listed in subsection 733(c), with a first offense punishable by 

at least a 12-day suspension and a second offense punishable by removal, and would 

limit the notice and reply period associated with such discipline to not more than 

5 days. Section 733 would also limit the appeal rights of employees who are removed 

so that they would match the limited appeal rights of VA Senior Executives under 

38 U.S.C. § 713. 

Section 734 would require the Secretary to consider protection of whistleblowers 

when evaluating supervisors’ performance, prohibit payment of an award to a supervisor within a year after the supervisor is found to have committed an offense listed 

in subsection 733(c), and require the Secretary to recoup an award paid to a supervisor for a period in which the supervisor committed such an offense. 

Section 735 would require the Secretary to coordinate with the Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman to provide annual training to all VA employees on whistleblower rights and protections, including the right to petition Congress regarding a 

whistleblower complaint. Section 736 would require annual reports to Congress on 

the number and disposition of whistleblower complaints filed with VA supervisors 

and through other disclosure mechanisms, and would also require the Secretary to 

notify Congress of whistleblower complaints filed with the U.S. Office of Special 

Counsel (OSC). 

Section 3 of the draft bill would amend section 312 of title 38, U.S.C., to require 

that whenever the Inspector General, in carrying out the duties and responsibilities 

established under the Inspector General Act of 1978, issues a work product that 

makes a recommendation or otherwise suggests corrective action, the Inspector General shall submit the work product to: (1) the Secretary; (2) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and 

the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; (3) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives; (4) if the work product was initiated 

upon request by an individual or entity other than the Inspector General, that individual or entity; and (5) any Member of Congress upon request. Section 3 would also 

require that the Inspector General post the work product on the Inspector General’s 

Internet Web site no later than 3 days after the work product is submitted in final 

form to the Secretary. 

Section 4 of the draft bill would add to subchapter I of chapter 7 of title 38, 

U.S.C., a new section 715 dealing with the treatment of congressional testimony by 

VA employees as official duty. Section 715(a) would establish that a VA employee 

is performing official duty during the period with respect to which the employee is 

testifying in an official capacity in front of either chamber of Congress, a committee 

14 

of either chamber of Congress, or a joint or select committee of Congress. Section 

715(b) would require the Secretary to provide travel expenses to any VA employee 

performing official duty described in subsection (a). 

VA is absolutely committed to correcting deficiencies in its processes and programs and to ensuring fair treatment for whistleblowers who bring those deficiencies to light. The Secretary frequently shares his vision of ‘‘sustainable accountability,’’ which he describes as a workplace culture in which VA leaders provide the 

guidance and resources employees need to successfully serve Veterans, and employees freely and safely inform leaders when challenges hinder their ability to succeed. 

VA needs a work environment in which all participants—from front-line staff 

through lower-level supervisors to senior managers and top VA officials—feel safe 

sharing what they know, whether good or bad news, for the benefit of Veterans. 

In recent months, the Department has taken several important steps to improve 

how we address operational deficiencies, and to ensure that those who disclose such 

deficiencies are protected from retaliation. In the summer of 2014, the Secretary reorganized and assigned new leadership to VA’s Office of the Medical Inspector, 

which reviews whistleblower disclosures related to VA health care operations. The 

Secretary also established the Office of Accountability Review to ensure leadership 

accountability for whistleblower retaliation and other serious misconduct. VA has 

also improved its collaboration with OSC, which is the independent office responsible for overseeing whistleblower disclosures and investigating whistleblower retaliation across the Federal Government. VA has negotiated with OSC an expedited 

process to speed corrective action for employees who have been subject to retaliation. That process is working well, and we are now beginning a collaborative effort 

with OSC’s Director of Training and Outreach to create a robust, new training program to ensure that all VA supervisors understand their roles and responsibilities 

in protecting whistleblowers. 

While we appreciate the Committee’s efforts to assist the Department in these endeavors, we believe the specific whistleblower disclosure and protection procedures 

provided by this bill would be unworkable. We also believe they are unnecessary in 

light of the long-standing system of OSC authorities, remedies, and programs specifically created to address claims of improper retaliation in the workplace. We believe the current whistleblower protections are effective, and, as noted above, VA is 

working closely with OSC to ensure that the Department and its employees are 

gaining the maximum benefits from its remedies and protections. 

Turning to what we see as likely unintended consequences of the draft bill, the 

draft bill’s strict notification requirements, short timelines, and severe penalties 

may create an adversarial relationship between supervisors and subordinates that 

would likely hinder, rather than foster, sustainable accountability. The draft bill 

would require the supervisor to notify the employee within 4 days after receiving 

a disclosure to indicate whether the supervisor has determined that there is a reasonable likelihood the disclosure meets the statutory criteria for whistleblowing. 

Four days would be inadequate in many cases for a supervisor to come to an informed conclusion that ‘‘there is a reasonable likelihood that the complaint discloses 

a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, gross waste of 

funds, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific and danger to public health 

and safety,’’ in the terms of the draft bill. The fact that there are substantial ‘‘downstream’’ effects from these 4-day determinations will, in our view, create unpredictable and destabilizing effects in a workplace where collaboration and trust is 

paramount. 

The draft bill would also impose specific penalties on supervisors found to have 

engaged in retaliation and would significantly limit the time those supervisors have 

to defend themselves against the imposition of those penalties. While well-intentioned and designed to protect VA whistleblowers, we believe the cumulative effect 

of these provisions, in combination with the 4-day notification requirement, would 

not only raise a host of constitutional and other legal issues, but would also leave 

supervisors too fearful about the possible penalties for retaliation to effectively manage their employees. We also believe that imposing onerous new requirements on 

VA supervisors, alone in the Federal Government, would significantly impede the 

Secretary’s efforts to recruit and retain the talented leaders needed to improve service to Veterans. 

From a legal perspective, our analysis suggests that portions of the draft bill 

present due process problems and conflicts with other laws. VA is unable to estimate the costs for the draft bill at this time. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased to respond to questions you or other 

members may have. 

15 

Chairman ISAKSON. We will begin a round of 5-minute questions 

from the Members of the Committee, and my first one would be, 

would you repeat the second-to-the-last sentence of your printed 

testimony you just said about this whistleblower protection. 

Mr. COY. From a legal perspective, our analysis suggests that 

portions of the draft bill present due process problems and conflicts 

with other laws. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Due process for whom? 

Mr. COY. I will let our General Counsel answer that, if I may, 

sir. 

Ms. FLANZ. Thank you very much. Our concern is with the 

version of the bill that preceded the one that we received this afternoon, and it particularly focused on the 5-day limitation on the 

reply period for a supervisor who is subject to discipline for retaliation. Our concern based on our reading of the case law is that that 

could create a problem with the pre-decisional due process, whereby courts expect to see what they call a meaningful opportunity to 

respond to charges and evidence before a decision is made on 

discipline. 

Having a hard and fast rule that in no case could that individual 

have more than 5 days, no matter how voluminous the evidence 

might be or other circumstances making it difficult to respond, we 

felt some concern that a 5-day limitation could create due process 

problems. The version of the bill that we reviewed today seems to 

address that concern. 

Chairman ISAKSON. How is that addressed? 

Ms. FLANZ. I believe the wording calls for a 14-day reply period 

and did not have the restrictive language that suggested in no circumstance could that 14 days ever be enlarged to provide additional time for the individual to respond. 

Chairman ISAKSON. OK. I wanted to be sure I understood what 

you meant by damaging due process, because it seemed like to me 

it was offering due process to somebody who felt like they had an 

incident they wanted to report. You are saying the due process violation was the short length of time to respond, and the 14 days is 

preferable to the five. 

Ms. FLANZ. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. OK. Thank you. 

On the Ernst-Hirono-Tillis-Boozman-Rounds legislation regarding telemedicine, I want to make sure I understood what you said, 

Mr. Coy. You said that you were generally supportive of the legislation, but were concerned about the overly burdensome reporting, is 

that correct? 

Mr. COY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Would you be more specific about overly burdensome reporting. 

Mr. COY. I will ask my colleague, Dr. McCarthy, to address that 

particular issue, if I may, sir. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. Yes. I would have to say, first 

of all, we wanted to thank very much Senator Ernst for sponsoring 

this legislation and for the support that is behind it, as well. 

What we are concerned about are some of the reporting requirements which we do not report at this time. We do report patient 

satisfaction data. We do report the number of veterans. We do not 

16 

have wait times in terms of telehealth. Typically, a patient gets 

scheduled immediately. I do not want to say never, but typically, 

they are scheduled immediately in the system for a telehealth 

appointment. 

What we do not have are things like the satisfaction data of the 

telehealth provider. There are a few things like that that are added 

to the legislation that were not part of the version that is in the 

House. Other than that, we are extremely grateful for this bill to 

be before the Committee. 

Could I clarify one thing? 

Chairman ISAKSON. Sure. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. What is different about this bill for us is that it 

would allow a VA provider in any site, geographically separated 

from a patient in any site, to be able to provide that kind of care, 

and it is important for us because there are VA employees that 

would have the ability sometimes to cross the State lines. It is the 

VA contractors that do not. This bill spells out particularly the VA 

employees and the VA contractors and that is a very important 

provision for us. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I would assume, Mr. Coy and Dr. McCarthy, 

you would be willing to work with Senator Hirono and Senator 

Ernst to try and deal with that issue, to make it a better piece of 

legislation? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. 

Mr. COY. Absolutely. We would be happy to. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. We would be very happy to. 

Chairman ISAKSON. For Senator Hirono’s benefit and also Senator Ernst’s, who has left now, we have had an inquiry from the 

AMA with regard to scope of practice issues with across State line 

medical services being offered by telemedicine, and we want to 

work with them to try and find out what concerns might exist 

there so we can work out any difficulty. For people like Jon Tester 

in Montana and for others who have sparse populations and large 

geographic territories, legislation like this is a godsend, I would 

suspect. Because of that, I think it answers a significant—it helps 

us to solve a significant problem. So, if you would agree to work 

on that, that would be appreciated, I am sure, by all. 

Mr. COY. Happy to do that, Senator. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Coy, would you agree that whistleblowers have been victims 

of retaliation in the VA? 

Mr. COY. I do not have direct evidence of that, sir, but Ms. Flanz 

may. 

Ms. FLANZ. Thank you for the question. We have been challenged 

through the course of the last year and change to address the volume of whistleblowing that is occurring in the VA. I think that 

those who study the science of quality improvement in health care 

will tell us that it is actually a good thing when people raise their 

hands and their voices to point out deficiencies in any policy or 

practice, and across a system as large as ours, we have been challenged to ensure that all supervisors understand the whistleblower 

protection rules and do the right thing. 

17 

We have been gratified by the help that has been offered by the 

Members of this Committee, members of your staff, and our other 

partners and stakeholders, to include the Office of Special Counsel, 

in providing additional training—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I do not mean to interrupt you. I apologize. But, is that a yes? 

Ms. FLANZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. OK. You understand the reason for this 

bill, and I assume that you have no due process objections to it at 

this point. 

Ms. FLANZ. The concern that we had about the short reply period 

for supervisors is definitely addressed by the longer reply period. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Your colleague, Mr. Coy, has called this 

bill unworkable. Do you agree? 

Ms. FLANZ. Let me explain exactly what our most pressing concern is about the bill, and that is that although certainly the vast 

majority of whistleblowers, I believe, are courageous and are, as 

you stated, putting their own interests perhaps behind that of the 

public and the veterans, we do have a phenomenon—I do not think 

it is unique to the VA, I think it happens across the government 

and in private sector, as well—where an employee who finds himself or herself in trouble, either due to conduct or performance 

issues and looks for an opportunity for protection. 

Our concern with the particularly severe penalties for supervisors in this bill is that our supervisors, who already perhaps feel 

challenged to deal with problem employees, may be even less inclined to do the right things around dealing with problem employees if they are concerned that an employee will invoke the protections of this bill, become a whistleblower, and then be able to create difficulty for that supervisor in terms of his or her continued 

employment and even the possibility of having to repay a past 

bonus. Our concern is with the extent to which it is calibrated. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Presumably, that would be a very small 

minority of the potential whistleblowers, correct? 

Ms. FLANZ. I hope so, but in terms of—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. By the way, a whistleblower may on occasion be involved in the problem that is the subject of the complaint. 

I know as a prosecutor—— 

Ms. FLANZ. Sure. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Our witnesses, as we told juries, were not always choirboys—— 

Ms. FLANZ. Absolutely true. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. But the challenge here is to 

get at the root of the problem to protect the public interest, and 

the whistleblower is a means to protect veterans and the public 

interest. 

I would suggest to you that before you call this bill unworkable, 

you come back to us with specific changes. I am not guaranteeing 

that we will adopt them, but the spirit of the bill is, I would suggest respectfully, the spirit of the overwhelming number of hard 

working, honest VA employees who are really diligently working 

every day to help veterans, and whistleblowers are a means to root 

out wrongdoing among the very small faction—we are not looking 

at the majority—of employees that may be committing wrongdoing. 

18 

I believe this bill is really important in light of the recent record, 

and if you have suggestions, we would be happy to consider them. 

Ms. FLANZ. We share that interest, sir. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has 

expired and I thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Rounds. 

HON. MIKE ROUNDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very happy to be a supporter of S. 2170, the Veterans 

eHealth and Telemedicine Support Act. I really do believe that veterans should have very easy access to telemedicine services no matter where they live. In South Dakota, we appreciate what that 

means in terms of being able to access professionals from across 

State lines throughout the area. 

Mr. Coy, I appreciate your testimony regarding the bill. Would 

you be willing to work with us to try to work through the issues 

and concerns that you have expressed concerning the reporting requirements, and if we are able to come to an agreement on that, 

would you be willing to support the bill if we get those reporting 

requirements amended? 

Mr. COY. Senator, we are always happy to work with the Committee and we would be happy to see where we can make adjustments in the bill and make those recommendations to you and the 

Committee. 

Senator ROUNDS. If we are able to work through those specific 

issues, you would find the remaining portion of the bill as being 

helpful in providing or responding for services in those rural areas? 

Mr. COY. I will let my colleague, Dr. McCarthy, go out on that 

note. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Sir, we would be thrilled to have this 

bill. You just need to know there are multiple versions of this bill 

we have submitted and there is a version in the House, as well. 

This bill is something we are very grateful that it is there. It is just 

the details that were added, the differences between the House and 

the Senate versions, that are really just the only problem for us 

right now. It is minor. It truly is minor. We are thrilled with the 

bill. 

Senator ROUNDS. I look forward to working with you along with 

the other sponsors on the bill—— 

Mr. COY. Absolutely. 

Senator ROUNDS [continuing]. Seeing that it be put into law. 

I do have a question based upon your testimony, Mr. Coy, with 

regard to the costs involved. I recognize that the prime sponsor and 

Senator Tester is here and will be wishing to address it, as well. 

I am curious. You have identified the cost as being one of the concerns with regard to the Grown Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act of 2015. It seems to me 

that there were two identified items. 

First of all, you indicated in your written testimony that the cost 

was about $2.7 to $2.8 million for the pilot project in terms of administrative costs, I believe. Then we are looking at somewhere 

around $50-some million in terms of costs over a 5-year period of 

time for the actual cost of the program, $56 million over a 5-year 

19 

period of time to add 450 awards for new PAs coming into the 

system. 

Mr. COY. Right. 

Senator ROUNDS. Do we have a shortage of PAs right now within 

the system itself? 

Mr. COY. I do not have that specific information, but I am sure 

Dr. McCarthy does. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. We have identified the five professions that have the highest need in VA and PAs are within the 

top five—physicians, nurses, physician assistants, so forth. We do 

have a need to hire more PAs. Our PA contingent is a group that 

is one-third eligible for retirement at this point, and within—by 

2021, about 47 percent of our PA workforce will be eligible to 

retire. 

We see PAs as being able to help us with the access struggles 

that we face. I will give you an example for how Houston—— 

Senator ROUNDS. If I could, and I—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. 

Senator ROUNDS. My time is limited, but I think what you are 

saying is, yes, you do have a need for more PAs—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. 

Senator ROUNDS [continuing]. And you are going to see a larger 

need coming up. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator ROUNDS. I do not believe that I am a sponsor but it looks 

to me like a good piece of legislation. What you are saying is that 

you have the need. You are going to end up paying PAs to come 

to work for you. Was the fact that you are going to be paying PAs 

when they come to work for you, has that cost been taken into account when you say that the total cost of this program over a 5- 

year period of time is $56 million? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Sir, there are three parts to this bill. The first 

part is the scholarship program, the second part is the administration of the PA program in general, and the third part is the adjustment of salaries of PAs to bring them up to the right speed. The 

cost for the scholarships is separate. They are kind of spelled out 

differently. 

What we are saying is that this is of significant cost. The scholarships themselves are not things that would normally be in our 

budget. But, we definitely do need PAs. At this point, our salary 

scale for the starting PAs is lower and we end up hiring more PAs 

at the higher end. The third part of the bill adjusts the salary and 

we would potentially be more competitive to hire—— 

Senator ROUNDS. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, we are 

looking here basically at less than $60 million, and I know that in 

D.C., we should be talking about millions being a lot of money, but 

$56 to $60 million total over a 5-year period of time for 450 new 

applicants coming in as PAs, you take that over a 5-year period of 

time, you are talking perhaps $12 million a year. You are all 

aware, you paid out bonuses to individuals over $140 million in 

1 year. 

It seems to me that if we have a real serious issue here with regard to PAs and providing services at the very basic levels, it 

seems that, if nothing else, we should be able to find a way to work 

20 

through the issue involved in this if that is really where our focus 

is at, is providing those basic services, which clearly Dr. McCarthy 

indicates is of real concern to the Department. 

Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, if they care to respond, my time 

is now your time, sir, so—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, I think Dr. McCarthy wants to say 

something. I will give her time to respond. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Right. I basically wanted to just say, sir, we definitely want to support this bill. In particular, the part of the bill 

in terms of the scholarships is really important to us. I think it is 

really important to veterans. It is important to people that are 

leaving the military that have some medical skills. They are going 

to have to have a certain amount of training before they can even 

apply to go to PA school. We would strongly support the ability of 

them to participate in a program like this. I think the source of the 

funding is the issue. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

Senator Hirono. 

HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Coy, how does S. 2170 differ from the telehealth services already available in the VA? 

Mr. COY. Dr. McCarthy, can you handle that? 

Senator HIRONO. Briefly. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. I am a telehealth provider in the VA from 

central office. I provide telehealth care to a small number of patients. I can tell you firsthand, there are some wonderful data on 

the kinds of telehealth that we do right now. 

What, for me, the big difference in this bill is, this gives VA what 

DOD has in terms of authority to cross State lines with the telehealth care. At this point, I do want to clarify a little bit about 

what Senator Ernst said. Our Office of General Counsel has reviewed and re-reviewed and our providers are able to provide care 

across State lines if they are VA employees. The issue is contractors, and contractors are important as part of Choice. They are important when we have contractors that are able to provide telemedicine care. It is the contractors—for instance, if we wanted to 

have someone contracting to provide services nationally, they 

might have to be licensed in every single State. What this bill allows is the same privilege that a VA provider has, to be able to provide care but to have one license. 

Senator HIRONO. Right now, the telehealth services that are provided generally, it is within the State, within the State that the 

provider is licensed, is that kind of how it works? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. That is how we started, but that is not how it 

has continued. We have teleradiology happening in Hawaii, Palo 

Alto, and Durham. We have a telemental health center up in Connecticut. We have various sites. We have telegenomics going on in 

Salt Lake City. In addition, we have, for instance, when El Paso 

had a need for a psychiatrist, El Paso has providers who are based 

in another State that provide that mental health care because they 

cannot recruit in El Paso. 

21 

Senator HIRONO. The providers in another State have to do it out 

of a VA facility, was that one of the—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Initially, that was the thinking, that they had to 

be based at a VA facility, either the patient or the provider was the 

next round. Then General Counsel reviewed, and it is looking like 

the physician or the provider, as long as they are licensed and they 

are a full-time—or, they are a VA provider, VA employee, that that 

has changed at this point. 

Senator HIRONO. OK. For the employees, they can do that, but 

this bill really allows for contractors. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO. Is the VA able to implement the provisions of 

this bill upon enactment? Do you already have whatever is set up 

to implement this expansion of services? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes, ma’am. I could give you the statistics. We 

had 677,000 veterans—— 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. 

Dr. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Receive telehealth care last year. 

We are very excited about our telehealth program. 

Senator HIRONO. A veteran in Hawaii, for example, because this 

really helps the veterans in rural areas—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator HIRONO [continuing]. Where provider availability is an 

issue, distance would be an issue. A veteran in Hawaii wants to 

have access to a provider in Illinois or Virginia, and it would be 

made very clear how that veteran would be able to access that provider’s services. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Yes—— 

Senator HIRONO. You would be able to set it up very quickly. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. This would help us, also. I know there is testimony submitted by State licensing boards, but this would clarify 

for us. It would be helpful for VA employees and for contractors to 

have this just very blatant in a bill like this. 

Senator HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the AMA has 

some concerns about this bill, the scope of practice, et cetera, and 

I am hopeful that we can work out those kinds of differences, because I am very familiar with scope of practice issues, having dealt 

with so many of those when I used to chair the appropriate committee in the State legislature, where, as you know, most licensing 

laws are passed. I am hopeful that we will be able to work out 

whatever issues there are with the AMA, and I am pretty sure that 

we can work out whatever reporting requirements that you all 

raise as a concern. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. That is why I mentioned that I think they 

can work them out, and I wanted to make it part of the record 

today so we can work toward solving whatever problem AMA might 

have. 

Senator HIRONO. Yes. Having worked on scope of practice issues, 

we may not be able to resolve all of the concerns that AMA has, 

but—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. Maybe not. 

Senator HIRONO [continuing]. I would say that we should move 

forward with this bill. 

22 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, I absolutely agree. Absolutely agree. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Hirono. 

Senator Brown. 

HON. SHERROD BROWN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to ask a couple of questions, Mr. Coy, about Vocational 

Rehabilitation and Employment services, VR&E. We get reports 

that there has been an inconsistency of application, if you will, of 

counselors. Some counselors have even—the words that were used 

that we have heard from some students—have ostracized and stigmatized veterans who have used this benefit for education. I guess 

my questions are, I want you to make sense of that, first of all. 

My question is this. First of all, I think there is some inconsistency in how counselors are providing services under VR&E. Second, I think that, typically, we are hearing, particularly from Iraq 

and Afghanistan veterans, that their members are not even aware 

of this benefit, and it really goes back long before this Secretary, 

even long before General Shinseki, that there was not very good 

communication between DOD and VA. I think you can almost 

make the case that the DOD did not really care that much about 

what happened to these men and women, if I can say that, when 

they returned Stateside. They did not really plug them in well to 

health care and education benefits and reintegration into the community. In States like mine, where you have county veteran service 

organizations, that they did not even plug them into those organizations and they did not even know which soldiers had left the 

Army or Marines had left and were left in Coshocton or Cleveland, 

OH. 

If you would kind of clear up for me any inconsistencies you have 

seen that have been reported to you in the way that your counselors are carrying out their job, and second, maybe more importantly, how does the VA work more closely with DOD so that soonto-become veterans, so that the men and women who are serving, 

as they leave the military, understand better that VR&E is available and how we increase participation. 

Mr. COY. Absolutely. I would love to clarify that, Senator. On the 

first, the inconsistencies, we have counselors at 56 regional offices 

and a whole bunch of outreach offices, as well, in round numbers, 

about a thousand counselors. As you know, VRE is a case management system. It is a one-on-one with the veteran and the counselor. 

We work and deal with inconsistencies, one counselor believing 

they have a requirement to do one thing and across the country it 

very well could be something different. It is an interpretation. 

Quite frankly, when you look at the VRE, it is both an eligibility 

and an entitlement requirement. you are eligible if, for example, 

you have a 10-percent service-connected disability but you have a 

serious employment handicap, or a 20 percent service-connected 

disability and just an employment handicap. Making that determination is sometimes an individual case and we are working very 

hard to try and make sure that we lessen those inconsistencies. 

The employment plan from one veteran on one side of the country 

to another, they also vary, as well. 

23 

One of the other things, to answer your question about DOD and 

how do we reach these veterans, as I am sure you know, we have 

got an enhanced TAP program, Transition Assistance Program, of 

which is now mandatory for every servicemember to go to as they 

get out, and we explain all of their VA benefits in that Transition 

Assistance Program. We are also putting those kinds of things online, as well. 

We also have VRE counselors, about 170-plus VRE counselors at 

71 different military installations across the country, so they can, 

in fact, provide those initial services as they go out. We are doing 

that through TAP IDES. We also have 94 campuses that participate in our VRE program—our vocational rehabilitation Vets Success on Campus program. We are trying to get out into the community, as well, particularly where those younger veterans are in 

their schools. 

Senator BROWN. We have asked from MILCON what the right 

ratio—do we have enough counselors, considering the number of 

people coming home? Give us a brief assessment of sort of where 

we are in that way. 

Mr. COY. We have seen our caseload per counselor grow from 

about 129, average, to now about 139, about an 8-percent growth 

in average caseload. We have seen a 17 percent increase in our actual clients, the people who are applying and have been admitted 

into the program. 

What we are seeing from that is the good news is the backlog is 

going down. As the backlog goes down, and the backlog is for disability compensation, as that backlog goes down, our volume of new 

applicants or potential new applicants grows. 

Senator BROWN. What is a typical interface between a counselor 

and a veteran? How long? How many times, typically, do they 

counsel any single veteran? What are your averages or a scenario 

you could paint quickly? 

Mr. COY. I do not know that I have an average that I am prepared to give you right now, but the initial consultation where we 

determine that you are not only eligible for the program but that 

you want to partake in the program, that is a face-to-face. Then 

after that, depending upon your program—so, for example, you 

could be entered into a program where you are going to an institution of higher learning and so you are sort of checking in with your 

counselor on a frequent basis, but not a lot. You are checking—— 

Senator BROWN. Not necessarily face-to-face. 

Mr. COY. Not always. One of the good things is we are also developing a telecounseling program, which we think is going to be a 

real game changer in terms of making people come in and go to the 

parking lot and park their car and sit in and come in and sit down 

and go to those sessions. We are working through those things, as 

well, Senator. 

Senator BROWN. That is a great service, Mr. Coy. Thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Before I go to Senator Boozman, I am going to excuse myself for 

about 30 minutes to make a report at a conference committee and 

I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Moran until I come 

back, and I will be back in time. 

With that said, Senator Boozman. 

24 

Senator MORAN [presiding]. Senator Boozman. 

HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Coy, in regard to S. 2170 that spans telemedicine, do you 

have any recommendations for the Committee on other ways we 

can measure the impact of implementing this type of legislation 

other than wait times? 

Mr. COY. I will certainly ask Dr. McCarthy to see if she can provide that response. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, sir. When we look at the effectiveness of telemedicine, we look at not just access, but we also look, 

for instance, at the impact of other kinds of telemedicine. We provide home-based telehealth services, how it decreases the bed days 

of care and the length of stay if the patients need to be readmitted, 

and it actually decreases readmission rates. It does the same when 

we provide care in the home to veterans who have been recently 

discharged from facilities with psychiatric conditions. We have a 

decreased readmission rate. We have decreased lengths of stay 

when they return. Those are very veteran-centric ways that we can 

measure that kind of impact. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Coy, you mentioned that the Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act would require VA to partner with institutions accredited by the Accreditation Review Commission. Can you 

tell us how many institutions currently meet this requirement? 

Has the VA ever conducted any outreach to these institutions or 

shared the opportunity to provide health care services to our veterans? If so, were those efforts well received? 

Mr. COY. I would again ask Dr. McCarthy if she would provide 

a good response for that. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I am speaking from memory. I believe there are 

about 191 schools that train physician assistants. We have affiliation agreements with many of them. We train students right now. 

We actually pay stipends for some of those students and we have 

some partnerships with them for residency programs for physicians. We have reached out to them. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Dr. McCarthy, then, in regards to S. 2134, the 

Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and 

Education Act of 2015, you all state that the VA supports the concept but is concerned about the cost. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The estimated cost over 10 years, $374 million. In this bill, VA is essentially providing scholarships to former 

servicemembers who served as medics, and again, were corpsmen 

and would like to become physician assistants. Why do they not 

just use the G.I. Bill in furtherance of that objective? I mean, why 

should the VA take money away from other priorities to provide 

scholarships to these individuals? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Just so you are aware, many of the corpsmen are 

not folks who have Bachelor’s degrees, and a Bachelor degree is a 

prerequisite for a physician assistant program. There are courses 

similar to pre-med type courses—chemistry, biochemistry, and 

anatomy and physiology—that are required for PA school. TypiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
25 

cally, the corpsmen may need to use their G.I. Bill benefits in order 

to complete the prerequisites. Some do not have an Associate’s degree. Typically, the Air Force corps medics do. What we are talking 

about is getting folks to their Bachelor’s degree and this would be 

over and above. 

Senator BOOZMAN. You are saying they would use up their G.I. 

Bill in order to do that—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Some may. I am not the expert on the G.I. Bill 

benefits, but that is the concern, sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. Certainly, that should be factored in, 

that there is a possibility of the G.I. Bill being used toward that. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Right, but—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, that would reduce the cost. 

Dr. MCCARTHY [continuing]. But it would be earlier. Yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. Very good. That is really all I have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. The Senator from Montana, Senator Tester. 

HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

for being here. 

I am going to focus for right now on S. 2134, and using some of 

your own testimony, which actually was pretty compelling, 47 percent of your PAs currently employed will be eligible for retirement 

by 2021. I was actually going to get into the methodology of how 

you came up with the figures, but I will not. I guess I will make 

it much more simple than that. I think we both agree you need 

more medical professionals and PAs are a big part of that. They 

are in, as you said, your top five needs. Have you got a cheaper 

way of doing it? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I do not—I would not know, sir, what would be 

a cheaper way to do it. I have to tell you that we are very enthusiastic about this bill. We think it is a really wonderful idea for the 

veterans who would be receiving care. For the veterans who are 

leaving the military, it is a wonderful opportunity to transition and 

build their skills and have them serve veterans, and this—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. I agree with that and I appreciate the fact 

that you are concerned about the costs. I think that is a good thing. 

I also think that we need to make sure that if we do not do this, 

we need to make sure the costs are accurate, first of all, going in, 

so we go in with our eyes wide open. If we say no to this, is it going 

to be replaced with something that is more costly, and that is really the point here, other than all the good points you just brought 

up about it, about how it can impact our veterans in a very positive 

way. 

I am not going to get into the figures, because, for instance, in 

your testimony, it talks about—let me get the page up here—it 

talks about S. 2134 would require the Secretary to select no less 

than 250 eligible individuals. Can I ask, how did we come up with 

450? Where did that come from? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. OK. I am sorry. This was provided by workforce 

management, physician assistant services, and so forth. What happens is the first year you would have—PA programs average—are 

26 

between 24 and 36 months, but the average is 27 months. There 

was a calculation done that was based on—— 

Senator TESTER. Twenty-seven months. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. What you would do is, if you have 50 people 

that start 1 year, the next year they would typically be second 

years and you would start 50 new. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. So, after 5 years, you would have 450. 

Senator TESTER. The seven allows for the additional—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. OK. That is fine. 

Let me talk about telemedicine. The bottom line here, I think, as 

we move forward on this Committee, and I know the Chairman is 

committed to this stuff, too, we just need to figure out how we give 

you guys the resources to be able to provide the benefits that veterans have earned. I do not need to give you that speech. You guys 

know it and you should know it every day. In the meantime, we 

should be doing it in the most cost effective way possible, and if 

we can help veterans out in the process, it is a win-win deal. OK. 

I want to talk about telemedicine for a second because the previous Chairman was absolutely correct. Senator Isakson was absolutely correct when he said telemedicine has some amazing impacts 

on rural areas. Can you tell me if the Department is doing anything to expand telemedicine capabilities in the homes of patients? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Absolutely, and we are. Let me start with telemental health, which is one I know more. Last year, we had 

122,000 veterans that were treated with telemental health in the 

home, and this is a 13 percent increase over the prior year. If we 

looked at visits—— 

Senator TESTER. You said 13 percent or 30 percent? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thirteen. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. That is still good. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. It is. We are looking at the technologies, as well. 

I am not the technology expert as far as this goes, but it used to 

be that there were just a limited number of ways of doing it. People 

talk about Jabber and other kinds. I can get more information 

about that, if you like. What we are trying to do is use whatever 

technologies are available. We have kind of worked with our information security people to free up some of those possibilities. 

Senator TESTER. OK. That is good. 

I am going to close very, very quickly. I have been out front in 

getting the VA the dollars they need to be effective because you are 

getting slammed by Vietnam veterans getting older and a war that 

has been going on for 15 years in the Middle East. All that said, 

this budget is very—what do I want to say, the right word—it is 

very kind to the VA. We went over the President’s budget by a 

solid sum of money. I advocated that to hold you and the people 

that you work with accountable for the health care that you give 

your veterans, and I will be doing that, by the way. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Mm-hmm. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The point is what Senator Rounds talked 

about. The point I want to get to is his point, and that is that 

27 

sometimes we spend some money in some pretty goofy areas, OK, 

that really we should be paying attention to. Sometimes it is more 

than what we really—where we really need to be spending the 

money to get the health care professionals on the ground, whether 

that is MDs, nurses, PAs, nurse practitioners, all that stuff. 

What I would say is, as we move forward, if these figures are correct and if it actually costs that much, what I would say is we need 

to look at other line items within your budget and figure out where 

we can get that money. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, Senator. 

The Senator from North Carolina, Senator Tillis. 

HON. THOM TILLIS, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to start out by thanking Ranking Member Blumenthal 

and Senator Brown for some opportunities to work with you all on 

various policies here and appreciate you all’s leadership in bringing 

this freshman along. 

I know that Senator Brown has some questions about S. 2106, so 

I am going to jump down to S. 2170 and, Mr. Coy, your testimony. 

You had indicated that you support Section 2(a). You do not yet 

know what the costs are going to be. Do you have any rough order 

of magnitude costs for what it is going to take to implement 2(a)? 

Mr. COY. I believe Dr. McCarthy probably has those specific 

numbers. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I am sorry, 2170? 

Senator TILLIS. S. 2170. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Is that the telehealth or the PA bill? I am sorry. 

S. 2170 is the telehealth bill, sir. Actually, that is cost neutral. 

Senator TILLIS. It is cost neutral? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Mm-hmm. 

Senator TILLIS. OK. So there is no surprise in terms of the implementation of Section 2(a). 

Dr. MCCARTHY. 2(a)—that does not include the reporting requirement, correct? 

Senator TILLIS. I am about to get to that one—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Senator TILLIS [continuing]. Because I know you partially sup- port 2(c), the $17,000 implementation. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Senator TILLIS. I do not think you have estimated the other one. 

I wanted to use this as an opportunity to try and figure out how 

we begin to weave what I think are good proposals, the proposals 

that we are discussing today, into an overall transformation strategy to know that it may not be—I think if you are talking about 

the analytics and reporting, you are not really opposed to the value 

of the data that would be produced. You are concerned with the 

cost of it, and the systematic capturing and reporting without a 

systematic approach could be very costly and very distracted. 

I would be interested to know what it would cost only because 

another bill that Senator Brown and I cosponsored really highlighted the sort of issue that we have with the cost of implementing 

good ideas. We had this one bill where, over 10 years, the total cost 

28 

of the benefit by conveying benefits to surviving family members of 

a combat veteran—it was a miss in a prior bill—was $6.2 million 

over 10 years. But the cost to implement the administration to provide those benefits, the system changes, et cetera, was $5.1 million 

over the first year. 

I think what we need to do when your concern has less to do 

with the policy and more to do with the cost and the timing of it, 

we need to start doing a better job of putting in the context of other 

changes that may over time make those costs less because they are 

a part of a rationalized systems and process infrastructure where 

these good ideas do not have huge price tags which may come at 

the expense of other good ideas that have come before them and 

been appropriated. 

I think back to the Chair. I was going to see if we could actually 

have a Committee hearing on the transformation and then maybe 

use as a few case examples some of these good ideas that just right 

now, with the hairball of the systems and processes that we are 

dealing with, make it very, very difficult or not cost effective to implement. I think we need to start describing that you are not opposed to the policy. You are concerned with the costs and the distraction based on the current environment that you have to operate 

within, the 30-year-old scheduling systems and information systems that need to be modernized. I would be happy for you all to 

respond to that if you disagree. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I do not disagree. I do want to tell you one bright 

light. We do have a new telehealth scheduling system, which is actually an off-the-shelf product, which allows us to schedule the provider, the room, whatever equipment the provider needs, the patient, the room, whatever support staff is needed and the equipment there, with one click, which—— 

Senator TILLIS. That helps—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator TILLIS [continuing]. That is because telehealth is relatively new. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Yes. I just want to say that that is the kind 

of thing, I hear what you are saying. Our new scheduling package 

is supposed to marry up with that very well, so we are excited 

about that. I hear what you are saying. 

Senator TILLIS. I will bring this back to the Secretary in the ongoing discussions Senator Tester and I are having with them. It 

would be really good to take some of these things—there are probably people in the audience that are supportive, too—but explain 

why, if all of the sudden this becomes the new priority, and if you 

heed the advice of the Senator to say, find the funding from within 

current resources, then what do we lose in the process, and to what 

extent can we accelerate it to get a lot more. I think a lot of that 

is going to be dependent upon doing a better job with our organizational transformation. Thank you. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

HON. JERRY MORAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Coy, thank you very much for being here. 

I think I have just a few short questions. Perhaps these get directed to Dr. McCarthy, but how does the VA view nurse practiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
29 

tioners, in a sense, versus physician assistants? How are they utilized? Is there one that fills a different role than the other? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. In some situations, they fill similar roles, but 

nurse practitioners, we talk about full practice authority in terms 

of being able to themselves work in States that allow it without supervising practitioners. Physician assistants typically work with 

physicians, although they are functioning not in the same physical 

space necessarily with the physician. They are not exactly interchangeable, but they are both really important to our health care. 

Senator MORAN. Are there different scopes of practice State by 

State regarding the two professions? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. So—— 

Senator MORAN. Let me ask it this way. In all States, does a 

physician assistant need more direct supervision than a nurse 

practitioner? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. It is hard to say ‘‘all.’’ Let me start with nurse 

practitioners. Some States do allow nurse practitioners full practice 

authority, no supervising practitioner, and other States require supervision, actually. Yet, physician assistants typically have a collaborating provider and often do not function independently. I cannot say for sure every State. 

Senator MORAN. It was an unfair question when I said ‘‘all.’’ 

Dr. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you for your answer. 

One of the areas that I think we are most insufficient, lacking 

the greatest number of professionals within the VA, is mental 

health services, and how does a physician assistant, or does a physician assistant help fill that need? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. I can give you a personal experience. 

I was an inpatient psychiatrist for a long time and I worked very 

closely with a physician assistant. In an inpatient setting, a patient 

may have medical needs as well as psychiatric needs and it was 

very helpful for me to have a physician assistant who could provide 

medical care for the patient in a way that I might not have had 

the same ease of doing, if you know what I am saying. 

I can tell you, also, that physician assistants do see outpatients. 

They do run mental health clinics. They, for instance, work in our 

clozapine clinics for, in particular, our seriously mentally ill individuals who need to be seen quite frequently and have careful monitoring of their blood tests and so forth because of side effects. 

Some are seeing patients independently in the mental health outpatient setting. Many work on inpatient settings. Some also work 

in our emergency rooms. 

Senator MORAN. In the recruitment effort at the VA, how do you 

determine whether you focus recruitment of a physician assistant 

or a physician, how do you prioritize what professional you most 

pursue? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I think we typically would look at needs and who 

could best meet that need. In primary care, for instance, we would 

certainly want the right mix of individuals on teams. We would 

have physicians who have panel sizes of 1,200 patients, whereas 

PAs and NPs might have panel sizes of 900 patients. 

Senator MORAN. Let me ask the question this way. In the absence of a physician, does it hinder your ability to pursue hiring 

30 

a physician assistant? If we have a shortage of physicians within 

the VA, does that limit the number of PAs that you would be able 

to utilize in providing services to veterans? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. That is not a black-and-white kind of issue, because we can use telemedicine, for instance, for collaborating practitioners for PAs. 

Senator MORAN. There is a way to make certain that the supervision required by State law is available, and it in some instances 

may be by telemedicine? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Correct. 

Senator MORAN. OK. Let me ask a question about telemedicine. 

Does telemedicine save the VA money? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. You know, that is an interesting question. If you 

talk about in terms of being able to provide care that might be 

more costly in another setting, yes, it saves. If you look at the cost 

for the veterans to travel where we reimburse travel costs, I think 

the average figure is about $20 per visit that is saved. If you look 

at the hospitalizations that are avoided because of the home telehealth, we are talking an average of, adding in all costs, we are 

talking $2,000 a year. There is a lot of savings that come from 

telemedicine. 

Senator MORAN. You know, editorial comment. It has been surprising to me as I have visited with patients in and outside of the 

VA who utilize telemedicine how much they appreciate telemedicine. I always assumed that it would be considered kind of the secondary, the last resort, in a sense. Patients in my conversations do 

not see telemedicine as something less than the service they are 

entitled to or want. Is that accurate? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. I have been a psychiatrist in VA for over 20 

years, and some of the patients I see now, and I see a limited number, granted, from my office, are patients I have seen for 16 or 17 

years, many veterans who have PTSD from their experiences in 

Vietnam. They are so grateful to be able to see someone that they 

have seen over time without having to tell their story again. 

They also feel very much like they have your undivided attention. When you give satisfaction surveys, they talk about the fact 

that they have you kind of on the screen—it is kind of embarrassing to say that—but they have the full attention of the provider. It is so much like Skype and FaceTime that people do with 

relatives, you know. 

Senator MORAN. I know less about that, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. MCCARTHY. For mental health, it is a lot like that. 

Senator MORAN. But—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Now, the other services, I can speak to the others in terms of there is additional equipment. The patients love the 

fact that they do not have to travel. Typically, we started by doing 

it more in the Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) and 

having the kind of the specialists in the main clinic. There is a decreased ‘‘no show’’ rate, for instance, and that saves us money. The 

patient appreciates not having to travel. They still get the kind of 

interpersonal contact that they feel they need. It saves a lot of 

money and also the satisfaction is quite high. 

31 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. My experience has been that people 

develop a very personal relationship with the person that they see 

on a screen, sometimes more so than the physician who may 

change on them when they show up at the VA in person. 

Senator Blumenthal asked for the opportunity to ask another 

couple of questions, and I recognize the Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask whoever wants to respond, on the Telemedicine Support Act, I gather you are satisfied that you can screen and supervise the contractors who may be involved in this program? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. We would—when contractors are employed by VA, we would credential them and have the same kind 

of oversight as—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Whether or not they are in Federal 

facilities? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You are satisfied, as well, that you can 

protect their privacy? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Umm—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. As you do now with all your patients. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Let me back up to what you said about 

whether or not they are in Federal facilities. For instance, so, I am 

in a VA hospital and I have a contract with a physician to provide 

services through Choice. The supervision is not necessarily at the 

same level as if I were to have a contract for someone to come into 

my facility and provide that care. There is a different kind of supervision. We do engage in a sort of credentialing—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. You can oversee and supervise their credentials and the quality of care? This is not meant to be a trick 

question. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Right. We are in the middle of working out the 

Choice requirements as a result of the second version of Choice 

that passed, and we are developing standards for qualified providers. We are looking at how we will supervise. We have not got 

all the details worked out for the Choice providers who might be 

providing things that the older form of Choice is not able to provide, but we are getting there. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. I had asked the question as 

to privacy and I am assuming that you can safeguard privacy, as 

well? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. With that understanding, I 

would like to be added as a cosponsor of the bill. 

I have just a couple of other questions regarding the whistleblower bill. I guess I will ask you, Ms. Flanz. I noticed that Mr. 

Coy’s statement says that you believe that you have already, in effect, dealt with this problem sufficiently. 

Ms. FLANZ. It has been an ongoing challenge and it continues to 

be a challenge. We are dealing with it, as I said before, with considerable assistance from the Office of Special Counsel. As I said, 

the number of whistleblowers continues to be quite high. I am not 

going to sit here and tell you we have got it all under control, but 

we have made it a priority. 

32 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. How many supervisors have been disciplined or demoted because of retaliation or reprisal against 

whistleblowers? 

Ms. FLANZ. We are working to collect that number systemwide. 

We do not have a centralized H.R. system that collects exactly that 

data, but we do have a couple of oversight requests for exactly that 

data. We are working to collect it now. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you provide it to this Committee, 

please. 

Ms. FLANZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Could you provide the specific cases of discipline or demotion or discharge? 

Ms. FLANZ. I believe that is precisely what we have been asked 

to do, to collect, and absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am asking not just for the numbers, but 

for the specific cases. 

Ms. FLANZ. I understand. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. OK. Thank you. 

Finally, let me just say, I am very hopeful that the VA will support this bill. I think the failure to do so will send a message unnecessarily and unfortunately about its commitment to protect 

whistleblowers. It has been carefully protected to preserve due 

process rights, the rights of supervisors as well as the rights of employees who may be coming forward with information. I understand 

your concern about employees potentially exploiting this measure, 

but I think, as with any whistleblower protection and with any law, 

the motives and the facts can be gleaned through effective investigation. I am very hopeful that you will take that message back 

to the Secretary. 

Ms. FLANZ. I certainly will. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

[Responses were not received within the Committee’s timeframe 

for publication.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

I understand Senator Tillis has no additional questions. I have 

just one other comment and question. 

Dr. McCarthy, you were very strong in your praise for S. 2134, 

which is the physician assistant issue, so thank you for that statement. I may quote you from time to time. 

Second, it occurred to me as you said it about the use of telemedicine to CBOCs, the ability to recruit a physician assistant is 

not limited by the lack of a physician because of the use of telemedicine. Less than half of our CBOCs in Kansas have a full-time 

physician. Those positions are filled, at least the needs as best can 

be met for our veterans, by a physician assistant. It occurs to me 

as the VA further develops its Choice Act, what I am hoping you 

will agree with me is that that is all the more reason we are going 

to need more physician assistants within the VA. Can you help me 

by repeating something close to that? [Laughter.] 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I guess—— 

Senator MORAN. Do you agree or disagree? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I have to say, as we continue to implement the 

Choice Act, there are opportunities especially for coordination of 

33 

care in terms of what is provided in the community, what is provided in the VA, ensuring that people get the right services outside, 

and those kinds of coordinations, there are various levels of people 

in VA who can do that. I could clearly see physician assistants having a role in the management of patients who have complicated 

conditions and may need to go to multiple sites or something like 

that. So, yes. That is a long answer. I am sorry. 

Senator MORAN. No, it is a fine answer. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. OK. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. I thank this panel for appearing this afternoon and we appreciate your testimony. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. VA officials testified that they generally support S. 2134, the ‘‘Grow 

Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act of 2015 legislation which seeks to build on the success of the Intermediate Care Technician 

(ICT) Pilot Program as a means to recruit former combat veterans who served as 

medics and corpsmen to work at VA as Physician Assistants (PAs). This effort is 

laudable. Not only should we be looking for creative ways to ensure our returning 

Servicemembers have access to jobs that match their unique skill sets, it looks to 

fill a noticeable gap in the Veteran Health Administration’s capabilities. In the IG’s 

recent assessment of the largest staffing shortages at VHA, PAs were tied for 4th 

place and had one of the highest rates of regrettable losses in FY 2014 (52.2%). 

a. To date, what strategies has VA used to enhance recruitment of PAs? What 

more could VA do? 

b. Without legislation like this, how does VA intend to address the issue of regrettable losses within the PA profession? 

Response. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) continues to implement aggressive, multi-faceted, national recruitment and marketing campaigns to attract 

qualified candidates. VHA is targeting recruitment incentives toward critical occupations to compete with other Government and private sector organizations for top 

talent. Physician’s assistants were one of the top five staffing shortage occupations 

as identified by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In fiscal year (FY) 2015, 

VHA increased net onboard staff by 4.7 percent overall and 6.4 percent for physician’s assistants. 

To address the issues with shortages, VHA has targeted the Education Debt Reduction Program (EDRP) and development programs such as scholarships. VHA believes that the debt reduction program is among VA’s strongest tools available for 

recruitment and retention of health care professionals, which is central to improving 

health care access for Veterans. The passage of Public Law 113–146, The Veterans 

Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, increased the maximum EDRP loan 

amount from $60,000 to $120,000, over a 5-year period. In the FY 2015 award cycle, 

82 percent of new EDRP awards recipients were individuals in the top five shortage 

occupations. 

VHA utilizes the electronic VA Exit Survey per VA Directive 500, which states 

that the purpose of the exit survey is to provide voluntarily-separating employees 

the opportunity to communicate their reasons for leaving. The information provided 

is shared with VA supervisors, managers, leadership, and human resources professionals to assist them in identifying methods to improve employee retention and morale at the local and national levels. Responses to the survey indicate that advancement for a unique opportunity elsewhere, normal retirement, relocation with a 

spouse, and family matters, such as marriage and pregnancy, are the most common 

reasons for leaving VHA. Physician’s assistants had a 34 percent response rate to 

the survey. 

The Under Secretary for Health (USH) has outlined five strategic priorities for 

VHA, one of which is Employee Engagement. VHA is working to create a work environment where employees are valued, supported, and encouraged to do their best 

for Veterans. This includes making VA a place where all employees and providers 

feel supported and able to serve our Veterans. This priority is in alignment with 

the Secretary’s MyVA strategic initiative to improve the Employee Experience by focusing on people and culture. 

34 

Table 1. Breakdown of Losses by OIG top five staffing shortage occupations (FY 2015) 

Occupation Onboard 

Average Quits Retirements Removals All Other Losses 

Total 

Losses 

Turnover 

Rate 

0180 Psychology ........................................ 5,167 215 88 13 101 417 8 .1% 

0602 Medical Officer (Physician) .............. 23,743 1,263 641 76 93 2,073 8 .7% 

0603 Physician’s Assistant ....................... 2,070 89 63 23 48 223 10 .8% 

0610 Nurse ................................................ 62,300 2,529 2,037 211 119 4,896 7 .9% 

0633 Physical Therapist ............................ 1,901 68 24 3 57 152 8 .0% 

All VHA Occupations .................................. 305,657 14,356 9,649 2,416 1,650 28,071 9 .2% 

Onboard staff for VHA includes all full and part-time employees in a pay status, excluding intermittent, non-pay, medical resident, and allied health trainees, and excluding canteen service employees. 

Turnover rate is defined as losses from the organization for a given year divided by the average onboard staff for that year. This does not 

include internal transfers from one facility to another. 

All other losses include deaths, expirations of appointment, and separations related to military service and reductions in force. 

Question 2. VA’s written testimony indicates that VA supports the general concept 

of S. 2170, the Veterans E-Health and Telemedicine Support (VETS) Act of 2015. 

This legislation seeks to expand the use of telemedicine through loosening current 

restrictions on health care providers practicing within their scope of care regardless 

of where the provider and patient are located. While this bill would remove barriers 

to expanding this vital model of care, there are concerns about potential unintended 

consequences of this legislation given that it covers both VA employees and contractors who provide care to veterans. 

a. Under this program, what process would VA use to ensure that contractors providing services through telemedicine were held accountable in the event of an adverse event that harms a patient? 

Response. VA’s process for accountability of VA-contracted telehealth providers is 

identical to the VA process for VA contracted (in-person) providers. The only difference is that the adverse event reporting for VA-contracted tele-providers would 

not only involve the provider site, but it could possibly involve multiple VA telehealth patient sites supported by the contracted telehealth services, whereas event 

reporting for VA-contracted in-person providers would typically be limited to a single VA provider site. 

Care purchased from community providers using contracting authorities is subject 

to the terms and conditions within the contract. In the event of an adverse event 

that harms the patient, such event must be reported in accordance with the applicable terms of the contract. 

Additional Information: Telehealth in VA is a setting for the provider to perform 

the privileges (e.g., mental health, dermatology, etc.) granted at the provider’s facility—the accountability reporting and monitoring are the same regardless of the setting (i.e., in-person or telehealth) and regardless of the type of VA appointment (i.e., 

full-time, part-time, contract, fee basis, volunteer, without compensation, etc.). If 

any VA provider, including a VA-contracted telehealth provider, is involved in an 

adverse event or if any clinical care concern is identified through VA’s monitoring 

service (details below), the provider facility will conduct a thorough focused review, 

including the telehealth patient site(s), as appropriate. 

If the finding is that an adverse patient outcome resulted from the VA contractor’s 

substandard care, professional misconduct, or professional incompetence, VA will report the provider to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) in accordance 

with VHA Handbook 1100.17, National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) Reports. 

All Licensed Independent Practitioners (LIP) being considered to perform care 

within VA facilities must be fully credentialed and privileged in accordance with 

VHA Handbook 1100.19, Credentialing and Privileging, and such requirements 

apply to any and all LIPs regardless of their appointment status (i.e., full-time, 

part-time, contract, fee basis, volunteer, without compensation (WOC), etc.) VA’s 

thorough credentialing and privileging process must be completed before a VA contractor is approved to provide any care to a VA patient. 

All credentialed and privileged VA providers undergo continuous monitoring 

through the Focused Professional Practice Evaluation (FPPE) and Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE) as required by VHA policy and Joint Commission 

requirements, regardless of whether they are providing care via an in-person setting 

or a telehealth setting. 

Before a remote VA practitioner conducts either telemedicine and/or teleconsultation with another facility or site, the facility or site where the patient is physically 

located must enroll the VA practitioner in the National Practitioner Data Bank— 

Health Integrity and Protection Data Bank Continuous Query (NPDB-HIPDB CQ). 

NPDB-HIPDB CQ registration must be renewed in accordance with credentialing 

35 

and re-appraisal requirements of VHA Handbook 1100.19. If this is not done, it 

must be clearly documented why an NPDB-HIPDB query was not completed before 

the VA practitioner engages in patient care using telemedicine and/or teleconsultation. 

b. Under this program, to what extent would contractors remain accountable to 

state licensing boards for the quality of care they provide to veterans? 

Response. VA contractors are accountable for the care provided to VA patients regardless of the setting (see a. above) in which they are providing that care—in-person or via telehealth. Current VA regulation and guidance impose specific reporting 

requirements for health care professionals with appointments to provide VA care as 

VA employees or VA contractors whose behavior or clinical practice substantially 

failed to meet generally-accepted standards of clinical practice as to raise reasonable 

concern for the safety of patients. Specifically, the regulatory state licensure board 

reporting requirements cover VA providers ‘‘regardless of the status of the professional, such as full-time, part-time, contract service, fee-basis, or without compensation.’’ See 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 47.1 and 47.2. Likewise, VHA Handbook 1100.18 provides guidance for reporting VA health care professionals to state 

licensing boards. 

Care purchased from community providers using contracting authorities is subject 

to the terms and conditions within the contract. In the event of an adverse event 

that harms the patient, such event must be reported in accordance with the applicable terms of the contract. 

Additional Information: Under current practice, as set out in VHA Handbook 

1100.19, contracts for telemedicine and/or teleconsultation services must require 

that these services be performed by appropriately-licensed individuals. Unless otherwise required by the specific contract or Federal law (such as the Federal Controlled 

Substances Act), VA contract health care professionals must meet the same licensure requirements imposed on VA employees in the same profession whether they 

are on VA (Federal) property or not when providing telemedicine or teleconsultation 

services. Some states do not allow telemedicine and/or teleconsultation across state 

lines, unless the provider is licensed in the state where the patient is physically located. In these states, the clinical indemnity coverage of VA contract practitioners 

may be void, even if they are credentialed and privileged by VA. Prior to the commencement of services by the VA contract practitioners providing telemedicine and/ 

or teleconsultation or remotely monitoring physiology data from Veteran patients, 

the state regulatory agency in the state in which the practitioner is physically located, as well as the state where the patient is physically located, must be consulted. When dealing with Federal entities, additional licenses that authorize the 

provision of telemedicine and/or teleconsultation services in the relevant states may 

not be required. State by State consultations and determinations of additional licensure requirements are made on a local basis with VA Office of General Counsel regional offices. 

c. How would VA ensure that with the expansion of telemedicine, patients’ privacy 

would be rigorously protected and patient safety measures tightly controlled? 

Response. For more than 15 years, VA has rigorously and successfully protected 

millions of Veteran patients’ privacy and tightly-controlled patient safety through its 

telehealth services. Last fiscal year alone, more than 677,000 Veterans safely and 

securely accessed VA care during more than 2.1 million telehealth visits. All clinicbased and home telehealth services employ the highest Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS 140–2) for encrypting interactive video between VA telehealth providers and Veterans, as well as for image or data storing and forwarding 

to a VA facility from home or from another VA facility. All VA employees and contractors are required to take annual VA Privacy training. 

Before a VA telehealth service commences, a VA Telehealth Service Agreement 

(TSA) is established between the telehealth provider site and telehealth patient site 

to outline roles, responsibilities, safety risks, etc. and to ensure tight controls are 

in place. TSAs provide specific patient privacy and patient safety requirements. The 

TSA establishment includes a review and approval process by senior leadership at 

both the provider and patient sites. The TSA outlines all pertinent patient safety 

guidance and all pre-, intra-, and post-visit requirements including communication 

channels (routine and emergency), diagnostic testing and reporting, critical lab reporting, and pharmacy protocols and procedures. 

VA, through its Telehealth Services Quality Management program, has established and implemented Conditions of Participation (CoP), a nationally-standardized 

review process of all telehealth services provided to Veterans. This biennial review 

process includes a structured process for Veterans Integrated Service Network 

(VISN) and program-level self-assessments and a site visit that includes interviews 

36 

with key program staff members, tracer methodology, and data reviews. Considerations of field experiences, broad expert input, and commendable practices identified 

in the course of the review create a dynamic and evolving process that continues 

to advance Telehealth across VHA. The CoP process is intended to be collaborative, 

consultative, and proactive in an effort by VA to facilitate the growth and maintenance of quality telehealth services that are safe, effective, and efficient. In addition, 

this focus on quality management has been very successful in achieving both internal standards and readiness for external accreditation applying to all telehealth 

services. 

Question 3. As you may know, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has announced 

that it is drafting regulations that would make it possible for doctors to prescribe 

narcotics via telemedicine as a way reach patients in underserved communities. 

a. In light of some of the ongoing issues with over prescription of ?pain medications/opioids within VA, how does VA plan to monitor prescribing practices for community providers who are seeing VA patients via telemedicine if S. 2170, the Veterans E-Health and Telemedicine Support (VETS) Act of 2015, were enacted? 

Response. VA’s process for monitoring the prescribing practices of contracted telehealth providers is identical to VA’s process for contracted (in-person) providers; the 

only difference being that the adverse event reporting for contracted tele-providers 

would not only involve the provider site, but it could possibly involve multiple VA 

telehealth patient sites supported by the contracted telehealth services, whereas 

event reporting for contracted in-person providers would typically be limited to a 

single VA provider site. 

All credentialed and privileged providers in VA undergo continuous monitoring 

through the FPPE and OPPE, as required by VHA policy and Joint Commission requirements, regardless of whether they are providing care in an in-person setting 

or a telehealth setting. If any VA provider, including contracted telehealth providers, is involved in overprescribing or if any clinical care concern is identified 

through VA’s monitoring service (details below), the provider facility will conduct a 

thorough focused review including the telehealth patient site(s), as appropriate. 

If the finding is that an adverse patient outcome resulted from the contractor’s 

overprescribing, the VA will report the provider to the VHA National Practitioner 

Data Bank in accordance with VHA Handbook 1100.17, VHA National Practitioner 

Data Bank (NPDB) Reports, and to their respective state licensing board(s), in accordance with VHA Handbook 1100.18, VHA Reporting and Responding to State Licensing Boards. 

b. Earlier this year, Dr. Clancy informed me that VA was reviewing prescribing 

practices at the provider level for VA-employed doctors to determine whether individual doctors were inappropriately prescribing dangerous medications. Can you 

please provide an update on the status of that review and indicate whether any adverse employment actions were taken as a result of any inappropriate prescribing? 

Response. The Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) and the Opioid Overdose Education 

Naloxone Distribution (OEND) are two medication safety initiatives VA has used to 

review prescribing practices at the VA provider level to identify and mitigate opioid 

prescribing concerns. These reviews are based on various clinical factors, including 

the concomitant use of opioid and benzodiazepine medications and relatively high 

dosages of opioid medications. VA initiated the reviews based on directives communicated in March 2015 requiring each Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 

to establish an academic detailing (AD) program to support front-line clinicians with 

specialty-trained VISN AD clinical pharmacy specialists. These AD pharmacists employ individualized provider benchmarking data and specialized educational programming. AD was implemented to ensure provider prescribing is consistent with 

evidence-based practices. AD is a service for clinicians, by clinicians, that provides 

individualized, evidence-based, educational outreach visits. AD has been effective in 

changing prescribing practices and fostering the utilization of evidence-based treatment modalities in a variety of practice settings and therapeutic areas. 

The AD approach customizes content and barrier-resolution strategies to meet individual clinician needs in the context of local health care delivery operations. Provider education tools that address questions on medications (i.e., overuse, under-use, 

indications for use, titrating doses, etc.) are developed, along with patient education 

materials. AD can be used to effectively target opportunities for improvement as 

part of an overall strategy for addressing this area of need within VHA. The VISN 

academic detailing pharmacists offer one-to-one visits with psychiatrists, primary 

care providers, and health care team members to enhance prescribing through targeted education on VA’s OSI. VHA has implemented four primary OSI metrics: percent of patients dispensed opioids, percent of patients dispensed opioids and benzodiazepines, percent of long-term opioid patients and urine drug screen, and percent 

37 

of patients dispensed greater than or equal to 100 Daily Morphine Equivalents. Prescribing practices have shown consistent positive trends on these four metrics. In 

addition, VA has dispensed nearly 15,000 naloxone kits, provided many hours of 

education on naloxone use to Veterans and documented nearly 150 opioid overdose 

reversals. 

In an October 2015 Presidential Memorandum, President Obama directed that 

Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide training on the appropriate and effective prescribing of opioid medications to all employees who are 

health care professionals and who prescribe controlled substances. VHA recognizes 

that many providers, including those in VA, need more training as well as more 

monitoring as part of a successful strategy to improve pain management, including 

safer opioid prescribing. VHA’s OSI program metrics enable facilities and VISNs to 

identify providers with a pattern of inappropriate opioid prescribing. Then facility 

and VISN pain management points of contact and clinical leadership, in collaboration with the AD program, can provide remedial education and training that helps 

these providers change any inappropriate prescribing patterns. In cases where reeducation and remedial training are ineffective, disciplinary action may be taken by 

the facility. 

c. What process does VA have for informing state medical boards of adverse 

events when non-VA employee providers are seeing patients? Please indicate how 

often and in what states VA has made reports to State Medical Boards in each of 

the last 3 years. 

Response. If any VA provider, including contracted telehealth providers, is involved in an adverse event due to prescription of narcotics, or if any clinical care 

concern is identified through VA’s monitoring service (details below), the provider 

facility will conduct a thorough focused review including the telehealth patient 

site(s), as appropriate. 

If the finding is that an adverse patient outcome resulted from the contractor’s 

prescribing of narcotics, substandard care, professional misconduct, or professional 

incompetence, the VA will report the provider to the NPDB, in accordance with 

VHA Handbook 1100.17, and to their respective state licensing board(s), in accordance with VHA Handbook 1100.18. 

With respect to statistical information over the past three years, the above-referenced reports are done on a facility-by-facility basis and are not centrally reported. Thus compilation of an answer would require manual review of records of 

facilities throughout the VHA system, requiring significant time and resources. VA 

would be glad to brief the Committee in more detail on its reporting regime. 

Question 4. Deputy Under Secretary Coy’s testimony stated that VA does not currently have the authority to restore Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement for which a beneficiary fails to receive credit due to a permanent school closure. 

a. What actions did VA take to disseminate information to veterans impacted by 

the recent closure of Corinthian Colleges? 

Response. VA’s Education Call Center employees called all affected GI Bill students to inform them of the impact to their benefits and to offer assistance. Also, 

an email was sent to all beneficiaries in Hawaii in order to ensure they were aware 

that Corinthian was hosting meetings to assist them with next steps. In addition, 

VA posted information on its GI Bill Facebook page and GI Bill Web site regarding 

the closure, resources for finding a new school, and information on the Department 

of Education’s student loan discharges. Finally, VA notified the State Approving 

Agencies so that any available state aid could also be provided to impacted students. 

b. Was VA able to provide any support to Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries enrolled 

in the Corinthian institutions? 

Response. While VA took the steps detailed above, no further support could be 

provided as VA has no statutory authority to continue payments to Veterans (or 

other enrollees) beyond the date of school closure or restore benefit entitlement used 

at Corinthian Colleges. 

c. Could you elaborate on how this legislation would enable VA to provide relief 

and assistance, specifically in regards to the interim housing allowances and their 

ability to provide stability to student veterans in the aftermath of a sudden school 

closure? 

Response. The proposed legislation would authorize VA to restore entitlement and 

continue a monthly housing allowance (MHA) until the end of the term, quarter, or 

semester during which a school closure occurred, or 4 months after the date of the 

school closure, whichever is earlier. In many cases, the MHA is the sole source of 

funds that students use to pay for housing, food, utilities, and other basic necessities 

while attending school. Allowing VA to provide an interim housing allowance following a sudden school closure would prevent any unnecessary disruption to stuVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
38 

dents and their families during the closure and would provide much needed stability 

until the student can begin courses at another educational institution. 

d. I understand that the Department of Education has begun to use its established authority to provide comprehensive loan forgiveness to former Corinthian 

College students with Federal student loans. Has VA collaborated with the Department of Education to discuss support for veteran students impacted by permanent 

school closures? 

Response. VA continues to work closely with the Department of Education on a 

range of issues and has discussed the closure of the Corinthian schools; however, 

because VA lacks the authority to provide relief in the case of permanent school closures and has no direct involvement with student loans, as they fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education, the collaboration has been limited in scope. 

As noted above, part of VA’s outreach to impacted students involved the provision 

of information regarding student discharges and directing those students to the Department of Education’s Web site on the topic. 

Senator MORAN. We will call the next panel to the table. That 

panel consists of Elizabeth Hempowicz, Public Policy Associate, 

Project on Government Oversight; William Hubbard, Vice President of Government Affairs, Student Veterans of America; Aleks 

Morosky, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Thomas Porter, Legislative Director, Iraq 

and Afghanistan Veterans of America; and Diane Zumatto, National Legislative Director of AMVETS. [Pause.] 

Welcome. I would call on Ms. Hempowicz to begin. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH HEMPOWICZ, PUBLIC POLICY 

ASSOCIATE, PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. I want to thank the Committee for inviting me 

to testify today and thank you for your continued leadership on 

whistleblower protections at the VA. I want to say a special thank 

you to Senator Kirk, who is not here, for introducing the Veterans 

Affairs Patient Protection Act. 

My name is Liz Hempowicz and I am the Public Policy Associate 

at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a nonpartisan, 

independent watchdog that champions good government reforms. 

POGO has been investigating whistleblower retaliation at the VA 

since May 2014, and during my last year and a half at POGO, I 

have been consulted and advised on over a dozen legislative proposals to enhance whistleblower protections in the Federal 

Government. 

In the last year, POGO was approached by over a thousand current and former VA employees and veterans seeking to blow the 

whistle on problems within the agency. We received multiple credible submissions from 35 States and the District of Columbia. 

These complaints made it clear that VA employees across the country feared that they would face repercussions if they raised a dissenting voice within the agency. Some were willing to speak. Some 

were willing to be interviewed by POGO and to be quoted by name, 

but others said they contacted us anonymously because they are 

still employed at the VA and are worried about retaliation. 

The cultural shift that is required inside the VA cannot be accomplished without legislation that codifies accountability for those 

who retaliate against whistleblowers. This is why legislation such 

as that introduced by Senator Kirk is so incredibly important. The 

VA Patient Protection Act includes many necessary improvements 

to how whistleblower complaints are addressed, and perhaps more 

39 

importantly, how those who retaliate against whistleblowers are 

punished. 

Managers at the VA have abused their discretionary authority 

and have chosen not to punish those who retaliate against whistleblowers time and time again. This bill would put in place a minimum 12-day unpaid suspension when a complaint that a supervisor has retaliated against a whistleblower is substantiated. 

Supervisors accused of retaliating against whistleblowers will 

have 14 days in which to submit evidence to dispute the accusation. This combination of due process and mandatory punishment 

for retaliators is the right way to send and enforce the message 

that retaliating against whistleblowers will not be tolerated. 

This bill also expands the definition of prohibited personnel practice to include peer reviews and retaliatory investigations, two common forms of retaliation that have not previously been prohibited. 

We are happy to see that this bill makes how supervisors handle 

whistleblower complaints a part of the criteria for their annual reviews, and further, that bonuses will not be awarded to those employees who have retaliated against whistleblowers. 

It is also encouraging to see that this legislation includes a provision that would give preference to a whistleblower’s request to 

transfer to another office within the VA. 

It is POGO’s hope that the VA Patient Protection Act will ensure 

that whistleblowers can expose wrongdoing, confident that coming 

forward will not result in retaliation. This bill is a great starting 

place for necessary reforms in the VA. However, there are a few 

changes that we would like to see before it becomes law in order 

to make sure that this bill does not inadvertently weaken whistleblower protections. 

First, stating that whistleblowers have the ability to report 

wrongdoing to a direct supervisor is a good clarification, but it 

should not be a required step for a whistleblower complaint. We 

are worried that the legislation appears to make it mandatory for 

whistleblowers to go to their supervisors, which would narrow their 

ability to report wrongdoing to less than what is currently available under the law. There are many scenarios where an employee 

would not want to disclose concerns to his or her direct supervisor 

and those are not limited to the three provided in this legislation. 

Therefore, we respectfully suggest that you amend provision (a)(2) 

in Section 732 to say that a whistleblower may go to his or her direct supervisor instead of shall go to them. 

Additionally, we are concerned about the creation of a central 

whistleblower office within the VA. While it is clear that more resources are necessary to address the influx of whistleblower complaints, we believe that this office would not be sufficiently independent to do so effectively. We worry that this lack of independence will hurt the ability to attract the necessary expert personnel 

and will divert resources from other offices already filling that role, 

like the Office of Special Counsel. Our concern is that a new office 

would create duplication and confusion instead of streamlining the 

process as intended. 

The OSC has done a great job of securing favorable outcomes for 

VA whistleblowers, but they still have nearly 100 pending VA reprisal cases. Therefore, POGO recommends that you consider apVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
40 

1Scott Bronstein, Drew Griffin, and Nelli Black, ‘‘Phoenix VA officials put on leave after denial of secret wait list,’’ CNN, May 1, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/health/veteransdying-health-care-delays/ (Downloaded July 27, 2015) 2Statement for the Record, Project On Government Oversight (POGO), for the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs’ Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing on ‘‘Addressing Continued Whistleblower Retaliation Within VA,’’ April 13, 2015. http://www.pogo.org/ 

our-work/testimony/2015/pogo-provides-statement-for-house-hearing-on-va-whistleblowers.html 3Letter from Project On Government Oversight to Sloan D. Gibson, then-Acting Secretary of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs, about Fear and Retaliation in the VA, July 21, 2014. http:// 

www.pogo.org/our-work/letters/2014/pogo-letter-to-va-secretary-about-va-employees-claims.html 

propriating additional funds to the OSC to help with their increased workload rather than create a new office to do largely the 

same thing there. 

Finally, we urge Congress to extend whistleblower protections to 

contractors and veterans who raise concerns about medical care 

provided by the VA. POGO’s investigation found that both of these 

groups also fear retaliation, which prevent them from coming 

forward. 

The VA and Congress must work together to end the culture of 

fear and retaliation. Whistleblowers who report concerns that affect 

veteran health must be lauded, not shunned, and the law must 

protect them. It is POGO’s hope that the VA Patient Protection Act 

will ensure that whistleblowers can step forward to expose wrongdoing, confident that it will not result in retaliation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hempowicz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIZ HEMPOWICZ, PUBLIC POLICY ASSOCIATE, 

PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT

Chairman Isakson, thank you for inviting me to testify today, and thank you Senator Kirk for your continued leadership on whistleblower protections at the Department of Veterans Affairs and for introducing the Veterans Affairs Patient Protection 

Act. I am Liz Hempowicz, the Public Policy Associate at the Project On Government 

Oversight (POGO). Founded in 1981, POGO is a nonpartisan independent watchdog 

that champions good government reforms. POGO’s investigations into corruption, 

misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and 

ethical Federal Government. 

FEAR AND RETALIATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

None of us would be aware of the extent of the problems at the Department of 

Veterans Affairs if not for whistleblowers. Early last year, whistleblowers came forward to expose that managers at the Phoenix, Arizona, VA facility were falsifying 

records of extensive wait times in order to get bonuses.1 Quickly, news of similar 

wrongdoing at VA facilities began to pop up in other parts of the country. Although 

POGO had never investigated the operations of the VA before, we were deeply concerned about what we were seeing in these reports. Last year, POGO held a joint 

press conference with Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America asking whistleblowers within the VA to share with us their inside perspective in order to help us 

better understand the issues the Department was facing. 

In POGO’s 34-year history, we have never received as many submissions from a 

single agency. In little over a month, nearly 800 current and former VA employees 

and veterans contacted us. We received credible submissions from 35 states and the 

District of Columbia.2 A recurring and fundamental theme became clear: VA employees across the country feared they would face repercussions if they dared to 

raise a dissenting voice. 

Based on what POGO learned from these whistleblowers, we wrote a letter to Acting VA Secretary Sloan Gibson in July last year, highlighting three specific cases 

of current or former employees who agreed to share details about their personal experiences of retaliation after they had raised concerns about wrongdoing.3

In California, a VA inpatient pharmacy supervisor was placed on administrative 

leave and ordered not to speak out after raising concerns with his supervisors about 

‘‘inordinate delays’’ in delivering medication to patients and ‘‘refusal to comply with 

41 

4Letter from Kelly Robertson, Pharmacy Service Chief at Palo Alto VA Health Care System, 

to Earl Stuart Kallio, Pharmacy Service, about Direct Order—Restricted Communication, 

June 20, 2014. 5Letter from Karen Gorman, Deputy Chief, Disclosure Unit Office of Special Counsel, to Dr. 

Thomas Tomasco, about Dr. Tomasco’s allegations OSC File No. DI–13–0416, March 21, 2013. 

VHA [Veterans Health Administration] regulations.’’ 4 In one case, he said, a veteran’s epidural drip of pain control medication ran dry, and in another case, a veteran developed a high fever after he was administered a chemotherapy drug after 

its expiration point. 

In Pennsylvania, a former VA doctor was removed from clinical work and forced 

to spend his days in an office with nothing to do, he told POGO. This action occurred after he reported to his supervisors that, in medical emergencies, physicians 

who were supposed to be on call were failing or refusing to report to the hospital. 

The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) shared his concerns, writing ‘‘[w]e have concluded that there is a substantial likelihood that the information that you provided 

to OSC discloses a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety.’’ 5

In Appalachia, a former VA nurse was intimidated by management and forced out 

of her job after she raised concerns that patients with serious injuries were being 

neglected, she told POGO. In one case she was reprimanded for referring a patient 

to the VA’s patient advocate after weeks of being unable to arrange transportation 

for a medical test to determine if he was in danger of sudden death. ‘‘Such an upsetting thing for a nurse just to see this blatant neglect occur almost on a daily basis. 

It was not only overlooked but appeared to be embraced,’’ she said. She also pointed 

out that there is ‘‘a culture of bullying employees * * *. It’s just a culture of harassment that goes on if you report wrongdoing.’’ 

That culture clearly isn’t limited to just one or two VA clinics. Some people, including former employees who are now beyond the reach of VA management, were 

willing to be interviewed by POGO and to be quoted by name, but others said they 

contacted us anonymously because they are still employed at the VA and are worried about retaliation. One put it this way: ‘‘Management is extremely good at keeping things quiet and employees are very afraid to come forward.’’ 

This kind of fear and suppression of whistleblowers who report wrongdoing often 

culminates in larger problems, as the VA has been experiencing. 

VETERANS AFFAIRS PATIENT PROTECTION ACT

Current laws have failed to adequately protect whistleblowers. Shifting the VA’s 

culture to identify and correct risks to veterans’ health and well-being cannot be accomplished without legislation that codifies accountability for those who retaliate 

against whistleblowers. This is why legislation such as that introduced by Senator 

Kirk is so incredibly important. The Veterans Affairs Patient Protection Act includes many necessary improvements to how whistleblower complaints are addressed, and perhaps more importantly, how those who retaliate against whistleblowers are punished. Accountability for illegal retaliation has been missing in other 

pending VA legislation, and is one of the strongest aspects of Chairman Kirk’s legislation. 

Managers at the VA have abused their discretionary authority and chosen not to 

punish those who retaliate. This bill would put in place a minimum 12-day, unpaid 

suspension when a complaint that a supervisor has retaliated against a whistleblower is substantiated. This combination of due process and mandatory punishment for retaliators is the right way to send and enforce the message that retaliating against whistleblowers will not be tolerated. This bill also expands the definition of prohibited personnel practice to include peer reviews and retaliatory investigations—two common forms of retaliation that have not previously been prohibited. 

Additionally, the misconduct committed at the VA in Phoenix has shown how important bonuses and evaluations are in motivating supervisors’ behavior. We are 

happy to see that this bill makes how supervisors handle whistleblower complaints 

part of the criteria for annual reviews, and further, that bonuses will not be awarded to those employees who have been found to have retaliated against whistleblowers. 

Both POGO’s investigation and the work of Congress have shown that working 

under a supervisor or alongside a colleague on whom you have blown the whistle 

often prompts future retaliation or simply a hostile work environment for everyone 

involved. This is why it is encouraging to see that this legislation includes a provision that would give preference to a whistleblower’s request to transfer to another 

office within the VA. This provision could make the difference between a whistleVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
42 

blower feeling comfortable enough to come forward or being too worried about rocking the boat to speak up. 

We are also pleased to see that the Veterans Affairs Patient Protection Act requires annual training for all VA employees on prohibited personnel actions, which 

includes retaliating against whistleblowers as a prohibited action. Further, VA employees will receive an explanation of all the methods they can use to report wrongdoing. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is POGO’s hope that the Veterans Affairs Patient Protection Act will ensure 

that whistleblowers can expose wrongdoing, confident that coming forward will not 

result in retaliation. This bill is a great starting place for necessary reforms in the 

VA; however there are a few changes that we would like to see before it becomes 

law, in order to make sure the bill doesn’t inadvertently weaken whistleblower protections. 

First, stating that whistleblowers have the ability to report wrongdoing to a direct 

supervisor is a good clarification, but it should not be a required step for a whistleblower complaint. We are worried that the legislation appears to make it mandatory 

for whistleblowers to go to their supervisors, which would narrow their ability to 

report wrongdoing to less than what is currently available under the law. Most 

whistleblowers already try to solve problems by directly going to their supervisors. 

But there are many scenarios where an employee would not want to disclose concerns to his or her direct supervisor, and those are not limited to the three provided 

in this legislation. Therefore, we respectfully suggest that you amend this section 

to allow a whistleblower to go to his or her direct supervisor to make a protected 

disclosure, but not require them to do so. 

In addition, we are concerned about the creation of a Central Whistleblower Office 

within the VA. While it is clear that more resources are necessary to address the 

influx of whistleblower complaints, we believe that this office would not be sufficiently independent to investigate whistleblower complaints. Without proper independence, we worry this office could become an internal clearinghouse that helps 

agency officials identify and retaliate against whistleblowers. Moreover, we worry 

that this lack of independence will hurt the ability to attract the necessary expert 

personnel and will divert resources from offices already filling that role—like the Office of Special Counsel. Our concern is that a new office would create duplication 

and confusion instead of streamlining the process as intended. 

OSC has been working to investigate claims of retaliation and get favorable actions for many of the VA whistleblowers who have come forward. In 2014 and 2015 

alone, the OSC has achieved favorable actions for 116 VA whistleblowers. But the 

OSC still has nearly 100 pending VA reprisal cases for disclosing concerns about 

patient care or safety, among the highest of any government agency, according to 

Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. Therefore, POGO recommends that you consider 

appropriating additional funds to this agency to help with the increased workload 

rather than creating a new, less independent office to do largely the same thing. 

Finally, we urge Congress to extend whistleblower protections to contractors and 

veterans who raise concerns about medical care provided by the VA. POGO’s investigation found that both of these groups also fear retaliation, which prevents them 

from coming forward. Contractors are only currently protected under a pilot program, but need permanent statutory protections. In addition, a veteran who is receiving poor care should be able to speak to his or her patient advocate without fear 

of retaliation, including a reduction in the quality of health care. A veteran should 

not fear that they would lose access to their medications for blowing the whistle on 

problems they’ve experienced at VA hospitals or clinics. Without this reassurance, 

there is a disincentive to report poor care, allowing it to continue uncorrected. 

The VA and Congress must work together to end the culture of fear and retaliation. Whistleblowers who report concerns that affect veteran health must be lauded, 

not shunned. And the law must protect them. It is POGO’s hope that the Veterans 

Affairs Patient Protection Act will ensure that whistleblowers can step forward to 

expose wrongdoing, confident that it will not result in retaliation. 

Sen. MORAN [presiding]. Thank you. 

Mr. Hubbard. 

43 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, STUDENT VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Isakson, 

Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of this Committee, 

thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to submit our 

testimony on health care and benefits legislation pending before 

this Committee. 

With over 1,200 chapters across the country, we are pleased to 

share the perspective of those most directly impacted by these subjects. We would like to discuss opportunities with the vocational rehabilitation and employment services, or VR&E, the need for increased pathways for medical professionals at VA, and the importance of reinstating benefits for those impacted by school closures. 

On S. 2106, the Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act 

of 2015, a meeting between Student Veterans at a New York university and the Secretary of VA, Bob McDonald, made one fact 

readily apparent. Not enough veterans know about the VR&E program. We believe that this is the fundamental challenge facing 

VR&E today. We maintain concerns about the consistency of information shared among counselors and are eager to work closely with 

the VA on these issues if given the opportunity. Overall, we strongly support the intent of S. 2106. However, we encourage VA to address the components of the bill without the requirement of 

legislation. 

Moving on to S. 2134, the Physician Assistant Employment and 

Education Act of 2015, we note that despite VA’s commitment to 

our veterans, fundamental problems, such as inadequate staffing, 

extended wait times, and the lack of accessibility, have plagued the 

system for the last three decades. As of just this last year, the VA 

medical system was in need of more than 28,000 medical professionals to address their staffing shortage. ‘‘I am worried about our 

ability to recruit and retain talent,’’ Secretary McDonald said at his 

first news conference at the Department’s central office here in 

D.C. We are highly supportive of S. 2134 and believe it would establish a model for a broader VA hiring initiative needed to address the ongoing gap of medical professional talent. 

Research we published last spring indicates there will be an estimated 52,000 veterans trained and qualified to work in medical 

professions across the country in the next 5 years. If that timeframe is extended to 7 years to accommodate the track for medical 

school, the research projects a population of over 75,000 medical 

professionals trained through Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. With the 

thousands of veterans expected to pursue health-related fields, we 

believe VA could capitalize on this talent pool but are not currently 

positioned to do so. This legislation presents an opportunity which 

may lead to additional necessary hiring programs. 

In addition to physician assistant pathways, residency opportunities will be imperative to long-term VA employment. A clearly defined path from education to employment, coupled with previously 

mentioned benefits, will create a trajectory toward health careers 

and VA employment for student veterans currently in or separating 

from the military. 

VA has shown significant improvement under the leadership of 

Secretary McDonald. We continue to hear from those within the VA 

44 

system that they have positive experiences with those VA employees. Indeed, Secretary McDonald’s emphasis on the customer experience, including the rollout of the MyVA program, demonstrates 

that the Department is headed in the right direction. Despite these 

leaps in improved service, we believe there is more to be done, 

which VA has also publicly shared. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee and this legislation will be pivotal in that effort and we 

stand ready to support that work if we should so humbly be called 

upon. 

Last, we turn to the Veterans Education Relief and Restoration 

Act. In 2014, we quickly learned of the insolvency of the Corinthian 

Colleges’ institutions of higher learning. As we reached out to Corinthian leaders to address the situation, we received no response, 

despite concerted efforts to attempt to meet with their representatives. For us, it was a critical time, as more than 8,800 student veterans were under the Corinthian umbrella. Since then, we have 

been actively seeking to remedy the situation and to protect the interests of those student veterans directly impacted by the closures. 

We are pleased to see this legislation and continue to seek the 

support of Members of the Committee for this proposal. For us, we 

believe this issue is a matter of maximizing the economic impact 

of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. 

Unfortunately, we have not seen the last of school closures. The 

higher education industry deserves a hard look at its practices and 

how schools deliver education to non-traditional students, the growing education audience. As more schools with faulty practices and 

insolvent structures close, we should be prepared to offer them solutions. We believe this Committee and its House counterpart are 

positioned to lead the way on behalf of student veterans, carving 

a path for non-traditional students. 

We thank this Committee for the opportunity to testify on these 

important issues and look forward to answering questions as the 

Members of this Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hubbard follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT

AFFAIRS, STUDENT VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America (SVA) to submit our testimony 

on ‘‘pending health care and benefits legislation.’’ With over 1,200 chapters across 

the country, we are pleased to share the perspective of those most directly impacted 

by this subject with this Committee. 

Established in 2008, SVA has grown to become a force and voice for the interests 

of veterans in higher education. With a myriad of programs supporting their success, rigorous research development seeking ways to improve the landscape, and advocacy throughout the Nation, we place the student veteran at the top of our organizational pyramid. As the future leaders of this country, nothing is more paramount 

than their success in school to prepare them for productive and impactful lives. 

We will discuss opportunities with the vocational rehabilitation services, the need 

for increased pathways for medical professionals at VA, and the importance of reinstating benefits for those impacted by school closures. Two proposals on the agenda 

are outside of the scope of SVA, though we support the intent of each: S. 2170, ‘‘a 

bill to improve the ability of health care professionals to treat veterans through the 

uses of telemedicine, and for other purposes;’’ and, the ‘‘Veterans Affairs Retaliation 

Prevention Act of 2015.’’ 

45 

1 Congressional Testimony, House Veteran’s Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, 

October 22, 2015, https://veterans.house.gov/witness-testimony/mr-william-hubbard–2 

S. 2106, ‘‘A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO DEVELOP AND

PUBLISH AN ACTION PLAN FOR IMPROVING THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERV- ICES AND ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES’’ 

At a meeting between student veterans at a New York university and the Secretary of VA, Bob McDonald, one fact was readily apparent: not enough veterans 

know about vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E) program opportunities. We believe this is the fundamental challenge facing the VR&E program today. 

We support the intent of S. 2106, however we encourage VA to address the components of the bill without the requirement of legislation. VA has openly made it clear 

that they seek to serve their customers, our Nation’s veterans, to the fullest extent 

possible. As such, we believe this would be a timely opportunity for VA to demonstrate action on a valuable program, which we believe is critical to those transitioning from their time in service. 

The components of S. 2106 touch on several areas that we see as necessary in addressing the success of the VR&E program. First, in our testimony to the House 

Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity on October 22, 2015, we 

identified the need for reduced caseloads on VR&E counselors.1 Inclusion of element 

one would address an issue that is consistent with the comments from our members. 

As a minor note, we would strike ‘‘disorder’’ from line 19 in section two, and refer 

to the particular issue instead as post-traumatic stress; we note that inclusion of 

‘‘disorder’’ is an improper characterization of that challenge. Element two gets to the 

heart of the challenge with the VR&E program, and we appreciate the thoughtful 

inclusion of this point. Element three is a supporting component of the previous element, and we similarly applaud its inclusion. Finally, element four is one issue we 

would like to see VA address as a priority of any action plan. It is our understanding that VA provides training opportunities for VR&E counselors. However, it 

would be important to publish the type and extent of that training so public comment could be shared for potential improvements. 

In general, it has become increasingly clear that the consistency of program delivery and awareness of the VR&E opportunities are points for immediate consideration. We applaud VA for their commitment to delivering a program with high impact and strong return on investment. We recognize the challenge of funding in supporting the VR&E work, a high-touch and resource-intensive program. We look forward to working closely with VA and this Committee on implementing common 

sense solutions to influence the impact and delivery of this program. 

S. 2134, ‘‘PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION ACT OF 2015’’ 

VA is charged with providing benefits and medical care for those citizens who 

served our Nation and bore her battles. While the specific medical treatments and 

procedures have changed since its establishment, VA’s commitment to care for our 

Nation’s veterans has not wavered. Despite this commitment, fundamental problems 

such as inadequate staffing, extended wait times, and lack of accessibility have 

plagued the system over the past 30 years. The unfortunate circumstances leading 

to the investigation and resignation of senior officials at the Phoenix, Arizona, Veterans Health Administration facility further has exasperated an already exhausted 

and problematic system of abuse and neglect. 

On September 8, 2014, Sec. McDonald testified before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee that the VA medical system is in need of more than 28,000 medical professionals to address the staffing shortage. ‘‘I am worried about our ability to recruit 

and retain talent,’’ Secretary McDonald said at his first news conference at the department’s office in Washington, DC. We are highly supportive of S. 2134, and believe it would establish a model for broader VA hiring initiatives needed to address 

the on-going gap of medical professional talent at VA. 

Aligning Priorities 

VA has stated that its top three priorities for the coming months include the following: rebuilding trust, improving service delivery, and setting a course for longterm excellence. Congress appropriated $16.3B to address the significant challenges 

facing the VA; $5B is directly targeted to hire trained and qualified medical professionals. The size of this investment provides the VA with a historic opportunity to 

shape not just the present, but the future of the entire VA. 

In 2012, there were approximately one million veterans using GI Bill benefits 

through data captured by the Million Records Project. It is projected that slightly 

46 

2 Cate, Chris. Million Records Project, March 2014, http://studentveterans.org/images/ 

Reingold_Materials/mrp/download-materials/mrp_Full_report.pdf 

more than half of those Veterans (about 520,000) will complete an undergraduate/ 

graduate degree program over the next five years. Of the 520,000 graduates, roughly ten percent are projected to earn a degree in a health-related or social work career field. The result is an estimated 52,000 veterans trained and qualified to work 

in medical professions across the country in the next five years. If that timeframe 

is extended to seven years to accommodate a track for medical school, current research projects a population of over 75,000 medical professionals trained through 

Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.2 As such, we know the talent exists within the system, 

and we hope VA makes the most of this opportunity. 

The Scope of the Challenge 

Unfortunately, the current human resources model relies exclusively on advertisement-heavy recruitment architecture. If minimum credentialing standards are met, 

specific conditions are present for the applicant, the applicant provides the proper 

information when applying, and interview questions are answered to satisfaction, a 

vacancy is filled. Unfortunately, that process is inefficient and breeds a culture of 

practitioners whose narrow interest is to avoid being unemployed. 

VA lacks a national pipeline that identifies universities with high-demand professional training programs with large numbers of prior military enrolled in those programs, and a streamlined talent management system. With more than 75,000 veterans expected to pursue health-related fields, we believe VA could capitalize on this 

talent pool, but are not currently positioned to do so. 

A Unique Solution 

This legislation presents an opportunity which may lead to additional hiring programs. As the first initiative, the legislation addresses a critical gap in physician 

assistants (PAs). In addition to the work of the VA in response to this potential proposal, we believe that education and veterans non-profits are in a unique position 

to deliver a long-term solution to the challenge of recruiting medical professionals. 

Advocacy on behalf of veterans affords SVA a unique capability to address the immediate shortages and project fills for the future in conjunction with VA. 

As part of this solution, program partners would be in a position to help recruit, 

screen and support no less than 250 student veterans who are currently pursuing 

their degree in one of six critical job fields identified by VA. These job fields include 

the following: M.D.’s (emphasis on general practitioners), R.N.’s, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, MSW’s, Medical Technologists, and Health Administrators. 

Based on this legislation’s criteria, we have identified 15 schools highlighted by 

location across the country as detailed in Figure 1 below. When evaluating the existence of priority medical programs, schools were scored for their number of offerings 

in the following disciplines: medicine (general practitioner emphasis), nursing, psychology, psychiatry, medical technology, social work (MSW), and health administration. In addition to this first 15, we have researched an additional 15 schools we 

also feel would be worth considering, and would look forward to working with this 

Committee to consider the attributes of each school. 

47 

3 HPSP: http://www.va.gov/vaforms/medical/pdf/vha-10-0491f-fill.pdf; VALOR: http:// 

mycareeratva.va.gov/library/internships/veterans-affairs-learning-opportunity-residency-valor; 

GHATP: http://www.vacareers.va.gov/assets/common/print/GHATP-Info-Flyer.pdf; VIOMPSP: 

http://www.va.gov/vaforms/medical/pdf/vha-10-0491L-fill.pdf 

Figure 1. Potential Schools by Location 

Additional Considerations 

In addition to the work with PAs, residency opportunities will be imperative to 

long term VA employment. A clearly defined path to education and employment coupled with previously mentioned benefits will create a trajectory toward health careers and VA employment for student veterans currently in or separating from the 

Department of Defense (DOD). The VA assisting in the branding and promotion of 

this program through their various public relation channels will maximize the audience and rates of success. 

One problem identified by current research is the lack of trust in the current VA 

health care system. We believe the system has an absence of much needed medical 

professionals who are themselves, veterans. In addition, this proposal leverages a 

significant cost-savings to taxpayers by harnessing the existing benefits that veterans receive through their military service in the form of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

VA has shown significant improvement under the leadership of Sec. McDonald. 

We continue to hear from those within the VA system that they have positive experiences and appreciate the work of VA employees. Indeed, Sec. McDonald’s emphasis 

on the customer experience, including the rollout of MyVA, demonstrates that the 

department is headed in the right direction. Despite these leaps in improved service, 

we believe there is more to be done, which VA has also publicly shared. 

In recognizing current programs that VA operates, we would like to highlight the 

following opportunities: the Health Professional Scholarship Program (HPSP), Veterans Affairs Learning Opportunity Residency (VALOR), Graduate Healthcare Administrative Training Program (GHATP), Visual Impairment and Orientation and 

Mobility Professionals Scholarship Program (VIOMPSP).3 These are existing programs which would be complimentary to this legislation, and we encourage this 

Committee to explore these as additional avenues to expand this legislation. 

Ultimately, this is a gap that has to be filled; it may be costly, but it’s both necessary and beneficial for the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s overall health 

care system. The Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and this legislation will be 

pivotal in that effort, and we stand ready to support that work if we should be 

called upon. 

S. , ‘‘A BILL TO PROVIDE VETERANS IMPACTED BY SCHOOL CLOSURES CERTAIN

RELIEF AND RESTORATION OF EDUCATION BENEFITS’’ 

Last year, we quickly learned of the insolvency of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (CCi) 

institutions of higher learning (IHL). As we reached out to CCi leaders to address 

the situation, we received no response, despite concerted attempts to meet with 

their representatives; for us, it was a critical time, as more than 8,800 student veterans were within their system. Since then, we have been actively seeking to remVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN

1118psSVA1.eps
48 

4Department of Education, Debt Relief for Corinthian Colleges Students, June 8, 2015, http:// 

blog.ed.gov/2015/06/debt-relief-for-corinthian-colleges-students/ 5Federal Student Aid, Loan Forgiveness Programs, http://blog.ed.gov/2015/06/debt-relief-for-corinthian-colleges-students/ 

edy the situation, and to protect the interests of those student veterans directly impacted in the situation. We are pleased to see this legislation, and continue to seek 

the support of Members of this Committee for the proposal. 

When we learned of the closures, our first reaction was to find out how we could 

support the student veterans immediately impacted by IHL closures, and we also 

considered the future to see what can be done to prevent such from reoccurring. We 

believe it’s important that VA recovers Post-9/11 GI Bill dollars spent on reckless 

programs where students are either passively or aggressively misled. The Department of Education announcement regarding the closures provides precedent for this 

authority to be granted to VA.4 5 For student veterans who lost valuable time due 

to closures or misrepresentation, they should be able to regain the benefits they 

earned. In initial conversations with VA, it was clear that even though restoring 

these benefits was right, the VA lacked the proper authority to justify such action. 

Most importantly, we believe it’s a matter of maximizing the economic impact of 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill. For students who lose benefits to weak schools, the investment 

in those student veterans is squandered. Thousands of student veterans were left 

wondering what would happen to them when their schools ceased to exist last summer; we can’t allow even one more student veteran to face such a bleak prospect. 

We also note that while this proposal addresses situations which have already occurred, we continue to encourage potential student veterans to ask the right questions so they can avoid potential traps in the future. 

We fully stand in support of this legislation which would restore entitlement for 

individuals who pursued a program of education with VA educational assistance and 

failed to receive credit, or lost training time, toward completion of the veteran’s educational, professional, or vocational objective due to IHL closures. We are pleased 

to see that this proposal would continue monthly educational assistance payments, 

including housing allowances, through the end of the term, quarter, or semester in 

which the school closes, or up to four months from the date of the school closure 

while not charging any of the veteran’s entitlement. 

Unfortunately, we believe that we haven’t seen the last of school closures. The 

higher education industry deserves a hard look at its practices and how they deliver 

education to non-traditional students—the growing education audience. As more 

schools with faulty practices and insolvent structures close, we should be prepared 

to offer them solutions. We believe this Committee and its House counterpart are 

positioned to lead the way on behalf of student veterans for all non-traditional 

students. 

We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the Committee Members for your 

time, attention, and devotion to the cause of veterans in higher education. As always, we welcome your feedback and questions, and we look forward to continuing 

to work with this Committee, the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and the entire Congress to ensure the success of all generations of veterans through education. 

Sen. MORAN Thank you. 

Mr. Morosky. 

STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN 

WARS OF THE UNITED STATES 

Mr. MOROSKY. Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, 

and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the men and women 

of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, I would like 

to thank you for the opportunity to testify on today’s pending legislation. These bills that we are discussing today are aimed at improving educational opportunities and health care quality for veterans and we commend this Committee’s hard work in bringing 

them forward. 

The VFW supports the Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act, which would require VA to create an action plan to improve the vocational rehabilitation and employment program, 

49 

which offers disabled veterans access to education and training in 

order to give them the skills and counseling necessary to transition 

to civilian life. This bill would require VA to conduct an analysis 

of and develop a plan to remedy vocational rehabilitation workload 

management challenges. 

Recent figures indicate that the workload for vocational rehabilitation counselors at many regional offices often exceeds the VA’s 

standard of one counselor for every 125 veterans. The VFW believes that VA must hire additional counselors to meet this standard and then evaluate if the 1:125 ratio is truly effective, especially 

for counselors that assist veterans with severe cases of PTSD and 

TBI. 

VA would also be required to conduct an analysis on why a higher percentage of disabled veterans choose to use their G.I. Bill benefits over vocational rehabilitation and to conduct outreach for the 

vocational rehabilitation program. The VFW supports this provision, believing that it would be helpful in identifying other weaknesses in the program, such as barriers to entry and lack of 

awareness. 

The Grow Our Own Directive. This legislation would afford 

transitioning medics and corpsmen the opportunity to become physician assistants. With the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and the expected drawdown of military personnel, more medics and 

corpsmen will be leaving the military service and transitioning into 

the civilian workforce. The VFW strongly supports efforts to leverage their medical knowledge and experience to meet the health 

care needs of our Nation’s veterans. 

While the VFW supports the pilot program this legislation would 

establish, we believe that new funding should be authorized for 

new programs so that existing care and services are not 

diminished. 

The VFW supports the Veterans eHealth and Telemedicine Support Act, which would allow qualified VA physicians to provide 

telehealth services to veterans across State lines, removing the requirement that both be located in a federally owned facility. Currently, veterans who are enrolled in out-of-state VA medical centers 

may be forced to travel significant distances to access telehealth 

services. Under this bill, a veteran’s physical location would no 

longer be a limiting factor in his or her ability to take advantage 

of telehealth services. 

The VFW strongly supports the Department of Veterans Affairs 

Education Relief and Restoration Act, which would authorize VA to 

restore G.I. Bill benefits for student veterans who receive no course 

credit or lose training due to the closure of their educational institutions. Veterans who lose a semester of benefits due to an unexpected school closure are put at a disadvantage, since they may no 

longer have enough time to complete their educational goals. The 

VFW believes it is reasonable that their G.I. Bill benefits be restored in those cases, allowing them to complete their courses of 

education at another school before their benefits are exhausted. 

We are pleased that this authority would be made retroactive for 

fiscal year 2015, covering veterans who were impacted by the recent closure of Corinthian Colleges. The VFW notes the Department of Education has established a debt forgiveness program for 

50 

students who were attending Corinthian on Federal student loans 

and we believe it is equitable for student veterans to receive similar relief. 

Finally, the VFW strongly supports the Veterans Affairs Retaliation Prevention Act, which would offer significant protections to VA 

employees who step forward to identify wrongdoing within the Department. These employee whistleblowers are the first line of defense against mismanagement, abuse, and other actions that put 

veterans in danger. Although they should be commended for their 

actions, they sometimes suffer reprisal from supervisors who would 

rather cover up problems than fix them. 

The VFW strongly believes that whistleblower must be protected. 

This legislation sets up a framework for whistleblower reporting as 

well as training on whistleblower rights and protections for staff 

and supervisors. It also creates mandatory standards for discipline 

and removal of supervisors that engage in whistleblower retaliation. The VFW believes these provisions are necessary and 

appropriate. 

There has been much emphasis lately on increasing employee accountability at VA. The VFW supports these efforts, believing that 

VA must have the authority to swiftly discipline or terminate any 

employee whose actions endanger veterans. Still, enhanced firing 

authority could be used by managers to eliminate whistleblowers 

if proper protections are not in place. 

For this reason, we strongly supported the whistleblower protection provisions that were added to H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act, before it passed the House. This legislation contains 

similar whistleblower protections and we urge this Committee to 

consider it as a complement to the Senate version of the VA Accountability Act, S. 1082. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I am happy to 

answer any questions you or the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morosky follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and Members of the Committee, 

On behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 

States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on today’s pending legislation. 

S. 2106, WOUNDED WARRIOR EMPLOYMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2015

The VFW supports this legislation, which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to create an action plan to improve the Vocational Rehabilitation 

and Employment (VR&E) program. Similar to education programs, such as the GI 

Bill, VR&E offers disabled veterans access to education and training in order give 

them the skills necessary to transition to civilian life. Additionally, it provides other 

support, such as counseling and assistance finding jobs that are suitable for their 

disabilities. VR&E must be viewed as a cornerstone of VA services. Veterans who 

have been wounded or injured, or have fallen ill want to be productive members of 

society. VR&E is the bridge to get them there. Still, there are certain improvements 

to the program that should be made. 

This bill would require VA to conduct an analysis of and develop a plan to remedy 

VR&E workload management challenges. Recent figures indicate that the workload 

for VR&E counselors at many Regional Offices often exceeds the VA standard of one 

counselor to every 125 veterans. The VFW believes that VA must hire additional 

counselors to meet this standard and then evaluate if 1:125 is truly an effective 

ratio, especially for counselors who assist veterans with severe cases of Post-trauVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
51 

matic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury. VR&E must focus on building 

careers for veterans—not just placement into jobs. To do this, counselors must be 

able to invest the time necessary to achieve a higher standard of success. The VFW 

also believes that VA must change its current veterans’ success rate tracking model 

from the current 60-day threshold to the end of the veterans’ probationary period. 

VA would also be required to conduct an analysis on why a higher percentage of 

disabled veterans choose to use their GI Bill benefits over VR&E and to conduct outreach for the VR&E program. The VFW supports this provision, believing that it 

would be helpful in identifying other weaknesses in the program, such as barriers 

to entry and lack of awareness. 

S. 2134, GROW OUR OWN DIRECTIVE: PHYSICIAN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION

ACT OF 2015

This legislation would build on the success of the Intermediate Care Technician 

(ICT) Pilot Program. Launched in December 2012, the ICT pilot program recruited 

transitioning veterans who served as medics or corpsmen in the military to work 

in VA emergency departments as intermediate care technicians. The ICT program 

offered transitioning medics and corpsmen who have extensive combat medicine experience and training the opportunity to provide clinical support for VA health care 

providers, without requiring them to undergo additional academic preparation. 

This legislation would go a step further by affording transitioning medics and 

corpsmen the opportunity to become physician assistants. With the end of the wars 

in Iraq and Afghanistan and the expected drawdown of military personnel, more 

medics and corpsmen will be leaving military service and transitioning into the civilian workforce. The VFW strongly supports efforts to leverage their medical 

knowledge and experience to meet the health care needs of our Nation’s veterans. 

While the VFW supports the pilot program this legislation would establish, we believe that new funding should be authorized for new programs, so that existing care 

and services are not diminished. 

S. 2170, VETERANS E-HEALTH AND TELEMEDICINE SUPPORT (VETS) ACT OF 2015

The VFW supports this legislation, which would allow qualified VA physicians to 

provide telehealth services to veterans across state lines, removing the requirement 

that both be located in a federally owned facility. This would be especially helpful 

for veterans who do not live in the same state as the facility in which they are enrolled. 

With geographic distance remaining a significant barrier to care for many veterans, the use of telemedicine technology has emerged as a highly effective method 

of providing veterans with timely and convenient care. Current law, however, restricts VA health professionals from practicing telemedicine across state lines unless 

both the provider and the veteran are located in federally owned facilities. Consequently, veterans who are enrolled in out-of-state VA medical centers may be 

forced to travel significant distances to access telehealth services. By allowing VA 

health care professionals to practice telemedicine across state borders, a veteran’s 

physical location would no longer be a limiting factor in his or her ability to take 

advantage of telehealth services. 

DRAFT LEGISLATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VETERANS EDUCATION RELIEF

AND RESTORATION ACT OF 2015

The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would authorize VA to restore 

GI Bill benefits for student veterans who receive no course credit or lose training 

time due to permanent closure of their educational institutions. We are pleased that 

this authority would be made retroactive for fiscal year 2015, covering veterans who 

were impacted by the recent closure of Corinthian Colleges. The VFW notes that the 

Department of Education has established a debt forgiveness program for students 

who were attending Corinthian on Federal student loans, and we believe that it is 

equitable for student veterans to receive similar relief. 

Veterans who attend schools using their GI Bill benefits are limited to 36 months 

of assistance, with the assumption that this is the amount of time necessary to complete a four year degree attending classes at the full-time rate. Veterans who lose 

a semester of benefits due to an unexpected school closure are put at a disadvantage, since they may no longer have enough time to complete their educational 

goals. While the VFW realizes that veterans have the responsibility to be informed 

consumers when choosing where to use their education benefits by using resources 

like the GI Bill Comparison Tool, we believe it is unreasonable for veterans to anticipate that the schools they currently attend will close mid-semester. For this reason, we believe it is fully justified that their GI Bill benefits be restored in those 

52 

cases, allowing them to complete their courses of education at another school before 

their benefits are exhausted. 

DRAFT LEGISLATION, VETERANS AFFAIRS RETALIATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2015

The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would offer significant protections to VA employees who step forward to identify wrongdoing within the Department. These employee whistleblowers are the first line of defense against mismanagement, abuse, and other actions that put veterans in danger. Although they 

should be commended for their actions, they sometimes suffer reprisal from supervisors who would rather cover up problems than fix them. The VFW strongly believes that whistleblowers must be protected. 

There has been much emphasis lately on increasing employee accountability at 

VA. The VFW supports these efforts, believing that VA must have the authority to 

swiftly discipline or terminate any employee whose actions endanger veterans. Still, 

enhanced firing authority could be used by managers to eliminate whistleblowers 

if proper protections are not in place. For this reason, we strongly supported the 

whistleblower protection provisions that were added to H.R. 1994, the VA Accountability Act, before it passed the House. This legislation contains similar whistleblower protections, and we urge this Committee to consider it as a compliment to 

the Senate version of the VA Accountability Act, S. 1082. 

This legislation defines a whistleblower complaint as ‘‘a complaint by an employee 

of the Department disclosing, or assisting another employee to disclose, a potential 

violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or gross mismanagement, gross waste of 

funds, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health and 

safety.’’ It creates a reporting system that protects employees from retaliation by immediately involving higher level management and the central whistleblower office, 

which will be responsible for investigating all complaints. If a positive determination is made that the complaint is valid, the whistleblower will be given the option 

to transfer. VA will be required to develop a whistleblower complaint form and conduct training on how to file whistleblower complaints and on whistleblower rights. 

The VFW thinks these protections are necessary and appropriate. 

Supervisors found to have engaged in retaliation in accordance with section 2302 

of title 5 will be suspended for at least 12 days for the first offense and terminated 

on the second offense. Whistleblower compliance will be added to supervisors’ performance evaluation criteria, and bonuses will be prohibited or clawed back for any 

supervisor who engages in whistleblower retaliation. The VFW believes these provisions will act as an effective deterrent, allowing whistleblowers to come forward 

with confidence that they will not suffer reprisal. 

This legislation would also require the Inspector General to submit to Congress 

and make public any report that makes a recommendation or suggests corrective action. The VFW supports this provision, however, we suggest that any report that 

substantiates an allegation should also be made public. This will promote greater 

transparency in cases where the IG makes no recommendations because it believes 

that VA has already taken corrective action before the report is published. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you or the Committee members may have. 

Chairman ISAKSON [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Porter. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS PORTER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Mr. PORTER. Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, 

Members of the Committee, on behalf of IAVA and our more than 

425,000 members, thank you for allowing me to share our views 

today. 

IAVA supports each of the bills considered today, which address 

issues we highlighted in our recently updated policy agenda. I 

would like to focus on the main areas our members have expressed 

concern, VA accountability and defense of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. 

Because a top IAVA priority is VA accountability, we support 

Senator Kirk’s draft, which directs the VA to punish supervisors 

found to take retaliatory actions against whistleblowers. We have 

53 

heard whistleblowers from within the VA detailing abuses of veterans and how they have experienced the retaliation for stepping 

forward. VA must ensure that retaliating against whistleblowers 

and veterans who complain about care does not happen. 

The common sense provisions that establish punishments for violators, a formal process for filing complaints within the VA, a central whistleblower office separate from the General Counsel’s Office, and additional training for VA employees are welcome proposals to improve how veterans and well-meaning VA employees 

are treated by their government. 

Another measure that would improve services for veterans is the 

Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act, to require the 

VA to develop a plan for improving the vocational rehabilitation 

services and assistance provided by the VA. To underscore the importance of such programs, one of our Nebraska members, an Afghanistan veteran, recently provided inspiring testimony to the 

House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on his use of the VETS Success 

on Campus Program. Through this program, he rebounded from 

numerous setbacks and is now on a path to success. Seeing this 

young man testify before Congress after overcoming so many challenges exemplifies the empowered veteran we highlight online with 

the social media hashtag #vetsrising. 

There is some satisfaction among our members that participate 

in the program. Our 2014 member survey showed that 12 percent 

of respondents rated VA’s vocational rehabilitation services as 

good, but an equal percentage rated it as neither good or bad or 

bad. Seventy-six percent of our members have not used it. 

Another of our priorities is the defense of veteran Education benefits, such as the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, which IAVA fought hard to establish. Many using the G.I. Bill have been adversely impacted 

when their schools closed. According to the Veterans Benefits Administration, 70 VA approved schools closed in fiscal year 2013 and 

2014, affecting 1,605 G.I. Bill beneficiaries. Just this April, 422 veterans receiving G.I. Bill benefits saw their education plans abruptly end when Corinthian Colleges closed 28 schools and filed for 

bankruptcy. 

Because the receipt of G.I. Bill benefits is conditioned upon enrollment, veterans education benefits are suddenly discontinued 

when a school permanently closes. While the VA can pay benefits 

up to the time of the school’s closure, the student is charged with 

the entitlement for that term but does not earn any credit toward 

program completion. In addition, their housing benefit is terminated the day the school closes. 

IAVA’s Rapid Response Team, made up of master’s level case 

managers that has helped more than 6,000 veterans connect to resources, including with the G.I. Bill, has taken steps to get veterans assistance with their education funds following school closures. We understand that VA has the authority to continue payments for up to 4 weeks when schools are temporarily closed due 

to an emergency, but there is no similar authority to continue benefits in the event of a permanent closure. 

For this reason, IAVA supports the Veterans Education Relief 

and Reinstatement Act, to allow VA to restore any Post-9/11 G.I. 

Bill entitlement for student veterans that fail to receive credit due 

54 

to a permanent school closure. It also directs VA to continue paying 

the G.I. Bill housing allowance until the end of the term or the 4 

months, whichever is sooner, during which the school closure occurred. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill has sent more than one million veterans to school, training America’s next greatest generation. 

Although wildly successful, it is clear that all of us, including 

Congress, must be vigilant to ensure the benefit lives up to its 

goals and maintains the confidence of our veterans who depend on 

the benefit to transition to civilian life. All veterans deserve the 

best our Nation can offer when it comes to fulfilling the promises 

made to them upon entry into the military. 

Thank you for considering our views. I am happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM PORTER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, IRAQ AND

AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA

Bill # Bill Name or Subject Sponsor IAVA Position 

S. 2106 Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act Sen. Sherrod Brown Supports 

S. 2134 Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and 

Education Act Sen. Jon Tester Supports 

S. 2170 Veterans E-Health & Telemedicine Support Act (VETS Act) Sen. Joni Ernst Supports 

S. 2253 Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement Act Sen. Richard 

Blumenthal 

Supports 

S. [Draft] Veterans Affairs Retaliation Prevention Act Sen. Mark Kirk Supports 

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and Distinguished Members of 

the Committee, On behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and 

our more than 425,000 members and supporters, I would like to extend our gratitude for the opportunity to share our views regarding these pieces of legislation. 

IAVA supports each of the bills before the Committee today. To varying levels, 

they address issues IAVA has highlighted in our updated Policy Agenda, which was 

recently released and distributed to each of your offices. I would like to focus my 

testimony on the main areas that our members have expressed concern: (1) Accountability at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and (2) Defense of the Post9/11 GI Bill. 

Because one of IAVA’s top priorities is accountability at the VA, we support Sen. 

Kirk’s draft legislation which directs the VA to punish supervisors found to take retaliatory actions against whistleblowers. Time and again, we have heard whistleblowers from within the VA detailing abuses of veterans and how they have experienced retaliation for stepping forward. VA must ensure that retaliating against 

whistleblowers and veterans who complain about care does not happen. A culture 

of intimidation is inconsistent with accountability within the Department. 

The common-sense provisions that establish strong punishments for violators, a 

formal process for filing complaints within the VA, a central whistleblower office 

separate from the General Counsel’s office, and additional training for VA employees are welcome proposals to improve how veterans and well-meaning VA employees 

are treated by their government. 

Another measure that would improve the services being delivered to our veterans 

is the Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act (S. 2106), which would require the VA Secretary to develop and publish an action plan for improving the vocational rehabilitation services and assistance provided by VA. 

To underscore the importance of such programs, one of our members from Nebraska, an Army veteran who served in Afghanistan, recently provided inspiring 

testimony across the Capitol before the House Veterans Committee on his use of the 

VetSuccess on Campus program. Through this valuable program, he rebounded from 

numerous personal and professional setbacks and is now on a path to success. Seeing this young man testify before Congress after overcoming so many challenges exVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
55 

emplifies the empowered veteran we highlight online with the social media hashtag 

‘‘Vets Rising.’’ 

There is some satisfaction among our members that participate in the program. 

Our 2014 survey of our members showed that 12% of respondents rated VA’s Vocational Rehab services as ‘‘good,’’ but an equal percentage rated it as ‘‘neither good 

or bad’’ or ‘‘bad.’’ 76% have not used it. 

Another of IAVA members’ top priorities is the defense of veteran and military 

education benefits, such as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which IAVA fought hard to establish. Many veterans using Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits have been adversely impacted 

when the schools they attended closed. According to the Veteran Benefits Administration, 70 VA-approved schools closed in FY 2013 and 2014, affecting 1,605 GI Bill 

beneficiaries. Just this past April, 422 veterans receiving Post-911 GI Bill benefits 

saw their education plans abruptly end when Corinthian Colleges closed 28 schools 

and filed for bankruptcy. 

Because the receipt of GI Bill benefits is conditioned upon enrollment, veterans’ 

education benefits are suddenly discontinued when a school permanently closes. 

While the VA can pay benefits up to the time of the school’s closure, the student 

is charged with the entitlement for that term, but does not earn any credit toward 

his or her program completion. In addition, the housing benefit—oftentimes their 

primary or sole source of paying for lodging, food, and other basic necessities while 

attending school—is terminated the day the school closes. 

IAVA’s Rapid Response Referral Program Team, made up of masters level case 

managers that has helped more than 6,000 veterans meet their goals through connections to quality resources and benefits, has taken steps to get veterans assistance 

with their education funds following school closures. 

We understand that VA has the authority to continue payments for up to four 

weeks when schools are temporarily closed due to an emergency, but there is no 

similar statutory authority to continue benefits in the event of a permanent school 

closure. 

For this reason, IAVA supports the Veterans Education Relief and Reinstatement 

Act, which would allow the VA to restore any Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement for student veterans that fail to receive credit toward their educational goals due to a permanent school closure. It also directs the VA to continue paying the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill housing allowance until the end of the term—or up to four months, whichever 

is sooner—during which the school closure occurred. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill has sent more than one million veterans to school, training 

America’s next ‘‘greatest generation’’ for success in business and government careers. Although wildly successful, it is clear that all of us, including Congress, must 

be vigilant to ensure that the benefit lives up to its goals and to maintain the confidence of our veterans who depend on the benefit to transition to civilian life. 

IAVA’s members, and all veterans, deserve the very best our Nation can offer 

when it comes to fulfilling the promises made to them upon entry into the military. 

There is no doubt this Committee has the best interests of our veterans in mind 

when drafting legislation. But we do hope you take into consideration and implement what we, and our fellow veteran service organizations, have had to say on 

these pieces of legislation today. 

Thank you for your time and attention. IAVA is happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Zumatto. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE ZUMATTO, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, AMVETS 

Ms. ZUMATTO. Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, 

Senators Moran and Tillis, I am pleased to be here today to share 

AMVETS’s position on this pending legislation. 

S. 2106, the Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act, 

AMVETS supports the legislation, which directs the Secretary to 

develop and publish an action plan for improving the vocational rehabilitation program of the VA. AMVETS believes that the VA 

needs to provide veterans with the highest level of transition assistance, giving special attention to disabled veterans in a more efficient and timely manner. AMVETS suggests improving currently 

56 

existing VA public-private partnerships and making new connections with providers in order to provide veterans with the broadest 

array of services and resources available. 

It is our belief that part of the reason for the disproportionately 

low participation of post-9/11 veterans in the vocational rehabilitation program is that it is not well publicized and, therefore, not 

well known as it could be in the veteran community. The legislation’s ultimate goal should be to better enable catastrophically injured eligible veterans to return to productive lives. Hopefully, the 

provisions outlined in this bill will better able the VA to do just 

that. 

S. 2134, the Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act, we enthusiastically support this legislation which seeks to address the PA shortage within the VA. 

AMVETS actually loves this approach, which would serve a dual 

purpose of not only helping to improve timely access to health care, 

but also helping to reduce veteran unemployment. AMVETS also 

applauds the fact that the eligible participants must meet certain 

requirements, including previous military health care experiences, 

which just makes the whole program more cost effective. 

It seems obvious that by increasing the number of PAs within 

the VA system, the burden on physicians and other clinicians 

would be reduced. This, in turn, would make it easier for a veteran 

to get in to see a doctor when that is actually necessary. 

S. 2170, the eHealth and Telemedicine Support Act, AMVETS 

supports this legislation, which seeks to increase timely access to 

health care resources through the use of telemedicine services by 

licensed, registered, or State certified clinicians in any State, regardless of whether either or both are located in a VA facility. 

There is no denying that the practice of telemedicine continues to 

expand as one of the fastest growing and most viable health care 

options. Just as importantly, however, is to ensure that those services are being provided by properly accredited professionals. 

S. 2253, the Education Relief and Restoration Act, AMVETS also 

supports this bill, which seeks to protect education benefits if a veteran, due to no fault of his own, is forced to discontinue a course 

as a result of an educational institution’s permanent closure and 

they did not receive credit or lost training time toward the completion of that program. That is enough for that one. 

The discussion draft to provide procedures within the VA for 

whistleblower complaints, AMVETS wholeheartedly supports this 

very important piece of legislation, which seeks to address the 

issue of retaliation by VA supervisors against whistleblower employees. This is an absolutely heinous practice which needs immediate systemwide action. If a VA employee at any level is violating 

laws or regulations, misusing or wasting funds, stealing or putting 

veterans in danger, either by their actions or lack thereof, then 

they are the ones who should be targeted by the Department, not 

the whistleblower who steps forward to report those illegal actions. 

Unfortunately, it seems the whistleblower gets all the negative 

attention and is the one who sometimes gets prosecuted while the 

evildoer is allowed to continue unpunished. This is both wrong and 

a travesty of justice. It should not be allowed to continue under any 

circumstances. 

57 

This completes my testimony at this time and I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zumatto follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE M. ZUMATTO, 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS 

Distinguished members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, it is my pleasure to be here today representing AMVETS’ position on the following pending legislation: 

♦ S. 2106, the Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act of 2015 

♦ S. 2134, the Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment & Education Act of 2015 

♦ S. 2170, the Veterans E-Health & Telemedicine Support Act of 2015 

♦ S. 2253, the Veterans Education & Restoration Act of 2015 

♦ S. ———, Discussion draft—to establish procedures within the VA for processing 

Whistleblower complaints. 

I would like to begin today’s statement with the following introductory remarks 

prior to turning to each specific piece of legislation: As the United States absorbs 

the aftereffects of more than a decade of continuous war and in the face of the 

planned draw-down of military personnel, the physical and mental health of our 

military and veterans will continue to be priority issues for AMVETS, the veteran’s 

community and hopefully Congress. Thanks to improvements in battlefield medicine, swift triage, aeromedical evacuations and trauma surgery, more combatwounded than ever before are surviving horrific wounds and will be needing longterm rehabilitation, life-long specialized medical care, sophisticated prosthetics, etc. 

Your committee has a responsibility to ensure that the VA and our Nation live up 

to the obligations imposed by the sacrifices of our veterans. 

It is encouraging to acknowledge at this time that, despite the extraordinary sacrifices being asked of our men and women in uniform, the best and the brightest 

continue to step forward to answer the call of our Nation in its time of need. I know 

that each of you is aware of, and appreciates the numerous issues of importance facing our military members, veterans and retirees. 

PENDING LEGISLATION

S. 2106, the Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act of 2015—AMVETS 

supports this legislation which directs the VA Secretary to develop & publish an action plan for improving the vocational rehabilitation program of the VA. AMVETS 

believes that the VA needs to provide veterans with the highest level of transition 

assistance, giving special attention to disabled veterans, in a more efficient and 

timely manner. 

AMVETS suggests improving currently existing VA public/public partnerships and 

making new connections with providers in order to provide veterans with the broadest array of services and resources as possible. 

It is our belief that part of the reason for the disproportionately low participation 

of Post-9/11 veterans in the VA’s Voc-Rehab program is that it is not as well publicized, and therefore not as well known, as it could be in the veteran community. 

This legislation’s ultimate goal should be to better enable catastrophically injured, 

eligible veterans to return to productive lives. Hopefully, the provisions outline in 

this bill will better able the VA to do just that. 

S. 2134, the Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment & Education Act of 2015—AMVETS enthusiastically supports this legislation which seeks 

to address the physician assistant shortage within the VA. AMVETS loves this approach which would serve the dual purpose of: 

• helping to improve timely access to healthcare; and 

• helping to reduce veteran unemployment 

AMVETS also applauds the fact that the eligible participants must meet certain 

requirements including: previous military healthcare experiences, which make this 

effort more cost effective. 

It seems obvious that by increasing the number of PAs within the VA system, the 

burden on Physicians and other clinicians, would be reduced. This in turn should 

make it easier for a veteran to get in to see their doctor. 

S. 2170, Veterans E-Health & Telemedicine Support Act of 2015—AMVETS supports this legislation which seeks to increase timely access to healthcare resources 

through the use of telemedicine services by licensed, registered or state certified cliVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
58 

nicians in any state, regardless of whether either or both are located in a VA facility. 

There’s no denying that the practice of telemedicine continues to expand as one 

of the fastest growing and viable healthcare options. Just as importantly however, 

is to ensure that those services are being provided by the properly accredited professionals. 

S. 2253, Veterans Education Relief & Restoration Act of 2015—AMVETS supports 

this legislation, which seeks to protect education benefits if a veteran, due to no 

fault of their own, is forced to discontinue a course as a result of an educational 

institution’s permanent closure and did not receive credit or lost training time toward completion of the education program, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

educational assistance payments shall not, for a specified period of time, be: 

• charged against the individual’s entitlement to educational assistance, or • counted against the aggregate period for which such assistance may be provided. 

This seems pretty straight forward in its intent, though I have no actual data on 

how often this type of situation occurs. It seems only right and proper, however, not 

to penalize a veteran for something entirely out of his/her control, especially because 

whatever course they didn’t get credit for will have to be repeated elsewhere at a 

future date. 

S. , Discussion draft—to establish procedures within the VA for processing 

Whistleblower Complaints—AMVETS wholeheartedly supports this very important 

piece of legislation which seeks to address the issue of retaliation by VA supervisors 

against whistleblower employees. This is an absolutely heinous practice which needs 

immediate, system-wide action. 

If a VA employee, at any level, is violating laws or regulations, misusing or wasting funds, stealing or putting veterans in danger, either by their actions or lack 

thereof, then they are the ones who should be targeted by the department, not the 

person (whistleblower) who steps forward to report the illegal actions. Unfortunately, this is not how the process currently works, in fact, it’s just the opposite— 

the whistleblower seems to get all the negative attention and is the one who gets 

prosecuted, while the evil doer is allowed to continue unpunished. This is both 

wrong and a travesty of justice and it should not be allowed to continue under any 

circumstances. 

This completes my testimony at this time and I thank you again for the opportunity to offer our comments on pending legislation. I will be happy to answer any 

questions the Committee may have. 

Senator MORAN [presiding]. Thank you all for your testimony. 

The Chairman will return in just a moment, but I am going to 

use the opportunity of having the gavel to ask the first question. 

I think I only have one, and that is to you, Ms. Hempowicz. The 

consequences that whistleblowers face, has it changed over time? 

Is it better today than it was in the past? Do the consequences, the 

poor consequences to someone who reports bad behavior, do they 

change? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. I do not know if I know far enough back to 

know if they have changed over time, but I think the consequences 

for blowing the whistle today are pretty severe. You run the risk 

of losing your career, your livelihood. You lose your good name if 

your reputation is dragged through the mud. I think the consequences are pretty high today. I would assume that they have always been pretty high. 

Senator MORAN. I was just interested in knowing whether—in 

my view, leadership matters. Who is in charge of the VA, I assume, 

determines the culture or the nature of how the VA responds to 

these kind of circumstances and I wondered if there was any empirical evidence, any reporting data that would suggest that either 

today or in the past, it has been handled better and, therefore, 

there are less instances of bad behavior toward whistleblowers. 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. I am not sure if we have enough information to 

say that, empirically, it is better or worse. I mentioned in my testiVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
59 

mony that we have received over a thousand complaints in the last 

year. We are still receiving complaints on a weekly basis. 

Senator MORAN. I thank you very much. 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. No problem. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman ISAKSON [presiding]. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask, first of all, Mr. Hubbard, have you encountered veterans who have been victimized by the Corinthian 

debacle? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you for the question, Senator. When that 

issue first came up, we did a quick survey to find out how many 

student veterans were under the Corinthian umbrella, under the 

Everest, Heald, and WyoTech schools. After looking at the database 

on the GEOGO [phonetic] comparison tool, we found that approximately 8,800 student veterans were studying at those institutions. 

We quickly reached out to and interacted with those students to 

make sure that they were taken care of, and our initial conversations actually with the VA, I think, were quite positive. There was 

the interest in addressing that situation directly and having the 

authorities that identified they did not for that situation. 

Interestingly, when we did reach out, as pointed out in our testimony, to the Corinthian executives, we received no response for 

several weeks. I think that was pretty telling of the situation. Ultimately, you know what the end result was. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

I want to thank all of the folks who are here today for your support for the Whistleblower Protection Act that I have introduced 

with Senator Kirk. I want to ask you, Ms. Hempowicz, because I 

gather you have some suggestions for changing it, whether you 

think that the Office of Special Counsel is a sufficient enforcement 

vehicle for protecting whistleblowers. I gather you feel that a central whistleblower office would not have the independence and that 

it would detract from the resources available to the Office of Special Counsel. 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Yes. I think that the Office of Special Counsel 

has proven itself to be well equipped to deal with whistleblowers 

from VA. Our concern is less that resources would be diverted from 

OSC, but that the resources that go into the central whistleblower 

office could do a better job, or could be better put to use by putting 

them into the Office of Special Counsel. Any new office, there are 

going to be some growing pains. So, creating a new office to do 

largely what another office is doing, we think is a little bit 

redundant. 

There is the problem of our concern that it would not be independent enough in the same—this office, the central whistleblower 

office, is supposed to be independent the same way that the Inspector General’s Office is supposed to be independent, and especially 

at the VA, we have seen that is not really the case. So, that is 

where our concerns stem. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I do not remember what the House bill 

does. Do you recall? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. It has a very similar provision to create a central whistleblower office, and we are still concerned. 

60 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In terms of contractors and veterans that 

you say should also be protected against retaliation, that would not 

necessarily be against retaliation by supervisors. It would be 

against retaliation by anyone, I assume. 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That would be, in effect, a separate goal 

of the bill, in effect, stopping retaliation not only against VA employees, but also against contractors and veterans. 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me ask you, are there provisions in 

the House bill that you would recommend that the Senate adopt 

that are not in the present bill? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Not off the top of my head, but I can certainly 

get back to you with an answer for that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. OK. Well, I would be interested in that, 

if you think that the Senate bill could be improved by any provisions or any other ideas that you or others testifying today may 

have, because I agree with all of you that this is a centrally important measure. As much as the VA may in good faith think that it 

is addressing this problem, I think that stronger deterrence and 

prevention are absolutely necessary. Punishment and enforcement 

are really important goals. 

Thank you all for your testimony today. Thank you. 

[Responses were not received within the Committee’s timeframe 

for publication.] 

Chairman ISAKSON. Senator Tillis. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Chair, I want to 

mention, I think you had to be out for a moment when we were 

talking with the previous panel about some of the recommendations in the bills that we are talking about today. I think that the 

VA may have some concern, less to do with the merits of the provisions and more to do with how to pay for it and how much it will 

cost. It brought up to my mind probably the need at some point for 

us to get an update on the transformation and say, if this is a good 

idea and it does not work right now, tell us how the transformation 

is going to make it easier to implement and something that you 

would support later on. For your consideration for a future committee meeting. 

Ms. ZUMATTO AND MR. Morosky, you more or less supported 

without qualification S. 2106. Mr. Hubbard, you support the direction of the legislation, but you suggest that it can be accomplished 

without a legislative fix, just a policy change. Would you then say 

that we do not move forward with this bill because we think the 

VA will act on it, or is it just a statement that it is within their 

purview to address this anyway? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you for the question, Senator. We believe 

this issue is of immediate importance, as I believe you do, as well. 

Senator TILLIS. Do you think it is going to take us too long to 

get it done? 

Mr. HUBBARD. We believe that it is important to address currently. We believe that they have shown the intent to address it, 

would like to give them an opportunity to show the results of which 

and fine tune from that point forward. 

61 

Senator TILLIS. Mr. Morosky or Ms. Zumatto, any additional 

comment? I mean, we all think that we can get it done, but we 

would also like to continue to move this to provide the pressure to 

make sure that it gets done. 

Mr. MOROSKY. Yes, Senator. I think that putting it into legislation, codifying it, would continue to apply the pressure. If they 

have a plan that is very similar than what is laid out, then they 

would just have to publish it. It is also some of the reporting requirements having to do with the underutilization of Chapter 31. 

I do not think that they have any plans of looking at that right 

now, so that would be helpful, as well. 

Ms. ZUMATTO. I would agree with Aleks. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Senator TILLIS. All right. I just wanted to make sure there was 

not anything beyond the point that you made. The sooner the better, and let us hope they can get it done and render the need to 

move the bill unnecessary. 

Mr. HUBBARD. We absolutely support the intent, without 

question. 

Senator TILLIS. Ms. Hempowicz, you mentioned something. I was 

not going to talk about whistleblowers except to say that I support 

the legislation before us. I am one of the founding members of the 

Senate Whistleblower Caucus, so on a broad basis, I think there is 

a lot more that we need to do to protect whistleblowers. I think, 

generally speaking, there is broad consensus that we need to have 

more whistleblower protections, but one of the things that comes 

up every once in a while is the protections of the accused. You just 

said something that had to do with a supervisor having been accused of retaliation having 14 days to respond and prove that they 

did not retaliate. In your view, do we have adequate protections for 

the accused in the policies that are moving forward? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. I think, yes, this is a provision that has gotten 

some back and forth on the House side and on the Senate side. The 

change from 14 days to 5 days happened very recently [sic]. I 

think, yes, that change does address and does kind of put in place 

enough due process for the accused supervisors. Yes. 

Senator TILLIS. What about the discussion we had? You were 

saying that in some cases, you think it makes sense to revise the 

bill to have kind of a skip-level reporting option. Can you talk a 

little bit more about that? Do we already have proposed changes 

before us? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Well, I mentioned the one word change in—— 

Senator TILLIS. From ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘may’’? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. From ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘may,’’ yes. 

Senator TILLIS. But, what does that really do? One of the things 

I have seen, less so in the VA, but we were having a similar discussion over in the Department of Justice, and it is also making sure 

that there are more options for reporting potential abuses, but clarity at the same time. Am I willing to put my reputation or my job 

on the line, we need to provide some level of clarity and safe harbor 

for them. Do we have draft language right to do that? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. I think the change from ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘may’’ would 

do that. Whistleblowers already have the ability to go to their direct supervisor. I think this is an excellent clarification, but we believe that the ‘‘shall’’ word makes it a mandatory step, and this bill 

62 

does give three exceptions where you could just jump that step. 

However, we do not think that is an inclusive list, and rather than 

make it a mandatory step with an inclusive list of exceptions, we 

think just that one word switch would clarify without making it 

overly burdensome for the whistleblower. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Thank you very much, Senator Tillis. 

Mr. Hubbard, you are the Vice President of Government Affairs 

for the Student Veterans of America, is that correct? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. When I was listening to your testimony a 

moment ago, I want to make sure I heard something correctly. We 

were talking about the Corinthian issue, which is a terrible tragedy 

for veterans and their families. Did you make a generic statement, 

though, about all of the for-profit institutions, or did I hear that? 

Did you make a reference to all of them or just to Corinthian? 

Mr. HUBBARD. We made a statement on the umbrella of the 

issue. We believe that this is a good example of what could be applied more broadly. We are obviously concerned about all student 

veterans everywhere, and we saw that this situation with Corinthian identified that school closures is not something that is going 

to be going away any time soon. We have seen that the insolvent 

practices and the questionable marketing techniques of many 

schools are of concern. I believe that does apply more broadly, but 

it was not necessarily intended to be a statement on the sector. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Good. I wanted that clarification, because 

there are some who think that, by definition, a for-profit school is 

not providing quality services to their students. I think we have to 

be very careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We 

probably need to look at the entire issue of for-profit schools that 

are providing services to our veterans and find out where there is 

a problem and address the problem rather than generically castigate a category of schools. 

Because for the non-traditional students, which all veterans really fall in the non-traditional student category, distance learning, 

the use of technology in learning, and things of that nature, which 

are more common to the for-profit schools than they are for the institutions of higher learning like universities, are a good way to deliver quality services. We do it with the eArmyU in the military. 

I mean, we have 37 universities delivering college credit content 

over the Internet to our soldiers in the field today. That is a program I was very proud to start with Senator Kerry years ago. 

I wanted to make sure that was not a general statement, but I 

think it does beg the question. It is probably time for us to look 

at all of them and make sure we know where the actors are and 

what the degree of action really is, whether they are Academy 

Award winners or not so good, one way or another. 

Ms. Hempowicz, I could not help but laugh at myself last night, 

and I apologize. The only testimony I missed today was yours, and 

I apologize. I had to run out for a brief speech that I had to make. 

I was sitting there reading your testimony. I looked up at the acronym for your organization and it is POGO, and I remember that 

63 

cartoon character Pogo who said, ‘‘We have met the enemy and it 

is ourself.’’ [Laughter.] 

I think in the Veterans Administration, that is an applicable 

thing for us to talk about for a second. 

You had said your organization never received more inquiries in 

your 34-year history on any investigation other than the one for 

the VA, is that correct? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Yes. 

Chairman ISAKSON. How comprehensive was that input, extremely or just tertiary? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. I am sorry. I do not understand—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. How comprehensive was the feedback? I 

mean, did you get specific cases, specific claims, specific grievances, 

things of that nature? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Yes. We got very specific claims. We were not 

able to follow up on every single one because there were a lot of 

anonymous submissions. However, the ones that we were able to 

follow up with and do some more investigation, coupled with the 

anonymous complaints that we received, painted a broad picture of 

fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement within the VA. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Using the terminology ‘‘broad picture,’’ and 

I do not want to put any words in your mouth. I want you to answer this the way you would just answer, which I am sure you 

would, but those comments were not limited to that Phoenix area 

or were not limited to a specific area of the United States. They 

came from pretty much all over, is that correct? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. Absolutely. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Do you think the problem in the VA in terms 

of the whistleblower problem and the problem with the services to 

the veterans that we hear the complaints about so often, it is more 

of a cultural problem within the VA than it is anything else 

attitudinally-wise? 

Ms. HEMPOWICZ. I do. I think there is a culture of sweeping 

things under the rug at the VA that needs to be addressed, and 

this legislation like this that would hold those who retaliate 

against whistleblowers accountable does go leaps and bounds to addressing that culture. 

Chairman ISAKSON. I am going to go a little bit over my time, 

but this is an important point I want to try to make with Mr. 

Morosky and Mr. Hubbard. I want you all to listen to what I am 

about to say and then give me your comment. 

The VA appears to me to be—in the last 10 months, it appears 

to me the VA has improved its response on wait times and its delivery of quality services, and I am hearing there is improvement 

within the VA in delivery of those services to veterans. Would you 

agree or disagree with that? 

Mr. HUBBARD. I would agree with that overall, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. What about you, Mr. Morosky? 

Mr. MOROSKY. I would, as well, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Here is my point. You go ask the average 

American on the street, what do you think of the Veterans Administration, they will tell you, they are really screwed up. You know, 

I read about bonuses, I read about people not getting appointments, I read about the Choice not working, and you go on and on 

64 

and on. The fact of the matter is that with the changes this Committee originated in August of last year and have been implemented by the VA and its new Secretary, Secretary McDonald, are 

appearing to start to change the ship of State. It is a big ship, the 

second largest agency of the government. 

We have to somehow find a way to do as an organization is root 

out the problems by protecting the whistleblowers and having a 

disciplined program to go after those that are causing the cultural 

problems while at the same token elevating those that are doing 

the good job, that are changing the VA internally. I personally 

think that is what is going on. 

We are at that crossroads where we are going to go from being 

what we have not been to something we always wanted to be, but 

we have got to help as a committee to do that, and your organizations, I think, to a certain extent, do, too. Now, I am kind of making a speech here. I am not making a question. Do you see where 

I am coming from, Mr. Morosky? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Mr. Hubbard. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Same here, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Mr. Porter. 

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Ms. Zumatto. 

Ms. ZUMATTO. There is no question about that, although I will 

say that my own personal experience with the VA has not been improving, unfortunately. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, that is why I asked the question. I am 

hearing good things about some that is improving. I hear others 

that it has not changed a bit. I think we have got to find a way 

to take things like this whistleblower initiative to satisfy the entire 

country and the VA that we are going to go after the problems in 

the VA and we are going to try and correct them. We are going to 

see to it somebody that has a constructive complaint or information 

can come forward without fear of retribution, while at the same 

token, those who are in the agency doing a good job have the opportunity to be pointed out and be elevated in the public view. If 

we can do that, I think we can begin to change the entire culture. 

One last thing I am going to say, then I will shut up, and I apologize. Mr. Morosky, I think you were the one that talked about firing the people who were not performing, is that correct? Did you 

make that statement, or Mr. Hubbard? Somebody made that statement. Mr. Porter, did you make it? 

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISAKSON. You were making it in the context of services 

to the veterans, medical services to the veterans? 

Mr. PORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Do you have any—and I do not know the answer to this question, so it is an open-ended question. Hopefully, 

my staff will tell me. One of the problems that we hear from the 

Veterans Administration is the difficulty under the law, under 

union contracts and other constraints, that they have to actually 

firing somebody. Have you heard any of that, Mr. Porter? 

65 

Mr. PORTER. We have heard that there are objections by unions 

to some of the proposals that would allow for firing or transferring 

of bad actor employees. 

Chairman ISAKSON. That is the part that can ultimately perpetuate the internal culture that does not help the productivity of the 

individual employees, correct? 

Mr. PORTER. Correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISAKSON. Well, I want to end by saying this, and Senator Blumenthal, I want you to hear what I have got to say so if 

I say anything wrong, you can correct me. You cannot correct me 

on the first part, because you do not know the information. But, 

the second part, you can correct me. 

We had a terrible problem at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, 

which is an air logistics center (ALC) for our military, our Air 

Force, whose on-base employment base is mostly union workers. 

They are mostly civil employees. They are not military employees. 

There got to be a huge problem between the union, the management of the base, and the commanding officer, and the throughput 

of that base dramatically declined in terms of the number of F–15s 

and F–16s they could process through to the point they were not 

meeting their goals. 

A very highly qualified, very ingenious general came in and said, 

‘‘You know, we have got to stop this.’’ He invited the union shop 

foreman in and said, ‘‘What can we do to change this from being 

a problem to being an asset?’’ In 2 years, they have gone from 

being the least productive ALC in terms of throughput to the most 

productive ALC in terms of throughput. Every time I have gone to 

the base the last 2 years to meet with the general, the union leader 

is in there with him and they are like a team. 

My point being, we need to find a way in the agency to foster 

that type of approach within the VA, as well, to where the employees and the leadership appear as a team to carry out the best interest of the veteran and not are enemies one to another. I will just 

stop talking now, because I know I am making a speech, but you 

can correct me if you think I am wrong. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I enjoy your speeches, Mr. Chairman, and 

I appreciate them. Can I ask a question—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. Sure. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. I did not mean to interrupt if 

you have—— 

Chairman ISAKSON. I am shutting up. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hubbard, could you tell me, in terms of your statement that 

the wait times and other performance by VA health care has improved, what is the basis for your statement? 

Mr. HUBBARD. Thank you for the question, Senator. What we are 

really focused on is the fact that based on what we have seen with 

the G.I. Bill and the research that we conducted last year, we understand that there is going to be an influx of veterans into the 

system. Whether they go to work for VA or for the health care system, in general, that is going to ultimately depend on what the VA 

determines as far as their hiring programs. We are hoping that 

over the next couple of years, if they shift their programs and they 

make it possible for pathways like the bill that is on the table curVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
66 

rently, if those proposals come to fruition, we think that those individuals, who we already know have a propensity for service and 

want to serve other veterans, we think that we can direct them toward VA. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I am sorry. Maybe I was unclear in my 

question. The Chairman asked you whether, if I understood it correctly, whether your dealing or perception is that the VA’s performance has improved in terms of reducing wait times, and you said 

yes. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Oh, OK. I understand what you are asking, Senator. Yes, we do have anecdotal evidence for that. There is not any 

data that we have reviewed on that subject. We—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Your information is strictly anecdotal? 

Mr. HUBBARD. It is based on the feedback we have received from 

our members, yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. OK. Mr. Morosky—I am sorry, the basis 

for your—a similar question. I know that the VA has some information and data out there. 

Mr. MOROSKY. Right. We know of a lot of veterans who have 

used the Choice program. We know Choice has helped a great deal 

in eliminating some of the wait time backlogs, particularly for specialty care, at a lot of health care facilities that had significant 

backlogs before. It is still not perfect. It is a pilot program, of 

course. I know that this Committee is going to be doing a lot of 

work and discussing ways to improve on that and roll together the 

various non-VA care programs into a comprehensive program. So 

far, it has shown some improvement there. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Mr. Porter, your information is similarly 

anecdotal; in other words, stories and—— 

Mr. PORTER. Yes, Senator—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL [continuing]. Contacts with veterans? 

Mr. PORTER. I would have to get back with you if we have actually received hard data, but we have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence from the Secretary, senior staff, media reports, but I would 

have to circle back if we actually have the hard data. 

[Responses were not received within the Committee’s timeframe 

for publication.] 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Finally, your feeling is somewhat different, Ms. Zumatto? 

Ms. ZUMATTO. I shared my personal experience. I do not have 

any data from our membership. Again, it is stories, and one of the 

biggest problems that we believe the VA is suffering from is there 

is no continuity in service across the system. You get the mixture 

of, everything is great here and everything is terrible here. My experience has been subpar. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you all again for being 

here. This has been very, very helpful and informative. Thanks for 

your service, every one of you. 

Chairman ISAKSON. We appreciate your time that you have 

given. Your testimony is extremely helpful and we welcome you to 

submit any other testimony you want to for the record. We will be 

glad to hold it open for that purpose. 

This meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(67) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KIRK, U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing me to submit testimony for the record for this legislative hearing on behalf of my bill S. 2291, VA Patient Protection Act. I wrote this 

legislation after hearing harrowing stories of retaliation and intimidation from VA 

whistleblowers from across the country. Sadly a consistent theme emerged from 

these accounts: the VA does not hold those who retaliate against whistleblowers accountable for their actions and continues to fail to combat the culture of corruption 

and intimidation within the VA. 

Dr. Lisa Nee first came to me in the spring of 2014 and shared her story of corruption and intimidation from her time as a cardiologist at the Edward Hines Jr. 

VA Hospital in Hines, Illinois. Upon arrival at Hines, Dr. Nee was given several 

bankers boxes full of unread echo cardiograms to begin reading and assessing. She 

was understandably concerned by such a backlog but was horrified to find that some 

of the tests were left unread for over a year, in which some patients had died. When 

Dr. Nee voiced her concerns she experienced retaliation from Hines administration. 

As if this was not enough, Dr. Nee observed another cardiologist, Dr. Robert Dieter, 

fraudulently inflating his productivity by entering service codes that he did not perform. This allegation was substantiated by the VA Office of Medical Inspection, 

which found that this conduct may be in violation of criminal statutes. I am unhappy to state that Dr. Dieter is still employed at Hines VHA and has not been 

disciplined for this egregious misconduct nor has the VA turned these findings over 

to the Justice Department to explore criminal allegations. Unfortunately, the VA 

turned its focus and resources on trying to discredit Dr. Nee in a response letter 

to my office, which included blatantly false explanations concerning the Inspector 

General’s handling of Dr. Nee’s allegations. I am fortunate to work closely with Ms. 

Germaine Clarno, a social worker and local President of the American Federation 

of Government Employees (AFGE) at Hines VA. Ms. Clarno first disclosed wrong 

doing at Hines in regards to waitlist and scheduling manipulation in the spring of 

2014. She works closely with other whistleblowers to protect their rights and counsel them on their options. Ms. Clarno continues to work at Hines where she observes and experiences continued retaliation from management against whistleblowers. 

Dr. Nee and Ms. Clarno’s stories are not isolated cases. I have heard from Mr. 

Shea Wilkes, who is an employee at the Shreveport VAMC and discovered secret 

waits lists extending for months and years. Mr. Wilkes filed complaints with the Investigator General (IG), who in turn sent criminal investigators to look into how he 

obtained the wait lists, confiscating computer equipment and asking him to submit 

to a lie detector test. I met with Dr. Kathryn Mitchell, an emergency room doctor 

at the Phoenix VAMC, who told me how she disclosed improper staffing in the emergency department and secret waitlists. Management retaliated against Dr. Mitchell 

by removing her as the emergency department director. In addition to these stories, 

which I am personally familiar, the Office of Special Counsel shared several additional accounts of whistleblower retaliation to President Obama in its letter dated 

September 17, 2015. These stories are just as disturbing as what I have encountered 

in Illinois and continue to occur across the VA system where the VA focuses on the 

conduct of employee whistleblowers rather than the reported wrongdoing of the Department, such as when at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center 

(VAMC) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a food services employee reported improper 

sanitation and safety practices and was fired after being accused of eating four expired sandwiches instead of throwing them away. At the Puerto Rico VA, the Department sought to remove an employee who disclosed the hospital director’s misconduct. Instead of investigating the director’s misconduct, the VA claimed the emVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
68 

1Written Testimony of Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel, OSC for US Senate Committee on 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 

‘‘Review of Whistleblower Claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs,’’ July 20, 2015. 

ployee made an unauthorized disclosure of information and then tried to remove the 

privacy officer, in part because she concluded that the whistleblower did not make 

an unauthorized disclosure. A VA employee in Wisconsin sent an email to VA privacy and compliance officers disclosing concerns about improper disclosures of veterans’ health information. Again the VA targeted the employee and fired her for 

sending an email that contained personal information about a veteran. At the Wilmington, Delaware VAMC, a nurse disclosed improper treatment of opiate addiction 

and was retaliated against by receiving a 14-day suspension for minor allegations 

of misconduct. Ryan Honl was an employee at the Tomah VAMC in Tomah, Wisconsin and filed for whistleblower protection after being asked to falsify attendance 

records. Two weeks later, he resigned citing harassment and further disclosed problems with opioid over prescription at Tomah VAMC. The VA fired an employee who 

is a disabled veteran in Baltimore, Maryland, for pre-textual reasons after the employee petitioned Congress for assistance with the employee’s own veterans benefits 

claim. In Kansas City, the Department fired an employee who reported improper 

scheduling practices, claiming for the first time after her disclosures that she was 

acting ‘‘too slowly’’ in scheduling appointments for veterans. 

These stories are the reason why I crafted this bill that will protect our protectors. 

The VA Patient Protection Act seeks to set up a process to PROTECT whistleblowers while PUNISHING those who retaliate against whistleblowers to ENSURE 

better care for our veterans. My bill will 1) increase accountability within the VA 

by creating a formal process/paper trail at the VA for whistleblower complaints and 

responses; 2) allow employees to file complaints with the next level supervisor if the 

immediate supervisor fails to properly handle the complaint or is the focus of complaint; 3) ties supervisors’ performance rating to how they respond to whistleblower 

complaints; and 4) force the VA to strongly punish those who are found to retaliate 

against whistleblowers: for a first offense a minimum of a 12-day suspension and 

for a second offense removal. 

These measures will show VA employees that supervisors must pay attention to 

whistleblower allegations, will be held accountable for how they handle those allegations, and ultimately will be punished if found to retaliate against whistleblowers 

for making allegations. 

Currently, the VA has no mechanism to track whistleblower complaints and how 

they are handled; this makes it difficult for the VA to enact change and for Congress 

to understand what, if any, improvements the VA has made to improve its culture 

of retaliation against whistleblowers. The VA Patient Protection Act addresses this 

problem by creating the Central Whistleblower Office, an independent office to exclusively address whistleblower cases in the VA; requiring the VA to annually conduct in person training to all employees about whistleblower rights, Privacy Act, 

and HIPPA exemptions; and requiring that the VA annually report to Congress on 

whistleblower complaints. 

Stronger whistleblower protection is needed in the VA due to the increase in whistleblower complaints and instances of retaliation. According to the Office of Special 

Counsel (OSC), it will receive nearly 2,000 whistleblower disclosures from Federal 

employees in 2015 and at current levels, approximately 750 or 37.5% of these disclosures will be filed by VA employees.1 In addition, Dr. Lisa Nee, Germaine Clarno, 

and Shea Wilkes provided statements for the record for this hearing, which further 

illustrates the need for enacting my bill and I ask that their statements be included 

with the record. 

I am committed to ensuring our veterans receive the care they deserve from our 

VA hospitals and care providers, whistleblowers play an indispensable role in preventing fraud, waste, abuse, and gross misconduct at our VA facilities. I believe that 

the VA Patient Protection Act will start to change the culture at the VA by educating VA employees on their whistleblower protection rights and holding management accountable for their treatment of whistleblowers. Our veterans, who bravely 

served our country, deserve the best medical care and services available and at the 

very least deserve their leaders’ attention to people and systems that obstruct them 

from receiving that care. 

Thank you. 

69 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS

On behalf of the more than 104,000 nationally-certified physician assistants (PAs), 

the American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA) appreciates the opportunity 

to submit a statement for the record regarding S. 2134, the ‘‘Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act of 2015.’’ AAPA is very 

pleased to endorse this critically important legislation. 

Ready access to quality patient care is among the most critical issues facing our 

Nation’s veterans. AAPA believes PAs are a key part of the solution to increasing 

access to quality medical care at VA medical facilities. PAs provide high quality, 

cost-effective medical care in virtually all health settings and in every medical and 

surgical setting. They are educated to seamlessly work in a healthcare team, and 

they manage the full scope of patient care, often handling patients with complex diagnoses or multiple comorbidities, conditions which commonly occur within the Nation’s veteran population. The private healthcare market has embraced and rewarded the use of PAs to alleviate healthcare provider shortages; it is time the VA 

does too. 

The PA profession has long been connected and committed to veterans and veterans’ healthcare. The first PA students were Navy Corpsmen who served in the 

Vietnam War; and recruitment of and support for veterans in PA educational programs continues to this day. As of 2014, nearly 12% of all PAs are veterans, active 

duty, or retired military in the National Guard and Reserves, and more than 2,000 

PAs are currently employed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Given all that PAs can offer to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), AAPA 

is very concerned that PAs are one of the top five medical professions experiencing 

shortages within the VA healthcare system. Both the January 2015 and September 2015 VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports recognize the importance 

of PAs as part of VHA’s healthcare team, and both reports identify PAs within the 

five occupations with the ‘‘largest staffing shortages.’’ S. 2134 proposes a two part 

approach to recruiting and retaining a VA PA workforce—the GOOD pilot program 

and a VHA commitment to recruiting and retaining PAs. 

GOOD PILOT PROGRAM

The Good Pilot Program is designed to create a pathway for veterans to become 

educated as PAs and adds to the supply of PAs in VA medical facilities. We are confident this pilot program will work because: 

• Medical schools and universities have recruited veterans into PA educational 

programs since the profession began nearly 50 years ago. In the last several years, 

the Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA/HHS) studied best practices 

for recruiting and retaining veterans in PA educational programs and GOOD will 

utilize these best practices. 

• Data compiled by the MEDEX PA Program in Washington, which has a long 

history of recruiting veterans into its program, reports that veterans who are educated as PAs make particularly good PAs. And, veterans who become PAs are well 

suited to provide medical care in medically underserved communities. 

• It mirrors the National Health Service Corps, a model that has been educating 

PAs and other healthcare professionals for decades in exchange for a commitment 

to serve in medically underserved areas. 

• The private healthcare market values PAs who were former veterans. For example, Blue Cross/Blue Shield recently invested in instituting a PA program at the 

University of North Carolina, whose mission will be to educate veterans as PAs for 

service in the state’s medically underserved areas. Recognizing the additional skill 

sets offered by healthcare professionals who are veterans, the American Hospital 

Association recently convened a series of meetings on recruiting PAs and other 

healthcare professionals who are veterans to hospitals. 

NATIONAL VHA STRATEGY TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN PAS, INCLUDING

COMPETITIVE PAY FOR PAS

Critical to S. 2134 is its requirement that the VHA make a commitment it has 

not previously undertaken—a plan to grow and maintain its PA workforce. VA compensation for PAs simply can’t compete with the salaries offered in the private market. Additionally, PAs and nurse practitioners (NPs) employed by the VA perform 

nearly identical functions and are employed in the same manner, but PAs are at 

a competitive disadvantage. NPs often start at a higher grade than PAs, and it is 

not uncommon for NPs in the VA to be compensated by as much as $30,000 more 

than PAs while providing the same medical services. 

70 

To AAPA’s knowledge, the VHA has not expanded recruitment and retention initiatives for PAs in response to the identification of PAs as one of the VA’s top five 

critical occupation shortages. The VA has always had the authority to include PAs 

in the Locality Pay for Nurses and other Healthcare Professionals, but has chosen 

not to do so. The addition of PAs to the VA locality pay system could assist the VA 

in recruiting PAs to replenish the ranks of approximately 40 percent of the VA PA 

workforce eligible for retirement within the next five years. 

The value of the PA profession is highly regarded and in demand by the private 

market: 

• Demand for PAs increased more than 300 percent from 2011 to 2014, according 

to the national healthcare search firm Merritt Hawkins. • Upon earning their certification, 63 percent of PAs accepted a clinical positon 

and 76 percent of these received multiple job offers. (National Certification Commission for the Physician Assistant (NCCPA) 2014 Statistical Profile of Certified Physician Assistants). • Nearly half (46.7%) of PAs who have accepted a position, indicated that they 

did not face any challenges when searching for a job. • 64.7% of the recently certified PAs who accepted a position indicated they were 

offered employment incentives. (NCCPA 2014 Statistical Profile of Certified Physician Assistants). • Employment of PAs is projected to increase 38.4 percent between 2012 to 2022, 

much faster than the average for all occupations, according to the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2012– 

2013 Edition, Physician Assistants). • Forbes, Young Invincibles and Glassdoor.com all reported that the #1 most 

promising job of 2015 is becoming a PA. • U.S. News & World Report ranked the PA profession as one of the top 10 best 

jobs of 2015. 

An historic lack of attention to recruitment and retention of PAs by the VA, coupled with the high demand and economic reward for PAs in the private healthcare 

market, has resulted in a significant challenge for the VA to fill PA positions. Unless the VA invests in its PA workforce, AAPA believes the VA will lose its PA workforce. 

S. 2134, the ‘‘Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act of 2015,’’ represents a significant step forward in building and sustaining 

the VA’s PA workforce through proposals to create a five year pilot program to educate veterans as PAs and to require the VA to establish a national strategic plan 

to recruit and retain PAs, including the adoption of standards leading to competitive 

pay for PAs employed by the VA. AAPA would be pleased to serve as a resource 

to the Committee in making recommendations to support the VA’s PA workforce. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record in support 

of S. 2134. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GERMAINE CLARNO, LCSW, CADC AND LOCAL PRESIDENT

OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Senator Kirk, Thank you for the opportunity to provide my testimony to discuss 

the culture of continued fear and retaliation at Edward Hines, Jr. Hospital. 

I also want to personally thank you for your unrelenting efforts in protecting 

those that nobly care for our Nation’s veterans. The VA Patient Protection Act will 

include a method to protect whistleblowers while holding those who retaliate 

against whistleblowers accountable and as a result will provide better care for our 

veterans. 

I am a Social Worker and Local President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). I have worked at Edward Hines, Jr. Hospital in Illinois 

for 6 years, 2 years after receiving a Masters in Social Work. Social Work is a second career, it was important to me that I work with veterans so I was elated with 

the opportunity to work at the VA. It has been an honor and privilege to serve our 

nations veterans in the capacity of a mental health provider. I have worked alongside amazing dedicated employees that share the same passion for helping our veterans heal from the invisible wounds of war. 

Unfortunately, I experienced early in my career the toxic culture of fear. Asking 

a simple question or suggestion can result in career sabotage. I witnessed good intentioned professional employees be retaliated against for simply wanting to raise 

issues that interfered with quality health care for our veterans. After 3 years working in mental health, I had experienced and witnessed deplorable treatment of employees that dared to speak up against fraud, waste and abuse. My dedication to 

71 

our veterans convinced me to explore means to improve the culture at Hines. The 

root cause was mistreatment of frontline employees that did not have a voice or an 

advocate. I then became a Chief Steward for Local 781 at Hines, with determination 

and the union contract, I optimistically marched onward with an honored mission 

to change the culture at Hines. 

The Master Agreement (our union contract) states in our preamble ‘‘The Department and the Union agree that a constructive and cooperative working relationship 

between labor and management is essential to achieving the Department’s mission 

and to ensuring a quality work environment for all employees.’’ 

This agreement is not honored by the leadership at Hines. They spend more time 

finding loop holes of the contract and ways not to comply with this simple agreement, which is also an element of Secretary McDonald’s ‘‘Blue Print for Excellence.’’ 

He states ‘‘VA will become an organization where employees are comfortable raising 

issues and concerns. Only then, can we truly thrive and innovate.’’ This plan for 

change was published a year ago and employees are still afraid, more than ever. 

During my time as a union representative I have seen firsthand the obstacles for 

employees to perform at the highest level due to an environment that is not conducive to enhancing employee morale and efficiency. In the fall of 2012, after exhausting all avenues with in her chain of command, Dr. Lisa Nee came to me, as other 

employees have with overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing by the leadership at 

Hines. 

The severe retaliation that Dr. Nee’s experienced as the result of her disclosure 

is not unique. Retaliation at Hines is a systematic campaign of interpersonal destruction that jeopardizes employee’s health, careers, and the jobs they once loved. 

These forms of retaliation is a nonphysical form of violence, but because it is violence and abusive, emotional harm often is the result. 

It’s been over a year since I first disclosed wrong doing at Hines in regards to 

waitlists—scheduling manipulation and excessive wait time for veterans requesting 

individual therapy for PTSD on CBS evening news. The very next day of my disclosure the Hines leadership had a meeting without my knowledge, in the chapel, with 

approximately 300 of my coworkers from mental health. That day 300 employees 

were taken away from their work areas and were not serving veterans. The purpose 

of the meeting was to discredit my claims and turn my coworkers against me. That 

same day I received emails and voicemails from my supervisor ordering me to report 

to the criminal division of the OIG on Hines Campus. 

What was more outrageous is that leadership attempted to discredit a veteran 

that also was in this news story by sharing information from his medical chart. 

Blaming him for the delays by saying that he canceled appointments or was a no 

show. Veterans aren’t immune to retaliation at Hines. 

I wish I could report that things have improved at Hines but the sad truth is it 

has not. Just in the past couple of weeks employees have been severely retaliated 

against. One of these employees is Jasmine Ramakrishna. Jasmine gave me permission to tell her story today. Jasmine is a Dental Hygienist at Hines, like most of 

our front line employees she is dedicated to serving veterans. She has reported 

wrongdoing on issues in the dental clinic to include unnecessary procedures (for the 

purpose of increasing productivity) and issues with assessments and coding procedures. As a result of her raising concerns, she is currently being retaliated against. 

Jasmine has always been rated outstanding on her performance appraisals but 

when she received her performance appraisal a few weeks ago her rating was lowered. Jasmine and I met with her supervisor to discuss her rating and he responded 

that she has violated the VA Code of Conduct. Jasmine has never been counseled 

or informed of any wrongdoing but in this meeting he referenced a folder that contained information that he ‘‘has on her’’ and is refusing to share with the employee. 

As you can imagine this is devastating for this employee. This is example of a supervisor using his power to make false allegations and violate the law to harass and 

intimidate an employee. The union has filed grievances and he is refusing to respond. As a result, the union has filed two separate Unfair Labor Practices with the 

Federal Labor Relations Authority against the agency. 

This same supervisor, the Chief of the Dental clinic is also harassing another employee, a dentist. This supervisor is asking co-workers to surveillance him. After a 

meeting I had with this supervisor to notify him that asking co-workers to surveillance other employees is not appropriate and is illegal, he called the police and 

made a false a report that I was aggressive and threatening him. This event took 

place just this past Monday. Ironically, one of Senator Kirk’s staff members was in 

my office when the police arrived and witnessed the harassment. That same day I 

notified Hines leadership of this disgraceful conduct and I have not received a reply. 

Another form of retaliation is to ignore the complaint or justify the supervisor’s 

behavior. 

72 

My concern is for our veterans. When employees are being intimidated and retaliated against for speaking up for quality care, the Nation’s veterans pay the price. 

In order to retain the best and brightest healthcare providers, to service the needs 

of our Nation’s heroes, we must rid our workplace of the toxic, retaliatory practices 

engaged in by management. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL R. VARELA, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, DAV (DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS) 

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to submit testimony for the record of this legislative hearing, and to present our views on the bills 

under consideration. As you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans service organization 

comprised of nearly 1.3 million wartime service-disabled veterans. DAV is dedicated 

to a single purpose: empowering veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect and 

dignity. 

S. 2106—THE WOUNDED WARRIOR EMPLOYMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2015

This bill would require the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

to analyze VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) services and 

make recommendations in a report to Congress for the purpose of encouraging more 

service-disabled veterans to use the benefits of Chapter 31, title 38, United States 

Code, versus services authorized in Chapter 33 of the Code. The bill also would require an action plan be developed to improve the vocational and employment services and assistance provided to veterans under chapter 31. The required report 

would include a plan to remedy certain workload management challenges at VA regional offices (VARO), including reducing counselor caseloads for veterans participating in rehabilitation, and in particular counselors assisting veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and also counselors with 

dual educational and vocational counseling workloads. 

The bill also would require VA to analyze and assess the decisions and circumstances of veterans with service-connected disabilities who served on or after 

September 11, 2001 who choose not to participate in rehabilitation under Chapter 

31 but instead use their entitlement to educational assistance under Chapter 33. 

The analysis required by this bill would examine barriers to timely enrollment in 

rehabilitation programs under Chapter 31 and any additional barriers to a veteran’s 

enrollment. 

The bill would require VA to report within 270 days of the date of its enactment, 

and to develop and publish the action plan to improve the services and assistance 

provided under Chapter 31. 

DAV has no resolution from our membership on the particular issue within this 

bill. While we would not oppose passage, we have identified some concerns that we 

recommend be addressed prior to passage of this bill. 

DAV recognizes the intrinsic value of Chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation services 

for wounded, ill and injured veterans. However, encouraging those veterans with eligibility under Chapter 33 to instead use Chapter 31 authority would require additional resources in VR&E to meet the increase in demand. 

Today, VR&E’s counselor-to-client ratio is far too high, at 1:135. This ratio has 

been historically disproportionate and contributes to the delays in the administration of timely and effective services. However, the average ratio can be misleading. 

For example, the Cleveland VARO’s counselor-to-client ratio is 1:206, but in the 

Fargo VARO it is 1:64. 

Ideally, an effective counselor-to-client ratio would be 1:125, as has been advocated by the Independent Budget for the past several years. In order to achieve the 

1:125 counselor-to-client ratio in FY 2016, VR&E would require an additional 382 

full-time employee equivalents (FTEE), of whom 277 would be dedicated as VR&E 

counselors and the remaining 105 employees would be in support services, bringing 

VR&E’s total FTEE strength to 1,824. While increased staffing levels are required 

to provide efficient and timely services, it would also be essential that these increases be properly distributed throughout VR&E to ensure that counselors’ caseloads are equitably balanced among VAROs. 

DAV calls on Congress to increase staffing levels within VA’s VR&E program in 

accordance with DAV Resolution No. 135, approved by our membership at our most 

recent National Convention. As contemplated by this bill, if Congress intends to encourage increased use of Chapter 31 services, versus services afforded under Chapter 33, then adequate resources would be essential to strengthen this critical proVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
73 

gram to meet the increased demands inherent in servicing more eligible service-disabled veterans for their rehabilitation and vocational needs. 

S. 2134—THE GROW OUR OWN DIRECTIVE: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT AND

EDUCATION ACT OF 2015

This bill would direct the VA to carry out a five-year pilot program to provide educational assistance to certain veterans for education and training as VA physician 

assistants. 

Under this bill, the pilot program would target veterans with experience gained 

in medical or military health while serving; had received a certificate, associate degree, baccalaureate degree, master’s degree, or post-baccalaureate training in a 

science related to health care; had participated in the delivery of health care services or related medical services. The bill would exclude physicians and dentists from 

participation. 

The bill would require VA to provide educational assistance, including scholarships, to no fewer than 250 participants. VA would reimburse their costs of obtaining master’s degrees in physician assistant studies or similar master’s degrees. The 

bill would require VA to make available mentors for participants at each VA facility 

at which a veteran is participating, and would require VA to establish partnerships 

with other government programs and with a significant number of educational institutions that offer degrees in physician assistant studies. 

The bill also would require VA to establish standards to improve the education 

and hiring of VA physician assistants, and implement a national plan for the retention and recruitment of VA physician assistants. 

The bill would establish a series of new, mandatory positions in VA’s national Office of Physician Assistant Services in VA Central Office, including a Deputy Director for Education and Career Development, a Deputy Director for Recruitment and 

Retention, a designated recruiter of physician assistants, and an administrative assistant to support these functions. The bill would specify their major duties. 

The bill would redesignate not less than $8 million in funds appropriated prior 

to the passage of this bill to carry out its purposes. The bill is silent on sources of 

any additional funding that might be needed to meet its mandates. 

Finally the bill would align VA physician assistant pay grades equivalent to the 

pay grades of VA registered nurses. 

DAV has not received a national resolution from our members dealing with VA 

recruitment, training or employment of physician assistants; therefore, DAV takes 

no formal position on this bill. Nevertheless, we observe that this bill is unusually 

prescriptive, is not based on any broadly understood need for VA to hire additional 

physician assistants, and assumes these 250 individuals who would undergo the 

subsidized VA education and training the bill would authorize, are in fact needed 

by VA. Also, the bill would divert previously appropriated funds from other purposes 

to serve this new, unanticipated purpose. These issues raise a number of concerns 

that we ask the Committee to consider as it deals further with this bill. 

S. 2170—THE VETERANS E-HEALTH AND TELEMEDICINE SUPPORT ACT OF 2015, OR THE

‘‘VETS ACT OF 2015’’ 

This bill would enable a health care professional of the VA, including a contract 

provider, who is authorized to provide health care by or through VA, and who is 

licensed, registered, or certified in a state to practice his or her profession at any 

location in any state, regardless of where the professional or veteran is located, to 

treat a veteran through telemedicine. If enacted the bill would permit telemedicine 

treatment regardless of whether the professional or the patient were physically located in a federally owned facility. 

The bill would require VA to report to Congress one year following its implementation on a variety of aspects of VA’s telemedicine program, including patient and 

provider satisfaction, access, productivity, waiting times and other information related to appointments made and completed through telemedicine. 

Because health professional licensure is a state-regulated function, as a national 

system VA has experienced barriers in its efforts to broaden the use of telemedicine 

across state lines. A number of VA telemedicine initiatives have been frustrated because of the interstate restriction. Enactment of this bill would eliminate that barrier, and would promote much greater use of telemedicine, especially in facilities 

whose treatment populations come from multiple states (Martinsburg, WV—patients 

from VA; Washington, DC—patients from VA and MD; Pittsburgh, PA—patients 

from OH; New York City, NY—patients from NJ; Boston, MA—patients from NH, 

VT and ME; Fayetteville, AR—patients from MO, OK, and KS, etc.). Enactment of 

this bill would open the door to VA specialists treating veterans through telemediVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
74 

cine irrespective of state jurisdiction, physical location, or the distance that separates patient from provider (for example, VA specialists in Seattle telemedically 

treating VA patients at the VA Outpatient Clinic in Anchorage, AK), and should 

also be highly cost-effective and more convenient for veterans who live at a distance 

from their VA medical centers, or who must travel long distances for access to basic 

VA care. 

Delegates to our most recent DAV National Convention approved Resolution No. 

126. Among other priorities, this resolution calls on VA and Congress to establish 

and sustain effective telemedicine programs as an aid to veterans’ access to VA 

health care, particularly in the case of rural and remote populations. Our delegates 

also approved Resolution No. 226, fully supporting the right of rural veterans to be 

served by VA. This bill is consistent with these resolutions and DAV policy; therefore, DAV strongly supports its enactment and appreciates the sponsors’ intention 

to promote the use of telemedicine in the care and treatment of veterans. 

S. 2253—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VETERANS EDUCATION RELIEF AND

RESTORATION ACT OF 2015

This bill would address a veteran’s continued entitlement to VA education benefits 

in situations in which an educational institution permanently closed prior to the 

completion of a term, quarter, or semester. Under current law, a veteran in this circumstance would be penalized by a charge against educational entitlement for failing to successfully complete the prescribed period of education. VA also reclaims living allowances and other payments as if the veteran simply withdrew from the educational institution. This bill would hold harmless a veteran in such a situation. 

Under this bill, if a veteran were forced to discontinue a course as a result of an 

educational institution’s permanent closure and did not receive full credit for, or lost 

training time toward completion of, the VA-approved education program, VA educational assistance payments would not, for a specified period of time thereafter, be 

charged against the individual’s entitlement to educational assistance, or counted 

against the aggregate period for which VA assistance would be provided in the absence of such a closure. 

The bill would require VA to continue to pay the approved monthly housing stipend following a permanent school closure, but only until the earlier of: (1) the date 

of the end of the term, quarter, or semester during which the school closure occurred; or (2) the date that is four months after the school closure. 

The bill also would require VA to continue to pay educational assistance and subsistence allowances to veterans and other eligible persons enrolled in specified 

courses for up to four weeks in any 12-month period if their schools were closed temporarily under an established policy based on an executive order of the President, 

or due to an emergency situation. 

The effective date of this bill would begin retroactively with Fiscal Year 2015. 

DAV has received no resolution from our membership that would address the purposes of this bill. However, the bill seems to be a reasonable accommodation for a 

situation that has been reported, affecting educational entitlements of numerous 

veterans who are victimized by unexpected, permanent school closures. DAV would 

not object to passage of this legislation. 

DRAFT BILL—THE VETERANS AFFAIRS RETALIATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2015

If enacted this bill would sanction VA employees who take retaliatory steps 

against other employees when truthful complaints are made about waste, fraud, 

gross mismanagement, and risks to life and safety of veterans. The bill also would 

specify a number of procedures and actions VA would be required to take to address 

and document complaints made, while protecting the VA employee(s) who made 

them. The bill also would establish a central repository of complaints made that are 

subject to the purposes of the bill. The bill would restrict the payment of bonuses 

to VA supervisors who are found to have committed prohibited personnel actions in 

circumstances as defined in the bill. 

The bill would require VA to create a whistleblower training program, and would 

require VA to train every VA employee in whistleblower rights, including the right 

to petition Congress, and in the processing of complaints and related matters. 

The bill would require a series of reports to Congress related to its purposes, and 

would require the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to make public, and provide 

to Congress broadly and on request in specific cases, all OIG work products that 

make recommendations or call for corrective action in any VA matter. 

The final section of this bill would declare that official testimony before Congress 

by any VA employee to be that of official duty by that employee, including coverage 

of salary and travel support. 

75 

Delegates to our most recent National Convention approved Resolution No. 214. 

This resolution requires that any legislation changing existing employment protections in VA must strike a balance between holding civil servants accountable for 

their performance, while maintaining VA as an employer of choice. Resolution No. 

214 does not directly discuss the plight of VA whistleblowers, but DAV supports 

fairness for all VA employees, including those whom this bill would declare to be 

whistleblowers. Therefore, DAV would not object to the passage of this bill. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes DAV’s testimony. 

We thank the Committee for inviting DAV to submit this testimony for the record 

of this hearing. DAV is prepared to respond to any further questions by Committee 

Members on the positions we have taken with respect to the bills under consideration. 

76 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN TSUI GRUNDMANN, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


1118apMSP2.eps
77 


1118apMSP3.eps
78 


1118apMSP4.eps
79 


1118apMSP5.eps
80 


1118apMSP6.eps
81 


1118apMSP7.eps
82 


1118apMSP8.eps
83 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA M. NEE, MD, INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGIST

Dear Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony for the record in support of Senator Kirk’s VA Patient Protection Act. I wish 

to extend my gratitude to Senator Kirk and his staff for the continued attention to 

the alarming matter of whistleblower retaliation and for moving forward with this 

important legislation. Although there is significant rhetoric from various branches 

of government that this type of behavior is detrimental to the care of the veteran, 

there seems to be no end in sight for those who continue to face retribution for taking the courageous step of coming forward. A September 2015 report from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs stated the Office of Special 

Counsel has received 35% of its entire retaliation case load from VA employees. Despite its efforts to prioritize investigations, Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner testified 

before Congress in August of this year that the volume of incoming VA complaints 

remains overwhelming. This clearly demonstrates the severe, dysfunctional culture 

within the VA that encourages retaliation against the very individuals who expose 

harm to the veteran and attempt to improve the health care delivery process. 

There are many journeys we all participate in during the course of our lifetime. 

Some are arduous, many are attainable, but none has been more agonizing and 

unfulfilling than the current process of obtaining justice for the men and women 

who have fought for our freedom. I realize that not every complex situation in life 

presents itself with moral clarity, however this is not one of them. Caring for our 

veterans should be elementary. There should never be a single instance where a 

physician must choose between self-preservation and the life of a patient. Or suffer 

an assault to their character in order to obtain accountability for criminal and inhumane acts against patients and fraudulent behavior toward the taxpayer. The 

amount of bureaucratic gymnastics coupled with agency corruption can render the 

strongest individual forlorn and exhausted. Knowing when to lose with grace is an 

honorable skill and one that requires precise timing—this is not that time. Armed 

with voracity for equity, an insatiable appetite for the truth and a colossal amount 

of evidence, I am prepared to continue this battle until there is responsibility from 

leadership and transformative action which will hold those at fault accountable. 

My personal journey began over 41⁄2 years ago with exposure to the corruption at 

Hines VAMC regarding patients who died of cardiac complications while awaiting 

their cardiac ultrasound to be read. Unfortunately for them the tests were hidden 

in bankers boxes and left unread for a year. The mere questioning of such an egregious act resulted in significant retaliation, which went unabated the entire two 

years I was employed at Hines. But hell hath no fury like a VA administration 

scorned, and the retaliation continued even after I resigned, with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and its pervasive culture of disparaging the truth teller. Multiple allegations regarding deficiencies in cardiovascular care were made including, 

but not limited to: patient’s having their chest sawed open for unnecessary procedures, disparities in care based on ethnicity, procedural diagnostic errors resulting 

in harm and pervasive billing fraud. These allegations have resulted in an initial 

deficient OIG investigation, a subsequent OSC investigation, a second contemptible 

OIG investigation, insistence from the OSC for an authentic and thorough investigation, and culminating with an ongoing Office of Medical Inspector’s (OMI) investigation. It is a mind numbing process to not only keep track of the endless agency acronyms, but also calculating the amount of wasted taxpayer dollars consumed by 

these ineffectual inquiries. They are not true investigations for they lack experienced subject matter experts and have a pre-determined conclusion, which maintains the status quo. 

The path this case has taken over the last four years has been objectively obfuscated, and its bureaucratic oscillations can only be the result of stunning deficiencies at all levels of the VHA leadership. The task has become the exercise within 

itself. To engage in multiple investigations by varying internal agencies which have 

substantiated patient harm as well as criminal activity, and to never mention one, 

single word regarding accountability—one can only conclude this maladjusted behavior is designed to serve the agency itself, and not the veterans. It is the VHA 

leadership attempting to gain credit for oversight that the agency has failed to provide. Duplicitous. No other word describes it. The OMI report from July 2015 substantiated some of my allegations regarding deficiencies in cardiovascular care, deficiencies in echocardiogram processing, failure to disclose deficiencies in care and 

harm to patients, inflated productivity measures by cardiologists and evidence that 

Veterans were inappropriately charged copayments for care they never received, 

otherwise known as billing fraud. In regards to this billing fraud, the report states, 

‘‘We found that these actions possibly violate 18 US Code 208—Acts affecting a perVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
84 

sonal financial interest.’’ The OMI referred this criminal matter to the OIG who has 

declined to open a criminal investigation. 

Interestingly the bulk of the report is dedicated to the fraudulent billing practices, 

including in depth statistical analysis, diagrammatic explanations and extensive 

billing pattern documentation. This provides a glaring contrast to the lack of investigative fervor and expertise when dealing with patient morbidity and mortality. 

However all this effort is for naught as the end result once again allows the documented criminal activity to go unpunished. For the agency to demand an OMI investigation yet deny the credibility of criminal findings is administrative misconduct. 

The OIG must adhere to the Quality Standards for Investigations issued by Council 

of Inspector General on Integrity and Ethics (CIGIE) and the Attorney General 

Guidelines for OIG with Statutory Law Enforcement Authority. You don’t get to be 

above the law just because you work for the VHA. Or do you? An equally compelling 

question is, if the OMI substantiated findings and then those are ignored, why do 

we need any of these investigative arms within the VA? They are redundant and 

wasteful and should be restructured. 

To sum up the totality of all the reports to date is to call them a mismatch between words and deeds. A failed promise to treat and protect the veterans, while 

instead protecting hundreds of useless report generators who will then retire with 

benefits. The investigators have gone so far out of their way to protect the VHA 

leadership that it has rendered every investigator impotent and every investigative 

finding ineffectual. They are highly skilled at one part of their job, generating a 

paper trail designed to justify their professional existence. But they have failed at 

their original mission statement and severely compromised the health care of the 

men and women who have fought for our freedom. In order for any type of transformative action to begin to take shape and halt systemic corruption, there must 

be protection for truth tellers, accountability for those who fail at their duties and 

transparency to illuminate both operational deficiencies but also properly analyze 

collected data. These are far from novel concepts and are most certainly codified in 

policy and procedure. Chairman Kirk’s VA Patient Protection Act will demand accountability for those who retaliate against truth tellers and empower those who 

can begin to make a positive impact on the outcomes of patient care. Preventing retaliation in the current defective culture of the VA requires deterrents, which should 

be timely, formidable and indelible. This bill would properly punish VA supervisors 

who have been found to take retaliatory actions against whistleblowers. There can 

be no saving of an agency as large as the VHA if the employees operate from a constant position of fear, rather than conviction and collaboration. 

An additional step toward agency accountability, which should be addressed by 

Congress, is extending legislative authority to the OSC in two arenas. 1. Allow the 

agency to embark on a criminal investigation or partner with the Department of 

Justice if the preponderance of evidence suggests illegal activity and 2. Grant the 

OSC the necessary authority to determine the corrective action and punishment 

once the allegations are substantiated. They have independent authority to determine if conduct constitutes a violation of law, rule, gross mismanagement and a 

substantial and specific danger to public health. If they can determine the crime, 

they should be allowed to determine the punishment. 

Many people have asked me why I continue to fight for the veterans even though 

I have left the VA. ‘‘What can you do?’’ I want the American public to contemplate 

that question for a moment and then consider an alternative perspective, and perceive it as ‘‘What should I do?’’ With that, the only acceptable response would be 

to strive for social justice and search for the truth. 

Which brings us to the truth. A glorious, unadulterated supreme reality, holding 

the ultimate meaning and value of existence, corroborated by evidence. It does not 

change over time, as it never has to rely on anybody else’s interpretation. As a Nation, we can achieve this goal for the genuine protectors of truth, our veterans. 

85 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN N. LERNER, SPECIAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL


1118apOSC1.eps
86 

1Government Accountability Office, ‘‘VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment: Future 

Performance and Workload Management Improvements Are Needed,’’ GAO–14–61, January 2014. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on legislation pending before the Committee. We appreciate the Committee focusing on these critical issues that will affect veterans and 

their families. 

S. 2106, THE ‘‘WOUNDED WARRIOR EMPLOYMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA supports S. 2106, the ‘‘Wounded Warrior Employment Improvement Act of 

2015,’’ which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to develop and 

publish an action plan for improving services and assistance provided through VA’s 

Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program (Chapter 31). Returning to the workforce is a critical aspect of recovery for many catastrophically disabled veterans. This legislation would require VA to evaluate barriers to participation in VR&E and implement efforts to improve counselor training. It would also 

seek to improve counselor workload requirements. 

A client to counselor ratio of 1:125 is recognized as a full workload in the field 

of vocational rehabilitation counseling. In January 2014, the Government Accountability Office issued a report calling on VA’s VR&E program to implement performance and workload management improvements. At that time, caseloads for VR&E 

counselors ranged up to 1:139.1 When counselors are required to work with more 

than 125 clients, the employment counseling process is delayed. This is particularly 

true when counselors are working with veterans who have significant disabilities 

and increased barriers to employment. 

Although not part of this legislation, efforts to decrease counselor caseloads and 

encourage more veterans to participate in the VR&E program must be supported 

through increased funding. Congress must invest in this program to ensure that 


1118apOSC2.eps
87 

counselors have the tools and resources needed to return veterans with disabilities 

to work. Otherwise, veterans with significant disabilities, who with proper supports 

and services can return to employment, are in danger of falling out of the workforce. 

S. 2134, THE ‘‘GROW OUR OWN DIRECTIVE: PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT EMPLOYMENT AND

EDUCATION ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA supports S. 2134, the ‘‘Grow Our Own Directive: Physician Assistant Employment and Education Act of 2015.’’ This bill would set up a five year pilot program to provide education assistance to veterans training as physician assistants 

(PAs) in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The goal is to train veterans with medical or military health experience to be readily employable physician assistants at 

VA. Section 2 of the bill explains the prioritization of veteran participants who are 

in the Intermediate Care Technician Program and those individuals who plan to 

work in medically underserved states with a high population of veterans. To meet 

these goals the bill provides funding and support staff to the Office of Physician Assistance Services. It would also require VA to establish a strategic plan to recruit 

and retain PAs and adopt the standards leading to competitive pay for PAs employed by VA. Currently the vacancy rate of PAs at VA is 25%, the third largest 

shortage throughout the health care system. Recruiting and retaining PAs at VA is 

critical to improving access to high quality care. Further, this bill will provide job 

opportunities for veterans with medical work histories that are hard to translate to 

the civilian sector. 

S. 2170, THE ‘‘VETS ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA supports S. 2170, the ‘‘VETS Act of 2015.’’ This bill would improve access to 

telemedicine services from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under current law, 

VA may only provide at-home tele-health to a veteran if the physician and veteran 

are in the same state. This requirement can be a particularly troubling barrier for 

veterans who have specific medical or mental health needs, have moved, or live in 

rural communities without providers. This bill would alleviate some of these pressures by waiving the instate requirement, allowing VA health professionals to operate across state lines. 

S. 2253, ‘‘DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS VETERANS EDUCATION RELIEF AND

RESTORATION ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA supports this legislation as written. Veterans entitled to education benefits 

should not be robbed of those benefits due to external factors beyond their control. 

A school closure sets an enrolled veteran back due to the lost time and effort invested without ultimately earning course credit. This legislation ensures that the effects of this inconvenience and loss are not amplified by the additional loss of a semester’s worth of benefits eligibility. 

THE ‘‘VETERANS AFFAIRS RETALIATION PREVENTION ACT OF 2015’’ 

PVA has no official position on the ‘‘Veterans Affairs Retaliation Prevention Act 

of 2015’’ at this time. We acknowledge that ensuring whistleblowers receive a level 

of protection adequate to encourage government employees to come forward and expose fraud, waste and abuse within the government sphere will always be an important issue. We appreciate and support the initiative Congress is taking to address 

these issues both within the VA and across the broader government sector. 

Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record. We look 

forward to working with the Committee to see these proposals through to final passage. We would be happy to take any questions you have for the record. 

88 

VA TRUTH TELLERS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Shreveport, LA, November 18, 2015. 

Hon. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

Chairman, 

U.S. Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee 

Washington, DC. 

My personal story begins when I returned to the Mental Health Department at 

the Overton Brooks Veterans Administration Medical Center in December 2011 as 

the Local Recovery Coordinator (LRC). As the LRC, my job was to consult directly 

with the Chief of Mental Health to convert all existing programs to and to assure 

all new programs were operating under the Recovery Model of Care. Thus, my position was considered part of the Mental Health Leadership team. 

It was early in my time as LRC that I started to notice questionable practices 

within Mental Health. The first were hiring practices, treatment of employees and 

issues with group therapy. It was obvious that certain persons were given special 

privileges over other employees and that certain employees were targeted by members of leadership. As I began to learn the processes of the VA in more detail, my 

role expanded. I took on a performance measure responsibility for the service (OEF/ 

OIF Performance Measure), attended director staff meetings, and worked on special 

projects. 

I saw leadership use cronyism in the hiring of a Mental Health Service Chief that 

had absolutely no experience and was totally incompetent. There were several other 

applicants with 20+ years of experience, but instead they picked a good ole’ boy over 

the most qualified. I again watched cronyism rear its head as the hiring process for 

the Assistant Chief of Mental Health was manipulated. This time I decided to report 

the situation to Human Resources (HR). After speaking to H.R. and bringing to 

their attention possible faulty hiring practices, I was approached by Mental Health 

leaders and asked to be the acting PTSD Clinic Coordinator. 

A day later I was contacted by telephone by a Mental Health leader (Operations 

Manager) who explained that the permanent PTSD coordinator position would be 

coming open and it would be a highly competitive position. My response was ‘‘really 

that’s cool.’’ The individual continued asking if I wanted the position. My response 

was ‘‘I’d have to discuss a decision like this one with my wife.’’ The Operations Manager quickly responded ‘‘no don’t tell anyone about this.’’ Mental Health leadership 

made it very clear that if I would back off the hiring practices of the Assistant Chief 

of Mental Health, I would be awarded the PTSD Clinic Coordinator position. I was 

offended by such an offer as I had just turned the service in for faulty hiring practices and now they had the audacity to ask me to do such an unethical act. 

Once the leaders of Mental Health learned that I was not going to accept their 

offer, the first attempt of reprisal came. The Mental Health Chief and Operations 

Manager went to the Administrative Officer to the Chief of Staff and the Chief of 

Human Resources and complained that I had lied on a Learning Development Institute application. Luckily, I was able to fight this retaliation attempt off. I had kept 

cell phone text of conversations between myself and Mental Health leaders that 

proved that I had not lied on my application. This reprisal attempt quietly went 

away. 

Eventually the incompetent Chief of Mental Health stepped down and the service 

went without permanent leadership for an extended period of time. During this time 

I took on many hats and at one point served as Acting Assistant Chief of Mental 

Health. I completed projects for the Director, Chief of Staff, and developed key ideas 

that are still being used in Mental Health today. It was during this time that I 

started to learn of number manipulation, scheduling manipulation, and other unethical acts. I addressed these acts in Mental Health leadership meetings, with the 

Chief of Staff, and others, but very little was done to correct the issues. 

Early in 2013 a VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report was released concerning unethical acts at the Atlanta VAMC. At this point I had become totally frustrated with trying to address the corruption through the internal channels of the 

Overton Brooks VA system. However, I decided to give the Chief of Staff one last 

chance to address the issues of manipulation of scheduling and numbers. 

I reported my concerns one last time to the Deputy Chief of Staff (COS) (acting 

COS at the time) about hiring practices, manipulation of scheduling, and manipulation of numbers. I was blown off by the Deputy Chief of Staff. It should be noted 

that later became the permanent COS. After waiting a month, I decided it was time 

to report the wrongdoings to the VA Office of Inspector General. In June 2013, I 

made an official VA OIG report related to issues concerning faulty hiring practices 

(Chief of Mental Health), manipulation of numbers related to performance measVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:36 Jul 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 Z:\ACTIVE\111815.TXT PAULIN
89 

ures, and scheduling manipulation within Mental Health Service. I never heard one 

word of response from the VA OIG. 

It has now become apparent that the fact that I reported information to the VA 

OIG June 2013, was relayed back to the facility. Looking back it was from that point 

forward things began to change for me, not only in Mental Health, but throughout 

the hospital. 

It turned out that the individual that was selected for the position of Chief of 

Mental Health was a friend of the Deputy COS. Again, cronyism was evident—the 

same manipulation of hiring practice that I had reported to the VA OIG. By the 

fall of 2013 I was being billed as the problem child, trouble maker, and unstable 

employee. This was for nothing more than telling the truth. I was approached by 

leaders and told to let unethical acts, such as illegal access to my medical and employment records, go and that I should move forward. 

It was apparent that new leadership was not going to address the unethical activity, but rather it would be allowed to continue and those unethical persons would 

be allowed to continue to hold leadership positions. I would not back down from unethical leaders and I continued to bring up issues and fight to block unethical acts. 

This infuriated those above me and I became a target. 

I was called by the Chief of Mental Health to meet with him in his office. In the 

meeting, he asked me if I had ever been seen by a particular Mental Health provider in Mental Health Service. I explained I had seen the doctor after returning 

from Afghanistan. The Chief of Mental Health continued by saying that a colleague 

had told him I was unstable and unfit to lead. I explained to him that was interesting because I was currently the HHD Commander for a USAR Multi-functional 

Medical Battalion. I continued by saying that it was obvious that someone had been 

in my records. The Chief of Mental Health quickly stated that he could not remember who told him about my seeing the particular doctor. I went to the privacy officer 

after the meeting and obtained a copy of who had been in my record. I found numerous persons that had illegally accessed my personal information. The hospital conducted an investigation but claimed that they had found nothing. 

My fate was sealed in the Mental Health Service when I started questioning compensation time/overtime issues. Around the end of 2013, I began to suspect fraud 

related to comp time/overtime. The operations manager, that offered me the PTSD 

Coordinator Position to shut up about the hiring practices, was constantly disapproving everyone’s request for comp time and overtime except for a select few. I 

started to pay closer attention to this area of discussion in meetings. The issue hit 

a boiling point when the Operations Manager denied my assistant legitimately 

earned 3 hours of comp time. The Operations Manager denied the comp time due 

to her not being there to approve it before it was earned. When I inquired as to 

why there was no other person that could approve comp time, I was warned by the 

Chief of Mental Health to let the issue go. I explained that we would take the issue 

to higher levels if need be to obtain the three hours comp time. 

At this point there were too many red flags surrounding the issue for me not to 

investigate the possible issue more. I later put in a FOIA request (after leaving 

Mental Health early 2014) for all Mental Health leadership’s comp time and overtime earned. I discovered the Operations manager had an extreme number of 

earned comp time hours and other certain individuals in the service had extremely 

high hours of paid overtime. 

I reported my findings through the VA OIG Hotline and had to argue with the 

person on the hotline about taking my compliant. At first, I was told by the hotline 

that this was a facility problem. I insisted that it was possible comp time and overtime fraud and my compliant was ultimately taken by the hotline. 

I later learned that the OIG referred my compliant to the Faculty Director for a 

response. My understanding is that the issue was passed on to Chief of Staff, who 

in turn had Mental Health Leaders provide a report. In other words, nothing 

happened. 

When speaking with Office of Special Counsel months later, I explained the comp 

time/overtime issues. The following week I was contacted by VA OIG and told the 

issues were under investigation. I understand at some point VA OIG was at the facility investigating the issue but I never spoke to them in person. I later sent a 

FOIA request to the VA OIG for information related to the case but was told the 

case was still open. 

I was systematically removed from Mental Health leadership through a well-organized manipulated hiring process. The Local Recovery Coordinator (LRC) position 

I held was eliminated and a Recovery Supervisor position was created. The position 

was an upgrade from GS–12 to GS–13. I had received outstanding and excellent performance evaluations during my time in the LRC Position. Since the position was 

upgraded, I had to reapply. Once again, I was offered the ‘‘hook-up’’ but, once again, 

90 

I declined and insisted that the job needed to be announced and the hiring process 

should be completed properly. 

The hiring process was completed and I was by far the most qualified for the position, but was not selected. It was easy to see that the hiring practices had been manipulated through screening tools. At this time I knew that I had to get out of Mental Health as the only positions I was offered were frontline positions under the very 

people that I had turned in for unethical acts. I knew that, if I stayed, I would face 

the same horrible retaliation from leaders, that I had witnessed other employees 

face. 

At this point I went through my NFFE Union President to ask the Director for 

a transfer out of Mental Health as soon as possible. There was arguing back and 

forth about the FTE, but the Director stepped in prior to her retirement and ordered 

Mental Health to give up the FTE to Primary Care so that I could be moved out. 

In my request, I mentioned that I would like to move to the OEF/OIF Team, but 

that I had experience in numerous areas. 

I was moved to the OEF/OIF Care Team which was located on the 10th floor. My 

office was located at the opposite end of the 10th floor away from the OEF/OIF Care 

Team. My office was a large storage room type office with no windows. The hospital 

air conditioning unit was above the office and made a constant sound of metal 

grinding. I placed a work order with engineering which informed me there was no 

real way to stop the grinding sound. When I originally moved into this office I was 

informed I would only be in office for a month and not to unpack my boxes. That 

month turned into several months and I sat in the office away from my new team 

members, packed boxes sitting in the corner. The position created in OEF/OIF was 

developed to see Veterans but as an extra staff member with no case management 

load and few referrals, it was difficult to meet the expected numbers. 

In April 2014 the story of the wait-list at the Phoenix VAMC surfaced in the 

media. I had sat in meetings where wait-lists were discussed and had seen waitlists during my time in Mental Health Department. As mentioned, I had already 

reported wait-time issues and knew that the scheduling practices were manipulated 

so that it would make wait-times look better. Bottom line is I knew from my time 

in leadership that several methods were being used to make the 14 day measure 

numbers look tremendously better than they were. 

After watching the Phoenix VAMC story develop, I decided that I could not wait 

any longer for VA OIG to take action on my June 2013 complaints. I contemplated 

what to do next and felt I had exhausted all internal options to report the 

wrongdoings, so I hesitantly decided to take my story to the media. 

I went to the Shreveport Times in May 2014 and worked with a Times Reporter 

for 2–3 weeks on the story. As the story develop and it was close to being released 

I was told that TV was probably going to contact me as well as other media sources. 

I explained that I was not really wanting to speak with a lot of media, but I would 

be happy to speak with one TV media source as long as the story was focused on 

Veterans Care issues and not me. 

As the time drew closer I feared that once the story was published that the lists 

in Mental Health would disappear. I also knew once the article ran in the media, 

my life would change forever, especially my career with the VA. I had seen firsthand 

how persons who brought issues forward were treated, but I also knew I could no 

longer look away as Veteran received substandard care. 

I decided at this time that I needed to secure a copy of any and every wait-list 

in Mental Health I could get my hands on. I enquired from Mental Health colleagues I had worked with previously and learned that the numerous list had been 

joined to form one list. Despite fear of retaliation, with the help of other employees, 

I was able to obtain a copy of the lists and other evidence of the lists existence. 

The Shreveport Times story on the issues at the OBVAMC ran on Sunday June 1, 

2014. I met for a TV interview on Tuesday, June 3, 2014. Around the same time 

I, yet again, filed a report with VA OIG that I now had a wait-list in my possession 

and that I knew the hospital was manipulating numbers and scheduling throughout 

the hospital. When the story hit the news, as I anticipated, the list was removed 

from the share drive and replaced with a different list that was posted and password protected. 

I sat patiently and waited for VA OIG response, but received nothing. I watched 

as the good ole’ boy leaders of our facility circled the wagons and started developing 

their cover-up stories. I was told by my frontline supervisor that her boss, the Chief 

of Primary Care, had made a visit to her office and was not happy. She explained 

that he told her that what I did was wrong and that when things were all said and 

done I would be standing here like the officer in the movie ‘‘Bridge Over the River 

Kwai’’ stating ‘‘What have I done, what have I done.’’ Emails were sent out by the 

91 

Mental Health Service Chief calling the allegations lies and stating that I was trying to destroy Mental Health. 

He began circulating the story that the list was not a secret wait-list but a list 

to help find Veterans that may have slipped through the cracks. Numerous persons 

working in Mental Health approached me. They complained that it was as if Mental 

Health leaders were trying to brainwash them into believing their concocted story. 

But everyone knew the truth, they knew that the lists were lists of patients who 

needed appointments. 

For over a month the VA was allowed to develop its story and propaganda. The 

hospital even brought in public relations personal from other facilities and prepared 

a dog and pony show in which they denied everything. Several Veterans heard the 

VA’s story of what was going on and called the TV station and backed up what I 

was saying. One Veteran did an interview and explained the exact procedures that 

were occurring. He even revealed that he had indeed personally seen the wait-list. 

After patiently waiting for VA OIG to come in and investigate I decided I could 

wait no more because the corrupt good ole’ boys continued to cover their tracks. I 

knew the longer it took investigators to get to the facility the less they would find. 

I contacted Senator Mary Landrieu who sent a letter to Acting Secretary Sloan Gibson. I also contacted Senator David Vitter’s office in an effort to get OIG to 

OBVAMC. Senator Vitter office sent a letter to the VA OIG Director Richard Griffin 

demanding that the list be investigated. The next day after the letter was sent I 

received a call from a VA OIG Special Agent. The agent explained that he and another agent were headed to Shreveport from New Orleans and that they wanted to 

meet with me. I was excited that finally VA OIG was coming to investigate. 

Due to the timing, I originally believed that the OIG’s call was in response to the 

request from Senator Vitter. It appeared that after a year of trying to get the VA 

OIG’s attention, that the existence of the wait-list and other methods of scheduling 

manipulation were finally going to be investigated. 

A few hours after I received the first call from the OIG Special Agents, I received 

another call from them explaining they had arrived in Shreveport. They explained 

that they needed the list and asked if I wanted to meet them somewhere off station. 

I explained that I did not feel comfortable taking the wait-list off hospital grounds 

and that one copy of the wait-list was on the computer’s hard drive. The OIG Special Agents agreed to meet me in my office on the 10th floor. 

When the OIG Special Agents arrived at my office we sat down and I signed a 

release and we began discussing the issues related to the wait-list and other scheduling practices used to manipulate performance measure numbers. I showed the 

agents the wait-list on the hard drive and explained how I got to the list on the 

share drive. The OIG Special Agents asked about copies of the list and I provided 

them the two hard copies I had. The agents then took the hard drive from my computer. The agents left telling me they were headed to Mental Health to speak with 

other employees. I took the rest of the day off to settle my nerves. 

The next day the OIG Special Agents came back to speak with me. I signed another waiver and we began to discuss the list again. At this point I realized that 

their questions were related more toward how I obtained the wait-list and not about 

why the wait-list existed. I also realized that they were unaware of the request by 

Senator Vitter or of the recent news article and television interviews. 

Later that evening I spoke to a person whose name I had given to the OIG, who 

explained that OIG Special Agents had explained to her that if she had provided 

me access to the list that she could be an accomplice to a crime. She explained to 

my attorney and I that she was trying to get find a lawyer. At this time she also 

explained to my attorney and I how the list was created and how it was used because there were not enough providers to see everyone. My attorney made some 

telephone calls and obtained her legal counsel. 

My attorney contacted the OIG Special Agents and asked them if I was under 

criminal investigation. The OIG Special Agents explained to my attorney that they 

were criminal investigators and that they were investigating the issue of how I obtained the list. My attorney at this time told the OIG Special Agents that all communication should go through him. The damage had already been done. 

The OIG had come to Shreveport not to investigate the wait list and other scheduling issues. The OIG had come to perform damage control, intimidate other potential whistleblowers, and to investigate me, the whistleblower. The investigation they 

conduct was shoddy at best and they only interviewed Mental Health persons that 

would stand to face discipline if there was a list. They intimidated the other employee whose name I had given them. Her story totally changed from what she had 

explained to my attorney and I for fear that she would be charged with a crime. 

A few weeks later the OIG Special Agents contacted my attorney. They explained 

they were headed to Shreveport and asked if they could speak to me. My attorney 

92 

explained to the inspectors that he would let the investigators talk to me about everything except how I obtained the list. The OIG Special Agents met with my attorney at his office. The two agents were accompanied by a polygraph tester. My attorney again reiterated to the OIG Special Agents that he would allow them to speak 

to me about anything except how I obtained the list. The agents said that they 

didn’t need to talk to me about anything else. 

They also told my attorney that there was nothing to the list. My attorney questioned why they had only talked to select persons in Mental Health and not others 

that wished to talk. The agents then turned to the fact that I had brought up that 

other scheduling procedures were being used to manipulate the performance measures. The agents asked my attorney for names and I provided my attorney with 

names of schedulers in other areas of hospitals that had explained to me they were 

instructed to schedule in such a way that numbers would look better on performance measures. It was at this point that I became totally discouraged and had to shift focus into 

a mode of protecting myself against possible criminal charges instead of advocating 

for Veterans’ care. Over the next several months I experienced the weight of an investigative agency of the Federal Government. The pressure from having the burden 

of a criminal investigation hanging over me was tremendous. I was also experiencing pressure from OBVAMC leadership. I became extremely frustrated that neither the OIG nor the VA leaders cared enough about the Veterans’ care to do a complete investigation into reported wrongdoings. It was literally heartbreaking for me 

as an individual who has only wanted to do two things in my life: to be a soldier 

and to help Veterans. Despite my whistleblowing I continued to witness poor care 

being provided to Veterans. I had put my career and livelihood on the line and all 

I gained by doing so was being purposely isolated by the VA and hung out to dry 

by the OIG. 

There is no doubt in my mind the OIG’s sole purpose of coming to Shreveport was 

to intimidate myself and other potential whistleblowers for coming forward. Their 

main purpose was intimidation and damage control. The investigation was halfassed and shoddy at best. The OIG showed no interest investigating the 

wrongdoings in the hospital. Rather they interviewed select persons with the intention of intimidating them and others not to come forward with information about 

how and why the wait-lists existed. I had given the OIG Special Agents the names 

of numerous witnesses who could substantiate my claims of wrong doing. They did 

not take the time to interview most of them. 

For coming forward and telling the truth I was now in a job way below my ability 

level. I was asked to complete a training that I explained to my leaders I was ethically unable to complete. I was told I needed to do the training because the COS 

wanted 100% compliance. I explained I was not going to complete the training because it placed my integrity in jeopardy. I was given a letter of admonishment for 

not completing the training. I filed a grievance concerning the letter of admonishment which turned out to be a joke due to the fact that Step 1 went to the Service 

Chief that was ordered by the COS to discipline me and Step 2 of the process was 

assigned to the COS who ordered the Chief of Primary care to discipline me. I complained that this was a conflict of interest to no avail. Thus, I withdrew my grievance in order to file with the Office of Special Counsel. After filing a retaliation 

claim for the letter of admonishment against my supervisor, Chief of Primary Care, 

and COS things became more tense for me in the OEF/OIF team. My supervisor 

and I were not getting along so I distanced myself. My supervisor took a position 

at another facility. Prior to leaving she gave me an unacceptable performance appraisal for not following directions concerning the training and left the next day. 

As I languished for a year under investigation for obtaining a list that wasn’t supposed to exist I began to contact other whistleblowers. My anger started to increase 

as it became apparent the OIG had used the same scare tactics all over the country 

to intimidate other whistleblowers. To make matters worse the OIG began time and 

time again whitewashing reports and attacking whistleblowers in these same reports. This solidified my belief that the OIG was not going to help solve the problem, but that it in fact was part of the overall problem with the VA System. After 

living a VA nightmare the last year it has become very apparent and saddens me 

to say that I see no real change in how VA operates. I believe that the problems 

with the VA are endemic to its structure. There will be no real reform until there 

is an independent agency that is willing to conduct thorough investigations and the 

system starts hold individuals at every level accountable. 

The VA has become a bloated bureaucratic system in which its leadership is more 

interested in perpetuating their own careers rather than caring for our veterans. 

When given a performance measure, leaders don’t look at how they can adapt their 

programs to meet the measure, rather they look at the performance measure and 

93 

try to figure out a way to manipulate it to make it look like they have met the expected goal. The system needs true reform and its leadership needs to be held accountable for its failures. 

It is my belief that until we are able to protect whistleblowers and potential whistleblowers the true depth of the corruption within the VA will not be known. The 

years of cronyism and lack of accountability have allowed least two generations of 

poor incompetent leaders to plant themselves within the system. These poor leaders 

have trained other poor leaders and they have isolated the VA from the real world 

of efficient and effective medical treatment. The VA’s continued inability to tell the 

truth has caused generations of Veterans to lose trust in their services. It is apparent that until the VA is absolutely with no exception forced to change, it will not 

do so. 

Very Respectfully, 

CHRISTOPHER SHEA WILKES. 

94 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA A. HALLIDAY, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL


1118apOIG1.eps
95 


1118apOIG2.eps
96 


1118apOIG3.eps
97 


1118apOIG4.eps
98 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WALTER OCHINKO, POLICY DIRECTOR, VETERANS

EDUCATION SUCCESS


1118apVES1.eps
99 


1118apVES2.eps
100 

Æ 


1118apVES3.eps