U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

41–918 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–767 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: MAKING VA THE WORKPLACE OF CHOICE FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Ranking 

Member 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

WILLIAM E. BREW, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 9, 2008 

SENATORS 

Page 

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

Burr, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....... 2 

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 3 

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

Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington ........................................... 6 

Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, U.S. Senator from West Virginia ........................ 36 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 7 

Wicker, Hon. Roger F., U.S. Senator from Mississippi ......................................... 34 

WITNESSES 

Palkuti, Marisa W., M. Ed., Director, Health Care Retention and Recruitment 

Office, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs ..... 7 

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

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka .................................................................................. 12 

Hon. Patty Murray ........................................................................................ 16 

Response to questions arising during hearing from Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV .......................................................................................................... 37 

Cullen, Sheila M., Director, San Francisco VA Medical Center .......................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Akaka ........... 20 

Response to questions arising during hearing from: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka .................................................................................. 32 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ................................................................................... 36 

Kleinglass, Steven P., Director, Minneapolis VA Medical Center ....................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Patty Murray ................ 24 

Kanof, Marjorie, M.D., Managing Director, Health Care, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

McDonald, John A., M.D., Ph.D., Vice President for Health Sciences and 

Dean, University of Nevada School of Medicine, on Behalf of the Association 

of American Medical Colleges ............................................................................. 56 

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

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Patty Murray ................ 63 

O’Meara, Valerie, N.P., VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Professional 

Vice President, American Federation of Government Employees Local 3197 .. 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Akaka ........... 71 

Phelps, Randy, Ph.D., Deputy Executive Director, American Psychological 

Association Practice Directorate ......................................................................... 71 

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

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka .................................................................................. 77 

Hon. Patty Murray ........................................................................................ 80 

Page

IV 

Strauss, Jennifer L., Ph.D., Health Scientist, Center for Health Services 

Research in Primary Care, Durham VA Medical Center, and Assistant 

Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, on Behalf of the Friends of VA Medical Care and 

Health Research (FOVA) ..................................................................................... 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Patty Murray ................ 84 

APPENDIX 

Cohen, Harvey Jay, M.D., Walter Kempner Professor and Chair, Department 

of Medicine, Director, Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center ............................................................. 95 

Converso, Ann, RN, President, United American Nurses, AFL–CIO .................. 96 

Ingoglia, Charles, Vice President of Public Policy on Behalf of the National 

Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare ................................................. 98 

Marberry, Sara, Executive Vice President, and Anjali Joseph, Ph.D., Director 

of Research at The Center for Health Design .................................................... 99 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: MAKING VA THE 

WORKPLACE OF CHOICE FOR HEALTH 

CARE PROVIDERS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

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

Craig, and Wicker. 

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

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Chairman AKAKA. This hearing will come to order. Good morning. I welcome everyone to today’s hearing. 

Health care matters affecting veterans are very important to this 

Committee and especially important to me. In recent years, the 

Committee has, by necessity, spent much time and effort delving 

into the health issues facing veterans today, including TBI and invisible wounds. The simple truth of VA health care is that its providers are the real backbone of the system. If the providers are not 

present or are there but unhappy in their jobs, it is likely that the 

veterans will not receive the quality care they need and deserve. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs faces a dangerous shortage 

of health care professionals around the country. Services for veterans at too many facilities are limited due to staffing shortages. 

From nurses to senior executives to psychologists, VA competes 

with other health care systems for employees and too often comes 

up short. 

In a recent publication by the Partnership for Public Service on 

employee satisfaction, the Veterans Health Administration ranked 

poorly in pay and benefits and in family support. VHA also rated 

very low among younger employees. However, a silver lining from 

this survey is that VHA has improved in almost all rankings. So, 

while there has been progress, clearly there is still much more to 

be done. 

The task of this Committee and of the Congress is to provide VA 

with the resources and tools necessary to enable VA facilities to attract health care professionals of the highest caliber. This fiscal 

year, Congress provided VA with a significant infusion of funds. It 

2 

is my expectation that we will do so again this year for the next 

fiscal year. 

During today’s hearing, we will have the opportunity to examine 

the tools VA now has and those it might need in the future to bring 

in top-notch health professionals. In my view, VA has the potential 

to recruit and retain the very best clinicians. Scholarship programs 

used effectively could alleviate student debt burdens. An effective 

pay system will allow VA to compete in every labor market. VA operates a world-class research system that attracts clinicians who 

seek to push the boundaries of medical care. These are just a few 

examples of the effective recruitment and retention tools at VA’s 

disposal. We must ensure that they are being fully utilized. 

It is my hope that this hearing may lead to more effective use 

of existing methods of recruiting the best and brightest health care 

professionals to VA and then making sure that they choose to stay. 

We also will seek to identify new approaches to attract health care 

professionals to VA. Over the past decade, VA has made tremendous strides in becoming the premier health care provider for veterans. We must now ensure that VA can employ premier employees. 

I offer a special thanks to our witnesses here today. We appreciate your taking the time to appear before the Committee and for 

your service to veterans. 

Now I will call on our Ranking Member, Senator Burr, for his 

opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, RANKING MEMBER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Aloha, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I thank all 

of our witnesses today for what I think will be some very, very important testimony. 

It goes without saying that if the VA is to continue to deliver topnotch health care to veterans, then it needs to be able to attract 

and retain qualified medical professionals. Of course, the challenge 

is that the VA competes for these professionals in a marketplace 

where they are high in demand and short in supply. The Health 

Resources Services Administration estimates that in 2020, the nationwide supply of primary care physicians will be around 270,000, 

but the need will be for nearly 340,000. For rural and inner-city 

areas, we can’t wait until 2020. A shortage already exists today. In 

States with growing populations, the problem is particularly acute. 

In North Carolina, the provider-to-population ratio is expected to 

drop by 8 percent to 19 percent by 2030. 

With these numbers, Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that the VA 

have the tools it needs to attract and to keep quality doctors and 

nurses. This means that pay and benefits need to be competitive. 

It also means that scholarship and debt repayment programs in return for working at the VA need to be fully utilized. And, of course, 

it means that a robust research program at the VA, which has 

proven to be a powerful enticement for the brightest of medical 

minds, needs to be supported. 

I am pleased that we will hear today from Dr. Jennifer Strauss, 

an Assistant Professor at Duke University Medical Center’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, about how VA reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:23 Apr 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\41918.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
3 

search can be strengthened. I think we all look forward to that testimony. 

In addition, Dr. Harvey Cohen, the head of Duke University’s 

Department of Medicine and a career VA researcher, has submitted 

testimony for the record to give the Committee his thoughts on this 

subject. 

In addition to research, one of the greatest recruiting tools available to the VA is its noble mission. The job satisfaction that comes 

with serving America’s veterans is one all of us on this Committee 

can attest to and it certainly exists for those who provide veterans 

with health care on a day-to-day basis. 

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, let me make an important 

point that is relevant to today’s hearing. There are approximately 

24 million veterans living in America today. Almost eight million 

of them are enrolled in the VA health system. Thus, 16 million veterans currently receive health care outside the VA system. The national shortage in medical providers is just as real for these veterans as it is for the VA patients. Although our primary focus for 

this hearing is on the recruitment and retention of VA medical professionals, we should also be aware of the impact that VA hiring 

has on the larger health care system. 

For example, VA has hired nearly 3,800 mental health workers 

since the year 2005 and may add an additional 500 in the near future. We need to ask the question, what impact does this have on 

the available supply of mental health workers in the communities 

both now and over the long term? Relevant to this point, testimony 

submitted for the record by Charles Ingoglia, Vice President of 

Public Policy for the National Council for Community Behavioral 

Healthcare, suggests that VA hiring is, and I quote, ‘‘exacerbating 

an existing mental health workforce shortage and may not meet 

the long-term treatment and rehabilitation needs of returning veterans.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I dare say, something we have talked about on 

this Committee is how we get the right amount of treatment as 

quickly as we can in the most intense way. In fact, if we have a 

medical professional shortage, we will be unable to do that and 

treat veterans at the most important time. Mr. Ingoglia suggests 

that rather than competing with the community-based mental 

health organizations for available workers, VA could, and I quote, 

‘‘pursue a targeted strategy of cooperation and collaboration 

through service partnerships,’’ unquote. Such partnerships would 

have the added benefit of making care available for veterans in 

rural communities. 

What all this means is that we need to be prepared to take a 

comprehensive view of addressing the problems and be prepared to 

embrace the solutions that are in the best interest of the health 

care of our veterans, wherever they reside. 

Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important hearing. Many of 

the decisions that we make from here on out have effects within 

the VA system on the direct care received by our veterans, but also 

outside the VA system on the care that this country’s other veterans will receive, and the public at large. 

I thank the Chair for the time. 

4 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. By arrival time, let me 

call on Senator Craig for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Chairman Akaka, thank you very much, and 

Ranking Member Burr, thank you for this hearing today. 

I will submit my formal remarks for the record and react to what 

Senator Burr has just said. Mr. Chairman, because clearly we are 

headed into a time in health care—both for veterans and non-veteran civilian populations—that is having substantial stress on the 

resources available for a variety of reasons: from desirability of 

workplace and conditions to pay to lack of a Medicare system that 

stays sensitive to the constant needs of the patient—a combination 

of things. 

One of the things, though, that I find most fascinating that you 

have just mentioned, Senator Burr, is that really—while we may 

not get there now, we must get there some day, and that is the 

idea that these are stand-alone systems and not effectively integrated. We are doing a little of that today, a little bit of that. 

Senator Murray and I—while I was up in the Lewiston area, 

and, of course, Lewiston, ID, and Clarkston and Asotin, WA, come 

together right there at a point in geography and transportation— 

we are standing up a CBOC that we are going to open up out there 

in mid-May. I met with the folks from over in Walla Walla and 

they had come over to walk me through it and show me the work 

that was being done. But, they are also contracting services with 

the local health care providers in the community for the things 

they cannot provide that aren’t necessarily needed for travel on 

into Spokane or over to Walla Walla. And, of course, that CBOC 

will serve Clarkston and Asotin, WA, and Lewiston, ID. 

That is really the kind of integration that we have got to get at, 

the idea that we create bricks and mortar and walls, but we don’t 

have a payment system that shows some flexibility. I have talked 

about that over time. Yesterday, I had a group of young veterans 

in my office. All of them have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

most of them live in rural Idaho. And they said, ‘‘Senator Craig, 

why can’t we have a VA health card? Why can’t we have a card 

that allows us to go to our local providers to get the service we 

need instead of traveling the 200 to 500 miles that you are now requiring us to travel to get the health care that we are entitled to 

have?’’ 

And again, I understand that, but as you know, as a Member of 

this Committee longstanding, I have also argued that in the dynamics of health care into the future, that the bricks and mortar 

and the walls and the structures we have created, while they have 

served us phenomenally well, may not serve us as well if our focus 

is service to the veteran, access to health care, period—access to 

health care—not the health care we define you are eligible for within that structure and that building. 

To me, that makes a great deal of sense, and when we talk about 

the problems that you and Senator Burr have talked about, we 

have got a marvelous system today. Again, VA gets top ratings. 

The New England Journal of Medicine has just put us on top 

5 

again: access; quality; all of those kinds of things in general. And 

yet a million nurses are talked about now, a near shortage of a million nurses in the near future, 25,000 physicians by 2020. Why 

should health care systems be competing? Should they not be complementing? I think that is going to be our greater challenge in the 

out years as we put money into this system to do so. 

And, of course, as you know, I have to get in my traditional 

punch. If we expand, if we are not focused on the disabled and the 

poor of the VA system and we go to Priority 8s and we add 1.4 million more to the system, from the standpoint of eligibility, then the 

numbers we are concerned about today simply go up. The demand 

goes up. And ought there not be a greater way for us to provide 

for our veterans in the out years, and looking at it in the modern 

sense that we may not be looking at it today. We are still dedicated—and I have no criticism of that—but to the bricks and mortar we have built down through the years. But it isn’t serving our 

veterans across America as well as it should. 

So, yesterday, I had that reality when that veteran held up his 

hand and said, ‘‘Senator, why can’t I have a VA health card that 

allows me to get my services in Salmon, Idaho, or in Pocatello or 

somewhere in rural Idaho that provides quality health care that 

has an association with the VA system?’’ I said to him, smile, work 

at it, become an advocate of it. Work with your service organizations, because they, too, are stuck in the tradition of supporting 

what we have instead of where we ought to go. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:] 

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

Chairman Akaka, Thank you for calling this hearing today. I just want to make 

a few comments. 

One thing that I cannot do often enough is to commend VA for the excellent 

health care they provide for our veterans. In studies by various well-respected publications, including the New England Journal of Medicine, VA has outperformed 

Medicare and private insurance in quality of care. 

A key component of maintaining the high quality of VA health care is recruiting 

and retaining a dedicated staff. However, we are also facing a shortage across the 

country in many health care professions—including physicians, nurses, and a variety of sub-specialties. A July 2007 report from the Health Research Institute of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the United States will be short nearly one million nurses and 24,000 physicians by 2020. Specifically, in my home State of Idaho 

we are grappling with a shortage of primary care physicians to treat individuals living in rural areas. In the midst of this nationwide shortage, VA must also continue 

to raise its profile among potential health care professionals to recruit a quality staff 

in order to maintain its stellar reputation as a health care system. This is no small 

challenge. 

I want to take this opportunity to point out that this is one of the reasons why 

I am opposed to allowing Priority 8 veterans into the VA health care system. While 

I think VA recognizes the need to aggressively recruit health care professionals, we 

also need to be realistic. We are being confronted with a nationwide shortage and 

if VA is having recruitment challenges now, adding upwards of 1.4 million individuals to the patient population would only exacerbate this problem. 

VA needs to continue to focus its health care delivery on our disabled veterans. 

With that being said, I want to commend VA on the excellent workplace environment it has created and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how 

they are addressing recruitment challenges. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

Senator Murray? 

6 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Senator Burr, 

for holding this hearing on the recruitment and retention of health 

care professionals in the Veterans Health Administration. I look 

forward to the testimony from our distinguished members of both 

panels. I especially want to extend a welcome to Valerie O’Meara. 

She has traveled here across the country to testify in front of us 

today as a nurse practitioner from the Seattle VA Center. As I 

have said many times, Mr. Chairman, our VA staff are some of the 

most caring and compassionate people I know. They work hard. 

They are smart and very caring. They understand the needs of the 

veteran population that they serve; and they are critical as we see 

so many returning veterans coming home today, as well as veterans of previous wars. I appreciate the great job all of you and 

your coworkers do. 

Mr. Chairman, the doctors and nurses and mental health care 

providers and many health care professionals who work at the VA 

are the reason that the VA can stay true to its mission and to provide the best quality of care anywhere. But, as the topic of your 

hearing suggests today, the VA faces significant hurdles as it tries 

to recruit and retain the kind of high-quality health care professionals that the Department relies on to serve the veterans today. 

So, I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that we are holding this 

hearing to explore VA’s workforce needs. 

I really think we have to get to the heart of this issue and explore our options, not only to improve working conditions for our 

current VA employees, but to ensure that the VA can compete with 

the private sector and recruit the best and brightest professionals. 

In order to do that, we have a lot of work ahead of us because there 

are a number of challenges to overcome. 

The VHA employment process is overly complicated and takes far 

too long. The VA doesn’t pay health professionals as well as the 

private sector does. Education and training opportunities for workers have to be updated and revamped. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I emphasize this hearing is not only about the 

ways we can become more competitive as we recruit new people 

into the VHA system, it is about retaining our current employees, 

as well. And along that line, I am very concerned that a recent 

study by the Partnership for Public Service found that job satisfaction among VHA employees under the age of 40 is very low. If the 

VA is going to continue to provide the best quality of care anywhere, that has to change. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 

today as we begin to address this issue. I do have another hearing 

at the same time as this hearing, so I am going to miss the first 

panel and their testimony, but my staff will be here and I will be 

back for the second panel. I think this is an extremely important 

topic, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for exploring it today. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Murray. As 

you know, Senator Murray plays a huge role on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and, of course, she is on the Appropriations Committee. We work 

very well together in trying to get things done for veterans. Thank 

you very much, Senator Murray. 

7 

I want to now welcome our witnesses from the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. I appreciate your being here today and look forward to your testimony. Will you please be seated. 

First, I welcome Marisa Palkuti, Director of the VHA Health 

Care Retention and Recruitment Office. I also welcome Sheila 

Cullen, Director of the San Francisco VA Medical Center; and I 

also want to welcome Dr. Wiebe, who I see here in the room. Welcome and aloha, Dr. Wiebe, for being here today. Finally, I welcome 

Steven Kleinglass, Director of the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. 

I want to thank all of you for joining us today. Your full statements will appear in the record of this Committee. 

Ms. Palkuti, please begin after I ask Senator Tester whether he 

has any statement to make at this point in time. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very 

gracious of you. I am sorry about being late. 

I just want to tell you that from a Montana perspective, recruitment and retention of our health care officials and our support 

staff is really important. I have been around to most of the veterans’ facilities in the State of Montana, done some public hearings 

and heard from veterans throughout the State and I can tell you 

the one comment that I hear repeatedly is a lack of staff. 

I look forward to your statements. I really want to hear what we 

are doing as far as recruitment and retention bonuses, those kind 

of things, to get people on board. I have been told by some of the 

health care professionals that the VA cannot pay what the private 

sector is paying for health care folks. I don’t know what the 

thought process was there—whoever made that rule—but, it is 

wrong-headed thinking. I think if we are going to get the best people to take care of our veterans in this country, we have got to be 

competitive; and if we start out from a standpoint that we cannot 

meet basic wages, I think it reduces the employment pool right out 

of the chute. And our potential for keeping these people dwindles 

pretty quickly, because they see what the opportunities are out in 

the private sector. 

So, your statements today are going to be critically important. I 

will tell you that most of my questions are going to revolve around 

recruitment and retention and how we can do a better job and how 

I can help you do a better job in this process. 

So, with that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. 

At this time, we will hear from Ms. Palkuti. 

STATEMENT OF MARISA W. PALKUTI, M. ED., DIRECTOR, 

HEALTH CARE RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OFFICE, 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. PALKUTI. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the invitation to appear before you. I am honored to 

be here today to share VA’s ongoing efforts and challenges to develop innovative and aggressive approaches to addressing recruitment and retention of our health care workforce. My full testimony 

8 

will be in the record, so I will highlight a few of the things that 

we are working on. 

An informal study conducted of all VA facilities in 2007 revealed 

that 74 percent of the 800 psychologists hired over the past 3 years 

received some training in professional psychology at VA. This year, 

the office’s academic affiliation and patient care services have significantly expanded VA’s psychology training programs in anticipation of the ongoing need for VA psychologists as well as psychologists to practice in the community. 

In an effort to initiate proactive strategies and aid in the shortage of clinical faculty in nursing schools, VA has launched the VA 

Nursing Academy to address the nationwide shortage of nurses. 

Four partnerships were established in the 2007–2008 school year 

and four additional partnerships will be selected each year in 2008 

and 2009 for a total of 12 partnerships. 

We have launched the VA Travel Nurse Corps, which is an exciting new program establishing an internal pool of registered nurses 

who can be available for short-term temporary travel assignments 

in VA and centers throughout the country, including rural care. 

We have a multitude of student programs that have been instrumental in helping VA meet its workforce needs. These programs include the VA Learning Opportunities Residency Program for baccalaureate prepared nurses and doctoral prepared pharmacists—student career experience programs. We have established a database 

for our interns and students so that we can track them and use 

them as a better applicant pool for our future needs. 

We have a Graduate Health Administration training program for 

practical work experiences for recent graduates of health care administrative master’s programs for hospital leadership. We have a 

Technical Career Field Program. It is an entry-level program designed to fill vacancies in fields such as budget, finance, HR, engineering, and others where VA knows that there is a critical need 

and VA-specific knowledge is necessary. 

And we realize that our hiring process is cumbersome. This 

spring and summer, we will be training medical center leadership 

in human resources and systems redesign at a series of human resources cluster meetings around the country. 

My office works at the national level to promote recruitment 

branding and provide tools and resources and other materials to 

support both national and local recruiting efforts. Some of the features we have recently integrated, our VHA Internet Job Board 

with USA Jobs. We have done a complete revision of that tool. We 

use Public Service Announcements, online advertising, print advertising. We have a tool kit for recruiters across the country to tap 

into our resources. We have established National Recruitment Advisory Groups. 

As highlighted already, we developed a very comprehensive recruitment and marketing plan for mental health professionals 

using the strategies mentioned above as well as a number of financial incentives. Among the financial incentives, our Employee Incentive Scholarship Program will pay up to $35,900 for academic 

and health care-related degree programs. We currently have authorized over 7,200 scholarships to VA employees and have over 

4,000 graduates, closer to 4,300 at this point. It shows through 

9 

analysis that we also have positive retention outcomes for that program. 

Our Education Debt Reduction Program provides a tax-free reimbursement of educational loans for clinical employees, and as of 

March 31, we had authorized over 6,400 awards under the Education Debt Reduction Program. 

There is routine use of other financial incentives—recruitment 

incentives, retention incentives, relocation incentives, and special 

salary rates. And in fiscal year 2007, we spent over $24 million in 

recruitment incentives nationwide for over 3,150 employees in title 

38 and hybrid occupations, and over $34 million in retention incentives to 5,300 of our clinical employees. 

Regarding the physician pay bill, we truly believe that this legislation has helped us to recruit and retain physicians. 

Our agency has one of the best and most comprehensive workforce strategic plans in government. We have been recognized by 

the Office of Personnel Management as a Federal best practice. We 

have a commitment, a strong commitment, to succession planning 

and ensuring that VA has a comprehensive recruitment, retention, 

and development strategy for the agency. 

I would like to thank the Committee for their interest and support in implementing legislation that allows us to compete in an 

aggressive health care market, and Mr. Chairman, that concludes 

my oral statement. I will be pleased to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Palkuti follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARISA W. PALKUTI, M. ED., DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OFFICE, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Thank you for the invitation to 

appear before you today to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA) recruitment and retention programs, work 

schedules, and other issues related to creating a compassionate, qualified and diverse workforce of health care professionals. As the Nation’s largest integrated 

health care delivery system, VHA’s workforce challenges mirror those of the health 

care industry as a whole. This country is in the midst of a workforce crisis in health 

care and VHA experiences the same pressures as other health care organizations. 

VHA performs extensive national workforce planning and publishes a VHA Workforce Succession Strategic Plan annually. As part of this process, workforce analysis 

and planning is conducted in each Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) and 

national program office and then is rolled up to create a national plan. VHA’s strategic direction addresses current and emerging initiatives including recruitment and 

retention, mental health care, polytrauma, Traumatic Brain Injury, and rural health 

to address workforce efforts. I am honored to be here today to share VHA’s ongoing 

efforts and challenges to develop innovative and aggressive approaches to addressing recruitment and retention of our professional health care workforce. 

EFFORTS TO RECRUIT HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS

There is a growing realization that the supply of appropriately prepared health 

care workers in this country is inadequate to meet the needs of a growing and diverse population. This shortfall will grow exponentially over the next 20 years. This 

situation exists for various reasons. Enrollment in professional schools is not growing fast enough to meet the projected future demand for health care providers. The 

American Association of Colleges of Nursing has reported that more than 42,000 

qualified applicants were turned away from nursing schools in 2006 because of insufficient numbers of faculty, clinical sites, classroom space and clinical mentors. 

The availability of academic programs to provide employees to meet qualification 

standards in other health care occupations is being experienced in many other 

health care occupations. 

10 

More than 100,000 health professions trainees come to VA facilities each year for 

clinical learning experiences. Many of these trainees are near the end of their education or training programs and become a substantial recruitment pool for VA employment as health professionals. The annual VHA Learners’ Perceptions Survey 

shows that, overall, following completion of VA learning experiences, trainees were 

twice as likely to consider VA employment as before the experience. This demonstrates that many trainees were not aware of VA employment opportunities or the 

quality of VA’s health care environment prior to VA training but became considerably more interested after VA clinical experiences. 

An informal survey conducted of all VA facilities in 2007 revealed that 74 percent 

of the 800 psychologists hired over the last 3 years received some training in professional psychology through VA. This year, the Offices of Academic Affiliations (OAA) 

and Patient Care Services significantly expanded VA’s psychology training programs 

in anticipation of the ongoing need for additional VA psychologists. 

HRRO has produced a new recruitment brochure titled ‘‘From Classroom to Career’’ that is targeted at and distributed to VA trainees. The Office of Academic Affiliations in VA Central Office emphasizes recruitment of trainees in interactions 

with education leaders in the VA facilities. The Human Resource Committee of the 

VHA National Leadership Board has raised the trainee recruitment issue to a high 

priority and has included it as an important element of their strategic plan. 

In an effort to initiate proactive strategies to aid in the shortage of clinical faculty, VA launched the VA Nursing Academy to address the nationwide shortage of 

nurses. The purpose of the Academy is to expand the number of nursing faculty in 

the schools, increase student nursing enrollment by 1,000 students, increase the 

number of students who come to VA for their clinical learning experience, and promote innovations in nursing education and clinical practice. Four partnerships were 

established for the 2007–2008 school year. Four additional partnerships will be selected each year in 2008 and 2009 for a total of twelve partnerships. 

VA Travel Nurse Corp is an exciting new program establishing an internal pool 

of registered nurses (RNs) who can be available for temporary, short-term assignments at VA medical centers throughout the country. The VA Travel Nurse Corps 

meets nurses’ needs for travel and flexibility while meeting VA medical center needs 

for temporary top quality nurses. The goals of the program are to maintain high 

standards of patient care quality and safety; reduce the use of outside supplemental 

staffing, improve recruitment of new nurses into the VA system; improve retention 

by decreasing turnover of newly recruited nurses, provide alternatives for experienced nurses considering leaving the VA system; and to establish a potential pool 

of Registered Nurses for national emergency preparedness efforts. The VA Travel 

Nurse Corps Program may also serve as a model for an expanded multidisciplinary 

VA Travel Corps in the future. 

Student programs have been instrumental helping meet VA workforce succession 

needs. These programs include the VA Learning Opportunities Residency (VALOR) 

Program, the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP), and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities Internship Program (HACU). VALOR is designed to attract academically successful students of baccalaureate nursing programs and pharmacy doctorate programs to work at VA. VALOR offers a paid internship and gives the honor students the opportunity to develop competencies in 

their clinical practice in a VA facility under the guidance of a preceptor. In response 

to the success of the VALOR program for nurses, the pharmacy component was 

added in 2007 to address VA’s need for pharmacists. SCEP and HACU offer students work experience related to their academic field of study. VHA’s goal is to actively recruit these students for permanent employment following graduation. VA 

National Data base for Interns (VANDI) is a newly designed database developed to 

track students in VA internship/student programs to create a qualified applicant 

pool. 

The Graduate Health Administration Training Program (GHATP) provides practical work experience to students and recent graduates of health care administration 

masters programs. GHATP residents and fellows are competitively selected and 

upon successful completion of the programs are eligible for conversion to a VA 

health system management. The Technical Career Field (TCF) program is an entry 

level program designed to fill vacancies in technical career fields (Budget, Finance, 

Human Resources, Engineering, etc) where shortages are predicted and VA specific 

knowledge is critical to success. Recruitment is focused on colleges and universities. 

Each intern is placed with an experienced preceptor in a VHA facility. The program 

is designed to be flexible based on the changing needs of the workforce. Annually, 

the target positions and number of intern slots are determined based on projected 

workforce needs. 

11 

STREAMLINING THE HIRING PROCESS

It is well known that the Government hiring process is cumbersome. Last year, 

VA’s Human Resource Committee chartered a workgroup to streamline the recruitment process for title 5 and title 38 positions within VHA. This included an analysis 

of the recruitment process and identification of barriers and lengthy processes. The 

recommendations were piloted in Network 4 (Pittsburgh, PA) with the implementation and results of the pilot rolled out nationwide. This spring and summer, training 

in systems redesign will be offered nationally at Human Resources Cluster meetings. At these sessions, we will focus on new strategies and systems redesign elements that can be used to help meet the daily challenges of attracting and retaining 

critical health care professionals. 

VA has direct appointment authority for several Title 38 occupations, including 

physical therapists. We recognize that the physical therapist occupation is a key to 

the rehabilitation of returning veterans and VHA is working with the Office of 

Human Resources Management (OHRM) in the development of a new qualification 

standard. The new standard is in the final stages of approval and it is expected it 

will be implemented later this year. 

NATIONAL RECRUITMENT/MEDIA MARKETING STRATEGIES

VHA Health Care Retention & Recruitment Office (HRRO) administers national 

programs to promote national employment branding with VHA as the health care 

employer of choice. Established almost a decade ago, the brand ‘‘Best Care—Best 

Careers’’ reflects the care America’s veterans receive from VA and the excellent career opportunities available to staff and prospective employees. 

Results of recent marketing studies for nursing and pharmacy have been the driving force to implementing many of our successful campaigns as I will discuss. HRRO 

works at the national level to promote recruitment branding and provide tools, resources, and other materials to support both national branding and local recruiting. 

Some of these features are: 

• The recent integration of VHA recruitment Web site (www.VACareers.va.gov) 

with USAjobs (www.USAjobs.opm.gov) provides consolidated information on careers 

in VHA, job search capability, and information on Federal employment pay and benefits information. 

• Public Service Announcements (PSA) promote the ‘‘preferred health care employer’’ image of VHA. PSA’s emphasize the importance and advantage of careers 

with VA and focus on the personal and professional rewards of such a career. 

• Online advertising through a comprehensive web advertising strategy, VA job 

postings are promoted on commercial employment sites (CareerBuilder, 

Healthecareers, Google, etc.) and online health information networks that expand 

our reach to over 5,000 discrete web sites. The strategy includes banner advertising 

that drives traffic to the VACareers web site for employment information. This advertising results in over 100,000 visits to the VA recruitment web site each month. 

• Print advertising includes both direct classified advertising and national employment branding. The national program provides ongoing exposure of VA messaging to potential hires with the intent to promote VA as a leader in patient care. 

VHA print advertising reaches over 34 million potential candidates. 

• VHA Health Care Recruiters’ Toolkit, a unique virtual community internal to 

VHA is an online management program that coordinates national and local recruitment efforts for health care professionals. The toolkit serves as a resource by providing available recruitment tools, materials, ads, and other related information at 

recruiters’ fingertips. 

• VHA’s National Recruitment Advisory Groups represent top mission critical occupations that collaborate on an interdisciplinary approach to embark address recruitment and retention. 

• In fiscal year 2007, HRRO developed a comprehensive recruitment marketing 

plan for mental health professionals using strategies mentioned above as well as financial recruitment incentives. Funding was earmarked for Mental Health Enhancement Initiative (MHEI) Education Debt Reduction Program (EDRP) positions. 

As of March 31, 2008, awards were made to over 100 participants. The total payout 

for these participants is $4,394,671 over the 5-year service obligation period. The 

average total award is $35,157. 

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Both a recruitment and retention tool, the Employee Incentive Scholarship Program (EISP) pays up to $35,900 for academic health care-related degree programs. 

Since the program began in 1999, approximately 7,200 VA employees have received 

12 

scholarship awards for academic education programs related to title 38 and Hybrid 

title 38 occupations. Approximately 4,000 employees have graduated from their academic programs. Scholarship recipients include registered nurses (93 percent), pharmacists, and many other allied health professionals. Focus group market research 

shows that staff education programs offered by VHA are considered a major factor 

in individuals selecting VA as their choice of employer. A 5-year analysis of program 

outcomes demonstrated positive employee retention. Less than 1 percent of nurses 

leave VHA during their service obligation period (from one to 3 years after completion of degree). 

The Education Debt Reduction Program (EDRP) provides tax free reimbursement 

of education loans/debt to recently hired title 38 and Hybrid title 38 employees. 

EDRP is VA’s equivalent to the Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) sponsored under Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations. The maximum 

award amount is capped at $48,000 due to the budget, but carries an added value 

because of the tax exempt status of the award. As of March 31, 2008, there were 

over 6,400 health care professionals participating in EDRP. The average amount authorized per student, for all years, is $18,392. The average award amount per employee has increased over the years from over $13,500 in fiscal year 2002 to over 

$29,000 in fiscal year 2008 as education costs have increased. While employees from 

34 occupations participate in the program, 75 percent are from three mission critical 

occupations—registered nurse, pharmacist and physician. Resignation rates of 

EDRP recipients are significantly less than non-recipients as determined in a 2005 

study. 

VHA routinely uses hiring and pay incentives established under Title 5, extended 

by the Secretary to title 38 employees. There is routine use of financial recruitment 

incentives, retention incentives (both individual and group), special salary rates, relocation incentives and other incentives as documented in VHA’s Workforce Succession Strategic Plan. Recruitment and retention incentives are other strategies used 

to reduce turnover rates and help fill vacancies. In fiscal year 2007, nearly $24 million in recruitment bonuses were given to over 3,150 title 38 and title 38 Hybrid 

employees. Over $34 million in retention bonuses were given to 5,300 title 38 and 

title 38 Hybrid employees. 

The implementation of the physician pay legislation (Public Law 108–445) has 

been very successful for VHA. The pay of VHA physicians and dentists consists of 

three elements: base pay, market pay, and performance pay. Since the implementation of the pay bill and the end of February 2008, we have increased the number 

of VA physicians by over 1,430 FTEE. We believe the legislation has helped VHA’s 

ability to recruit physicians and dentists. Also as a component of this legislation, 

the Chief Nurse of VHA has the discretionary ability to set Nurse Executive Pay 

to ensure we continue to successfully recruit and retain nursing leaders. 

VHA’s workforce plan is one of the most comprehensive in government and has 

been recognized by OPM as a Federal best practice. VA presented at other Federal 

agencies and the OPM Conference, ‘‘A Best Practice Leadership Form on Succession 

Management’’ as well as being featured on the February 2008 edition of Government 

Executive, in the article ‘‘VHA Grooms a Younger Generation to Ride out the Retirement Wave.’’ 

This year, VHA will benchmark its succession planning/developmental programs 

against private industry health care and other organizations. This will ensure that 

VHA is being as proactive as possible to meet the Administration’s future needs and 

ensure that we have the right people in place at the right time. VHA has made a 

commitment to succession planning and ensuring VHA has a comprehensive recruitment, retention, development and succession strategy. This is a continuous process 

which requires on-going modifications and enhancements to our current programs. 

We want to thank the Committee for their interest and support in implementing 

legislation that allows us to compete in the aggressive health care market. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I am pleased to respond to any questions you or the Subcommittee members may have. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO

MARISA W. PALKUTI, M. ED., DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. Committee oversight activities have made clear the challenges in providing nurses with sufficient pay. How does VA deal with compression of nurse salary grades? 

Response. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is experiencing the kinds of 

workforce challenges every other health care organization faces. VA’s Nursing ServVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:23 Apr 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\41918.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
13 

ice has implemented a number of provisions to offset the challenges salary compression creates, including the following: 

• Nurse locality pay schedules have been adjusted to minimize the impact of salary grade compression by establishing pay schedules with up to 26 steps, instead 

of the usual 12 steps. 

• Special pay bands have been established by facilities for each nursing specialty, 

including clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, nurse 

practitioners, and administrative nurses. 

• Nurse managers are given two additional pay steps when they assume clinical 

leadership roles. 

• Public Law (Pub. L.) 108–445, Physician Pay, provided VA a comprehensive 

way to offer flexible compensation packages to nurse executives. VA is authorized 

to grant special pay rates of $10,000 to $25,000 per year to the nurse executive at 

each VA medical center, and to nurse executives in VA Central Office Nursing Service based on the scope and complexity of the nurse position; the nurse executive’s 

personal qualifications; the characteristics of the health care facility, and demonstrated recruitment and retention difficulties. 

• Facilities have the discretion to use other tools, including recruitment and retention incentives, relocation assistance, educational support, and student loan reimbursement to relieve pay compression. 

Question 2. GAO has suggested that VA managers need better training in the conduct of locality pay surveys. VA concurred with this recommendation. What action 

has VA taken as of this time? 

Response. Public Law 106–419 enabled VA facilities to use third party salary surveys rather than VA-conducted surveys whenever practicable. The use of third party 

survey data is VA’s preference in administering the locality pay system. 

As a result, VA’s Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) has focused 

on training managers in accessing the appropriate salary data for a particular situation. When current data is unavailable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, facilities 

must use available third-party data. When third party data is not available then 

VA-conducted surveys are used, but only as a last resort. To assist facilities in conducting surveys, a Web-based training module on VA-conducted surveys is expected 

to be available by late summer 2008. 

On-going training and education on administering the nurse locality pay system 

includes a monthly national conference call targeted to nurse executives and human 

resource managers. Topics of discussion included how to obtain salary data; how to 

expand the local labor market to capture effective survey data; additional pay authorities available to facility directors; and sharing of ‘‘best practices’’ used throughout the country. OHRM worked with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to 

provide nurse locality pay training to more than 80 interns in 2007. 

OHRM will conduct a training session at a VA Health care Recruiters Conference, 

to be held in the summer of 2008. The session will be titled, Obtaining Salary Survey Data to Develop an Effective Recruitment/Retention Program. Participants in 

the conference include VA human resources management community, nurses, and 

other health care recruiters. In addition, OHRM conducts technical review of all Locality Pay Schedules (LPS) and special salary rate schedules at the Central Office 

level, and provides appropriate direction and guidance. 

VHA’s Workforce Management and Consulting Office and the Department’s Strategic Human Resource Advisory Council are holding cluster conferences in the summer of 2008, at which pay, flexibilities, salary data, and special schedules will be 

discussed. 

OHRM is also conducting market research to determine if a contractor could provide a single source of third party salary survey data for each VA facility. A request 

for information will solicit contractors to submit information regarding their salary 

survey products, processes and availability; a statement of work will be created and 

posted for contract bidding if market research reveals a potential salary survey 

product. If a contractor is available, VA would be able to centrally identify appropriate job matches and ensure consistency in the interpretation of salary data. 

Question 3. Which VA medical centers, if any, do not conduct locality pay surveys, 

and what is the rational for such inaction? 

Response. There is a mandatory requirement for VA facilities to collect salary survey data whenever the facility director determines a significant pay-related staffing 

problem exists or is likely to exist. Only when current Bureau of Labor Statistics 

or third party data is unavailable may a facility conduct its own salary survey. 

Facility directors have the discretion to collect appropriate survey data at any 

time, and as often as necessary, to maintain competitive rates of pay. 

14 

Title 38 U.S.C. 7451(e)(4) requires each facility director to provide the Secretary 

an annual report on staffing for covered nurse positions. This report is sent to the 

Senate and House Committees on Veterans’ Affairs. OHRM reviews each report to 

ensure salary survey data is collected when specific criteria indicates that a payrelated staffing problem exists, or is likely to exist. In the most recent report dated 

October 2, 2007, only 24 (3.3 percent) of VA’s 717 locality pay schedules met the 

criteria for the mandatory collection of survey data. The 24 schedules required mandatory review at 21 different VA facilities. As required by policy, those 21 facilities 

initiated the appropriate collection of salary survey data within the required 90-day 

timeframe, and those results were included in our report to Congress. 

Question 4. There are over 700 locality pay schedules used by VHA. While locality 

pay surveys and policies are set at the local level, the VA Central Office is charged 

with overseeing the system. Do you believe the current system is an efficient and 

effective method to address geographically-related pay issues? 

Response. VA’s nurse locality pay system is unique. Unlike other pay systems in 

the Federal Government, the nurse locality pay system enables VA officials throughout the country to establish and adjust nurse pay rates based on local survey data. 

This authority enables facility directors to quickly respond to compensation trends 

within specific local labor markets in order to maintain competitive rates needed to 

recruit and retain high quality nursing staff. Nurse locality pay continues to be an 

effective pay system to address geographically-related pay issues. 

Question 5. Education incentive programs have the potential to improve recruitment and retention, but current average awards are out of step with the cost of education. Can this program be adjusted to better reflect the cost of education, and to 

better match the goals of VHA and individual employees? 

Response. VHA’s educational incentive programs have statutory limitations that 

are adjusted annually by the amount of the General Schedule pay increase. The 

newly adjusted statutory award cap for the Education Debt Reduction program 

(EDRP) is just over $50,000, based on the General Schedule increase in January 

2008. While the program is generously funded at $15 million per year, there is not 

enough funding to provide EDRP awards to every new hire with student loans. Priorities and funding amounts are therefore established to enable VHA to make 

awards to the largest number of individuals possible given budget constraints and 

mission requirements. The average award is not entirely reflective of the actual 

awards authorized to employees. Many participants are authorized to receive reimbursement for their entire loan. If the award is small, it can reduce the average of 

the total award amounts. From fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2008, 40 percent of 

the participants were authorized the maximum award. For fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 the maximum award was capped within VHA at $38,000. In fiscal 

year 2008 the award cap was increased to $48,000. This fiscal year, EDRP awards 

range from a low of $621 to the VHA budgetary cap of $48,000. 

We are seeing increases in the levels of debt new hires have accumulated when 

they enter on duty. Many of these individuals have educational loans in excess of 

$100,000. While the EDRP program doesn’t retire the complete debt, it makes a substantial contribution to retiring student loans. Because EDRP awards are tax free, 

the financial benefit to the individual extends beyond the actual value of the award. 

In addition to EDRP, employees may participate in an additional Federal program 

designed to retire student educational debt. Through Section 401 of the College Cost 

Reduction and Access Act, (Pub. L. 110–84), public service employees are eligible to 

have their student loans forgiven after 10 years of service. This program can be 

used in addition to an EDRP award. 

Question 6. How are funds distributed for EDRP—at the national level, or through 

each facility, or by another modality? 

Response. Funds for EDRP are established through VHA’s National Leadership 

Board and allocated by the national VHA Health care Retention and Recruitment 

Office (HRRO) to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs). Allocations are 

made proportionately based on each VISN’s total number of title 38 and Hybrid title 

38 employees; the previous year’s usage, and other special need programs such as 

the mental health enhancement initiative and the polytrauma rehabilitation center 

start-up. Funds are allocated at the beginning of the fiscal year to the VISNs. 

VISNs in turn allocate resources to the facilities in its networks. HRRO staff monitors the funding on a weekly basis to ensure that award funding can be redistributed between VISNs as necessary throughout the year. 

Question 7. Almost 4 years ago, Congress enacted sweeping reforms of the physician and dentist pay system. At the time, VA was spending huge sums on high-cost 

specialty care contracts. How much is VA still spending on specialty care contracts, 

and have more physicians and dentists been attracted to VA? 

15 

Response. The annual report to Congress on the pay of physicians and dentists 

in VA (Pub. L. 108–445) delivered December 2007, provides an in-depth analysis of 

VA’s reduction in physician and dentist contracts. From fiscal year 2006 to fiscal 

year 2007, $5.6 million in contract dollars were saved for physician services. Since 

the new pay system has been implemented, VA has seen a 10 percent increase in 

the number of physicians it has hired. 

Question 8. The quality of workplace facilities plays a significant role in patient 

and staff satisfaction, from lighting to sound abatement. What steps has VA taken 

to modify facilities to improve patient and staff quality-of-life? 

Response. Transforming Care at the Bedside (TCAB) is a national project designed to transform care processes for ongoing improvement in medical/surgical 

units. These transformations are accomplished by engaging and empowering nurses 

and managers to identify needed changes; rapidly conducting small tests of potential 

solutions or improvements and determining whether changes should be implemented. As a result, nurses on TCAB units report measurable improvements in 

work unit vitality, patient safety and the efficiency with which the unit delivers 

care, and the patient centeredness of the care delivered. 

Some results of what TCAB has accomplished include: 

• Nine TCAB pilots units have gone 5 successive months or more without a need 

for a full resuscitation code; 

• Three TCAB pilot units have gone 6 successive months without patients having 

moderate or severe harm resulting from falls; 

• Average turnover rates for registered nurses on the TCAB pilots units at all 

TCAB sites dropped from 5.8 percent in 2003 to 3.4 percent in 2006 (58 percent 

decrease); 

• The percentage of time registered nurses spent in direct patient care at TCAB 

hospitals increased from approximately 40 percent in 2004 to greater than 50 percent in 2006; 

• Improved patient satisfaction with nursing care and with all care; 

• Increased percentage of licensed nurse time in direct patient care; 

• More self-accountability tools for patients to take control of their own health; 

and, 

• More interdisciplinary focus on care planning. 

TCAB projects were funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The work 

was initiated by the Institute for Health care Improvement and involved 13 U.S. 

hospitals, including the Tampa VA Medical Center (VAMC). The project has been 

expanded by the American Organization of Nurse Executives to work with 68 hospitals nationwide, including Central Arkansas Veterans Health Care System, Greater Los Angeles Health care System, San Francisco VAMC and Zablocki VAMC in 

Milwaukee. 

VA facilities have accomplished ward renovation projects to ensure patient satisfaction. Doors, floors, and ceilings have been replaced as a result of environment of 

care inspections. Complaints from staff and patients about parking are being addressed at some facilities by leasing additional parking or initiating parking garage 

projects. 

Other strategies for workplace improvement include ongoing supervisory, managerial, and executive training; educational and mentoring programs for staff throughout the system, and initiatives to improve workplace culture. 

VHA managers and employees formulate action plans based on information gathered in the annual Patient Survey and the All Employee Survey. This analysis is 

a proactive approach to improve worker and patient quality-of-life at facility and 

work unit level. 

These projects provide an excellent opportunity for nurses within VA to redesign 

care processes emphasizing nurse empowerment and process improvement. Information and lessons from these projects can improve the process and outcomes of delivering care for veterans. 

Question 9. VA has the authority to assign a range of personnel to alternative 

work schedules. Alternative work schedules have been demonstrated to improve employee satisfaction. How does VA use these schedules to improve recruitment, retention, and employee satisfaction? 

Response. VA encourages facility managers to use alternate work schedules for all 

eligible employees whenever feasible. This includes compressed and flexible work 

schedules as well as alternate work schedules that pertain only to registered nurses. 

As authorized by Pub. L. 108–445, the use of the 36/40 work schedule and the 9- 

month/3-month work schedule are available for registered nurses when managers 

determine that such schedules are needed to be competitive in the local markets. 

16 

The use of alternate work schedules increases VA’s visibility as the employer of 

choice. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO MS. PALKUTI, MR. KLEINGLASS AND MS. CULLEN

ALTERNATIVE WORK SCHEDULE

Question. Can you all please explain why the VA is not using Alternative Work 

Schedules more often? 

Response from Ms. Palkuti on behalf of all. VA encourages facility managers to 

use alternate work schedules for all eligible employees whenever feasible. However, 

this legislation is discretionary; the law provides the direction for establishing alternate work schedules. Facilities are not mandated to use the alternate work schedules. There are multiple types of alternate work schedules and many VA facilities 

use at least one option of alternate work schedules for nursing staff in order to provide attractive and competitive work hours and, to meet staffing requirements. Individual facilities may choose to offer the alternate work schedules if they believe 

these schedules would benefit their posture of retaining well-qualified staff as an 

employer of choice. 

Alternate work schedules can be an expensive alternative to staffing challenges, 

and is implemented judicially as appropriate in a particular competitive marketplace. 

Challenges in payroll, timekeeping, and tracking are being addressed through 

modification of the time and attendance tracking software. The Office of Human Resources Management, Work Life and Benefits Service are currently researching and 

considering solutions that can be implemented to address these systems issues. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Palkuti. 

Ms. Cullen? 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA M. CULLEN, DIRECTOR, 

SAN FRANCISCO VA MEDICAL CENTER 

Ms. CULLEN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tester, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss recruitment and retention challenges faced by the San Francisco VA Medical Center. I 

appreciate the opportunity to discuss our ongoing efforts to recruit 

some of the finest employees in the VA system and the challenges 

we face to retain those employees in one of the most expensive 

areas of the country. 

The San Francisco VA Medical Center has an outstanding workforce of more than 1,900 dedicated staff. We are proud that our 

medical center has had consistently high patient and employee satisfaction scores. In a recent inpatient satisfaction survey, we scored 

better than the national average in several areas, including the 

categories of courtesy exhibited by doctors, confidence and trust patients have with their doctor, and the dignity and respect given to 

patients during their stay. 

In the recently conducted all-employee survey, nearly 76 percent 

of our employees responded and our scores were better than the 

VHA national average in all areas except for categories related to 

pay. Last year, our nurses participated in the National R.N. Satisfaction Survey and we rated in the top ten nationally for highest 

employee satisfaction scores. 

We believe employee satisfaction and dedication to the mission of 

serving veterans leads directly to good patient care. To ensure that 

we maintain a highly talented and motivated workforce, we have 

implemented several programs to aid in our retention and recruitment efforts. We have a very successful grow-our-own program for 

specialized occupations, such as surgical technicians, nuclear mediVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:23 Apr 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\41918.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
17 

cine technologists, and diagnostic radiology technicians. This program provides educational and career advancement opportunities 

for staff in specialized fields that are difficult to recruit and retain 

due to the competitive health care market. 

We have a very successful program in place to hire new nurse 

graduates. Through this program, graduates are hired as temporary nurses without benefits. They are assigned a preceptor and 

they work 40 hours per week gaining experience in clinical areas. 

After a 12-week rotation, they can compete for permanent jobs. 

This program has an 88 percent retention rate. Our overall vacancy 

rate is 3.5 to 4.5 percent, with a turnover rate of just under 12 percent, and the primary reason for turnover at our medical center is 

attributed to retirements. 

Our success in physician recruitment and retention is directly 

credited to our strong affiliation with the University of California, 

San Francisco. In addition, our unique mission of providing health 

care to veterans as well as our excellent research and teaching programs play key roles. San Francisco does have the largest research 

program in the VA nationally. The physician pay bill has also 

clearly been instrumental in helping us to maintain our top-notch 

medical staff. 

We believe much of our success is due to our efforts to provide 

a good work environment, which includes adequate support staff, 

educational opportunities, state-of-the-art equipment, and ongoing 

support of leadership. 

Our recruitment and retention efforts are continually challenged 

as a result of the high cost of living and non-competitive salaries 

in the Bay area. According to the National Association of Realtors, 

the median home price in the nine-county Bay area is $720,000. 

That is three times as expensive as the national average, and that 

is greatly reduced from what it was last year and the year before 

that as a result of national declining real estate values. 

We fully utilize the authority to offer recruitment and relocation bonuses. Last year, we paid out over $200,000 in recruitment bonuses, $129,000 for relocation bonuses, and over $1.8 million for retention pay. 

In an effort to stay competitive, we use the special salary rate 

authority as much as possible. This has been somewhat successful 

for clinical support staff. Our medical center has 13.5 percent of 

our employees on special salary rates. Excluding nurses, the annual additional cost to our medical center budget is $5.7 million. 

We also have the highest geographical pay in the country, which 

includes a 33.5 percent locality pay adjustment for those on the 

General Schedule. 

In order to keep our retention rates above the 80th percentile, we 

have attempted to keep pace with community hospitals by approving salary increases for our registered nurses, which have ranged 

from five to 8 percent annually. The 2008 annual salary increases 

for all professional nurses was nearly $3 million. 

Another emerging pay situation is with our Certified Registered 

Nurse Anesthetists, or CRNAs, who are compensated under the 

Nurse Locality Pay System. Our CRNA pay schedule has reached 

the statutory pay limit, so staff can only receive the mandated annual cost-of-living increase. What this means is that we cannot 

18 

offer a salary any higher than the statutory limit of $139,600, even 

though our local labor market shows that salaries for a CRNA is 

at a median salary of over $170,000. If we are unable to recruit or 

retain CRNAs, we will be forced to use expensive contracts whose 

annual rate would be approximately $300,000. 

VA has many effective training programs that serve to support 

our recruitment efforts and have proven their efficacy. We are currently exploring possibilities for expanding these programs to other 

professional areas. 

In summary, the San Francisco VA Medical Center has made 

great efforts to recruit and retain qualified personnel through our 

innovative training programs, financial incentives, and commitment to the advancement in growth of our staff. We are committed 

to facing the challenges of the future and will continue to look for 

innovative ways to enhance our workforce. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I have a slightly 

longer statement that was submitted for the record and I am 

pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cullen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHEILA M. CULLEN, MEDICAL CENTER DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO VA MEDICAL CENTER

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss recruitment and retention challenges faced by the 

San Francisco VA Medical Center. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our ongoing efforts to recruit some of the finest employees in the VA system and the challenges we face to retain these employees in one of the most expensive cities in the 

country. 

The San Francisco VA Medical Center provides a full range of primary and tertiary health care services. We are proud to have five National Centers of Excellence, 

as well as the largest funded research program in VA. 

Our Medical Center has had consistently high patient satisfaction scores. In our 

recent VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Combined Assessment Program Review, we were very proud that the patient interviews documented an impressive 

level of patient satisfaction with care at our facility. In our recent inpatient satisfaction survey, we scored better then the national average in several areas including 

the categories of ‘‘courtesy exhibited by doctors,’’ ‘‘confidence and trust patients have 

with their doctor,’’ and the ‘‘dignity and respect given to patients during their stay.’’ 

We have also had consistently high employee satisfaction scores. In the recently 

conducted VHA All Employee Survey, nearly 76 percent of our employees responded 

to the survey and our scores were better than the VHA national average in all areas 

except for categories related to pay. In fiscal year 2007, our nurses participated in 

a national nurse satisfaction survey. Our Medical Center rated in the top ten nationally for highest employee satisfaction scores. Our nurses also had the highest 

scores for our Network, VISN 21, in quality of care and overall job satisfaction. 

These high levels of satisfaction are noteworthy given our high cost of living and 

the challenges we face with recruitment and retention. We believe employee satisfaction and dedication to the mission of serving veterans directly leads to good patient care. 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In our ongoing efforts to ensure that we maintain a highly talented and motivated 

workforce, we have implemented several programs to aid in our retention efforts, 

as well as assist us in meeting the mission and organizational needs of the Medical 

Center. Our upward mobility program provides employees with an opportunity to 

obtain career positions through on-the-job and formal training. 

We have a very successful ‘‘Grow Our Own’’ program for specialized occupations 

such as surgical technicians, nuclear medicine technologists, and diagnostic radiology technicians. This program provides educational and career advancement opportunities for staff in specialized fields that are difficult to recruit and retain due 

to the competitive health care market. Without these efforts, we would have to rely 

on costly registry or contract staff to fill these vacancies. 

19 

We have a very successful program in place to hire new nurse graduates. Through 

this program, graduates are hired as temporary nurses without benefits. They are 

assigned a preceptor and work 40 hours per week gaining experience in clinical 

areas. After they complete a 12-week rotation, they have the opportunity to compete 

for permanent jobs. This program has an 88 percent retention rate. Our overall vacancy rate for nurses is 3.5–4.5 percent with a turnover rate of 11.95 percent. VA’s 

national turnover rate is 10.55 percent, so we consider this is be excellent, in spite 

of the high cost of living in our area. The primary reason for turnover is attributed 

to retirements. 

Our success in physician recruitment and retention can be credited to our strong 

affiliation with the University of California San Francisco. In addition, our unique 

mission of providing health care to veterans, as well as our excellent research and 

teaching programs, play key roles. The physician pay bill has also been instrumental in helping us to maintain our top notch medical staff. 

We believe much of our success is due to our efforts to provide a good work environment, which includes adequate support staff, educational opportunities, state-ofthe-art equipment and ongoing support of leadership. 

CHALLENGES

While we have been successful in developing effective and innovative programs to 

supplement our recruitment and retention efforts, we are continually challenged as 

a result of the high cost of living and non-competitive salaries in the Bay Area— 

specifically, we note that Federal salaries across the board in the Bay Area are often 

not competitive with local providers. According to the National Association of Realtors, the median home price in the 9-county Bay Area is $720,000—three times as 

expensive as the national average. The median home price in San Francisco has increased by nearly 96 percent since the early 1990’s. We fully utilize the authority 

to offer recruitment and relocation bonuses. Last year we paid out over $200,000 

in recruitment bonuses, $129,000 for relocation bonuses and over $1.8 million for 

retention pay. 

A large percentage of employees in many services are approaching retirement age, 

while other services have a relatively young staff. Both present unique challenges 

either in recruiting qualified replacements for highly skilled retiring employees or 

retaining younger staff in highly specialized areas in a very competitive job market. 

Currently, more than 29 percent of our employees are eligible to retire. 

In an effort to stay competitive we use the special salary rate authority, as much 

as possible. This has been somewhat successful for clinical support staff. Our Medical Center has 13.5 percent of our employees on special salary rates. Excluding 

nurses, the annual additional cost to our Medical Center budget is $5.7 million. This 

is on top of the fact that we already have the highest geographical pay in the country which includes a 32.53 percent locality pay adjustment. In order to keep our retention rates above the 80th percentile, we have approved salary increases for our 

Registered Nurses which have ranged from 5–8 percent annually. The 2008 annual 

salary increase for all professional nursing categories was nearly $3 million. 

Another challenge is the limitation in developing special salary charts for difficultto-fill occupations. Current law only allows the General Schedule salary chart to be 

extended out an additional 18 steps. In our high cost economy we have reached our 

maximum effectiveness with many of our GS direct patient care occupations. Due 

to the 18-step limitation, our special salary charts for these occupations has become 

severely compressed. Since most of these employees are hired in difficult to recruit 

clinical specialties, their salary is often set at the higher end of the pay range. This 

limits their opportunities for future step increases. 

Another emerging pay situation is with our Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA), who are compensated under the Nurse Locality Pay System. Our 

CRNA pay schedule has reached the statutory pay limit, so staff can only receive 

the mandated annual cost of living increase. What this means is that we cannot 

offer a salary any higher than the statutory limit of $139,600 even though our local 

labor market shows that salaries for a CRNA is at a median salary of $171,334. 

Therefore, we have had to maximize the 25 percent retention incentive for this occupation. 

VA has many effective training programs that serve to support our recruitment 

efforts and have proven their efficacy. We are currently exploring possibilities for 

expanding these programs to other professional areas. 

The recent mental health initiative has given us the opportunity to increase our 

mental health capacity. However, since so many facilities nationwide are competing 

for limited numbers of psychiatrists and psychologists it has been a challenge to fill 

20 

all of our positions, particularly in rural areas. In addition, recruitment of primary 

care providers in rural areas proves to be increasingly difficult. 

In summary, the San Francisco VA Medical Center has made great efforts to recruit and retain qualified personnel through our innovative training programs, financial incentives, and commitment to the advancement and growth of our staff. As 

our work force ages, the recruitment and retention of highly qualified employees will 

be even more important and our challenges greater. We are committed to facing 

these challenges head on and will continue to look for new and innovative ways to 

maintain and enhance our workforce. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am pleased to answer any questions you or the Committee members may have. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO SHEILA

M. CULLEN, MEDICAL CENTER DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO VA MEDICAL CENTER; 

AND STEVEN P. KLEINGLASS, FACHE, DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL

CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Question 1. How many nurses under your direction work an alternative work 

schedule, and how do you use these schedules to improve recruitment, retention, 

and employee satisfaction? 

Response. At the Minneapolis VAMC there are approximately 424 registered 

nurses, 79 licensed practical nurses, 46 nurse assistants and 54 health technicians 

on compressed or non-traditional tours of duty. Alternative work schedules improve 

recruitment, retention and employee satisfaction. Allowing staff the option to choose 

non-traditional tours of duty hours gives them the chance to find balance between 

their work and home lives as they feel best suits their individual needs. Many 

nurses go to compressed tours to attend school for advanced educational purposes. 

In general, alternative schedules are used for staff who work on non-traditional 

tour hours, 9, 10 or 12 hour tours. 

There are 100 San Francisco VAMC staff nurses who work under an alternate 

work schedule/compressed work tour. In the past year, we have seen considerable 

improvement in our vacancy rates, particularly in the critical care units, because 

we offer these alternative tours of duty. 

Vacancy Rates 10/1/2007 4/7/2008 

Intensive care unit ....................................................... 6 .4 percent 3 .4 percent 

Transitional care unit .................................................. 8 .1 percent 1 .0 percent 

Hemodialysis unit ........................................................ 14 .5 percent 1 .2 percent 

We have assessed through our new graduate nurse training program that most 

new hires are highly interested in an alternative work schedule. In addition, critical 

care unit staff have taken an interest in expanding their nursing leadership roles, 

including furthering their education. Alternative work schedules are effective in allowing staff this opportunity. We believe that offering an alternative work schedule 

improves recruitment, retention and employee satisfaction. 

Question 2. Please detail each step you take in conducting locality pay surveys. 

Response. The local process at the VAMC Minneapolis starts with the establishment of a Committee with representatives from: 

Management (deputy nurse executive) 

Technical advisor (human resources specialist) 

Subject matter experts such as: 

Registered nurse 

Nurse practitioner 

Certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) 

Operative room registered nurse (ORRN) 

A survey team that consists of registered nurses, labor representatives, and a 

technical advisor is formed to collect salary databased on matching job duties with 

like positions in the private sector. The teams identify local labor market areas and 

medical facilities to contact that are similar to the VAMC. The team sends out letters to private sector agencies requesting their participation then schedules a time 

for interview at their location. The team requests information on minimum, midpoint and maximum rates actually paid in a given job category. Copies of job descriptions are requested to ensure job matches and numbers of employees are the 

21 

same. Once this process is complete, a statistical analysis of this data is done to 

create a summary of the results. 

The human resources officer and human resources technical advisor present options to the medical center director, nurse executive, fiscal officer and chief nurse 

anesthetist for review and discussion. After discussion, the medical center director 

approves pay scales and the information is then sent to VA Central Office for final 

review, approval, and input into the paid system. 

Over the past years the medical center has consistently provided an equitable pay 

increase to the nursing staff based on the data from the locality pay survey. 

The San Francisco VAMC partners with the Allied for Health Survey Program to 

conduct the annual locality pay surveys. Once the survey results are received, we 

use this information to set the beginning rate for each grade. In choosing the beginning rate of pay, we consider the geographic relationship of our facility to major establishments in the survey area, the severity of recruitment or retention problems, 

local non-VA employee benefit packages, and other factors, which affect our ability 

to recruit and retain nurses. Normally, we set the beginning rate for each grade at, 

or within 5 percent of, the average beginning rate for comparable non-VA positions 

in the survey area. By law, we cannot set a beginning rate above the highest beginning rate in the community for corresponding positions. In order to keep our retention rates above the 80th percentile, we have attempted to keep pace with community hospitals by approving salary increases for our registered nurses, which have 

ranged from 5–8 percent annually. 

Question 3. Emergency situations in hospitals often create staffing challenges. 

Under what emergency circumstances are nurses required to work mandatory overtime? 

Response. Since our nursing staff at the Minneapolis VAMC is required to be on 

duty 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, there are infrequent times when mandated 

overtime is needed to satisfy patient care demands. It is medical center policy to 

avoid the use of mandates. If there is a mandated situation, the medical center director is informed of the reason for its occurrence. Some instances in which nurses 

are required to work mandatory overtime are to cover unplanned leave, sick leave, 

emergency annual leave, absenteeism, and tardiness for duty by nursing staff. 

Patient’s safety and staffing levels at the San Francisco VAMC would mandate 

an emergency situation. In the last 3 years, the San Francisco VA Medical Center 

has implemented a mandatory overtime on ONE occasion, and it was with the concurrence of the local bargaining union. 

Chairman AKAKA. And I repeat that your full statements will be 

included in the record. 

Mr. Kleinglass? 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN P. KLEINGLASS, DIRECTOR, 

MINNEAPOLIS VA MEDICAL CENTER 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Thanks. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Tester, thank 

you for the invitation to appear before you today to present testimony on recruitment and retention issues at the Minneapolis VA 

Medical Center. I am honored to be here today to share some 

thoughts with you on these important issues. 

In the greater Twin Cities geographic area, there are numerous 

highly respected health care systems, hospitals, outpatient clinics, 

nursing facilities, and pharmaceutical branches that the Minneapolis VA competes with for the health care worker. In the 

March 20 Sunday edition of the local newspaper, the jobs section 

had four pages seeking applicants for health care careers and all 

claimed that they were exceptional places to be employed. So, from 

the very start, we are competing for a limited number of applicants 

in a highly competitive environment. 

In addition, while pay is not the only driving factor, we are in 

an area where our locality pay is higher than it is in Washington, 

DC. 

22 

I would like to share with you some of our successes regarding 

recruitment and retention and how they have impacted our ability 

to maintain some of our stability within our organization. 

Without reservation, the physician and dentist pay legislation is 

a major factor in our ability to attract providers in our competitive 

area. Unlike most highly affiliated teaching and research VA medical centers, we at Minneapolis employ more than 160 full-time 

physicians and dentists. We are able to do this because we have 

taken full advantage of the pay legislation. While we still struggle 

to employ physicians in the highly competitive sub-specialty categories, we contract with our local affiliate for these providers. 

In the nursing profession, we have taken several proactive measures to both attract and retain these highly-valued employees. 

Each year, we do a nurse locality pay survey and make necessary 

adjustments to nurse pay to stay competitive with our community. 

During fiscal year 2007, 19 registered nurse hires were former student nurse technicians from within our own facility. Also, we use 

finders fees and other programs and attend various health fairs 

throughout the State to attract individuals. 

In the pharmacy profession, we see keen competition for both 

pharmacists and pharmacy technicians and the private sector recruitment bonuses and starting salaries are highly attractive to 

new graduates. Our competitive edge has been starting these individuals above the minimum salary rates. We then involve these individuals on the treatment team so they work directly with physicians in prescribing appropriate drugs for better patient outcomes. 

In addition, since we believe we operate the largest single pharmacy in the State of Minnesota with more than 5,000 outpatient 

prescriptions being processed daily through our pharmacy, the volume, pace, and work affords our staff an exciting work environment. 

In the areas of other patient care support personnel, such as diagnostic radiology technicians, medical record coders, medical supply technicians, physical therapists, and Certified Registered Nurse 

Anesthetists, there are numbers of issues that we face both in recruitment and retention. Again, while pay is an issue, the competition for these scarce employees is highly competitive and our community has been willing to offer some very interesting perks to 

both entice new grads and our current employees. Some of our recruitment successes in these areas have come from our having an 

onsite radiology technician and CRNA school within the medical 

center, and this gives us a pool to be able to recruit new graduates 

to work within our facility. 

Let me share some other approaches in general that we have 

taken at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in an effort to maintain our workforce. As part of our annual budget process, we have 

focused on identifying several departments where succession planning would be a benefit for the medical center and then we provide 

appropriate resources to these departments. As a medical center, 

we strive to be an employer of choice and we have done several 

things to reinforce this including the following. 

Between fiscal year 2006 and 2007, we have increased the number of employees who receive performance awards by 750. We have 

two major all-employee recognition functions each year to recognize 

23 

and thank our employees for the work they do. We promote 

wellness in many ways and have a fitness center that is available 

to our employees at no cost. We have an onsite day care center 

where many of our employees’ children receive their day care each 

day, and employees can venture there during their lunch hour to 

be with their children. We have a farmers’ market on site in the 

summer where employees and our patients can buy produce. Finally, we believe that employee engagement is a key to morale and 

retention. To this end, we have annual employee forums, regular 

lunch-and-learn sessions with leaders, and ongoing communications 

with our staff through a daily e-mail message, a monthly newsletter, and walk-arounds from the executive team as they dialog 

with employees. 

In closing, while we do have issues with employee recruitment 

and retention, I am pleased to report that during fiscal year 2007 

our overall employee turnover rate was less than 10 percent. This 

is amongst the lowest when compared with other similar VA medical centers in our system and lower than a recent health care entity that was a Malcolm Baldridge award winner. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions that you or Mr. Tester may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kleinglass follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN P. KLEINGLASS, FACHE, DIRECTOR, 

VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to 

appear before you today to present testimony on recruitment and retention efforts 

at the Minneapolis, Minnesota VA Medical Center. I am honored to be here today 

and to share with you some thoughts on these important issues. 

In the greater Twin Cities geographical area there are numerous highly respected 

health care systems, hospitals, outpatient clinics, nursing facilities and pharmaceutical branches that the Minneapolis VA competes with for the health care worker. In the March 30th Sunday edition of the local newspaper the ‘‘Jobs’’ section had 

four pages seeking applicants for health care careers and all claimed that they were 

exceptional places to be employed. So, from the very start, we are competing for a 

limited number of applicants in a highly competitive environment. In addition, while 

pay is not the driving factor, we are in an area where our locality pay is higher 

than it is in Washington, DC. 

I would like to share some of our successes related to recruitment and retention 

and how they have impacted our ability to maintain some stability within our workforce. 

• Without reservation the physician and dentist pay legislation is a major factor 

in our ability to attract providers in our competitive area with few exceptions. Unlike most highly affiliated, teaching and research VA medical centers, we employ 

more than 160 full-time physicians and dentists. We are able to do this because we 

have taken full advantage of the pay legislation. We still struggle to employ physicians in the highly competitive sub-specialty categories and so we contract for those 

services with our affiliated medical school. 

• In the nursing profession we have taken several proactive measures to both attract and retain these highly valued employees. Each year we do a nurse locality 

pay survey, and make necessary adjustments to nurse pay, to stay competitive within our community. During fiscal year 2007, 19 Registered Nurse hires were former 

student nurse technicians from our facility. Also, we use a finder’s fee program and 

attend various recruitment fairs. 

• In the pharmacy profession we see keen competition for both pharmacists and 

pharmacy technicians and the private sector recruitment bonuses and starting salary rates are highly attractive to new graduates who are impressionable. Our competitive edge has been starting these individuals above the minimum salary rates. 

We then involve these skilled individuals on the treatment teams so that they work 

directly with physicians in prescribing appropriate drugs for better patient outcomes. In addition, since we believe we operate the largest single pharmacy in the 

24 

State of Minnesota with more than 5000 outpatient prescriptions being processed 

daily through our pharmacy the volume and pace of work affords our staff an exciting work environment. • In the areas of other patient care support personnel such as diagnostic radiology technicians, medical record coders, medical supply technicians, physical therapists and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNA) there are a number of 

issues that we face in both recruitment and retention. Again, while pay is an issue, 

the competition for these scarce employees is highly competitive and our community 

has been willing to offer some very interesting ‘‘perks’’ to entice both new grads and 

our current employees. Some of our recruitment successes in these areas have come 

from having a radiology technician and CRNA school on-site which provides a pool 

of new graduates to recruit from every year. 

Let me share with you some approaches in general we have taken at the Minneapolis VAMC toward maintaining a workforce that meets our needs. 

• As part of our annual budget process we have focused on identifying several departments where succession planning would be a benefit to the Medical Center and 

we then provide the appropriate resources. 

• As a Medical Center we strive to be an employer of choice and we have done 

several things to reinforce this including: 

– Between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, we increased the number of 

employees who received performance awards by 750. 

– We have two major all-employee recognition functions. 

– We promote wellness in many ways and have a fitness center available to employees without cost. 

– We have an on-site daycare center where many employees’ children receive 

daycare. 

– We have an on-site farmers market during the summer months. 

– Finally, we believe that ‘‘employee engagement’’ is a key to morale and retention. To this end, we have annual employee forums, regular ‘‘lunch and learn’’ sessions with leaders and ongoing communications with our staff through a daily email, a monthly newsletter and ‘‘walk-a-rounds’’ through the medical center by 

the Executive Team. 

In closing, while we do have issues with employee recruitment and retention, I 

am pleased to report that during fiscal year 2007 our overall employee turnover rate 

was less than 10 percent. This level is amongst the lowest when compared with 

other similar VA medical centers and lower than a recent health care entity that 

was a Malcolm Baldridge winner. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for allowing me to provide these comments and I would be pleased to respond to any questions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO STEVEN

P. KLEINGLASS, FACHE, DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

RETENTION BONUS ISSUES

Question 1. Mr. Kleinglass, you mentioned during the hearing that there are problems associated with the use of retention bonuses. Can you please expand on what 

you mean by that statement? 

Response. A recent request to provide retention bonuses across the board to a particular group of nursing staff was not approved. A review of the request found that 

approving this request would cause disparity among other employees. At the Minneapolis VAMC, our government pay scale falls behind the medical community as 

a whole, therefore, in theory, we should have most of our employees on a retention 

bonus. The Minneapolis VAMC has allowed bonuses in a limited fashion and mainly 

for recruitment purposes with time pay back provisions. The Minneapolis VAMC 

does have some retention bonuses in place, which are reviewed annually and adjusted appropriately. In an effort to deal with the pay and retention issues for the 

certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) staff, the Director has requested a site 

visit by the Chief, Anesthesia and CRNA services within VHA. This site visit is 

scheduled for June 10, 2008. During this consultative visit pay, performance, scheduling and other associated issues related to CRNA staff will be addressed. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Kleinglass. 

Ms. Palkuti, thank you for your statement. You laid out everything that your office is doing and I must tell you it is impressive. 

25 

Ms. PALKUTI. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. But my simple question to you is, even with 

that impressive service that you provide, is that enough? Are there 

some other things that you can suggest? 

Ms. PALKUTI. What we do at the central level is to try to help 

support the local facilities and their individual recruitment needs 

and implementing the legislation as fully as we can. We realize 

that continuing to work with individual facilities to help them improve their recruitment planning, to help them improve how they 

use the scholarships or strategize how they can better use education debt reduction programs is part of our mission and something that we work on consistently. We are a very large system and 

so we are consistently working in that endeavor. 

I think the work that we are doing in expanding our clinical programs and our training programs in psychology, what we are doing 

with the expansion of the nursing academy, will probably be the 

strongest direction that we go in in terms of helping not only VA 

in the future, but communities, as well. We do very closely monitor 

student satisfaction with their clinical assignments and find that 

that is a very strong area that helps improve our performance. This 

year, we are going to be taking additional efforts to focus more intently, both my office and the Office of Academic Affiliations and 

others, on improving our recruitment from our student corps. 

Chairman AKAKA. Ms. Cullen, I would note that nurses at your 

facilities have told us that they really believe you are using all of 

the authorities bestowed upon you to ensure that their pay is fair. 

You mentioned all the good things you have done and did admit 

that pay was one of the areas that you are looking at. My question 

to you is, knowing that your area is a high cost-of-living area, what 

would you tell other directors about how to achieve a similar level 

of success? 

Ms. CULLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is all about creating 

a positive work environment, and I think that that is reflected in 

the results of the all-employee survey, not only at the San Francisco VA Medical Center, but actually throughout VISN 21, and 

that is under Dr. Wiebe’s leadership. All of the facilities in Northern California, Hawaii, and Northern Nevada have consistently expressed satisfaction at levels higher than the national average. 

The strong commitment to veteran patient care and world-class 

research are a key at San Francisco. The quality of staff who come 

and stay do that because of the strong demonstrated support for 

those dual missions. I believe that even non-academicians, nurses 

included, are positively affected and influenced by that high level 

of research and academic pride. 

We have a viable partnership with our professional union, the 

NFFE IAM Local 1 and President Patricia La Sala, who is also a 

registered nurse and who keeps me on my toes and makes sure I 

utilize every possible authority that can benefit our nursing staff. 

We have a transparent and cooperative relationship committed to 

the goals of the organization. 

The positive press for VHA and the confidence that VHA employees have that they work for one of the most successful health care 

systems in the world absolutely helps recruitment and retention. 

26 

We certainly try to publicize the positive media acclaim that VA 

has received wherever possible in employee forums. 

Of course, maintaining our success requires supportive budgets, 

not to mention market-level health care clinical and administrative 

salaries. I referenced earlier in my testimony that we are absolutely bound to provide our staff with state-of-the-art equipment, 

adequate support staff, educational opportunities, and ongoing support of leadership. 

Chairman AKAKA. Going back to pay, do you feel that in those 

high cost-of-living areas the pay is fair in your region? 

Ms. CULLEN. Well, I feel that we maximally utilize the authorities that we have available to us. I feel that a much broader issue, 

which is the OPM-set salaries, are woefully inadequate for administrative staff. I think that goes beyond—it is an issue beyond VA— 

however, despite the 33 and one-half percent geographic COLA. We 

are able to keep pace with our competitive institutions through special salary rates, and while we are not allowed to be the pay leader, 

we are allowed to catch up to pay in the surrounding area, and we 

take advantage of that with annual adjustments for all of our professions that have special salary rates. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Kleinglass, we will hear from 

GAO in a bit about how difficult it is to recruit and retain nurse 

anesthetists. Have you used the retention bonuses for these professionals, and have you used them for temporary hires to fill vacant 

spots? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Mr. Chairman, as you state, it is difficult to recruit these individuals. We have not used retention bonuses in this 

field for our current employees because I believe there are some 

overall issues with doing that, and I can elaborate on that if you 

would like me to. When we do recruit new hires, we do use that 

authority, and just recently I did sign some recruitment bonuses 

for some new hires. We have on occasion used some locum tenens 

in this area to be able to maintain the level of staffing that we 

need for these individuals. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Let me at this time call on Senator Burr for his questions, and that will be followed by Senator 

Tester. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I have only 

one question and it is to some degree off topic. I want to take the 

opportunity to ask Ms. Palkuti, Federal Recovery Coordinators 

were recently put in place to assist severely injured servicemembers and their families in navigating confusing layers of support that exist from rehabilitation and recovery case managers. It 

took several months to hire eight. One has died. One has quit. How 

long would it take to fill the vacancies so that we get what I think 

most Members on this Committee agree is an absolute necessity, 

and that is these Recovery Coordinators, in place? 

Ms. PALKUTI. I am not personally involved with that particular 

process, with that particular occupation, so I didn’t realize that it 

had—one had passed and one had not. But the general process of 

recruiting for that occupation would require announcing the position for whatever period of time and then interviewing to find the 

best candidate. It could take as short a period of time as 30 days. 

I would be more than happy to take that question for the record 

27 

and find out precisely what is going rather than offering you just 

a theoretical time line. 

Senator BURR. I will save you the responsibility, but we will follow through with the VA. 

I just want to encourage all of you. There is a system in place. 

You could tell me better than I could tell you whether the system 

works as prescribed. It has been very frustrating to me as to how 

long it is taking to get these Recovery Coordinators in place. Now, 

if we have a process in place that is cumbersome and duplicative 

and does not allow us to aggressively go out and surge to an area 

that there is total agreement we need to do—and this is in the best 

interest of our veterans coming back—then tell us to change this; 

and we, collectively, I think, can get our heads together and figure 

out whether we can provide some legislative remedy to it, or, at 

least we will review it to determine whether it needs to stay in 

place. 

But, I would say this to all three of you, just because things are 

in statute certain ways, if they don’t work, for God’s sake, tell us 

so that we can change them, so that we can facilitate what it is 

you need in the positions that you hold to make sure that recruitment and retention are much easier. I think there is a tendency, 

Mr. Chairman, and I believe it is probably very appropriate, that 

the pay challenges are probably the number one thing. But if it 

was pay alone, then I think we would be looking at a different universe of health care professionals within VA. 

There is more to it, and I really want you to reach in and share 

with the Committee at some point those things that really do make 

a difference in us being able to develop that delivery system that 

reflects what the private sector does for the 21st century. I dare 

say I am not sure that there is a private sector entity that goes 

very long with a space unfilled because that is a service they can’t 

deliver, and it is hard for me to believe how the best health care 

system in the world with the most vulnerable population could go 

for so long with positions unfilled. Because the net result to me is 

somebody is not serviced to the degree that the commitment was 

made. We are here to try to facilitate that and I encourage you. 

I thank the Chair. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

Senator Tester? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

participants on this panel very much for the work you do. I appreciate the pride that is exhibited by all of you in your specific institutions, or medical facilities, I should say; and I want to thank you 

for the work that you do. I think that it is very important. 

A couple of things. Again, it spins off of what Senator Burr said 

about more to it than pay and things that make a difference, and 

I think that the San Francisco VA Center and Minneapolis VA 

Center did talk about some things—the fitness center, the day care, 

the farmers’ market on site. I applaud that. Those kind of things 

are important, but then also from a professional standpoint, Ms. 

Cullen, you talked about a nurse rotation of 12 weeks. Eighty-eight 

percent of the folks who went through that program that you hired 

stay on, 88 percent of the time—— 

28 

Ms. CULLEN. That is correct. Those were new hires, new nursing 

graduates. 

Senator TESTER. How long has that been in place? 

Ms. CULLEN. Over the last 2 years. 

Senator TESTER. Good. 

Ms. CULLEN. We are in our second year. 

Senator TESTER. And then, I think, if I recall, you both talked 

about the physician pay bill and how that was important to your 

success. 

I don’t know if you know this because you work in a pretty urban 

setting, especially if you compare it to a place like Montana—I 

don’t know if any of you have been to Montana—— 

[Nodding heads.] 

Senator TESTER. That is good. You have all been there. Good. 

Come back again. But it is a very rural State and your boss, Secretary Peake, was out a few months ago and got a sense of it. But 

some of the issues that bother me about what is going on right now 

for veteran health care is the fact that veterans who live in rural 

areas don’t live as long, and I don’t think it is because the air is 

dirty or the water is dirty or we get worse food there. I really do 

think it revolves around health care. And it is not the VA’s exclusive problem. I mean, every small hospital in the State of Montana, 

every big hospital in the State of Montana, has a hard time recruiting and keeping people for a number of reasons. 

But, one of the things that I think works pretty darn well is that 

if you can have people do their intern programs in a VA hospital 

or in a rural part of America if you are trying to recruit, it really 

does work. So, the question I have for you, Ms. Palkuti, is the bigger places have it. I mean, there are, what, 100,000 health care 

professionals that you train at VA facilities every year, and you 

need to be applauded for that. 

Ms. PALKUTI. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. How many of those are in rural areas? How 

many are trained in rural areas to really meet the needs of veterans living in rural America? And if it is zero, that is fine. We can 

fix it. 

Ms. PALKUTI. You know, personally, I don’t have that number for 

you at this point in time. I know that a number of places—there 

was someone I was speaking to in Arizona, actually, and they were 

designing part of their clinical process so that they would have that 

particular set of residents rotate through their more remote outpatient clinics. It is becoming something that was actually a popular rotation among clinicians in that area. So, they are looking at 

getting people out to some of those CBOCs that are further out in 

the country. 

Senator TESTER. Good. My daughter happens to be a registered 

nurse. She graduated from college—a 4-year program in 2002, I believe—and she did do part of her—I forget what the term is, but 

part of—— 

Ms. PALKUTI. Clinical rotation? 

Senator TESTER. That is it—in a VA hospital in Helena, Montana, and she liked it a lot. I guess I am wondering, does the VA 

aggressively approach—there are a lot of nursing schools in Montana. 

29 

Ms. PALKUTI. Right. 

Senator TESTER. Do they aggressively approach these folks to do 

their—it is not internship, but you know what I mean—— 

Ms. PALKUTI. Rotation. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, rotation—there? 

Ms. PALKUTI. VA has academic affiliations with numerous nursing schools around the country and encourages people to do academic rotations. I think, through the project that we have right 

now with the expanding in the VA nursing academy and because 

of all the learner surveys that we do with all of the clinicians who 

come through our organizations, we realize that in-place rotation at 

a VA facility is critical to improving our chance of hiring those people afterwards. 

Senator TESTER. So, what you are saying is they do reach out to 

the colleges and technical schools to—— 

Ms. PALKUTI. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. Pretty aggressively, in your opinion? I mean—— 

Ms. PALKUTI. From my knowledge, yes. 

Senator TESTER. OK. It needs to be very aggressive, I think, from 

my perspective. And you have got to know that my focus is on 

rural. We have got 930,000, 950,000 people in a State that is pretty 

good-sized, and so it is really important. 

You talked about $24 million in recruitment bonuses and you 

had a figure of people that that impacted, and $34 million in retention bonuses. Can you give me any idea on how much of that 

money went to rural areas? 

Ms. PALKUTI. I can go back and have the data run that way. 

Senator TESTER. Could you, I mean, because the issue—could you 

just run it for Montana? I am not going to pick up the sheet and 

say, gosh, we are—I am not going to do that. I am just curious, because burn-out is a big problem amongst our professional folks and 

we have got some great people working in these clinics and these 

hospitals. I am not kidding you. They are incredibly committed to 

the health care system and to veterans throughout the State and 

I am incredibly impressed by them. But, they are burning out and 

so that is why I wonder, because I think that if there were some 

dollars for incentives, we could get them in. There might not be a 

lot of people there, but there is some pretty good fishing and hunting and hiking and those kinds of things. 

Ms. PALKUTI. My brother went out there for the antelope. 

Senator TESTER. There you go. 

Ms. PALKUTI. And never went back to Kentucky. 

Senator TESTER. Have him come to my house; I have too many. 

At any rate, I wanted to ask—and you guys may or may not 

know this, Ms. Cullen and Mr. Kleinglass—if a person is sitting in 

a waiting room, are there limits of time that the doctor spends with 

a client; and what is that? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Well, I would like to respond for you. 

Senator TESTER. Sure. 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. We do have standards that we look at to measure this and I often talk with patients in the morning as I come 

into the medical center and ask them. And what I am realizing 

now is that patients are getting upset with us because they are 

moving through the medical center so quickly, and that is a very 

30 

good thing. So, our waiting times now in our primary care areas 

and our non-specialty areas are really quite good. We have done a 

lot to help that by putting in more support staff so that our professional staff can have more time to do the professional things that 

they need to do. 

We still have some longer waits in some of the sub-specialties. 

In our eye clinic, in particular in orthopedics, there are longer 

waits there and we see times that we don’t like and our patients 

don’t like. 

Senator TESTER. There are actually two issues here and the first 

one deals with the time in the waiting room, which I applaud your 

efforts in minimizing that as much as possible. The other one applies to the amount of time that the person spends with the doctor 

in the examination room. Are there limits on that time? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. There are set appointment times, but I would 

hope and I feel fairly confident telling you that the physicians will 

spend whatever time is necessary if there is an issue with a patient, and that is going to complicate back-up. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, exactly; and it will complicate the amount 

of time you spend in the waiting room. So, if your physicians were 

told that they needed to funnel these folks through, 15 minutes is 

the most they can spend with them, would you object vigorously to 

that? You can answer, too, Ms. Cullen. 

Ms. CULLEN. Our appointments are for one-half hour for routine 

appointments, 1 hour for a first-time appointment in primary care. 

We do not schedule 15-minute appointments. 

Senator TESTER. Good. 

Ms. CULLEN. In some areas, there are 20-minute appointments, 

but no shorter than that. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I think the problem is—because I have 

heard this in Montana—I think the problem is lack of staff. I think 

that they have to get them through because we have got more people that need help than we have staff to take care of them. I think 

that contributes, in a great part, to the burn-out. Because there is 

nothing more frustrating than coming to a Committee meeting and 

not being able to spend as much time as you want asking you folks 

questions; and compound that exponentially if you are a doctor or 

a nurse and you are trying to give health care that you were 

trained to give and you don’t have enough time to give it. 

So, I think you get my drift here. Like I said, it is not just VA 

in rural America, but we are really in crisis when it comes to 

health care. And I am on this Committee, and I think that we need 

to do our best to make sure we live up to our obligation to veterans, make no mistake about it. 

I would love to work with all three of you individually to figure 

out ways we can address health care in rural/frontier America. I 

have got some ideas. I know you guys have more ideas than I have. 

We have just got to figure out—as Senator Burr said, it isn’t all 

about money. I think a lot of it has to do about training. I think 

a lot of it has to do about telling folks the opportunities. I think 

a lot of it has to do about stuff like on-site day care and fitness 

centers and farmers’ markets for availability. I mean, that is good 

stuff. 

Go ahead. 

31 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. We will do anything that is innovative and creative to help manage this. These are small things that we do, but 

I think that when you measure these across, they mean a lot to 

employees. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, in the end. I appreciate you guys’ work, but 

I am telling you, we do have a problem in rural America. Because, 

number one, it is tough to get them, it is tough to keep them, and 

we are burning out the ones we are getting. So, it just compounds 

itself. 

So, thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Mr. Kleinglass, I understand from my staff that you have been 

using Maxim Health Care Services to fill some of your vacancies. 

Why have you resorted to temporary staffing of VA with an outside 

entity? Have you not been able to recruit professionals through the 

normal channels? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with Maxim 

staffing. Is that an agency? 

Chairman AKAKA. Health Care Services, yes. 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. There are times where we do use temporary 

agencies to help supplement some of our staff. I personally don’t 

think that is a bad thing. It gives us some flexibility in some areas 

where we flex up and flex down according to the needs of what is 

going on. So, it depends specifically in what area we are using 

those temporaries. We have used some temporaries in some of our 

Community-Based Outpatient Clinics because, quite honestly, it is 

a rural area, and as Senator Tester said, it is sometimes difficult 

to recruit staff for those areas. So, we do use temporaries—locum 

tenentes—in those areas. 

Chairman AKAKA. Yes. Mr. Kleinglass and Ms. Cullen, could you 

both please tell us what types of physician specialties you still 

must contract for despite the success of physician pay reform, and 

please give us an example of the sub-specialty contract at your facility and how much you are currently paying them. Ms. Cullen? 

Ms. CULLEN. We still have anesthesiologists on contract, 

neuroradiologists, and those are the only two that come to mind. 

Most of our physician staff are on staff. Neuroradiologists remain 

out of our price range and anesthesiologists are very difficult to recruit, and we have some salary concerns there, as well. But truly, 

our affiliation with UC San Francisco has been our strength for recruiting and retaining staff. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Kleinglass? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Mr. Chairman, in our case, the physician and 

dentist pay bill has been an outstanding tool that we have and we 

have; used that pay bill to help us in lots of areas. We struggle in 

the areas of therapeutic radiology, diagnostic radiology, and cardiovascular surgeons, in particular. These sub-specialties are both in 

high demand in the community and command salaries that would 

exceed the limitations that we have. 

Chairman AKAKA. Ms. Cullen, how much are you paying for your 

anesthesiologist contract, for example? 

Ms. CULLEN. I don’t have that dollar amount. I can certainly get 

you that, specifically. But, we are currently exceeding the amounts 

32 

that are identified for anesthesiologists. I will have to follow up 

and provide that. 

[The response from Ms. Cullen follows:] 

Response. The cost of an anesthesiologist on contract is $472,160 at VA Medical 

Center San Francisco. 

Chairman AKAKA. My final question is to Mr. Kleinglass and Ms. 

Cullen. I am aware that some facilities give nurse managers and 

supervisors greater locality pay than other nurses versus increases 

for the staff nurses. Based on the results of the locality pay surveys, how do you assign locality pay and how do you justify higher 

locality pay for nurse managers and supervisors? 

Ms. CULLEN. For our nurse managers, and particularly for our 

nurse managers on inpatient units, we have two additional steps 

of salary for that additional supervisory role. For the most part, 

our larger geographic salary is allocated to the nurses who work on 

inpatient units; and we find that we can adequately recruit nurses 

in outpatient settings. It remains difficult to recruit them for inpatient settings and for off-hour shifts, as well. So, they are on a 

higher salary range, not our nurse managers, but the nurses who 

work on inpatient units. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Kleinglass? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 2006, our 

annualized RN locality pay survey resulted in an $850,000 

annualized cost. In fiscal year 2007, it was $1.1 million in 

annualized cost. We take the locality pay survey work extremely 

seriously. We put a lot of effort into doing that and we do want to 

match up as best we can, albeit staying below the community rates, 

and over the many, many years that I have been at Minneapolis, 

each year, we have provided a raise for these individuals. 

We do provide some extra money to our nurse managers and we 

started that several years ago. We did that because of the demands 

on those individuals, our expectations of them, and the roles they 

play each day in managing patient care. So, they do get some extra 

money. It is not a lot, and I don’t have the exact figures with me, 

but, in fact, they do get some extra money. 

Chairman AKAKA. We are into our second round. Senator Tester, 

do you have any questions? 

Senator TESTER. I do have just a couple of real quick ones. I 

talked about the medical professionals in the first round. I want to 

talk more about administrative folks, folks who answer the phone, 

folks who do the schedules. A little less pressure on the pool there, 

but I hear a lot of things about the length of time it takes to hire 

somebody to answer the phone. Is the bureaucracy that bulky? Do 

we need to do some things to change it? Tell me the process and 

why it should take a long time to hire somebody to—— 

Ms. PALKUTI. Well—— 

Senator TESTER. No, go ahead. 

Ms. PALKUTI. The process, depending on which hiring authority 

you use, there is something called delegated examining, which is 

commonly used to bring in people in administrative positions because we don’t have a direct hire authority for most of those occupations. And so we are delegated by OPM with the authority to 

hire and examine for those positions. 

33 

Starting actually last summer, we did a total evaluation of delegated hiring within the Veterans Health Administration and we 

had 19 units around the country. Effective October 1 of 2007, we 

have completely reorganized that function, centralized it under my 

office. We now have eight of the most high-performing centers that 

have now been totally automated and are performing the delegated 

examining function for the agency. 

From the time that a complete package is received in those examining units until a certificate is delivered to an H.R. manager 

is—our March numbers showed that it was around 14 days. So, it 

depends on how long the position is open. If it is open for 2 weeks, 

then—but generally, within 7 days of the position closing, we actually do have the certificate back to the hiring manager. And we 

have been monitoring our numbers in that regard since the reorganization—— 

Senator TESTER. And do you track it after the certificate goes? 

Is there some tracking on that human resource person as to when 

they hire the person? 

Ms. PALKUTI. Yes, we do. We track the process well beyond the 

date that we produce the certificate—— 

Senator TESTER. And there isn’t a glitch there? 

Ms. PALKUTI. There is the timing that it takes a manager to 

schedule interviews, do interviews, make a selection, check credentials, and those kinds of things—— 

Senator TESTER. OK. Are we understaffed in the human resource 

end of things so that is holding up the process? 

Ms. PALKUTI. We have identified the human resources occupation 

as one of our top ten priority occupations for the agency. We have 

increased the number of folks that we are hiring in new internships for developmental purposes to 42 this year. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. PALKUTI. We are looking at that. 

Senator TESTER. I mean, one of the things that really gets the 

VA off to a bad start is if the first person they talk to is a machine. 

Ms. PALKUTI. Correct. 

Senator TESTER. With the press the last couple days reporting on 

credit cards, I’m inclined to ask this question to both Ms. Cullen 

and Mr. Kleinglass. Are there people that you have oversight over, 

yourselves included, that have VA credit cards; and are there rules 

as to how those cards can be used? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Please. 

Ms. CULLEN. Yes, I have a government credit card. Mine is just 

for travel; and yes, we have a number of government credit cards 

throughout our organization; and there are, indeed, rules for how 

they are to be utilized. 

Senator TESTER. And I assume it is the same for you, Mr. 

Kleinglass? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Yes, Senator Tester. I have a government credit 

card. We have many staff that have them. There are rules. We 

have an Ethics Committee at our institution. We talk about this 

regularly. 

Senator TESTER. I am not making any implications on your particular facilities, let the record be clear on that. But do you have 

34 

any oversight of those credit cards within your facilities or is it all 

done from this end? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. In our institution, our Chief Financial Officer 

and his staff manage that for us and they regularly put out guidance on the use of these cards and I know of no problems at our 

institution. 

Senator TESTER. OK. 

Ms. CULLEN. Also, we do internal audits on the use of purchase 

cards, and we occasionally have the benefit of visits from our colleagues in central office who do the same, and from the IG. They 

just—within this fiscal year, we had a random audit of credit cards 

by the IG, as well. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you very much. Sorry I had to bring up 

the messy subject, but I had to do it. Thank you. 

Ms. CULLEN. No problem. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Before I dismiss the first panel, I want to call on Senator Wicker 

for any statement or questions you may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, and I would ask a few questions. 

I do want to thank Senator Tester for asking about the credit 

cards. Some things we sometimes feel go without saying, or some 

questions go without asking, and then we learn that, lo and behold, 

the very obvious questions need to be asked. So, I appreciated the 

question and appreciate the answer. 

Let me just follow up, first of all, Mr. Kleinglass, with your testimony about extra pay or incentive pay for nurse managers and certain specialty areas among the nurses. Do you find that your civilian counterparts are doing the same, or are there differences in 

that particular area? Or do you have conversations with your civilian counterparts? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. I do. I sit on the Minnesota Hospital Association Board and I asked various questions of my colleagues in town. 

What I would say to you is it is very difficult to match up exactly, 

for lots of reasons. It is my understanding when our nurse executive at our institution asked me about doing this, she was interested in it because the community in which we reside does this. 

She felt passionately that in order to maintain the staff that we 

want, this would be a good incentive for our nurse managers. 

I didn’t bring the numbers with me, but I am fairly confident 

when I tell you the amount of money that we have given to these 

nurse managers is really very small in the realm of what we are 

asking them to do. They are really the backbone to the nursing 

units and have responsibilities 24 hours-a-day/7 days-a-week, with 

a very large responsibility. 

Senator WICKER. Well, I think, certainly, we can acknowledge 

that the shortage across the board affects the government health 

care providers and private and community-based health care providers. 

Let me just back up and see if someone on the panel can give 

us an overview of the profile of physicians and nurses in the VA. 

Do you get most of them straight from school, or do they work a 

35 

while in the private sector typically? And at what point do we tend 

to lose them, both the doctors and the nurses, to the private sector? 

Is there anything that we can learn along those lines that might 

be helpful to the Committee? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. I would be pleased to answer that for you. In 

our institution, and I am speaking only for the Minneapolis VA, we 

have a combination of reasons why physicians come to us and we 

get a mix from our affiliate through the medical school, through the 

training programs, and then individuals that are mid-career that 

have gone out and done some other things come back to us. 

When I talk to new physicians that come to work for us, they 

come because of the affinity for taking care of veterans; for the 

teaching opportunities; for the research opportunities; and for the 

way we do our business—particularly with the computerized patient medical record. That is a real bonus. They also like the way 

we practice medicine within the VA. They are getting very frustrated with what is going on in the private sector—their inability 

to order tests or inability to really practice—and so, they see the 

VA as a model of very high level practice availability. 

Senator WICKER. And why do you lose them at a certain point? 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Well, I can give you one specific example. We 

are losing a physician that we value greatly and he was kind 

enough to tell me he was going to be leaving us. So, I asked him 

to come up to my office and we spoke quite a bit. His words to me 

were, ‘‘I am leaving because of a family lifestyle change, a location—that is, going back home—and not because I am unhappy 

here in any way, and it is not because of pay.’’ So, I think there 

are those reasons. 

Quite honestly, in some of the sub-specialties, particular cardiology, diagnostic radiology, interventional cardiology, we lose some 

physicians because of pay, and predominately pay. And I have 

some examples of those that I could share with you where we have 

tried to entice these people to stay. And it is very, very difficult to 

compete with the pay that these people are getting. I was successful a couple of years ago convincing one of our valued cardiologists 

not to leave, and a year and one-half later the offer just was way 

out of control from the private sector. 

Ms. CULLEN. At San Francisco, our situation is similar to what 

Mr. Kleinglass describes. We hire physicians at all levels. Experienced, tenured physicians from other areas will come to our medical center. The affiliation with our medical school is the primary 

draw for recruitment and retention of physicians. Our research program, which is the largest in the VA, is an enormous magnet for 

recruitment and retention. We lose physicians because they can get 

an academic promotion elsewhere. Infrequently, but it does happen, 

we lose them due to very attractive salary offers, sometimes outside academia. 

Most recently, we have two pending physician losses that will be 

very painful to us, one, an interventional cardiologist who is leaving for an over $600,000 salary. The second is an anesthesiologist 

who will be leaving us for a $300,000 sign-on bonus and who will 

yet get to stay in the area. But, for the most part, our physicians 

remain in an academic setting. 

36 

With nurses, we hire them as new grads and we try to attract 

new nursing graduates, but the largest number of nurses that we 

lose are through retirement, so they are people who have had an 

extensive career with the VA—extensive and successful career with 

VA. Sometimes we lose people because families move elsewhere, 

but that is to be expected. Again, as I think I mentioned in my testimony, our largest nursing loss is due to retirements. 

Senator WICKER. Well, thank you. And I guess this is a question 

for the record, but if anyone on the panel could let us know the 

percentage of people—nurses or doctors—who stick with you the 

whole time. I realize that is not what we do in society anymore. 

People have a number of careers nowadays, whereas in my father’s 

day, you picked one and that is what you retired from. But, it 

would be interesting if you could supply me—if you know off the 

top of your head or can supply for the record—how many people 

make a total career out of it. 

Thank you; and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The response from Ms. Cullen follows:] 

Response. VA does not keep data on staff who remain with VA for their entire 

careers. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Rockefeller, any statement or questions to the first 

panel? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Chairman, I am just interested in the 

fact that in this question, and in response to what the Senator previously said, my understanding was that the average VA nurse has 

been there for 27 years. VA has also hired a lot of people—specialists and general people—in the last 2 years because you have had 

more money to do so—thanks to Patty Murray—and that you plan 

on hiring some 500 more this year, if that is correct. So, the question is sort of regarding the people leaving for higher pay versus 

the 27 years tradition, if that is still correct, and then the hiring 

on of new people means that they are coming already knowing that 

there is higher pay elsewhere, and that would make sense to me 

simply because of the centrality of the veterans. The last several 

years have really highlighted it. This Congress will never be the 

same, I hope, as it has been in the past, unfortunately. 

One thing that caught my attention was the question of nurses 

seeking sort of overtime and the 3-day/12-hour-a-day pattern, and 

that that seemed to make sense to them—and obviously does to 

you because it probably wouldn’t have been suggested if that had 

not been the case. But then I am confused, because you have the 

sole authority to decide which workplace disputes can be grieved. 

Since 2002—I am just saying ‘‘you’’ generically—has ruled in favor 

of management and against the employees’ right to grieve in 100 

percent of the cases that have come before him, which couldn’t be 

you, and that interests me. 

Ms. PALKUTI. Sir, I am probably not the expert in the employee 

relations arena. Can I take that question for the record and respond to that? 

37 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Yes, if you could let me know. It is just 

sort of a phenomenon that doesn’t take place if they are satisfied 

with it; and you are satisfied with it, but then those who don’t always lose. So, if you could take that for the record, I would be very 

grateful. 

Ms. PALKUTI. Yes, sir. I would be glad to. Thank you. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. That will be my only question for the moment, Mr. Chairman. 

[The response from Ms. Palkuti follows:] 

Response. VA provided this information directly to Senator Rockefeller’s office. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Rockefeller. 

Senator Murray? 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to speak 

earlier and I know the panel has been up here and you have got 

a second panel. I will pass on my questions and submit them for 

the record on this panel. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

I want to then thank our first panel. The kind of questions we 

have had really were seeking to find out more of what you are 

doing. You have been doing an incredible job and we want others 

to learn from your experiences, as well. So, thank you very much 

for being here today. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Can I—— 

Chairman AKAKA. Just a second. Senator Rockefeller? 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I didn’t use all my time, did I? Let me go 

back to the earlier part of that question. Is the 27-year thing still 

fundamentally accurate? 

Ms. PALKUTI. Are you asking if—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. That the average length of the VA nurse’s 

stay. I have used it all over my State, so I am hoping that it is—— 

Ms. PALKUTI. You are hoping it is correct. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PALKUTI. I can confirm or determine whether that—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. It is in that area. 

Ms. PALKUTI [continuing]. That average is—— 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. I believe it is in that area, which shows 

the dedication. 

Ms. PALKUTI. Yes. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. But then you use the example of people 

being attracted by higher salaries elsewhere, and, of course, we all 

face that, particularly those of us who are surrounded by much 

richer States. And you have hired a lot of people, which meant they 

had to go through that calculus in their mind, because they know 

what is being offered. Is there an explanation for that? 

Ms. PALKUTI. Well, I guess we can refer back to some of our 

workforce planning initiatives. We have turnover because of retirement and other types of attrition, so we are continuously hiring 

new employees. Many of them are coming from the private sector 

at mid-career because they appreciate the way VA practices medicine. There is a focus on the patient and less of a focus on just decisions that are bottom-line business decisions. We have a phenomenal health record that draws people. And so, some people do 

make a decision and calculate the differences in terms of salary to 

38 

make a choice to come and work for VA. Many people come to us 

because of the mission, and some who don’t come to us because 

they are mission-bound become very attached to our mission very 

shortly after arriving. 

We have some very good incentives. We have scholarship incentives that draw people, especially associate and baccalaureate degree nurses. We have a scholarship program which is exceptional 

across the agency, so we draw them in for their educational benefits. Our Education Debt Reduction Program, which is offered to 

new hires, gives them an incentive to stay for 5 years to collect all 

of those funds, and we found very clearly that employees who stay 

in years three, four, and five remain with the agency when those 

benefits expire. 

So, we have some very good benefits that draw people into the 

agency and help them see what a fine place it is to practice and 

serve the country. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Has the intensity of these two wars that 

are going on and the trauma of the wounded and injured—physically, psychologically, both—has that, do you think, helped the 

whole sense of mission? 

Ms. PALKUTI. To some degree, I would like to defer to my colleagues who are more on the front lines and may be able to speak 

to that even more. 

Mr. KLEINGLASS. Mr. Rockefeller, the Minneapolis VA Medical 

Center is one of VHA’s five polytrauma centers, and so we have a 

lot of experience with your question. I would say, undoubtedly, the 

new staff that is coming in have this notion of serving veterans is 

just a noble thing. They thoroughly enjoy working with the returning soldiers. We have a tremendously dedicated staff that work 

day-in and day-out with the returning soldiers and thoroughly, 

thoroughly enjoy it. And so, I think that in our case, at least, that 

has contributed to some of our successes with the new people coming in. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Good. I have over-used my time and I 

apologize, but I am glad to hear those answers. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. 

Let me say that speaking of dedication, there is a nurse at the 

Albany VA Hospital who has just celebrated her 50th anniversary 

as a nurse. That is something to shoot for, and I want Senator 

Rockefeller and Senator Wicker to know that. There is a 50-yearcareer at the Albany VA Hospital. 

With that, again, thank you very much to our first panel for 

being here and sharing your experiences. 

Let me now welcome our second panel. I would like to thank our 

second panel for being here today. 

First, I welcome Marjorie Kanof, Managing Director for Health 

Care in the Government Accountability Office. 

Second, I welcome Dr. John McDonald, Vice President for Health 

Sciences and Dean of the University of Nevada School of Medicine. 

I also welcome Valerie O’Meara, a nurse practitioner in the VA 

Puget Sound Health Care System and Professional Vice President 

of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3197. 

Next, I welcome Randy Phelps, Deputy Executive Director of the 

American Psychological Association Practice Directorate. 

39 

Finally, I welcome Dr. Jennifer Strauss, Assistant Professor in 

the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences of Duke 

University Medical Center. 

Again, I want to thank all of you for being here today and let 

you know that your full statements will appear in the record. We 

will begin with Dr. Kanof and your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MARJORIE KANOF, M.D., MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Dr. KANOF. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. Murray, I 

am pleased to be here today as you discuss personnel issues at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

One such issue VA faces is an increased demand for the services 

provided by Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), who 

provide the majority of anesthesia care veterans receive in VA 

medical facilities. The VA employs approximately 500 CRNAs and 

many of these CRNAs are nearing retirement eligibility age. Given 

the increased demand for CRNAs, concerns have been raised about 

the challenges VA may face in making salaries competitive to 

maintain the CRNA workforce, particularly in the areas where the 

local market can be highly competitive. 

In December 2007, GAO issued a report that examined the challenges VA faces recruiting and retaining CRNAs. Based on this report, I will discuss both the CRNA workforce challenges and the 

key mechanisms VA facilities have to make CRNA salaries competitive. 

We reported that VA medical facilities have challenges both recruiting and retaining CRNAs. Seventy-four percent of the VA chief 

anesthesiologists that responded to our survey reported that they 

had difficulty recruiting CRNAs. VA medical facility officials responding to our survey reported that it took VA facilities a long 

time, on average about 15 months, to fill a CRNA vacancy. Based 

on fiscal year 2005 data, nationally, VA had a 13 percent CRNA 

vacancy, or 70 unfilled positions at 43 medical facilities. 

According to our survey, the CRNA vacancy impacted the delivery of care to the veterans. For example, 54 percent of our chief anesthesiologists reported that they temporarily closed their operating rooms. 

In addition to the challenge of recruiting CRNAs, we also reported that VA medical facilities were likely to face a challenge in 

retaining CRNAs. On the basis of the response to our survey, we 

projected a CRNA attrition rate of 26 percent across VA in the next 

5 years. Overall, 93 CRNAs at 53 facilities reported that they plan 

to either leave or retire from the VA in 5 years. VA medical facilities reported in our survey that recruitment and retention challenges were caused primarily by the level of VA’s CRNA salaries 

when compared to salaries in the local market area. 

In December 2007, we also reported that VA’s Locality Pay System, known as LPS, is a key mechanism that facilities use to determine whether to address salaries. The LPS provides information on 

salaries paid to CRNAs in the facility’s local market area. We reported that the majority of VA facilities use the LPS, but at the 

eight VA medical facilities we visited, five did not use the LPS in 

40 

accordance with VA’s LPS policy. At these five facilities, officials 

with oversight responsibility for the LPS were not knowledgeable 

about the changes in the policy. For example, one official told us 

that third-party salary survey data wasn’t available, so they used 

salary data from the Hot Jobs Web site, which doesn’t match the 

data accuracy that is required by the VA protocol. 

The problem some VA medical facilities had fully understanding 

the LPS policy indicated that VA training had been inadequate. Actually, VA had changed its policy in 2001, but it had not conducted 

nationwide training since 1995. As a result, VA medical facility officials cannot ensure that the CRNA salaries have been adjusted as 

needed to be competitive in local market areas. Training on the 

LPS is necessary to help ensure that VA medical facilities are competitive as an employer. 

And so, to improve VA’s ability to recruit and retain CRNAs, in 

our December report, we recommended that VA expedite the development and implementation of training; and VA agreed with our 

recommendation and stated that it had developed a draft action 

plan and they hope to complete online training by the end of this 

fiscal year. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, this concludes my opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kanof follows:] 

41 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARJORIE KANOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE, 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE


4191801.eps
42 


4191802.eps
43 


4191803.eps
44 


4191804.eps
45 


4191805.eps
46 


4191806.eps
47 


4191807.eps
48 


4191808.eps
49 


4191809.eps
50 


4191810.eps
51 


4191811.eps
52 


4191812.eps
53 


4191813.eps
54 


4191814.eps
55 


4191815.eps
56 

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

Dr. McDonald? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McDONALD, M.D., PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR HEALTH SCIENCES AND DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF 

NEVADA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES 

Dr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. 

Murray. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the 

American Association of Medical Colleges and myself. I bring somewhat a different perspective to this dialog. Prior to assuming my 


4191816.eps
57 

current position in the State of Nevada, I was the Chief of the Medical Service at the Utah Veterans Administration Medical Center 

in Salt Lake City and was responsible there for the care of veterans and also practiced as a pulmonary physician and internal 

medicine specialist. Now, I am seeing this dialog through a different set of eyes and hope to share with you briefly some of my 

observations and those of the AAMC. 

This is about recruiting the very best and brightest to serve 

those who have served the country, as Abraham Lincoln put it so 

well. Unfortunately, we are all facing a major workforce shortage 

in physicians as well as in nurses and other health care professionals. Our workforce is aging, just as America is aging. We also 

have a smaller pipeline to train health care professionals, specifically with regard to physicians. Medical school has not kept up 

with the growing population of the United States. 

In addition, residency training, and every physician in order to 

become a licensed practitioner must train a minimum of 3 years 

and sometimes as many as 7 or 8 in order to practice a specialty 

or sub-specialty, is capped in existing hospitals, civilian hospitals 

that already have residency programs. This does not make allowances for rapidly-growing States in the West. One example of that: 

we are 47th out of 50 States with respect to physicians in the 

workforce; and 50th out of 50 with respect to nurses, and we have 

the lowest number of physicians-in-training and residencies of any 

State in the Union with the medical school. So, we are particularly 

aware, keenly aware, of these problems with the pipeline. 

The VA has taken a leadership role in trying to address these 

issues. It has increased its residency training, as I note in my written testimony, and has increased each year and is trying to go from 

9 percent to 11 percent of the total training opportunities for medical residents in this country. 

This is extremely important. Residents who train at the VA are 

much more likely to have a favorable perception of working in the 

VA, and I would like to add for the record that my own perception 

of working in the VA, both in a leadership position and as a practicing physician, was entirely positive. I left the institution with 

great regard for the staff, the nurses, the physicians, the leadership; particularly high regard for the veterans who served our 

country; and for many reasons, it can be a very attractive work environment for a physician. But if you are not exposed to that environment, you won’t learn the benefits of working in it. 

We heard in earlier testimony some of the challenges in obtaining specialists to work in the VA, and I think that there are a number of issues that could help in this regard. The average medical 

student graduates with a debt of approximately $140,000. That is 

before they enter their residency training. Loan repayment, we 

think, and the legislation sponsored by Senator Durbin is an important step forward in this regard—would be a very attractive incentive. It has worked well to recruit physicians to rural locations 

that are underserved in the National Health Service Corps and I 

believe it would be a very positive enhancement for the VA. 

A robust academic affiliate is absolutely essential. You heard 

from two of the best Veterans Administration hospitals with respect to their relationships with their peer academic institutions— 

58 

from Ms. Cullen, the Director of the San Francisco VA, and Mr. 

Kleinglass, the Director of the Minneapolis VA. These are paradigms of what can be achieved when there is a successful partnership between academia and a Veterans Administration hospital. 

This standard is one we all strive for. It is not always met because 

of challenges within the local environment. 

A critical part of this is Veterans Administration research and 

development. One of the attractive lures for young physicians to 

join the VA is access to a separate pot of money which is restricted 

to VA physicians and researchers. Unfortunately, over the past several years, despite this Committee’s great efforts in the past year 

to secure more funding, the VA research infrastructure and the research budget have suffered, and I believe that this is well worth 

the attention of the Committee in terms of being a very positive incentive for attracting promising young physician scientists into the 

VA system. It is a crisis nationally. 

Our young physicians, physician scientists like myself, are simply not choosing an academic path because of the difficulties in 

funding. The first independent research award, for example, granted to M.D.s does not occur until the mid-40’s, which is an astonishing figure to me, and the VA research environment can do a lot 

to reverse this trend and to recruit the best and brightest into the 

VA hospitals. 

That concludes my spoken testimony, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McDonald follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN A. MCDONALD, M.D., PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR

HEALTH SCIENCES AND DEAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; AND MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, VETERANS AFFAIRS-DEANS LIAISON COMMITTEE

Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to testify on the recruitment 

and retention of health professionals at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

I am Dr. John McDonald, Vice President for Health Sciences and Dean of the University of Nevada School of Medicine and a member of the Association of American 

Medical Colleges (AAMC) VA-Deans Liaison Committee. I also recently served as 

the Chief of Medicine at the Salt Lake City VA Medical Center. The University of 

Nevada is affiliated with the Reno and Las Vegas VA medical centers of the Sierra 

Pacific and Desert Pacific Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs 21 and 22, 

respectively). 

The AAMC is a not-for-profit association representing all 129 accredited U.S. medical schools; nearly 400 major teaching hospitals and health systems, including 68 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers; and 94 academic and scientific societies. Through these institutions and organizations, the AAMC represents 109,000 

faculty members, 67,000 medical students, and 104,000 resident physicians. 

I would like to thank the committee for your support of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution. Your leadership resulted in the Senate’s passage of $48.2 billion for fiscal year 2009 discretionary veterans programs, including medical care. 

For the Veterans Health Administration programs in fiscal year 2009, the AAMC 

recommends $42.8 billion for VA medical care, $55 million for VA Medical and Prosthetic Research, and $45 million for VA research facilities improvement. This funding is crucial to the continued success of the primary sources of VA’s physician recruitment and retention: academic affiliations, graduate medical education, and research. 

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Concerns about physician staffing at the VA come at the same time the Nation 

faces a pending shortage of physicians. Recent analysis by the AAMC’s Center for 

Workforce Studies indicates the United States will face a serious doctor shortage in 

the next few decades. Our Nation’s rapidly growing population, increasing numbers 

59 

of elderly Americans, an aging physician workforce, and a rising demand for health 

care services all point to this conclusion. 

Many areas of the country and a number of medical specialties are already reporting a scarcity of physicians. Approximately 30 million people now live in federally 

designated physician shortage areas. An acute national physician shortage would 

have a profound effect on access to VA health care, including longer waits for appointments and the need to travel farther to see a doctor. 

Currently, 744,000 doctors practice medicine in the United States. But 250,000— 

one in three of these doctors—are over age 55 and are likely to retire during the 

next 20 years, just when the baby boom generation begins to turn 70. The annual 

number of physician retirees is predicted to increase from more than 9,000 in 2000 

to almost 23,000 in 2025. Meanwhile, since 1980, the number of first-year enrollees 

in U.S. medical schools per 100,000 population has declined annually. Consequently, 

America is producing fewer and fewer doctors each year relative to our continually 

growing population. 

Because it can take as many as 7 to 10 years after college graduation until new 

doctors enter practice, the AAMC believes that we must begin to act now to avert 

a physician shortage. Specifically: 

• The AAMC has called for a 30 percent increase in U.S. medical school enrollment by 2015, which will result in an additional 5,000 new M.D.s annually. 

• To accommodate more M.D. graduates, the AAMC supports a corresponding increase in the number of federally supported residency training positions in the Nation’s teaching hospitals. 

RECRUITMENT INCENTIVES

With difficulty recruiting health professions, the VA in some cases has similar 

characteristics to certain rural and urban areas, population groups, or medical facilities designated as ‘‘underserved’’ by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. The National Health Service Corps (NHSC) has a proven track record of 

expanding access for underserved populations by supplying physicians to federally 

designated shortage areas. The NHSC provides scholarship and loan forgiveness 

awards in exchange for service in qualifying ‘‘health professions shortage areas’’ 

(HPSAs). After 5 years of service, the majority of physicians are able to forgive their 

entire educational debt. 

Similarly, the VA’s Education Debt Reduction Program (EDRP) provides newly 

appointed VA health care professionals with educational loan repayment awards. 

However, the EDRP is limited to $49,000 spread out over 5 years of service. As the 

average medical education indebtedness has climbed to over $140,000 in 2007, the 

limited EDRP awards fail to provide an adequate incentive for most physicians. 

The AAMC has had initial discussions with Senator Dick Durbin’s office regarding 

the ‘‘Veterans Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 2007’’ (S. 2377), which has 

been referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs for consideration. The 

AAMC is strongly supportive of the bill’s proposed increases for VA physician educational loan repayment in exchange for at least 3 years of service in ‘‘hard-to-fill 

positions,’’ as determined by the VA. Under this program, VA physicians would be 

eligible for up to $30,000 in loan forgiveness per year until their medical education 

debt had been repaid. 

ACADEMIC AFFILIATIONS

The affiliations between VA medical centers and the Nation’s medical schools 

have provided a critical link that brings expert clinicians and researchers to the VA 

health system. The affiliations began shortly after World War II when the VA faced 

the challenge of an unprecedented number of veterans needing medical care and a 

shortage of qualified VA physicians to provide these services. As stated in seminal 

VA Policy Memorandum No. 2 published in 1946, the affiliations allow VA to provide veterans ‘‘a much higher standard of medical care than could be given [them] 

with a wholly full-time medical service.’’ 

Over six decades, these affiliations have proven to be mutually beneficial by affording each party access to resources that would otherwise be unavailable. It would 

be difficult for VA to deliver its high quality patient care without the physician faculty and medical residents who are available through these affiliations. In return, 

the medical schools gain access to invaluable undergraduate and graduate medical 

education opportunities through medical student rotations and residency positions 

at the VA hospitals. Faculty with joint VA appointments are also afforded opportunities for research funding that are restricted to individuals designated as VA employees. 

60 

These faculty physicians represent the full spectrum of generalists and specialists 

required to provide high quality medical care to veterans, and, importantly, they include accomplished sub-specialists who would be very difficult and expensive, if not 

impossible, for the VA to obtain regularly and dependably in the absence of the affiliations. According to a 1996 VA OIG report, about 70 percent of VA physicians 

hold joint medical school faculty positions. These jointly appointed clinicians are 

typically attracted to the affiliated VA Medical Center both by the challenges of providing care to the veteran population and by the opportunity to conduct disease-related research under VA auspices. 

At present, 130 VA medical centers have affiliations with 107 of the 129 allopathic 

medical schools. Physician education represents half of the over 100,000 VA health 

professions trainees. In a 2007 Learners Perceptions Survey, the VA examined the 

impact of training at the VA on physician recruitment. Before training, 21 percent 

of medical students and 27 percent of medical residents indicated they were very 

or somewhat likely to consider VA employment after VA training. After training at 

the VA, these numbers grew to 57 percent of medical students and 49 percent of 

medical residents. 

VA GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION

Today, the VA manages the largest graduate medical education (GME) training 

program in the United States. The VA system accounts for approximately 9 percent 

of all GME positions in the country, supporting more than 2,000 ACGME-accredited 

programs and 9,000 full-time medical residency training positions. Each year approximately 34,000 medical residents (30 percent of U.S. residents) rotate through 

the VA and more than half the Nation’s physicians receive some part of their medical training in VA hospitals. 

As our Nation faces a critical shortage of physicians, the VA has been the first 

to respond. The VA plans to increase its support for GME training, adding an additional 2,000 positions for residency training over 5 years, restoring VA-funded medical resident positions to 10 to 11 percent of the total GME in the United States. 

The expansion began in July 2007 when the VA added 342 new positions. These 

training positions address the VA’s critical needs and provide skilled health care 

professionals for the entire Nation. The additional residency positions also encourage innovation in education that will improve patient care, enable physicians in different disciplines to work together, and incorporate state-of-the-art models of clinical 

care—including VA’s renowned quality and patient safety programs and electronic 

medical record system. Phase 2 of the GME enhancement initiative has received applications requesting 411 new resident positions to be created in July 2008. 

VA-AAMC DEANS LIAISON COMMITTEE

The smooth operation of VA’s academic affiliations is crucial to preserving the 

health professions workforce needed to care for our Nation’s veterans. The VAAAMC Deans Liaison Committee meets regularly to maintain an open dialog between the VA and medical school affiliates and to provide advice on how to better 

manage their joint affiliations. The committee consists of medical school deans and 

VA officials, including the VA Chief Academic Affiliations Officer, the VA Chief Research and Development Officer, and three Veterans Integrated Service Network 

(VISN) directors. The committee’s agendas usually cover a variety of issues raised 

by both parties and range from ensuring information technology security to the integrity of sole-source contracting directives. 

Recently, the VA-Deans Liaison Committee has reviewed the remarkable progress 

being made on several VA initiatives. These include: 

Establishment of the Blue-Ribbon Panel on Veterans Affairs Medical School Affiliations—This panel will provide advice and consultation on matters related to 

the VA’s strategic planning initiative to assure equitable, harmonious, and synergistic academic affiliations. During the panel’s deliberations, those affiliations will 

be broadly assessed in light of changes in medical education, research priorities, 

and the health care needs of veterans. 

Survey of Medical School Affiliations—The AAMC has worked with VA staff to 

develop criteria to evaluate the ‘‘health’’ of individual affiliation relationships. The 

‘‘Affiliation Governance Survey’’ will survey the leadership at both the VA medical 

centers and their affiliated schools of medicine on a range of topics including: 

• Overall satisfaction and level of integration; 

• Affiliation Effectiveness Factors (such as education, research, VA clinical 

practice environment, and faculty affairs); 

• Overall commitment to the affiliation relationship; 

• Academic affiliations partnership councils (Dean’s committees); and 

61 

• Direction and value of school of medicine-VA medical center affiliations. 

Development of VA Handbook on VHA Chief of Staff Academic Appointments— To prevent conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof, the VA has determined 

that limits on receiving remuneration from affiliated institutions are necessary for 

VHA chiefs of staff and higher levels. While it is important to ensure that remuneration agreements do not create bias in the actions of VHA staff, prohibition 

of certain compensation from previous academic appointments (e.g., honoraria, 

tuition waivers, and contributions to retirement funds) could significantly hinder 

the VA’s ability to recruit staff from their academic affiliates. The AAMC has 

worked with VA staff to develop a mutually acceptable agreement that considers 

this balance. 

Piloting the VA physician time and attendance/hours bank—Monitoring physician time and attendance for the many medical faculty holding joint appointments 

with VA medical centers has been complicated and inefficient. The VHA has accepted the ‘‘hours bank’’ concept to improve the tracking of part-time physician 

attendance. Under the hours bank, participating physicians will be paid a level 

amount over a time period agreed to in a signed Memorandum of Service Level 

Expectations (MSLE). This agreement will allow the supervisor and participating 

physician to negotiate and develop a schedule for the upcoming pay period. A subsidiary record will track the number of hours actually worked, and a reconciliation 

will be performed at the end of the MLSE period to adjust for any discrepancies. 

A pilot for this program has been successfully completed and plans for nationwide 

implementation are underway. 

The VA has consistently recognized that there is always room for improvement. 

As such, the AAMC looks forward to working on other items of concern as the VA 

continues to evaluate its affiliation policies and processes. As medical care shifts to 

a more satellite-based outpatient approach, graduate medical education needs to follow suit. This strong shift to ambulatory care at multiple sites requires a similar 

change in the locus of medical training. A dispersion of patients to multiple sites 

of care makes more difficult the volume of patient contact that is crucial to medical 

training. Similarly, faculty diffusion to multiple sites also makes more difficult the 

development of a culture of education and training. This is not exclusively a VA 

problem and all of our Nation’s medical schools and teaching hospitals are working 

to cope with this shift. 

Another concern at both VA and non-VA teaching hospitals is the growing salary 

discrepancy between more specialized fields of medicine and the other disciplines. 

With the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act 

of 2003’’ (Pub. L. 108–445, dubbed the ‘‘VA-Pay bill’’), the VA made significant 

strides beyond its private-hospital counterparts. However, this discrepancy continues to be an issue of concern. Once again, this is not exclusively a VA problem, 

but one faced by all medical schools and teaching hospitals. 

VA MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC RESEARCH PROGRAM

To accomplish its aforementioned mission, VHA acknowledges that it needs to 

provide ‘‘excellence in research,’’ and must be an organization characterized as an 

‘‘employer of choice.’’ The VA Medical and Prosthetic Research program is one of the 

Nation’s premier research endeavors and attracts high-caliber clinicians to deliver 

care and conduct research in VA health care facilities. The VA research program 

is exclusively intramural; that is, only VA employees holding at least a five-eighths 

salaried appointment are eligible to receive VA awards. Unlike other Federal research agencies, VA does not make grants to any non-VA entities. As such, the program offers a dedicated funding source to attract and retain high-quality physicians 

and clinical investigators to the VA health care system. 

VA currently supports 5,143 researchers, of which nearly 83 percent are practicing physicians who provide direct patient care to veteran patients. As a result, 

the VHA has a unique ability to translate progress in medical science directly to 

improvements in clinical care. 

The VA Research Career Development Program attracts, develops, and retains 

talented VA clinician scientists who become leaders in both research and VA health 

care. For VA clinical investigators, the awards (normally 3–5 years) provide protected time for young investigators to develop their research careers. Awardees are 

expected to devote 75 percent time to research as well as to apply for additional VA 

Merit-Reviewed funding and non-VA research support. The remainder of their time 

is devoted to non-research activities such as VA clinical care or teaching. The program is designed to attract, develop, and retain talented VA researchers in areas 

of particular importance to VA. The Office of Research and Development supports 

approximately 458 awardees, at a cost of $55 million in fiscal year 2006, in all areas 

62 

of medical research including basic science, clinical medicine, health services and rehabilitation research. The VA retains approximately 56 percent of participants as 

VA principal investigators. This research program, as well as the opportunity to 

teach, is a major factor in the ability of VA to attract first class physician talent. 

Since 2005, inadequate funding for VA research has forced the Department to cap 

many VA merit-review awards at a mere $125,000 annually. The current cap fails 

to keep pace with biomedical inflation and VA’s commitment to scientific innovation. 

The cap—which is significantly lower than the average award at comparable Federal research programs—is a tradeoff that VA leadership has had to make to continue funding the same number of grants it has historically supported. To compete 

with its private counterparts, funding for VA research must be steady and sustainable while allowing for innovative scientific growth to address critical emerging 

needs. For fiscal year 2009, the AAMC recommends an appropriation of $555 million 

for the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research program. 

EARMARKS AND DESIGNATION OF VA RESEARCH FUNDS

The AAMC opposes earmarks because they jeopardize the strengths of the VA Research program. VA has well-established and highly refined policies and procedures 

for peer review and national management of the entire VA research portfolio. Peer 

review of proposals ensures that VA’s limited resources support the most meritorious research. Additionally, centralized VA administration provides coordination 

of VA’s national research priorities, aids in moving new discoveries into clinical 

practice, and instills confidence in overall oversight of VA research, including 

human subject protections, while preventing costly duplication of effort and infrastructure. 

VA research encompasses a wide range of types of research. Designated amounts 

for specific areas of research compromise VA’s ability to fund ongoing programs in 

other areas and force VA to delay or even cancel plans for new initiatives. While 

Congress certainly should provide direction to assist VA in setting its research priorities, earmarked funding exacerbates resource allocation problems. AAMC urges 

the Committee to continue preserving the integrity of the VA research program as 

an intramural program firmly grounded in scientific peer review. These are principles under which it has functioned so successfully and with such positive benefits 

to veterans and the Nation since its inception. 

VA RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE

State-of-the-art research requires state-of-the-art technology, equipment, and facilities. Such an environment promotes excellence in teaching and patient care as 

well as research. It also helps VA recruit and retain the best and brightest clinician 

scientists. In recent years, funding for the VA medical and prosthetics research program has failed to provide the resources needed to maintain, upgrade, and replace 

aging research facilities. Many VA facilities have run out of adequate research 

space. Ventilation, electrical supply, and plumbing appear frequently on lists of 

needed upgrades along with space reconfiguration. Under the current system, research must compete with other facility needs for basic infrastructure and physical 

plant support that are funded through the minor construction appropriation. 

To ensure that funding is adequate to meet both immediate and long term needs, 

the AAMC recommends an annual appropriation of $45 million in the VA’s minor 

construction budget dedicated to renovating existing research facilities and additional major construction funding sufficient to replace at least one outdated facility 

per year to address this critical shortage of research space. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on this important issue. I hope my testimony today has demonstrated that 

the recruitment and retention of an adequate physician workforce is central to the 

success of VA’s mission. The extraordinary partnership between the VA and its 

medical school affiliates, coupled with the excellence of the VA Medical and Prosthetics Research program, allows VA to attract the Nation’s best physicians. Over 

the last 60 years, we have made great strides toward preserving the success of our 

affiliations. With the hard work of VA-AAMC Deans Liaison Committee and the 

VA’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Medical School Affiliations, I am confident that this success will continue. 

63 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO JOHN A. 

MCDONALD, M.D., PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR HEALTH SCIENCES AND DEAN, UNI- VERSITY OF NEVADA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES, VETERANS AFFAIRS-DEANS LIAISON COMMITTEE

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: Thank you for your inquiry regarding my testimony before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Here are my responses. 

INCENTIVES FOR RECRUITMENT

Question 1. Dr. McDonald, I know that many questions have been discussed to 

deal with the VHA’s workforce issues. Things such as signing bonuses, loan repayment, relocation expenses, and retention bonuses for those already employed. 

What are some of the other things that we can do to attract people to the VHA, 

particularly with regard to rural areas? 

Response. Several possible strategies are worth considering, including: 

• Providing medical student scholarships with forgiveness for service clauses, emphasizing students from rural areas. Our own students who come from rural Nevada are more comfortable there, and more likely to relocate to rural areas upon 

completion of training. • Create robust telemedicine links between rural practices and VA medical centers, to create a more supportive virtual environment for the solo or small group 

clinic. • Set up a formal mentorship/partnership between rural providers and VA facilities the rural provider will be referring patients to. • Work with the AAMC, ACGME and schools of medicine to encourage residency 

training in VA rural sites as part of their outpatient experience. As I noted in my 

testimony, exposure to the VA medical environment is key in altering perceptions 

of caregivers. 

VA RESEARCH CUTS

Question 2. Dr. McDonald, in your testimony you mentioned that the VA Medical 

and Prosthetic Research program ‘‘attracts high-caliber clinicians to deliver care and 

conduct research in VA health care facilities.’’ As you know, the President cut funding for this critical program in his fiscal year 2009 budget request. 

Can you discuss in more detail what budget cuts to the VA’s research budget does 

to the morale of VA’s current workforce and how it impacts the department’s ability 

to recruit high quality health care professionals? 

Response. My experience includes serving as chief of medicine in a VA facility, 

NIH funded investigator within the VA system, brief tenure as ACOS for Research 

and Development, and meetings with central VA administration. Based on this and 

discussions with fellow deans of medicine, I believe that the diminishing VA research budget, combined with aging and inadequate research facilities at many stations, has a very deleterious effect upon morale, recruitment and retention. Historically, the VA has been seen as an environment fostering the development of young 

physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists. It was this atmosphere of inquiry and 

scholarship that attracted and kept the best and brightest investigators and physicians within the VA. Now, more than ever, the VA and those it serves will benefit 

from the development and application of new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, 

driven by these highly motivated individuals. 

DOD AND VA COLLABORATION

Question 3. Over the past couple of years, there has been a lot of attention focused 

on the seamless transition between the VA and the DOD when it comes to information sharing. 

Thinking along those lines, is there any way that the VHA and the DOD could 

pool together and share some of their resources to fill in some of the gaps in clinical 

coverage? 

Response. I have read the testimony presented for the Record by the Honorable 

Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Honorable Gordon Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs before the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services on 13 February 2008. I have little to add to this report, as this specific 

topic is not one that I have experience in. It would appear as you point out that 

the move toward seamless sharing of medical information between DOD and VA is 

of particular benefit in facilitating the care of our wounded veterans. In addition, 

where possible, sharing physicians and other care givers between VA and DOD facilities could be used to extend services of scarce specialties or ameliorate local 

shortages in care givers. 

64 

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

Ms. O’Meara? 

STATEMENT OF VALERIE O’MEARA, N.P., VA PUGET SOUND 

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, PROFESSIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

LOCAL 3197 

Ms. O’MEARA. Chairman Akaka, Mr. Rockefeller, and Ms. Murray, thank you for inviting me here to testify today. My name is 

Valerie O’Meara. I am from Seattle, Washington. I have worked as 

a primary care and emergency room nurse practitioner at the VA 

Puget Sound Health Care System for the past 13 years, which is 

my entire career as a nurse practitioner. I am also a union representative for the nurses, physicians, and other health care professionals at my facility. 

In 1993, the VA paid all of my tuition plus a stipend so I could 

attend the University of Pennsylvania to pursue my master’s degree in nursing. In exchange, I had to work at the VA for 2 years. 

Obviously, I am still there, and why is that? It is because I love 

working with the veterans and taking care of the veterans. I get 

so much professional fulfillment from helping them and knowing 

that they really need the care that we provide. My own father is 

a Korean War veteran, and I can think of no better place to gain 

valuable experience than as a front-line health care provider in the 

VA. We get exposed to such a wide range of medical issues. The 

VA is a terrific learning environment, as has been attested to, as 

well. 

At Puget Sound, we get to consult often with the medical faculty 

of the University of Washington. We have regular in-services where 

we discuss ongoing research and how to apply it to our practice. 

The VA is a true culture of learning. 

So, why am I seeing so many nurses quit the VA after a few 

years, especially ward nurses or staff nurses? First, it is so difficult 

for them to get the type of pay they see nurses getting in private 

hospitals right nearby. Our nurses are not getting the flexible work 

schedules that are so popular in nursing today. And with too little 

staff to care for the veterans, the work environment becomes highly 

stressful and low on respect for the employees’ ability to make good 

decisions. 

When it comes to getting educational help, not everyone has had 

as good of an experience as I had. For example, right now, I am 

battling a case for a nurse practitioner in which the VA is trying 

to withhold the remaining 3 years of her promised EDRP, or Education Debt Reduction Program payments, because they are insisting—incorrectly, we believe—that she transferred to an ineligible 

nursing position. Management is not only reading the law wrong, 

they are letting this drag on for over 3 years. Both the local and 

the central office EDRP managers, each are denying that they have 

authority for declaring that nurse ineligible. 

We fought another battle over educational assistance that shows 

how often management doesn’t understand these programs. An 

R.N. at Puget Sound got her master’s degree to become a nurse 

practitioner with the help from the NNEI Program, but human resources and nursing refused to hire her when an NP vacancy came 

65 

up in the area she was already working in as a nurse, claiming she 

didn’t have enough experience as a nurse practitioner. In the 

meantime, we had to fight just to get her enough hours to maintain 

her new license, because you do have to practice in the State of 

Washington to maintain your licensure. She finally quit out of frustration and got hired immediately as a nurse practitioner at the 

University of Washington. 

EDRP and other education assistance programs are clearly a 

win-win for management, veterans, and employees carrying large 

school debts. But, managers need to understand them and facilities 

need enough sense so applicants are no longer turned away, especially when funds are lying around unused in other VA facilities. 

We all know how expensive education is these days, and as a 

parent, I certainly worry about it. It would also be helpful to increase the amount of assistance that can be given to each employee 

in the program to keep up with today’s tuition costs. 

A few years ago, we learned that the VA was no longer offering 

EDRP for continuous open announcements. Instead, rather, it was 

linking EDRP offers to specific position announcements and I think 

this is short-sighted. EDRP should be offered throughout nursing 

and throughout other professional jobs. I also think it could be a 

great retention tool if it were offered not to just new employees, because it would help hold on to the nurses the VA has already invested in. 

I also don’t understand why management is so resistant to conducting nurse locality pay surveys to keep us competitive—and we 

have to stay competitive. In Seattle, the private sector lures our 

nurses away with huge pay increases all the time. When management does these surveys, we, as employees and union, are kept in 

the dark. They don’t tell us when they conduct third-party surveys 

at my facility, for example; and when we tried to access the survey 

data—data that we need to be sure that our pay is being correctly 

set—we are turned down and told we can’t challenge it through the 

grievance process. 

We recently had to go through a long and difficult process to get 

more pay for advanced practice nurses. First, we asked for a onetime retention pay increase from our nurse executive. And the reason we did that is because she had declared us officially ‘‘difficult 

to recruit and retain’’ about 6 months prior. She insisted on tying 

the retention bonus or pay to a performance standard, even though 

that is not what the law says. We submitted a petition with approximately 20 signatures of advance practice nurses, and only 

after the new director had recently arrived, he saw the petition and 

that is when we learned that, in fact, a locality pay survey had recently been done. He looked at it again and decided to give us a 

raise, and we do want to give him kudos for that. He acted very 

quickly and we got a substantial raise. 

The Locality Pay System definitely needs to be more transparent 

and conducted with a better understanding of the survey process. 

so nurses don’t have to go through such frustration and delays. 

I am fortunate that the VA lets me work part-time so I can 

spend more time with my 4- and 6-year-old boys. But I only 

learned recently, after the fact, that there is a real cost to being 

a part-time nurse at the VA. I worked full-time for approximately 

66 

5 years before switching to part-time, and as a full-time nurse, I 

went through my two-year probationary period and became a permanent employee with grievance rights, reduction-in-force rights, 

and other appeal rights. No one ever explained to me that I would 

lose all of these rights and essentially had become an ‘‘employee at 

will’’ when I became part-time. 

And parents are not the only ones who may need to work parttime. Since I started at Puget Sound, the nursing workforce has 

gotten noticeably older. There are nurses who have worked at the 

VA for a very long time who want to switch to part-time because, 

out of many reasons, one is that they are caregivers for their elderly parents or they need to reduce the stress of this very demanding 

job. 

It seems only fair that full-time nurses become permanent employees with appeal rights and job security after 2 years, that parttimers should earn the same rights when they work the equivalent 

of 2 years. And for nurses like me who already went through a 2- 

year probationary period, we should not have to go through it again 

just because we now fall under a different section of the law. One 

thing is certain. I am going to make top priority to educate our 

nurses about the tradeoffs of part-time employment. 

I want to close by expressing my hope that we can go back to 

the labor-management partnerships that used to be in place at the 

VA, to work together to improve patient care and working conditions. Nurses at Puget Sound who are part of these partnerships 

tell me how great it was to have their opinions valued and to feel 

like they had an equal voice in making VA health care even better 

for the veterans. Isn’t it easier to work together than to be at odds, 

after all? 

Thank you again for the great honor of testifying before this 

Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. O’Meara follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VALERIE O’MEARA, N.P., PROFESSIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, 

AFGE LOCAL 3197, VA PUGET SOUND HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, 

AFL–CIO 

Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), I thank you for the opportunity to testify 

regarding recruitment and retention of Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) health 

care professionals. 

Throughout my thirteen-year career as a Nurse Practitioner (NP), I have worked 

at the VA Puget Sound Health care System in Seattle, Washington. As the Professional Vice President of AFGE Local 3197 at Puget Sound, I am also in regular communication with other nurses and health care professionals at my facility. Through 

my participation in the VISN 20 Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) Advisory Group 

to the Office of Nursing Service and AFGE National VA Council discussion forums, 

I also hear a great deal about what health professionals at other facilities are experiencing. 

We feel as if we have to fight harder each year for the pay and working conditions 

that we should be entitled to by law. The VA is losing nurses to private sector jobs 

where the pay is more competitive, shifts are more flexible and their input into hospital matters are more valued. In my facility, I see many RNs and NPs leave in 

frustration after only a few years with the VA. This turnover is very expensive. As 

I recently pointed out to management in an effort to secure APN retention pay, 

nursing research shows that the replacement cost of a nurse in an acute care facility 

is at least twice that nurse’s regular salary. By the VA’s own estimates, it costs 

$100,000 to bring on a new nurse. 

67 

At the same time, our older nurses retire as soon as they can, and many go on 

to work in the private sector. Nationwide, nearly two-thirds of VA’s registered 

nurses will be eligible to retire in 2010. Since I have gotten there, the average age 

of nurses at Puget Sound has increased noticeably. 

It is especially frustrating for us to see Congress take steps to address this impending crisis with good pay and scheduling laws, only to have VA management undermine Congress’ intent through loopholes, delay, and inaction. 

Our facility is less short staffed than some others, but we have still seen an impact on veterans’ care. Whenever our ICU is full, we cannot take ambulance calls 

and veterans must be diverted elsewhere. This seems to happen each winter, especially. As a result of huge backlogs for outpatient care in urology, podiatry, and 

other subspecialty clinics, patients with chronic illnesses such as diabetes are not 

getting monitored as frequently as they should. Puget Sound has massively increased its use of fee basis, non-VA providers to address these backlogs. Better recruitment and retention policies would be a preferable and less expensive alternative in the long run. 

NURSE LOCALITY PAY

Nurse locality pay is a big source of frustration for VA nurses. In my facility, we 

were facing a serious recruitment and retention problem for APNs. We asked for 

retention bonuses and the Chief Nurse did declare us ‘‘hard to recruit.’’ But instead 

of just giving us the bonuses, she wanted to tie our bonuses to our performance and 

require us to ‘‘highly perform’’ based on new criteria. We tried to explain to her and 

Human Resources what the law said and submitted a petition signed by almost 20 

people. When the director arrived, he looked at a locality pay survey (LPS) that we 

did not even know existed, and decided to give us additional pay instead to address 

recruitment and retention. 

I believe that if management received more training on LPS, there were be fewer 

problems across the country. Locality pay should be provided based on local labor 

market conditions, and be paid according to consistent rules, not on how hard employees fight for it or whether a particular manager decides to pay it. 

I hear many stories from other facilities about delays in conducting surveys and 

management’s unwillingness to share survey information. It is also very troubling 

that in many facilities, nurse managers receive their locality pay through separate, 

more favorable survey data. 

The 2000 law also requires the VA to report annually on turnover rates, vacancies, staffing problems, and survey information from each facility. I have never seen 

this data and would find it very valuable. Therefore, I urge the Committee to 

strengthen these reporting requirements. 

Nurse Premium and Overtime Pay 

RNs have expressed frustration at the inconsistent application of premium pay 

(weekend pay and night shift differential pay) and overtime pay. At Puget Sound, 

management attempted to deny overtime pay for work above 8 hours because it involved charting, which management contended was not direct patient care. Here, 

too, it was only after the union contested this policy did they pay overtime according 

to the law. Perhaps additional training on these pay provisions would also be helpful. 

Another problem is that nurses working on a part-time schedule are not consistently receiving overtime pay for shifts longer than 8 hours when the shift spans two 

calendar days. 

More generally, we believe that the VA’s premium and overtime pay policies must 

be competitive with those of other workplaces. We urge the Committee to take steps 

to ensure that premium pay is available to all RNs who perform services on weekends or off shifts, work overtime on a voluntary or mandatory basis, or work during 

on call duty, and that overtime rules are applied properly. 

Other Needed Pay Adjustments 

CRNA Pay: Facilities around the country are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit CRNAs. To ensure that VA’s CRNAs can receive locality pay increases needed 

to keep the VA competitive with local market conditions, AFGE recommends lifting 

the current statutory pay cap that prohibits any RN pay to exceed that of the facility’s chief nurse. 

LPN Pay: Under current law (39 U.S.C. 7455), VA health care personnel who are 

not covered by specific pay legislation can receive special pay increases at the discretion of their directors to achieve competitive pay levels. This provision sets a cap 

on the size of this increase. Congress has exempted other professions (CRNAs, physical therapists, and pharmacists) from this in order to keep their pay competitive. 

68 

LPNs are now facing similar problems receiving needed special pay. Therefore, we 

urge this Committee to add LPNs to the exempted group. 

I. COMPETITIVE NURSE WORK SCHEDULE POLICIES

In 2004, Congress provided VHA with two additional tools for recruitment and retention of RNs: alternative work schedules (AWS) and restrictions on mandatory 

overtime. As a result of delay and resistance by the VA at the national and local 

levels, both tools have failed to meet their potential for addressing VA nurse recruitment and retention problems. 

Currently, local directors have complete discretion as to whether to offer AWS In 

my facility. The AWS schedule (either three 12-hour days or 9 month schedules) are 

not offered, even though they are available to nurses at other Seattle hospitals. 

Other VA nurses around the country report the same problem. If we attempt to 

challenge this, management says AWS is a nongrievable patient care issue under 

39 U.S.C. 7422 (to be discussed.) It seems as if the law was never passed. 

AFGE urges this Committee to hold the VA more accountable for proper implementation of the AWS law. An important first step would be to require the VA to 

provide data to Congress comparing the prevalence of AWS in the VA as compared 

to private employers, by each local labor market, in order to determine whether and 

to what extent the VA needs to offer AWS to its nurses to remain a competitive 

nurse employer. 

Restrictions on Mandatory Overtime 

We are fortunate at Puget Sound that voluntary nurse overtime meets the current 

need. However, I am aware of widespread problems in other facilities, where nurses 

are forced to work overtime on a frequent basis. 

Once again, Congress’ attempt to make VA hospitals safer and lessen nurse burnout has been thwarted. The law permits the VA to require overtime in cases of 

emergency. AFGE filed a national grievance to require the VA apply a nationally 

uniform definition of emergency consistent with common usage even though nine 

States (including Washington) have passed such laws, VA successfully blocked our 

challenge to the policy on emergencies based on ‘‘7422.’’ As a result, facility directors 

continue to invoke the emergency exception when staffing shortages are the result 

of easily anticipated scheduling and hiring problems. AFGE urges the Committee 

to protect VA nurses and the safety of their patients by enacting a statutory, workable definition of emergency. 

AFGE also supports expansion of overtime protections to LPNs and Nursing Assistants. 

Finally, AFGE urges the Committee to strengthen the requirement in the overtime provision that VHA provide a report to Congress certifying that facilities have 

implemented nurse overtime policies. Reports issued to date appear to grant, without explanation, a large number of waivers to facilities that have not developed 

overtime policies. 

II. PART-TIME NURSES

During my first 5 years at Puget Sound, I was full-time which meant I had job 

security in the event of a RIF and grievance and arbitration rights. When I switched 

to part-time to raise a family, I lost these rights—but no one made me aware of 

this at the time. I have seen the same thing happen to older nurses who have 

worked a decade or more for the VA who switch to part-time because of the stress 

of their job or to care for their aging parents. Now that I understand this two-tier 

system, it is a top priority for me as a union representative to educate our nurses 

about the tradeoffs of becoming part-time. 

Part-time RNs represent a valuable resource for the VA. They should be able to 

accrue the rights of permanent employees after they work the equivalent of 2 years, 

just like their full-time colleagues. This will be a valuable recruitment and retention 

tool for the VA. We urge the Committee to take action to address this inequity. 

III. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

The VA has excellent educational programs to use as recruitment and retention 

tools, including the Education Debt Reduction Program (EDRP) and National Nursing Education Initiative (NNEI). With adequate funding, better resource allocation, 

and more national direction, these programs could be even more effective. VA has 

a long tradition of ‘‘growing its own’’, i.e., training employees in lower level positions 

to become registered nurses, and training RNs to become NPs. 

One of the problems we are seeing is that once the employee completes his or her 

training, the VA does not provide a suitable position. At Puget Sound, one of our 

69 

RNs got assistance through the NNEI program to become an NP but management 

refused to hire her when an opening came up so she quit. 

Nurses at other facilities report problems with EDRP, a highly effective program 

that ties tuition loan repayment to a commitment to work at the VA. Applicants are 

being turned away at some facilities because EDRP funds have been exhausted, 

while EDRP funds in other facilities remain unused. In addition, the EDRP grant 

amounts need to be raised to better match current educational costs. 

IV. NURSES NEED TO BE HEARD

I am proud that VA nurses have played such an essential role in the past in 

transforming its health care system into a world leader in health care quality and 

cost effectiveness. 

According to a January 2008 VA national RN satisfaction survey, for the past 2 

years, ‘‘Participation in Hospital Affairs’’ was one of two areas (along with staffing) 

where RNs were the least satisfied. Yet, VA increasingly deprives front line nurses 

of meaningful opportunities for input into groups shaping policies on key issues such 

as patient safety and qualification standards. This hurts the veteran and the taxpayer as well. 

The VA keeps saying that magnet status is its most effective nurse recruitment 

and retention tool because it is said to offer nurses a voice in organizational 

decisionmaking. I hear reports from nurses in a number of facilities that patient 

care dollars and substantial staff time are being diverted to the process of preparing 

magnet applications and paying large certification fees. 

I find this very troubling and wasteful. VA has a long and successful track record 

in soliciting and using input from front-line nurses. The Department simply needs 

to return to a more collaborative approach and bring the nurses back into policy setting groups where they were once welcome, not use an expensive third party to hear 

from its nurses. 

V. RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION CHALLENGES IN OTHER

VA HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS

AFGE also urges the Committee to examine obstacles to VA’s ability to recruit 

and retain physicians and other professionals. In a health care system of this magnitude that encompasses three different personnel systems (Title 38, Title 5, and 

Hybrid Title 38) and hundreds of local labor markets, one size will surely not fit 

all, but swift action is needed nonetheless. 

Physicians 

VA physicians are facing great pressures to meet current patient demand without 

additional resources. In my facility, management wants to require physicians who 

take sick leave or vacation leave to make up the clinics they canceled, either on the 

weekends, evenings or during their administrative days that they need for other duties. If there were enough physicians in the VA workforce, others could cover when 

someone takes leave he or she has earned and needs. 

At Puget Sound, we just lost our ER Director who was growing more and more 

frustrated at management for refusing to provide extra staff. Instead, ER doctors 

are required to work longer shifts. The ER has to draw from other pools on an ad 

hoc basis to find physicians to fill the gap. Clearly, a longer range staffing plan 

would be preferable. 

Here too, the VA is undermining a valuable retention tool: the 2004 physician pay 

law (Pub. L. 108–445). Reduced reliance on contract physician services was at the 

top of Congress’ agenda when this legislation. Based on our members’ very mixed 

experiences with market pay and performance pay awarded under the new law, we 

are very doubtful that Congressional intent has been well served to date. 

Unfortunately, the VA has not been forthcoming with its own data on recruitment, retention, and contract care. Although the pay bill has been in effect for 27 

months, we have still not seen the 18 month report that Congress required the VA 

to provide. We believe veterans and the taxpayers deserve to see the evidence of 

whether contract care is the best solution to current VA physician shortages. More 

transparency in the pay process is greatly needed. In the market pay process that 

was first conducted 2 years ago, management excluded employee representatives 

from national groups that set pay ranges and selected survey. Front line practitioners were largely excluded at the local level from compensation panels setting individual pay, despite requirements in the law to include them. AFGE’s own attempts to obtain information through the Freedom of Information Act were denied. 

Annual physician performance pay awards under this law have been inconsistent 

and unjustifiably lower than the maximum amounts set by Congress. At many faVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:23 Apr 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\41918.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
70 

cilities, management has imposed improper performance criteria that determine bonuses based on factors beyond the practitioner’s control, such as missed appointments. In very rare instances have front line physicians been allowed to have input 

in the selection of these critical criteria. 

Unreasonable panel sizes are also causing severe morale problems among VA physicians, particularly in primary care and psychiatry. Many facilities keep raising 

their panel sizes, while others have simply lifted the ceiling altogether! As a result, 

practitioners do not have adequate time to assess the medical needs of new patients 

(e.g., no additional time is allowed for a first time exam of veterans with Traumatic 

Brain Injury) or enough patient openings to schedule needed follow up for veterans 

with chronic illnesses that require frequent monitoring. Management is also requiring them to work more weekend and evening hours without compensation to meet 

growing demand. 

Other VA Health Care Professionals 

AFGE members report significant recruitment retention problems in other VA 

professions due to pay policies and other factors. For example: 

Physician Assistants: Like physicians, physician assistants (PAs) are also trying 

to deliver care in the face of unreasonable panel sizes. In addition, PAs lack an effective voice for their profession at the facility and national levels because the PA 

Advisor is only a part-time position. AFGE supports pending House legislation (H.R. 

2790) to establish a full-time PA Advisor. AFGE also urges legislative action to more 

closely align PA pay and benefits, including professional education assistance, with 

the private sector. 

Podiatrists: The demand for podiatry services is rising among elderly veterans 

with chronic illnesses and injured OEF/OIF veterans. Unfortunately, the VA’s compensation package for podiatrists has been largely unchanged since 1976. As a result, the pay gap between the VA and private sector is widening, causing severe recruitment and retention problems. 

Psychologists and the Hybrid Boarding Process: As part of the ‘‘hybrid Title 38’’ 

group of VA health care professionals, psychologists are required to go through a 

one-time boarding process to secure hybrid status and obtain promotions. Delays in 

the boarding process have been especially long and demoralizing: some psychologists 

have still not received their promotions 2 years after issuance of the board’s recommendation. At a time when the VA is significantly increasing its mental health 

capacity, it is especially important that oversight from Congress and VA Central Office is increased to ensure that local facilities are carrying out the hybrid boarding 

process properly. More generally, AFGE is concerned about widespread delays in the 

hybrid boarding process that in some cases, are greater than hiring under Title 5. 

As a result, applicants awaiting credentialing and salary offers end up leaving for 

other positions because of long delays. 

VI. OTHER RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ISSUES

FERS Sick Leave: Currently, most Federal employees covered by the FERS retirement system cannot apply unused sick leave toward retirement, while their counterparts under the older CSRS system can. Congress carved out an exception under 

Title 38 for RNs several years ago. We urge that this benefit be extended to all VHA 

personnel as an added incentive for staying with the VA. 

Disincentives in the Current Funding Process: Recruitment and retention strategies depend on a workable funding process. So long as VA health care relies on discretionary dollars, the system will suffer from unpredictable and inadequate funding. In turn, facility directors will continue to be rewarded for keeping a lid on their 

spending through fewer pay increases, promotions, and less hiring. 

Title 38 Collective Bargaining Rights: As noted, VA’s health care professionals are 

unable to challenge workplace policies on pay, scheduling, and other policies that 

hurt recruitment and retention, even when these policies are directly inconsistent 

with Congressional intent. Management asserts ‘‘nongrievability’’ under 38 USC 

7422 in more and more instances. We greatly appreciate the important step that 

Senator Rockefeller and cosponsors Senators Webb, Brown, and Mikulski have 

taken by introducing S. 2824 to restore these critical rights. 

Thank you. 

71 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO VAL- ERIE O’MEARA, N.P., VA PUGET SOUND HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, PROFESSIONAL

VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 3197 

Question 1. How effective is the locality pay system at your facility? Does your 

facility employ temporary health workers, particularly in the area of nursing? 

Response. The locality pay system could be improved at our facility. There is no 

transparency so it is impossible for me to state how effective it is. The most disturbing example of this occurred in the summer of 2007. Several of my Nurse Practitioner (NP) colleagues had commented to me that they felt they were not being 

competitively paid. In response, as the unit professional vice president, I drafted a 

memo to this effect to management that was signed by many of the NP staff. At 

this time the facility had a relatively new Director. Within approximately 2 weeks 

the Chief Nurse Executive and the Director met with the NPs and told them they 

had decided to take another look at a recent salary survey and in doing so had decided that an approximately 13% salary raise was in order. Staff believed this confirmed that salary survey data was only acted upon via staff complaints and has 

led to mistrust of the locality pay system. 

My facility does employ temporary health workers. For example, there is only one 

staff emergency room physician. All the rest are fee basis or locum tenens. There 

are temporary nursing staff throughout the hospital. 

Question 2. Multiple alternative work schedules are available at facilities around 

the country, from condensed work weeks to intensive 9 month schedules. How prevalent is use of the various alternative work schedules at your facility, and how could 

VA make better use of these schedules while maintaining quality of care for veterans? 

Response. The use of alternate work schedules is concentrated in the areas of intensive care and emergency room, where compressed schedules are used. However, 

there is no use of the schedules authorized by Public Law 108–445. One reason 

given by Management why these alternate work schedules are not used is that there 

is no patch in the pay system to allow them. The other reason that the alternate 

schedules cannot be used is because there are not enough nursing staff overall to 

fill the staffing need created by the schedules. The reason given for not enough staff 

is that nurses are not applying for the jobs. VA needs to create an attractive work 

environment to compete for nursing personnel, which may mean spending a little 

more money. 

Question 3. What role have VA education incentive programs played in your careers, and how do you think these programs could be improved to encourage further 

education and improve recruitment and retention? 

Response. VA education incentive programs have been very popular at my medical 

center. I am a good example. I received a Health Professional Scholarship which 

paid for my Master’s Degree in Nursing that included tuition, books, and a stipend. 

The program required a 2-year work commitment and I have been with VA for 

14 years. The Health Professional Scholarship program should be re-instated. It was 

a very simple process, with tuition paid directly to the school. This is a powerful 

incentive to recruitment and retention. There also needs to be a guarantee that the 

participant will be offered an appropriate assignment upon graduation that is the 

responsibility of management rather than the participant. One problem currently is 

that Nurse Practitioners are graduated but then not offered an assignment as a NP, 

so are forced to leave VA in order to be able to maintain their state licensure and 

board certification. This defeats the purpose of the programs. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Ms. O’Meara. 

Dr. Phelps? 

STATEMENT OF RANDY PHELPS, PH.D., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 

PRACTICE DIRECTORATE 

Mr. PHELPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Akaka, Senator Murray, and Senator Rockefeller, I am Randy Phelps, Deputy 

Executive Director for Professional Practice at the American Psychological Association. We are the largest association of psychologists, with approximately 90,000 doctoral members and another 

50,000 graduate student members in the pipeline to become psychologists, 75 percent of whom will become practitioners and a 

72 

great number of whom we hope will serve this Nation’s veterans. 

I am also a licensed clinical psychologist and former practitioner, 

but for the past 15 years, on APA’s executive staff. I have also 

served as APA’s liaison to professional psychology in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

We at APA appreciate the opportunity to testify on making VA 

the workplace of choice for psychologists. I should note, unlike 

some of the other testimony today, bring to your attention that VA 

is already the workplace of choice for many psychologists. There 

are about 2,400 psychologists in the system currently and, in fact, 

VA is the single largest employer of psychologists in the Nation. 

We at APA applaud VA’s recent and very aggressive attempts, successful attempts, to recruit new psychologists, but we have many 

concerns, less so on the recruitment side and more so on the retention side, and I will skip most of this oral statement in the interest 

of time and focus in on those retention issues. 

With regard to the current staffing pattern, however, this is a 

very recent development. It was only until about 2006, mid-2006 

that VA began hiring additional psychologists as a result of influx 

and needs, mental health needs and TBI needs and so forth due 

to the War on Terror. In 2006, we finally achieved the psychology, 

doctoral psychology staffing levels that we had in 1995, so it was 

on the decline. Again, most recently, VA has been very aggressive 

to bring new psychologists into the system. 

You should be aware that the vast majority of those new psychologists hired, and new FTEs hired, in the last year and one-half 

are functioning as GS–11 and 13 levels. With regard to leadership 

of psychology across the system nationally, we are still at essentially the 1995 levels in GS–14s. There are approximately 130 GS– 

14s in the Nation, psychologists; and only approximately 50 GS–15 

leaders nationally currently, which is actually below the level in 

1995. 

We think that VA’s success in recruiting new psychologists has 

to do in many cases with the outstanding efforts to bring its own 

trainees into the system, and as you have heard, VA has increased 

the psychology training slots. Seventy-five percent of all new psychologist hires in the system have been prior VA trainees. So, we 

applaud those efforts. 

With regard to retention, however, the VA needs to not only recruit new and young staffers for careers at VA, but to retain those 

existing staff who have many years, as we have heard with regard 

to other disciplines, of dedication to service to this Nation’s veterans. Like the other staff in VA, psychologists are not drawn to 

the money. They are drawn to the work and to the honor in providing care for the heroes of this country. 

There are three basic issues that are covered in great detail in 

our extended remarks for the record with regard to processes that 

we feel are working against retention of psychologists. One is, there 

is a lack of uniform psychology leadership positions in the VA system. Senior psychologists—20, 30 years’ experience—range from, in 

some cases, chief psychologist designations to, in most others, lead 

psychologists, manager psychologists, and so forth. 

There is also inequitable access across the VHA system for psychologists to achieve the highest levels of leadership positions in 

73 

the VA. The under secretary—two under secretaries now—have reaffirmed a VHA directive that states that it is important that the 

most qualified individuals be selected for leadership positions in 

mental health programs regardless of their professional discipline. 

That directive has had very little practical impact in terms of the 

appointment of highly-qualified psychologists to VA senior leadership positions. 

Most recently, and of great concern to us currently at the VA is 

the Congress’s and the VA’s attempt to address recruitment and retention problems through the inclusion of an expansion of the Hybrid 38 program. It has led to very variable and chaotic processes 

across the system. Many, many psychologist leaders from facilities 

throughout the country report to us that in their facilities and in 

their Veterans Integrated Service Networks, that psychologists who 

have been qualified by the National Professional Standards Boards 

to advance to GS–14s and 15 levels, for example, and have been 

recommended to do so, have been stopped at the local level. There 

are also tremendous informational missteps and technical problems 

that have plagued the National Psychology Boarding process in this 

system. 

I will just give but two examples that are not in the written testimony—they just crossed my desk, literally, in the last 48 hours— 

of how problems affect not only the retention of senior psychologists and journey psychologists in the system, but also the new psychologists coming into the system. 

One regards a new hire. I just spoke with him this weekend at 

our board meeting. He happens to be a former—young but very 

bright star—State Psychological Association president and he happens to be a representative to APA’s National Committee on Early 

Career Psychologists. He told me a story of being dismissed a few 

months ago in his probationary year after he was unable to effectively discharge what ended up being a dual leadership position 

thrust upon him in the medical center as the Local Recovery Coordinator, as was discussed earlier, and also in the role of Acting Supervisory Psychologist. This kind of thing has a very chilling effect 

on our young psychologists’ interests. 

In another facility, a psychologist who was approved by the National Standards Boards as qualifying for a GS upgrade was denied 

locally her position as Psychology Program Manager in her facility, 

and as a result, she tendered her resignation on April 1. 

APA considers these problems the most serious obstacle to making VA the workplace of choice for psychologists. Without clear advancement systems in place, VA faces critical long-term recruitment and retention problems. As our psychologists come to believe 

that there is little possibility for advancement in the system regardless of the level or the complexity of their responsibilities, 

fewer VA psychologists will be willing to accept those positions of 

greater responsibility; and in addition, high-potential trainees 

whom the VA would like to attract will increasingly see VA as dead 

ends—the VA as a dead end for their careers—and will certainly 

be attracted to other career options that offer more potential for advancement outside the system. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Phelps follows:] 

74 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANDY PHELPS, PH.D., DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

Chairman Akaka and distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Randy 

Phelps, Deputy Director for Professional Practice of the American Psychological Association (‘‘APA’’), the largest association of psychologists, with more than 148,000 

members and affiliates engaged in the study, research, and practice of psychology. 

The APA appreciates the opportunity of testifying before you today on behalf of our 

member psychologists who are dedicated to serving the very pressing needs of our 

country’s veterans. VA’s need for the health and mental health, primary care, research, and other, often unique, services that psychologists provide has perhaps 

never been greater. 

GROWING NEEDS

Over 200,000 homeless veterans will be sleeping on America’s streets tonight. 

Worse yet, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 

veterans are becoming homeless faster than their predecessors. After Vietnam, it 

took 9 to 12 years for veterans’ circumstances to deteriorate to the point of homelessness. Today, the high incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and 

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) will contribute to increased homelessness unless dramatic measures are taken to mitigate this trend. Other issues for servicemembers 

and their families are repeated deployment, National Guard and Reserve deployment, women in combat and the extended duration of the Global War on Terrorism 

(GWOT). 

More than one million servicemembers in the Active and Reserve components of 

the military have been deployed in OEF/OIF; more than 449,000 of those have been 

deployed more than once. Of the troops returning from deployment, 31% of Marines, 

38% of Soldiers, and 49% of National Guardsmen report psychological symptoms. 

This doesn’t take into account those making multiple deployments or the psychological needs of their families. 

There were 686,306 OIF and OEF veterans who separated from active duty service between 2002 and December 2006 who were eligible for Department of Veterans 

Affairs (DVA) care; 229,015 (33%) of those accessed care at a DVA facility. Of those 

229,015 veterans who accessed care since 2002, 83,889 (37%) received a diagnosis 

of or were evaluated for a mental disorder, including PTSD (39,243 or 17%), nondependent abuse of drugs (33,099 or 14%), and depressive disorder (27,023 or 12%). 

PSYCHOLOGISTS’ ROLES WITHIN HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS

Psychologists are unique professionals in terms of their training and skill sets. No 

other mental health profession requires as high a degree of education and training 

in mental health as psychology. Accredited doctoral programs in clinical, counseling 

and other health services psychology involve a median of 7 years of training beyond 

an undergraduate degree. Psychologists are licensed, independent practitioners with 

specialized clinical and research skills. 

Psychologists provide a holistic approach to mental health care with their keen 

understanding of how the mind and the body interact. Our members include the 

specially trained neuropsychologists who understand those disorders of perception, 

memory, language, and behavior that result from brain injury, an essential skill in 

dealing with the new generation of veterans returning from theater in large numbers with Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI). 

Psychologists’ skills in program development, team building, research/outcome 

and program evaluation, and in assessment and treatment interventions equip psychologists to be leaders in planning and providing a coordinated service approach. 

This includes models and practices of care that encompass inpatient, partial hospitalization and outpatient services including Community Based Outpatient Clinics 

(CBOC), psychosocial rehabilitation programs, homeless programs, geriatric services 

in the community, residencies and the home. 

Psychologists initiate and evaluate innovative programs, such as tele-mental 

health services. They go beyond the provision of service to initiate, plan and evaluate the efficacy of such services and their clinical and cost benefits. 

RECRUITMENT OF PSYCHOLOGISTS IN VHA

It is critical to note that VA is already the single largest employer of psychologists 

in the Nation, and has been for many years. However, VA continues to recognize 

the need to increase its psychology staffing numbers in response to ever-increasing 

needs for services to veterans. For example, the Veterans Health Administration’s 

(VHA) provision of mental health services to veterans has skyrocketed from 1996 

75 

to 2006, going from 565,529 veterans served to 934,925 and rising. In response, 

VHA has hired more than 800 new psychologists since 2005; thereby, increasing the 

number of GS–11 through 15 psychologists and surpassing its 1995 high of approximately 1,800 psychologists. 

The APA applauds VA for its tremendous and serious recent efforts to increase 

psychology staffing levels, such that there are now approximately 2,400 psychologists employed by VA nationwide across the GS–11 to GS–15 levels. However, that 

is a very recent accomplishment. It was not until 2006 that psychology staffing levels exceeded those of 1995 levels. Moreover, the vast majority on new psychologist 

hires in VHA are younger, lesser experienced psychologists who have come into the 

system at the GS–13 level or below. In contrast, as of the end of 2007, the number 

of GS–14s in the entire system nationally was essentially the same as it was in 

1995, at approximately 130 GS–14 psychologists. Of additional concern to the APA 

is that the number of GS–15 psychologists nationally as of the end of 2007 (approximately 50) was still considerably lower than the number of GS–15s in 1995. 

VA has also recognized and capitalized on the fact that the best source of recruiting new psychologists has been the Department’s own training system. Over the 

past 2 years, approximately 75% of all new psychologist hires have been prior VA 

trainees. And, VA is rapidly increasing its funding of psychology training. In the 

2008–2009 training year, VA has added approximately 60 new psychology internship positions and 100 new postdoctoral fellowship positions, spending approximately $5 million to do so. This will bring the total psychology training positions 

to approximately 620 per year nationwide. 

RETENTION OF THE PSYCHOLOGY WORKFORCE

Here is the dilemma: while the VA is employing more psychologists than ever, 

VA’s advancement and retention policies continue to be driven by outdated and 

overly- rigid personnel and retention systems. In addition to hiring new staff, the 

VA needs to retain those existing psychologists who are qualified, possess specialized skills, and are already institutionalized within the system. These psychologists 

are vital to service provision because of their professional expertise and knowledge 

of the system and its resources. However, there are several glaring obstacles to retention, covered in some detail below. 

LACK OF UNIFORM LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

Since 1995, independent mental health discipline services at most facilities have 

been replaced with interdisciplinary Mental Health Service Lines. As a result, there 

has been a decrease in the number of discipline chiefs across the system. Interdisciplinary management within mental health services can have advantages in 

terms of cross-discipline coordination of care and clearer accountability at the individual program level. However, the dissolution of discipline specific services has left 

a clear leadership gap in terms of professional practice accountability, guidance on 

the proper use of professional skills, and promotion and oversight of profession specific staff and pre-licensure training. For Psychology, this problem is further complicated by the fact that the lack of recognized psychology discipline leadership at 

many facilities translates into a significant lack of oversight, structure and support 

for the growing number of psychologists working in non-mental health areas such 

as primary care, geriatrics, and Home & Community Based Care (HBPC), among 

others. 

In 2002, the VA remedied this situation for Social Work with the appointment of 

a Social Work Executive at each facility that lacked an independent Social Work 

Service (VHA Directive 2002–029). The creation of the Social Work Executive position has been highly effective in ensuring the integrity of Social Work practice and 

training within an inter-disciplinary management structure. Since 2003 there have 

been efforts to create an analogous Psychologist Executive role. However, at present, 

Psychology remains the only major mental health discipline without an officially 

designated leader in every medical center. While the number of ‘‘Chief Psychologists’’ is now increasing, a far more prevalent position is the ‘‘Lead Psychologist,’’ 

a position which is all too frequently unrecognized at the level of additional pay for 

additional responsibilities. 

INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO KEY LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

Nor are psychologists represented equitably in the all levels of leadership in the 

VA’s health care delivery system. In 1998, the Under Secretary for Health (USH) 

attempted to correct this situation with the issuance of VHA Directive 98–018, later 

reissued in 2004 as VHA Directive 2004–004, which stated that ‘‘it is important that 

76 

the most qualified individuals be selected for leadership positions in mental health 

programs regardless of their professional discipline.’’ 

Unfortunately, the only requirement within the Directive was that announcements of VA mental health leadership positions not contain language that restricts 

recruitment to a specific discipline. As a result, this Directive has had little practical 

impact on the appointment of highly qualified psychologists to VA mental health 

senior leadership roles, particularly at medical school affiliated VA facilities. 

IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS IN HYBRID TITLE 38

In late 2003, the Hybrid Title 38 system was statutorily expanded to provide psychologists and a wide range of other non-physician disciplines some of the same personnel and pay considerations as their physician counterparts. The Title 38 Hybrid 

is a combination of Title 38 and Title 5 provisions for non-physician health care professionals at the VA. 

Historically, Title 38 was created to alleviate severe shortages of health care personnel, especially for physicians in VA, by reducing the bureaucratic red tape of the 

civil service recruiting and hiring system and the restrictive compensation practices 

inherent in Title 5. 

Psychologists remain the only health care providers requiring the doctorate who 

are not included in Title 38. The Title 38 Hybrid was created to provide a middle 

ground solution for health care professionals that needed some of the same considerations as their physician counterparts. The hybrid model requires Professional 

Standards Boards to make recommendations on employment, promotion and grade 

for psychologists, and is still more subjective than a pure Title 38 program; unlike 

Title 38 where professionals are hired, promoted and retained based solely on their 

qualifications. 

The implementation of the new Title 38 Hybrid boarding process on the number 

of GS–14 and 15 psychologists is currently very mixed. Many Psychologist leaders 

from facilities throughout the country have reported that their facilities and Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) have denied GS–14 and 15 promotions 

that have been recommended by the national boarding process. Even more frequent 

are reports of facilities and VISNs that have delayed or refused to forward boarding 

packets to the national board and/or have refused to reveal the results of the national board action. This leaves the psychologists in question with considerable leadership responsibilities, but with little or no recourse regarding their boarding status 

and consequent grade level. 

Informational missteps and technical problems have also plagued the national 

psychology boarding process. An unknown, but apparently significant, number of 

boarding packets have been adversely affected by incorrect information provided by 

local human resource (HR) officials regarding the required format and content of the 

packets. This has resulted in the submission of a number of packets that may have 

described GS–14 or above responsibilities, but that were unable to be boarded at 

that level due to packet content errors. 

Of particular concern are reports that a number of psychologists throughout the 

country were instructed by their facilities to only submit special achievements occurring during the previous 3 years, despite the fact that Psychology Boards were authorized to consider achievements throughout the psychologists’ VA careers for the 

one-time Special Advancement for Achievement. This meant that significant and 

creditable achievements occurring earlier in the psychologists’ VA careers would 

never have an opportunity to be considered for a Special Advancement for Achievement (SAA). 

On March 7, 2007, instructions were sent from the VA Central Office (VACO) to 

the field that eliminated the national cap on GS–14 psychologists. This was a beneficial step that has removed one of the reasons often cited by local and VISN management for failure to approve justified grade increases to the GS–14 level. 

However, the same set of instructions tied the award of GS–15 psychology positions to the facility’s level of complexity. Per these instructions, only psychologists 

at complexity level 1A facilities are eligible for promotion to GS–15. Senior psychologist leaders at non–1A facilities, regardless of the scope and complexity of their actual duties and regardless of the question of whether they meet the VA’s own qualification standards for GS–15 would be ineligible for promotion to that grade level. 

In addition, complexity 1A facilities without current GS–15 psychologists would 

need to petition VACO for an increase in their GS–15 ceiling should the boarding 

process recommend, and the facility management concur, in moving a psychologist 

manager to the GS–15 level. 

These new field instructions will accelerate the already steep decline in the number of GS–15 level psychologists. They will also create equity problems in that psyVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:23 Apr 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\41918.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
77 

chologists from non–1a facilities who supervise many programs and individuals will 

be ineligible for a GS–15, whereas facility complexity 1a psychologists with more 

limited supervisory responsibility will be eligible for the grade as long as they meet 

the minimum GS–15 requirements of the VA’s Qualification Standard. 

Part of the difficulty with these new instructions is that they treat psychologist 

promotion in a manner that is characteristic of Title 5. Dissimilar positions are compared against one another according to some overarching standard of complexity. 

Typically, in the case of psychologists, the comparison is made to the grade level 

of the Associate Director. 

As doctoral level Title 38 Hybrid clinicians, it would be more appropriate to treat 

the issue of psychologist promotion as being similar to the Title 38 process. In this 

approach, the full performance level (GS–13) is defined by the journeyperson clinical 

responsibilities. Additional administrative and program management responsibilities warrant higher grade levels, provided that these additional responsibilities 

meet established scope and complexity requirements for those levels. This is essentially the approach that was taken in the VA’s own Qualification Standard for Psychology. 

The decline in the availability of upper grade level positions presents VA with a 

serious recruitment and retention issue. As psychologists come to believe that there 

is little possibility for advancement, regardless of the level or complexity of responsibilities, fewer high potential psychologists will be willing to accept positions of 

greater responsibility. In addition, high potential trainees whom the VA would like 

to recruit will increasingly see VA as a ‘‘dead end’’ for their careers and will be attracted to other career options that offer more potential for advancement. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony today on behalf of the American Psychological Association. We stand ready to assist with the Committee’s work 

to further improve recruitment and retention of psychologists to assist in providing 

care to this Nation’s honored veterans. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO DR. 

RANDY PHELPS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION PRACTICE DIRECTORATE

Question 1. The number of veterans rolling into the VA mental health care system 

is significantly growing each year of the Global War on Terror. The VA system is 

already stretched with a need for trained mental health professionals to deal with 

the unique needs of the veteran population and their families. Additionally, veterans in rural areas remain underserved due to the lack of VA access in non-metropolitan areas. The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense successfully 

conducted a demo project giving prescribing authority to psychologists. In your opinion, would giving VA psychologists the authority to prescribe psychotropic drugs 

ease the strain on the system; especially in rural areas? 

Response. APA continues to look for ways to extend services to veterans in rural 

areas where existing VA and DOD facilities are simply beyond the reach of patients. 

We continue to advocate for prescriptive authority for appropriately trained doctoral 

psychologists, particularly in those rural areas where providers are few and far between. 

For Americans living in rural areas, the problem of access to care is particularly 

acute. The Final Report of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental 

Health states that the ‘‘vast majority of all Americans living in underserved, rural, 

and remote areas also experience disparities in mental health services . . . . In 

rural and other geographically remote areas, many people with mental illnesses 

have inadequate access to care, limited availability of skilled care providers, lower 

family incomes, and greater social stigma for seeking mental health treatment than 

their urban counterparts’’ which is compounded by ‘‘the fact that rural Americans 

have lower family incomes and are less likely to have private health insurance benefits for mental health care than their urban counterparts.’’ 

VA data shows that 19% of the Nation lives in rural America, and that 44% of 

U.S. military recruits come from those rural areas. This disproportionate number 

of OEF/OIF rural veterans has created a crisis in which they do not have sufficient 

access to VA healthcare. Having psychologists ready to accept the challenge of serving these rural veterans, including through psychotherapy, prescribing or unprescribing medication as needed, carrying out medication management and compliance 

tasks, and any combination of these services, via telehealth or through placement 

in a Community-Based Outpatient Clinic or satellite clinic in a rural or remote area, 

would serve well our Nation’s veterans from rural and frontier areas. 

78 

With a focus on psychologist prescription privileges, the private healthcare sector 

and states are also grappling with how to ensure access to health and mental health 

services in rural areas. To address pressing mental health needs, both New Mexico 

and Louisiana, states with large rural populations, have passed laws to allow psychologists to prescribe. New Mexico, which passed its prescriptive authority law in 

2002, and Louisiana, which passed its law in 2005, allow appropriately trained and 

certified psychologists to prescribe. These laws have been very successful, and to 

date nearly 50 psychologists prescribing in these states have written more than 

40,000 prescriptions without adverse incident. 

Furthermore, a Federal demonstration project set up nearly two decades ago has 

set a clear precedent that psychologists can successfully prescribe in a large Federal 

health system. The Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration 

Project (PDP) proved that psychologists can be trained to prescribe safely and effectively. Begun in 1991, ten psychologists participated in the PDP, which was designed to train and use psychologists to prescribe psychotropic medications. These 

psychologists treated a wide variety of patients, including active duty military, their 

dependents and military retirees, with ages ranging from 18 to 65. 

The PDP was highly scrutinized. The American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP) conducted its own independent, external review of the PDP and in 

1998 presented its final report to the DOD. Likewise, the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) issued its report on the PDP. Both reports repeatedly stressed how well the 

PDP psychologists had performed. According to the 1999 GAO report, ‘‘an outside 

panel of psychiatrists and psychologists who evaluated each of the graduates rated 

the graduates’ quality of care as good to excellent.’’ The 1998 ACNP review stated 

that ‘‘they had performed safely and effectively as prescribing psychologists, and 

that no adverse outcomes had been associated with their performance.’’ 

Psychologists are highly trained mental health specialists, many of whom have acquired this additional post-doctoral training in psychopharmacology in order to collaborate with physicians about their patients’ medications. With prescriptive authority, they can offer a holistic, integrative model of treatment, which includes psychotherapy and medication, where appropriate. 

It is clear that already licensed doctoral psychologists are being trained to prescribe safely and effectively. The precedent for the VA system to recognize psychologist prescriptive authority is clear both from state action and the DOD PDP. In addition, APA Division 18 psychologists—Psychologists in Public Service—including 

those who serve in the VA, are already supporting training of a cadre of public service psychologists to be able to prescribe as recognition expands along with the need 

for services. The VA should begin to utilize such professionals to the full extent of 

their licensure and training. Psychologists are willing and able to help fill the gap 

and ease the strain on the VA health system particularly in rural areas. 

Question 2. In written testimony, APA discussed the challenges of recruiting psychologists in light of a growing national shortage. How can VA recruit more mental 

health providers to work in rural locations in particular? Could partnerships with 

community providers be effective, without compromising quality of care? 

Response. As the Committee is aware, the VA is not alone in the need to recruit 

psychologists and other practitioners to provide services in the rural areas of our 

country. Many private and public employers are working to ensure services in these 

areas as well. The issue of psychologist recruitment has its own unique aspect, since 

psychologists are far more numerous than psychiatrists and therefore available to 

provide services in rural areas, while at the same time, social workers, though relatively more numerous and available, simply do not have the training to deliver the 

range of psychotherapeutic and testing services that psychologists provide to patients. 

The testimony provided by various panelists during the hearing demonstrate that 

the VA is finding innovative ways to recruit health care professionals into VA service, including in rural areas. The APA would return to our testimony, however, in 

emphasizing the need to hire and promote psychologists beyond the GS–13 level, 

particularly through a more effective use of the Title 38 Hybrid process. Pay and 

promotion must be competitive for psychologists in the VA if the department hopes 

to be effective in recruiting and retaining psychologists for service in rural areas. 

Beyond the fundamental issue of pay and promotion, the APA strongly suggests 

that the VA look to its current authority to provide mental health services to veterans outside of the VA system. It is now clearly apparent that with the influx of 

returning OEF/OIF veterans on top of the current mental health needs of the aging 

veteran population, that the need for mental health services has reached a crisis 

situation. The recent RAND Corporation study is telling: 

79 

• 300,000 returning U.S. troops are suffering symptoms of PTSD or depression 

but only about half are receiving care. We cannot emphasize strongly enough, the 

importance of treating these conditions early for effective treatment. 

• 320,000 returning troops have suffered possible TBI during deployment. Psychologists are key providers in treating TBI. 

• 18.5% of the more than 1.5 million deployed troops in the two war zones are 

suffering stress disorder and depression. Undoubtedly, many of these soldiers will 

need psychological care when they separate from service. 

As our answer to the first question indicates, a relatively large proportion of veterans are from rural areas, therefore the need for mental health services in rural 

areas is going to tremendously increase, considering the mental health needs indicated in the RAND study. The VA has authority to contract with non-VA facilities 

and individual providers, including community providers, for the provision of mental 

health services. Some of this authority is specific to the provision of mental health 

services in current statute, such as for the provision of readjustment counseling 

and related mental health services by a physician or psychologist (see 38 U.S.C. 

§ 1712A(b)(1)). 

While we do not have sufficient knowledge or information on how the VA has used 

this contracting authority for fee-basis care to ensure adequate mental health services in rural areas in the past, we would assume that given the current situation, 

the VA should utilize its authority more expansively in this time of crisis. Therefore, 

the APA respectfully suggests that the Committee strongly urge the VA to use this 

authority now. 

The Committee could also approve S. 38, a bill that would establish a program for 

the provision of readjustment counseling and other mental health services for 

OEF/OIF veterans. The House already has passed a measure, the Veterans’ Health 

Care Improvement Act, H.R. 2874, which has similar provisions. Certainly, enactment of S. 38 would help address the Committee’s query concerning partnering with 

community providers for care, since the bill would promote these services through 

‘‘qualified entities,’’ including community mental health providers. We would further 

suggest that the term ‘‘qualified entity’’ be made more clear so as to include psychologists and other mental health providers whether in facilities or in private or 

group practice. 

Beyond encouraging the VA to use its current authority to contract with psychologists for fee-basis care, the Committee should commend and encourage the VA to 

continue its efforts to recruit more psychologists into service and urge the VA to 

contract with psychologists to provide services within VA facilities as needed, particularly for VISNs with large rural populations. All of these initiatives should go 

a long way in addressing the tremendous need for mental health services for veterans at this time. 

Question 3. What effect do VA’s hiring processes have on recruitment, and how 

do you believe it can be improved and accelerated while still ensuring quality care 

for veterans? 

Response. VA is already the single largest employer of psychologists in the Nation, and has been for many years. VA continues to acknowledge the need to increase its psychology staffing numbers in response to ever-increasing needs for services to veterans. 

VA has capitalized on the fact that the best source of recruiting new psychologists 

has been the Department’s own training system. Over the past 2 years, approximately 75% of all new psychologist hires have been prior VA trainees. And, VA is 

rapidly increasing its funding of psychology training. In the 2008–2009 training 

year, VA has added approximately 60 new psychology internship positions and 100 

new post-doctoral fellowship positions, spending approximately $5 million to do so. 

This will bring the total psychology training positions to approximately 620 per year 

nationwide. 

VA has also recently made tremendous efforts to increase psychology staffing levels, so that there are now approximately 2,400 psychologists employed by VA nationwide across the GS–11 to GS–15 levels. However, that is a very recent accomplishment. It was not until 2006 that psychology staffing levels exceeded those of 

1995 levels. Moreover, the vast majority of new psychologist hires in VHA are 

younger, lesser experienced psychologists who have come into the system at the GS– 

13 level or below. 

In contrast, at the end of 2007, the number of GS–14s in the entire system nationally was essentially the same as it was in 1995, at approximately 130 GS–14 psychologists. Of additional concern to the APA is that the number of GS–15 psychologists nationally at the end of 2007 (approximately 50) was still considerably lower 

than the number of GS–15s in 1995. 

80 

In 2007 a VA instruction lifted the cap on GS–14 psychologists. The numbers are 

slowly increasing, but not enough to keep up with the growing demand on the system. On the other hand, promotions of GS–15 psychologists remain incredibly low 

with the cap remaining firmly in place. In fact, the same VA instruction that lifted 

the cap on GS–14’s also tied the promotion to GS–15 for psychologists to the facility’s level of complexity. In short, a psychologist must work at a level 1A facility to 

have a serious chance at promotion to GS–15. 

The new promotion process created as a result of the Title 38 Hybrid legislation 

has been chaotically and unevenly implemented across facilities. There are common 

reports of medical centers sitting on promotion packages, denying promotion after 

the national board’s review and approval, or misinformation regarding what is to 

be submitted as part of a board package resulting in the denial of a submitter’s 

package. 

Also, there remains a lack of uniform psychology leadership positions in the VA. 

Psychology is the only major mental health discipline without an officially designated leader in every medical center. Such a position is critical for purposes of 

professional practice within a facility and as a representative of the facility without. 

In addition, psychologists are not represented equitably at all levels of leadership 

in the VA healthcare delivery system. There have been some attempts by the VA 

to address this but with little practical impact at this time. 

In sum, the VA has been making progress in its psychologist recruitment efforts, 

partly by taking advantage of recruitment from its own psychology training structure. Psychology staffing levels are improving but promotions to the GS–14 and 

GS–15 levels must be accelerated. Serious implementation problems with the Hybrid Title 38 system should be addressed, as well as the lack of uniform psychology 

leadership positions and the current inequitable access to key leadership positions 

within the VA in general that psychologists face. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY

MURRAY TO DR. RANDY PHELPS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION PRACTICE DIRECTORATE

Question 1. Over the past couple of years, there has been a lot of attention focused 

on the seamless transition between the VA and the DOD when it comes to information sharing. 

Thinking along those lines, is there any way that the VHA and the DOD could 

pool together and share some of their resources to fill in some of the gaps in clinical 

coverage? 

Response. The APA greatly appreciates the Committee’s active interest and work 

toward addressing mental health issues as they relate to efforts for a seamless transition between VA and DOD, particularly at a time when so many returning 

OEF/OIF soldiers are returning with PTSD, TBI, and many other mental health and 

substance use issues. We further appreciate that the VA and DOD have made concerted efforts to address mental health issues through the work of the Senior Oversight Committee, as reflected in the April 23rd joint testimony before the Committee 

by The Honorable Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense and The Honorable 

Gordon Mansfield, Deputy Secretary for Veterans Affairs. 

We believe that the Committee should continue to oversee and encourage the current DOD and VA transition activities with regard to mental health and substance 

use services. These activities and initiatives include: the improvement to the Disability Evaluation System, the DOD Center of Excellence for Psychological Health 

and Traumatic Brain Injury, and the widespread dissemination and implementation 

of standard clinical practice guidelines for PTSD and other serious mental and substance use disorders. In addition, the departments should be further encouraged in 

improving TBI screening and health information sharing, as well as collaborative 

efforts to address PTSD and PTSD research. 

In addition, the APA urges the Committee to encourage the DOD and VA to fully 

implement the Wounded Warrior title in the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act, particularly those that relate to the mental health needs of returning soldiers. We share the belief with the Committee and the departments that 

these needs are extremely pressing at this time, and full and timely implementation 

is critical to ensure that services are fully available now. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. Phelps. 

Dr. Strauss? 

81 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. STRAUSS, PH.D., HEALTH SCIENTIST, CENTER FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH IN PRIMARY CARE, DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER, AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, 

ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND 

HEALTH RESEARCH 

Ms. STRAUSS. Hello, Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, 

Members of the Committee. On behalf of the Friends of Medical 

Care and Health Research, I thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. 

I am a clinical psychologist and a health scientist at the Durham 

VA Medical Center and a recipient of a VA Research Career Development Award. The primary focus of my research is the treatment 

of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in women survivors of military 

sexual trauma. Today, I have been asked to share my reasons for 

choosing a career as a VA clinician researcher and specifically how 

research opportunities impact the Department of Veterans Affairs’s 

ability to recruit and retain clinicians. 

Let me say at the outset that I love my job. The opportunity to 

conduct research greatly enhances my job satisfaction and has 

played a large role in my decision to remain at VA. 

VA is not the only venue in which a clinician can conduct research, but understand that I have come of age professionally in 

the post-9/11 era. The opportunity to apply my clinical and research training in support of veterans traumatized by their war experiences continues to resonate very strongly with me. 

This war has presented numerous clinical challenges, and in 

many ways, we are still learning as we go. To make progress, VA 

must foster partnerships between research and clinical services 

and must recruit clinician investigators to guide these efforts. 

Towards this end, VA offers exceptional research and training 

opportunities for clinicians like me who are interested in research 

careers. Among these is the Research Career Development Program. This is a highly competitive mentored award that typically 

provides 3 to 5 years of structured research training. Clinicians 

who receive these awards are relieved of 75 percent of their clinical 

duties, allowing for dedicated time to focus on training and developing an individual program of research. 

Despite the many advantages VA offers, it is not necessarily easy 

to build a career as a clinician investigator at VA and I would like 

to highlight several ways in which I believe VA can improve recruitment and retention of clinicians such as me, who are interested in integrating research into their careers. 

To date, the VA has invested in 5 years of my research training. 

Yet what happens when my Career Development Award, and the 

dedicated research time it affords, expires in 2 years is an open 

question. Unlike clinicians at most academic medical centers, VA 

clinicians may not fund a portion of their salaries through research 

grant support. If a non-clinician VA researcher is awarded research 

funds, those funds can be used to pay salary for time devoted to 

the research project. But VA clinicians often perform research duties early in the morning or very late into the night after a long 

day of seeing patients. 

82 

I recommend that VA consider a model that is more in line with 

what is available to clinician researchers working in other academic medical settings, namely to foster recruitment of the best 

care providers and to encourage clinicians to conduct research by 

ensuring dedicated research time. 

Current space constraints are an additional obstacle to the clinician researcher career path. Space is at such a premium at our facility that some of our researchers may soon be moving offsite. A 

geographic divide between research labs and clinics will do little to 

enhance the type of collaborations that I believe are essential to 

move VA research forward in a manner that will best inform the 

clinical care of veterans. Continued investment in the Durham research infrastructure and similar investments at other VA facilities 

are imperative. 

The last obstacle I want to mention is data security in the context of research. Absolutely, veterans’ privacy and research data 

must be safeguarded. That is paramount. However, while I know 

it is not intentional, it has become extremely difficult to share data 

even among VA facilities, and collaborating with non-VA organizations can be even more problematic. I urge VA to ensure that its 

security policies guarantee the safety of data but still allow shared 

research to continue. With improvements in security technology, I 

hope the current situation will get better. But right now, managing 

research data in compliance with VA policies is a significant challenge. 

Serving veterans is what I do, and I am filled with pride by the 

opportunity to do so. That feeling is considerably deepened by the 

opportunity to combine clinical care with research, to compete for 

Career Development Awards, and to be linked with mentors willing 

to nurture my research interests. These are significant factors in 

why I came to and remain at VA; and apparently many of my colleagues also feel this way. When surveyed by VA in 2002, 61 percent of clinician respondents indicated that they would not work at 

VA without research opportunities. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting me today and I am 

happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Strauss follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF VA MEDICAL CARE AND HEALTH RESEARCH (FOVA) PRESENTED BY JENNIFER L. STRAUSS, PH.D., HEALTH SCIENTIST, 

CENTER FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH IN PRIMARY CARE, DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIORAL

SCIENCES, DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research, thank you for the opportunity to testify. FOVA is a coalition of over 90 national academic, medical and 

scientific societies; voluntary health and patient advocacy groups; and veteran service organizations committed to ensuring high-quality health care for our Nation’s 

veterans. 

I am a clinical psychologist and health scientist at the Durham VA Medical Center and a recipient of a VA Research Career Development Award. The primary focus 

of my research is the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in women survivors of military sexual trauma. Today I have been asked to share my reasons for 

choosing a career as a VA clinician-researcher, and specifically, how VA research opportunities impact the Department of Veteran Affairs’ ability to recruit and retain 

talented clinicians. 

Let me say at the outset that I love my job. The opportunity to conduct research 

greatly enhances my job satisfaction and has played a large role in my decision to 

83 

remain at the VA for 7 years. From the time I applied to graduate school, my goal 

was to pursue training and professional opportunities that would allow me to blend 

my clinical and research interests. And VA provides an environment to do just that. 

VA is not the only venue in which a clinician can conduct research. Academic 

medical centers are frequently the landing pad for individuals like me. But understand that I have come of age professionally in the post-9/11 era. I earned my doctorate in June of 2001. Shortly thereafter we were at war. I wanted to help and 

I had a specific skill set that could allow me to do so quite directly. The opportunity 

to apply my clinical and research training in support of veterans traumatized by 

their war experiences continues to resonate very strongly with me, as I believe it 

does with many of my VA colleagues. 

I treat women survivors of military sexual trauma while also conducting research 

to make those treatments more effective. I am a small piece of a shared vision to 

provide the best possible care to our Nation’s veterans. And I am well aware of how 

lucky I am to be able to say that. This war has presented numerous clinical challenges and, in many ways, we are still learning as we go. To make progress, VA 

must foster partnerships between research and clinical services, and must recruit 

clinician investigators to guide these efforts. 

Towards this end, VA offers exceptional research and training opportunities for 

clinicians like me who are interested in research careers. Among these is the Research Career Development Program. This is a highly competitive mentored award 

that typically provides 3–5 years of structured research training. Clinicians who receive these awards are relieved of 75% of their clinical duties, allowing for protected 

time to focus on training and developing an individual program of research. 

This award is specifically designed to attract, develop, and retain talented researchers in areas of particular importance to VA, and it is a powerful recruitment 

tool. I am currently in the second year of my Research Career Development award. 

For this privileged opportunity, I aim to repay VA and our Nation’s veterans hefty 

dividends on their investment in me, in the currency of high quality care and clinically-informed research to improve the care of veterans. 

As a VA research career development awardee, I am in a unique and fortunate 

position. I benefit from truly exceptional research mentoring and training, and I 

have the luxury of devoting a substantial portion of my time to developing a research program at VA. At the Durham VA’s Center for Health Services Research 

in Primary Care, I am one of 31 core investigators, half of whom are clinicians and 

many of whom are young investigators, who jointly attract over $10 million of research grant support annually. The Center’s success is a reflection of exceptional 

leadership, a sophisticated research infrastructure, and a talented, collegial, multidisciplinary faculty who are unusually invested in fostering the careers of junior faculty. The common thread is a deep respect for our nations’ veterans and a drive to 

provide them with the highest quality care and to constantly seek improved treatments. I believe my success to date is largely a reflection of the exceptional opportunities afforded to me in this environment and it is these opportunities that give me 

such professional satisfaction and keep me at the VA. 

Despite the many advantages VA offers, it is not necessarily easy to build a career 

as a clinician investigator at VA. I would like to highlight several ways in which 

I believe VA can improve recruitment and retention of clinicians such as myself, 

who are interested in integrating research into their careers. I offer what follows 

from the perspective of a field worker. I know there are numerous constraints on 

implementing the ideal in the short run. But I also firmly believe that longer-term 

goals should be kept in mind for the good of the veterans we are all committed to 

serve. 

To date, VA has invested in 7 years of my research training. Yet what happens 

when my Career Development award, and the protected research time it affords, expires in 2 years is an open question. Unlike clinicians at most academic medical centers, VA clinicians may not fund a portion of their salaries through research grant 

support. If a non-clinician VA researcher is awarded research funds, those funds can 

be used to pay salary for time devoted to the research project. But VA clinicians 

cannot do this and typically must donate their time, often performing research duties early in the morning or very late into the night after a long day of seeing patients. I do not think this is in the best interest of VA or the veterans we serve. 

I strongly recommend that VA adopt a model that is more in line with what is available to clinician researchers working in academic medical settings. Namely, to foster 

recruitment of the best care providers and to encourage clinicians to conduct research by providing protected research time. The objective, of course, is to hasten 

development of the new and more effective treatments that are urgently needed. 

There are several other ways in which I believe VA could better facilitate clinicians’ involvement in research. Currently, the primary research funding mechanism 

84 

for VA investigators is a merit review award. For health services researchers like 

myself, these are typically 3–5 year studies with relatively large budgets. Understandably, these studies are generally awarded to mature investigators who have already completed a substantial body of work in the research area. Currently missing 

from the VA research funding portfolio in my area of health services research is a 

grant mechanism that would allow individuals to conduct research on a smaller 

scale. I believe this type of funding mechanism, akin to the R03 program offered 

by the National Institutes of Health, would be particularly attractive to VA clinicians interested in taking on research without the commitment of time and resources that large scale studies demand. 

Current space constraints are an additional obstacle to the clinician-researcher career path. Space is at such a premium at our facility that some of our researchers 

may soon be moving off-site. A geographic divide between research labs and clinics 

will do little to enhance the type of collaborations that I believe are essential to 

move VA research forward in a manner that will best inform the clinical care of veterans. Continued investment by VA in the Durham research infrastructure and a 

similar investment at other facilities are imperative. 

The last obstacle I want to mention is data security in the context of research. 

Absolutely, veterans’ privacy and research data must be safeguarded; that is paramount. However, while I know it is not intentional, it has become extremely difficult 

to share data even among VA facilities, and collaborating with non-VA organizations 

can be even more problematic. I urge VA to ensure that its security policies guarantee the safety of data, but still allow shared research to continue. With improvements in security technology I hope the current situation will get better. But right 

now, managing research data in compliance with VA policies is a significant challenge. The reasoning behind some of the obstacles is understandable; the consequences can be severe. 

Finally, I think the career opportunities available at VA remain a too well-kept 

secret. A VA career never occurred to me until a trusted graduate school mentor 

encouraged me to take a closer look. Coming from a traditional academic training 

environment, VA simply wasn’t on my radar. It is time to let this secret out of the 

bag. For the reasons I have described, VA is an elite venue for clinicians and researchers alike and should recruit accordingly. 

Serving those who have served our country is what my colleagues and I do. And 

we are filled with pride by the opportunity to do so. That feeling—that attachment—is considerably deepened because of the opportunity to combine clinical care 

with research, to compete for Career Development awards, and to be linked with 

mentors willing to nurture our research interests. These are significant factors in 

why I came to and remain at the VA. And apparently many of my colleagues feel 

similarly. When surveyed by VA in 2002, 79% judged that research opportunities 

and support were very or extremely important for recruiting and retaining high 

quality clinicians in VA, and 61% of clinician respondents indicated that they would 

not work in VA without research opportunities. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting me today. I am happy to answer any 

questions that you or the other committee members may have. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO JENNIFER

L. STRAUSS, PH.D., HEALTH SCIENTIST, CENTER FOR HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH

IN PRIMARY CARE, DURHAM VA MEDICAL CENTER AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN

PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

BALANCE BETWEEN RESEARCH AND CLINICAL DUTIES

Question 1. Given the need for the VA to do research in areas critical to the 

health and well being of our veterans, how do we strike a balance between protecting research time for present and prospective VA employees, while still keeping 

enough clinicians on the ‘‘front line’’ to meet the acute needs of our veterans, given 

an urgent shortage in this area? 

Response. This is a very good question and I think the concept of ‘‘balance’’ between front line clinical care and investment in research is a critical point. In my 

opinion, one step in this direction would be to allow clinicians to fund a portion of 

their salary (e.g., 1/8th–2/8th) through VA funding and to allow the medical center 

to use the salary support offset to backfill the clinicians’ time. This would be analogous to the NIH model which provides salary support commensurate with the investigator’s level of effort on the project, in addition to the amounts provided for the 

direct and indirect costs of the grant. This approach would allow clinician researchVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:23 Apr 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\41918.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
85 

ers to devote a specific portion of their time to research without disrupting the 

availability of clinical care to veterans. 

In contrast, the current method of providing ‘‘protected’’ time for researchers is 

to use VERA dollars to backfill clinical positions. The concern, which I have heard 

voiced loudly and repeatedly at the annual VA HSR&D meeting, is that VERA dollars are used by medical center directors to fund many competing demands. Additionally, the VERA research allocation is based on prior year funds and the amounts 

provided to each medical center are not tied to specific projects. With the caveat 

that I am not a subject matter expert on VA budgets, VERA or the allocation process, what I am suggesting is a more direct means of ensuring the support of clinicians conducting research and the continued provision of front line clinical care to 

veterans. 

Bear in mind that the vast majority of clinicians do not want to conduct research. 

But I think those who do will play a critical role in improving VHA’s ability to provide the best possible care to our veterans, for decades to come. It is arguably shortsighted to not invest in both our ability to provide timely, high quality care today, 

and to advance the standard and improve the quality of care provided by tomorrow’s 

VHA. In other words, we must strike a balance between VHA’s investment in front 

line clinical care and research. 

DOD AND VA COLLABORATION

Question 2. Over the past couple of years, there has been a lot of attention focused 

on the seamless transition between the VA and the DOD when it comes to information sharing. 

Thinking along those lines, is there any way that the VHA and the DOD could 

pool together and share some of their resources to fill in some of the gaps in clinical 

coverage? 

Response. Broadly speaking, I am certainly in favor of greater collaboration between these agencies, but it is not within my scope of expertise to suggest how best 

to achieve this goal. That said, one promising idea that has been suggested by others is a common electronic medical record, accessible by both DOD and VHA personnel. If tenable, I believe a shared medical record system would help to smooth 

transitions between DOD and VA care. From a health services research perspective, 

a shared electronic medical record would also foster our ability to conduct research 

on veterans’ functioning before and after active duty and deployments, as well as 

after their transition to veteran status. An additional means of strengthening ties 

between agencies may be to assign some VHA staff to DOD, to facilitate transitions 

and access. 

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

I understand that the opportunity to conduct research at VA has 

influenced the course of your career. 

Ms. STRAUSS. Yes, it has. 

Chairman AKAKA. In your view, how could the hiring system be 

modified to attract and retain more researchers like yourself? What 

was it about VA research that made it an attractive option to you 

as a clinician? I would just like to note per Dr. McDonald’s comments that Congress provided the VA research program with a $69 

million increase this year and we are pushing for yet another substantial increase. 

Ms. STRAUSS. Which is much appreciated. You know, there are 

several factors that I think brought me to this career. One really 

is a specific interest in serving veterans and in conducting the type 

of research that I think is necessary to increase the quality of care 

that we are providing over time. So, the mission of that resonates 

very strongly with me. 

I am very fortunate to be at a facility, the Durham VA, that has 

a very strong research infrastructure and is highly supportive of research and of young clinical investigators like myself, and I am 

also really blessed with tremendous mentorship. 

Looking forward, I think a concern that is on everybody’s minds 

who is in a position like myself, or certainly on my own mind, is 

86 

some assurance that we will be allowed to continue to conduct research while also providing patient care. What that means is some 

mechanism, and I am not the individual, I don’t think, to speak to 

what that mechanism should be or how it should be organized, but 

some allowance that there can be some dedicated time for us to 

continue research activities while also taking care of patients. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. Strauss. 

Dr. McDonald, over the course of your career, you have both 

hired contractors in your capacity as a VA administrator and clinician and you have been hired to work in VA as a contractor, so you 

have been through both of those systems. Does VA have the authority and resources to fully staff its facilities on its own, or do 

you believe VA will be required to expand contractor agreements? 

Dr. MCDONALD. Chairman Akaka, I believe that the answer to 

that is a qualified yes, and it really depends upon the size of the 

station or the VA hospital and the relationship with the affiliate 

medical school. In the case of Durham, San Francisco, Minneapolis, 

these are tight affiliations. I trained as a medical student at Duke, 

in fact, in the old Durham VA, and so that relationship goes back 

many, many years. So, except for some very highly remunerated 

specialties, such as neuroradiology, interventional radiology, interventional cardiology, for the most part, I believe that the VA will 

be able to. 

I think the current pay scale, although it is a great improvement, 

is still not adequate to recruit scarce specialties to a VA hospital. 

It takes—and it is not money, it is really the other elements of 

working in the VA system. It is the integrated medical record, it 

is caring for veterans, it is the team approach to health care, it is 

being in a vertically-integrated health care system. If these appeal 

to physicians and we expose our medical students and our residents to these environments, then I believe the VA will be successful if it can offer a career path for investigation and scholarship as 

well as simply seeing patients. If you are simply doing the same 

thing as a VA physician that all other physicians in the community 

are doing and getting paid half as much, then it is going to be very 

difficult to rationalize on pure economic means why you should 

work at the VA. 

Where I believe the Veterans Administration faces particular 

challenges is in marketplaces like the one in which I serve. Our 

school has the largest group practice in the State of Nevada. We 

run two campuses 450 miles apart. For Easterners, that is the distance between Boston and Washington, DC. It is a very competitive 

health care market. So, our Reno VA, which is not a tertiary care 

referral VA, often has to refer patients, as we say, across the hill, 

across the Sierra Nevada to San Francisco, and similarly, Las 

Vegas is the largest metropolitan area without a dedicated VA hospital. There is an integrated VA-DOD facility, but as you are keenly aware, they are building a new VA hospital. 

In those circumstances, it is imperative, I believe, for the VA to 

really reach out to the academic affiliates to build these strong 

lasting ties so that there is a mutual interdependence, because I 

believe that our missions and vision and values are really very 

similar to the VA. In fact, most of those, particularly those who 

87 

have served within the VA, hold it up as a paradigm of health care 

for this country. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you so much, Dr. McDonald. 

This question is for the entire panel. What effect does VA’s hiring 

process have on recruitment, and how do you believe it can be improved and accelerated while still ensuring quality care for veterans? This is for the GAO as well as the providers. Dr. Kanof? 

Dr. KANOF. I don’t have the answer, but at least I can give you 

some data. I mean, when we did our surveys—and, granted, this 

was in 2005 and 2006—we surveyed VA officials that were responsible for H.R. activity and the average took 15 months. In one case, 

it was as short as 3 months, and this is for the CRNAs. But in another case, it was as long as 60 months. So, clearly, wherever you 

are, either 15 months or 60 months, that is too long. 

The previous panel went through some of the steps, but it really 

takes a concerted effort to, as soon as you have made the decision 

to hire someone, to the posting, to the interviewing, to the job offering, to knowing are you going to be offering retentions? Are you 

going to be doing relocation bonuses? All that needs to be known 

from step one so that the timeframe could be significantly shortened. 

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. McDonald? 

Dr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir, Chairman Akaka. There is one piece of 

the VA hiring puzzle which is not broken and I would urge the 

Committee to consider this when thinking about changes. That is 

that currently the VA—and I don’t know the situation with nursing, I am sure we can hear about that—but currently, the VA is 

allowed to hire an employee, a physician, who is licensed in any 

State in the Union to practice exclusively in a VA facility. That is 

extremely important, because it may take—in our case, in Nevada—it takes a minimum of 6 months to obtain a medical license 

and an additional 3 to 6 months before a physician in the civilian 

sector is fully credentialed with payers. So, essentially, the VA is 

treating licensure in any State as a national medical license, which 

I think that is a piece that works very well. 

I used to think, until I joined the State of Nevada, that the VA 

had a cumbersome bureaucracy. I am now disillusioned. I think 

that we can probably match the Federal system for hiring any day, 

and I think there probably are some streamlining steps we can 

take. But, on the other hand, I also realize, as a leader who recruits a lot of other leaders, that it is very important to cast a 

broad net when you are looking for the most qualified individual. 

And so, some of the things that seem to be ponderous and slow, 

hopefully, as long as we get rid of the unnecessary steps, are, I 

think, very important parts of ensuring a quality workforce. Thank 

you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. McDonald. 

Ms. O’Meara? 

Ms. O’MEARA. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. From what I have 

seen, one thing, I keep track of the newspaper ads for the VA and 

they are pretty few and far between. I always wonder why they 

don’t advertise more just in the Sunday paper, which a lot of people 

get the Sunday paper. 

88 

Another issue, from experience, I think that H.R. needs to be 

fully staffed at my facility and better trained in the process, especially for title 38, because it seems there are many, many people 

with roles to play in hiring the title 38 professional staff—from the 

nurse recruiter to the chief nurse executive, then to HR, then to 

the staffing director. It appeared to me that there wasn’t a whole 

lot of working together. It is like they are working separately and 

have their own piece. But, if no one is really overseeing the whole 

process, it can just be slow. Personal experience. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Phelps? 

Mr. PHELPS. I would echo what is being said about human resources policies and procedures, but I wonder if I could also add— 

and it is on the recruitment side but it is also the retention side— 

about research. Psychologists are kind of a unique discipline. We 

are trained at the doctoral level to not only be service delivery providers, but also as researchers, and so Dr. Strauss is a great example of our best and brightest. If we are recruiting psychologists to 

one or the other role in the system, we are missing the skills and 

the expertise that psychologists like Dr. Strauss bring to the system. 

So, the point that she made about release time to do research— 

because psychologists, again, are not bench researchers as you see 

in medicine and other places. We research clinical processes, the 

delivery of service and how best to do that. For example, the two 

evidence-based practices that VA cites for the treatment of PTSD, 

those were developed by clinical researchers in VA, those are people who live in the delivery system as well as do research. 

The way the system is configured currently, and this is my experience at a number of facilities around the country, is in many 

cases, psychologists have 5 percent release time to do research. 

What they do is get together and pool their 5 percent time across 

eight people and hand it to somebody in the psychology staff to do 

research. That is a very foolish waste of research and clinical activity, in my opinion. So, a system that recruits people at their skill 

level and expertise to fill real needs in the system, I think would 

go a long way. 

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

Dr. Strauss? 

Ms. STRAUSS. Let me see. What can I add to this? Probably distinct from other members of the panel, I am on the early side of 

my career and I have a very fortunate position in VA right now. 

My hiring was not through the normal course, because I was able 

to pursue a research path through a grant award early on. 

It is not that long ago, though, that I graduated, and I have to 

say that if I were on the market looking for a job and I understood 

that it might take 6 months or so for a position at VA to become 

available or for the offer to come through, I don’t know that I 

would have been able to afford to wait that long. I don’t know if 

I would have felt terribly welcome or wanted. 

Because I haven’t been in this position, I am not sure if such 

things are clarified up front. But, I think it would be really important to express clearly up front to new hires what the package is. 

So, obviously, for a psychologist like myself interested in research, 

that would be a piece of the puzzle. The potential for other benefits, 

89 

like loan repayment programs, would also factor in, and I think 

would actually be crucially important for people just coming out of 

school. I think that that is a real factor. 

I guess the upshot is, when one graduates, one knows one needs 

to get a job and wants to land someplace where they are going to 

feel welcome and really want to build a career. And some of the 

timelines that I am hearing about, I think could be problematic in 

recruiting people at the highest level, because hopefully you are 

talking about people who also have options elsewhere. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you all so much. Let me call on Senator 

Burr for his questions. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would appreciate 

it if nobody would take it personally that I missed the first four 

and got back for Dr. Strauss. It is a scheduling problem. 

Dr. McDonald, let me assure you, coming from a guy that represents a State that is over 600-plus miles from one end to the 

other, I understand what 450 can be and how challenging it 

can be. 

I wanted to just make an observation on your remark about the 

national licensure process. It does make it easier for the VA to access, in a timely fashion, health professionals. It comes with a tremendous amount of responsibility on the part of VA to make sure 

that we have gone through the review of these individuals thoroughly. So, I just caution us that speed is not the lone objective, 

it is the quality of the individuals, and we have had incidences of 

late where we have gone back and realized that we had a breakdown in our system. I don’t think there are any of us that are proponents that we change something in that national licensure, but 

I think we constantly are reminded that we need to remind the entire system of the responsibility to proceed with caution as we go 

through it. 

Ms. O’Meara, your statement mentioned several bills signed into 

law that have failed to be fully implemented by the VA through either inaction or delay. Specifically, you mentioned provisions involving contract physicians, provisions to enhance recruitment, retention, and pay improvements. Would you just briefly tell me 

where you think this disconnect is occurring? 

Ms. O’MEARA. Well, the first area is with alternative work schedules for nurses. I do not know of any facility where the 36-hour 

week paid as full-time 40-hour week has actually been implemented. Neither has a 9-month work year been offered. So, it was 

as if the bill was never written, the law was never passed. That 

is the first area. 

I think the EDRP program is not fully—the amounts that are 

even authorized now are not being fully given to individuals and 

the amounts could be higher, given the cost of education. Those are 

the two areas I have the most familiarity with. 

Senator BURR. Great. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Phelps, you highlighted several problems, as well, that are 

obstacles to retention of VA psychologists. Let me ask you what the 

normal turnover rate among VA psychologists is and if you have 

identified any problems that contributed directly to an accelerated 

departure by psychologists. 

90 

Mr. PHELPS. Senator Burr, I do not have the data on turnover 

rate for psychologists in VA. Anecdotally, having worked with psychologists for a long time in the system, psychologists tend to stay 

for a long time. We just have had retirement parties for at least 

four senior psychologists there 30 years, and I am sure those data 

would be available from the VA system. 

My experience, though, is once you are in, you are in. That has 

changed of late, though, with the promise of advancement through 

the Hybrid 38 system for many psychologists who have operated— 

I know many psychologists who have been in senior leadership positions across the country for 20 years who are still at a GS–13 

level, which is the journeyman level in the system. The statute was 

passed to expand that system in 2003. Here we are 5 years later 

with what we consider very complicated red tape, bureaucratic systems, that essentially are holding our psychologists at bay, continuing to ask them to perform far above the duties of just service 

delivery or research but rather leadership position of teams, treatment units, whole components of VA and not being able to advance 

in the system despite qualifying for advancement through the new 

National Professional Standards—— 

Senator BURR. If I made the statement that I personally don’t 

think that the VA delivery system responds the same way that the 

private delivery system does to technology, to research and the 

findings from that research, would you agree with that? 

Mr. PHELPS. I would agree with it mostly, Senator. The issue of 

the electronic medical record, however, in the VA is one at least we 

at the APA—we are studying and participating in national efforts 

for a national medical record—we see that as a world-class system. 

Now, this is not to say there are not problems with the system, but 

with regard to personnel and staffing patterns—and I am really 

not attempting to introduce turf into this hearing, because I have 

great respect for our physician colleagues, our nurse colleagues, our 

occupational therapist colleagues, and so forth—but VA, to simplify, VA’s hiring procedures and personnel procedures, at least 

with regard to health care delivery professionals, are ones that 

were born out of the days when health care in this country was 

really driven by what we call the doctors’ workshop. 

And sir, what that means, the doctors’ workshop is the hospital. 

People don’t talk about that much anymore. We have seen radical 

improvements, and I think this Committee has a large responsibility here; over the last 10 years in a great deal of new and modern thinking in the VA’s delivery system so that it has moved out 

of the hospital, into the community. It still needs to go further. The 

real frontier is the rural frontier, as we heard earlier. But many, 

many, the development of the electronic record and so forth. But 

the personnel system is one that was rooted about 40 years ago, 

back to the doctors’ workshop. 

Senator BURR. Let me add to something that you said and that 

is that we might agree that it doesn’t happen naturally within the 

VA and there is a progression that happens naturally in the private health system. 

Mr. PHELPS. Yes. 

Senator BURR. You are right. It has been prodded by Congress. 

It has been prodded by you. It has been prodded by associations 

91 

that might represent veterans. I think it is safe to say that with 

the exponential change that health care is seeing in the future, we 

can’t wait for the VA to be prodded to do something if we expect 

it to be on the cutting edge of research and development. And I 

think most of us on the Committee believe that as it relates to 

Traumatic Brain Injury, PTSD, to other mental health challenges, 

that the data is sufficient in the system to say the faster you can 

get people in, the more intense the treatment and the rehabilitation can be, the more you can affect the outcome on the other end. 

I am sure at some point we will prod to a point that we will actually believe that not only do we have a system that is conducive 

to that, but we also have the right incentives on the patient side 

to make sure that, in fact, they are accessing that treatment at an 

early point in an intense way with their expectations being, ‘‘I am 

going to get better.’’ 

I have got to move to Jennifer just real quick, if I can, because 

you talked about a number of things. You talked about the need 

to have the right type of facilities. Here is the challenge for this 

Committee and for the VA as a whole. If you look at the veterans’ 

population, it continues to age, though we have an infusion now, 

the result of the War on Terror. How much of our responsibility is 

it to make sure that our investment in facilities reflects where our 

veterans are living? 

It is pretty easy to look at Nevada and see the growth numbers 

and say, this is a good place to put a VA facility. It is easy to look 

at North Carolina and the growth projections, but more importantly, the retiring military families and say, gee, we could start 

building today and we probably couldn’t meet the need. 

I think we have to go further, and I believe that we have got to 

get it even closer than just a couple places in a State, and I think 

Senator Tester said this. Even though you are not going to look at 

Montana and find a growth pattern that would say, this requires 

a tremendous investment right now, it still requires us to look at 

where the population is and decide whether we can restructure the 

delivery system in a way that we can provide the services in a 

fashion that more people take advantage of it. 

The Chairman and I have exchanged thoughts as it relates to our 

ability to not dislocate a veteran from his family, not dislocate a 

veteran and his family from his community to access care. That is 

how the private system begins to set up. So, I think we have got 

to think of new efforts in the future. 

I am curious to know how much of the research that is done at 

the Duke VA is driven based upon the tightness of the affiliation 

with Duke University and the understanding of today’s academic 

institutions about the need to perfect and to focus on research? 

Ms. STRAUSS. Let me make sure I am understanding your question. How much of—— 

Senator BURR. If Duke University wasn’t next door and had the 

tight affiliation with the Durham VA, do you believe the Durham 

VA would be involved in the degree of research that they are currently involved in? 

Ms. STRAUSS. I am actually not sure, but I think that the Duke 

academic community is a tremendous resource. 

92 

Senator BURR. I agree with you totally. My answer would be, 

probably not. It would probably not be involved in research to the 

degree that they are, and I think somebody alluded to it earlier— 

Dr. McDonald or Dr. Phelps—that it really is leveraging knowledge 

learned from a standpoint of research from the academic world into 

the clinical world, and understanding where it is appropriate within the Veterans Administration for us to really drive research that, 

quite frankly, we can’t get anywhere else. This is a gold mine if you 

pick the right types of things. 

In Wilmington, North Carolina, we have one of the largest diabetes research studies being done in a community health center. 

Now, most people around the world would never believe that that 

would be a beneficial pool to do a study on diabetes. In fact, it is 

probably the richest pool, and outside of a community health center, I am not sure that you could find the cross-section like you 

could there. 

I think we are going to be challenged in the future as to how we 

take more of the VA facilities and have that tight relationship with 

an academic institution, even if it is not right there on the same 

footprint like Durham exists. I don’t think there is any question 

that we will continue to be challenged to find new ways to market 

the VA, and this is my last question. 

You made a statement that if it hadn’t have been for an academic mentor, you might not have gone to the VA and worked. Let 

me just say—— 

Ms. STRAUSS. I think my statement was the quality of 

mentorship available at my facility—— 

Senator BURR. OK. 

Ms. STRAUSS [continuing]. Was a very strong attraction to me. 

Senator BURR. My question is, how does the VA change its marketing strategy to market itself to these unbelievable academic institutions and begin to cultivate in these medical students a desire 

to work at the VA? Is that something we should be doing that we 

are not doing today? 

Ms. STRAUSS. Probably. In my written testimony, one of the 

things I mentioned is that I was coming from a very traditional 

academic medical environment, and honestly, VA wasn’t on my 

radar when I first started looking for positions. It was a very trusted graduate school mentor to whom I am quite grateful who suggested to me that given my research interests, this would be a really good fit. On my own, I am not sure I would have considered it, 

just because in the ivory tower that is academic research, it wasn’t 

on my radar. 

Senator BURR. I look at a nurse with a 4-year degree who is 

being recruited by people from six different States 6 months before 

she graduates based upon the market today and the need for 

nurses. The same is true for every health care professional, and I 

guess the point I was beginning to make is that VA can no longer 

silently sit by, waiting until people graduate, and hope that VA is 

in the mix of consideration. 

Do we not have to reprogram to where we proactively go out into 

the community and begin to pull students in; because there is a 

story to tell, and the story, as Dr. McDonald said, it is not always 

the highest pay. It is not always the most responsive system. But 

93 

the mission that they carry out is a mission that is more fulfilling 

than anywhere else somebody in the health profession can work. 

Listen, we have gone well over the time that I know the Chairman allotted and asked you to be here. And again, I apologize that 

I have been out and in. I can’t thank all of you enough for the 

value of the information. And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to trying to figure out exactly how we use this in a very positive way 

with you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator 

Burr. 

As you know, this hearing is focusing on making VA the workplace of choice and what we are finding out are many facts here, 

directly from you, the providers. Before we adjourn, I want to ask 

the panel on your own to say a few last words about making VA 

the workplace of choice for health care providers. Thinking about 

that, thinking about what Senator Burr has asked, what can you 

add to this about making VA the workplace of choice? 

Dr. KANOF. Well, I will start. I am going to echo some of the comments that other members have said, and it is not in our statement, but it goes back to our report. Interesting enough, when we 

did a survey—and again, this was just the CRNAs—salary, while 

important, was not one of the drivers for what the CRNAs were 

looking for in terms of improvement. I mean, they really did want 

the flexibility in their work schedule. We didn’t know to ask them 

about a market as they do in San Francisco, but they wanted flexibility. They wanted child care. They wanted those elements of quality-of-life that actually the Federal Government and many private 

sector hospitals are providing. 

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. McDonald? 

Dr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the AAMC’s 

perspective and from my own personal perspective, I would say 

that it is to continue to grow graduate medical education, to carefully consider more robust loan repayment schedules for VA physicians, and to ensure that the tradition and importance of a strong 

affiliate relationship with the VA is true not just at the large premier institutions, but at some of the smaller institutions, such as 

the two that I am responsible for affiliates with. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Ms. O’Meara? 

Ms. O’MEARA. Thank you, Chairman. I think there are several 

convergence areas for this to make it the workplace of choice. The 

pay issues, we have discussed all of those and all of them are important, retention pay, recruitment incentives. I think the VA could 

definitely start a marketing campaign. I don’t think I really see 

that, you know, what Mr. Burr was talking about, to attract people 

to the mission. I think that sounds wonderful. 

One other area that shows up in nursing research a lot is the 

workplace environment is very important to nurses particularly, 

and I am sure other health care professionals. The work environment, which has to do with collegiality, with being treated with respect, having a say in your workplace, things like staffing, things 

like flexible work schedules, if those things aren’t implemented, 

they will be going other places, and for the newer generation coming in, the Gen X-ers, VA has been shown that they will move 

along. They will not stay in an environment that they don’t enjoy. 

94 

And so, as opposed to the older generation where we have the 27- 

year tenures, I don’t think we will see that, unless the VA changes. 

Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Phelps? 

Mr. PHELPS. Yes. I think the VA’s—this is a little beyond the 

personnel systems—the VA’s continued innovation and modernization of the health care system toward more integrated care models, 

team-based care, all of these are the modern approach to treatment; world class electronic recordkeeping; and that sort of thing; 

continued innovation in VA so that it is truly seen as the world 

class health care delivery system that it can be is probably the 

strongest marketing point, shall we say, not only for veterans seeking care in the system but for health care professionals to come in. 

And finally, of course, fair pay for a fair day’s work for health care 

professionals. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Dr. Strauss? 

Ms. STRAUSS. Thank you. I guess what I can add or at least reiterate from what already has been said, salary, of course, is an 

issue—fair pay for what we are doing. I will also say that if salary 

were the driving issue, I wouldn’t be here because I could be paid 

better elsewhere. And so that is not the thing that keeps me here, 

although I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be paid fairly. 

One of the big driving things that attracted me and keeps me 

here is truly the mission of what we do and how it makes me feel 

about myself and the time that I am spending doing it, which is 

quite a bit of time. And I think that once people enter the system, 

their commitment and attachment to what we are doing only 

grows. 

I think VA could do a better job, potentially, of marketing the 

quality of training that is offered in this environment. As I mentioned, when I was in graduate school, it really wasn’t on my radar. 

I had no idea, truly, what the resources were and what a tremendous environment this is to grow a career. So, it is a bit of a kept 

secret and I wish that weren’t the case. 

And for the record, I plan to be here for many years to come, so 

I have every intention and very much hope to continue to build a 

career at VA. 

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

In closing, I again want to thank this panel for appearing today. 

Your input on these issues is valuable to this Committee as we 

work to make VA the employer of choice in our country, and especially for health care professionals in the years to come. 

I want you to know that we will be submitting additional questions to you for the record, and again, I want to say thanks so 

much for your responses today. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(95) 

A P P E N D I X 

DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, 

Durham, NC, April 7, 2008. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN AKAKA: My name is Harvey Jay Cohen, MD. I am the Professor 

and Chairman of Department of Medicine at Duke University Medical Center, having recently retired from the Department of Veterans Affairs after 35 years of service. I am extremely sorry that I cannot accept the invitation to appear in person 

before your Committee to offer testimony regarding the VA Research Service. Unfortunately, unavoidable prior scheduling conflicts preclude my doing so. However, I 

am delighted to respond to the opportunity to write today to express my strongest 

support for the VA Research Service. I do so because it is my belief that my own 

career mirrors many others in the VA, and can offer an example of how the VA can 

be a pivotal driving force in the recruitment and retention of physicians for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In many respects I owe the greatest debt of gratitude 

to the VA Research Service for offering me the opportunity to initiate and develop 

essentially my whole career within the VA and in affiliation with Duke University. 

I believe this a model replicated many times over across this country. 

Let me illustrate. In 1971 I was a young faculty member, just having joined the 

faculty at Duke University one year before. As you may know, our institution is 

closely affiliated with the VA Medical Center in Durham, located just across the 

street. I had done part of my residency training and fellowship training at the VA, 

and had an excellent experience. When asked if I would consider spending my clinical time in hematology and oncology at the VA, I initially hesitated because in addition to my commitment to clinical and educational activities, I was interested in developing my research career as well. When I learned that I could compete for an 

opportunity to receive a Research Career Development Award, I seized that opportunity immediately. I was fortunate enough to compete successfully and became a 

VA Research Clinical Investigator the following year. I set up my laboratory at the 

VA, and became a full time VA investigator and clinician. In ensuing years, I became the Chief of the Hematology/Oncology section at the VA, and then Chief of the 

Medical Service from 1976 through 1982. Throughout that period I remained funded 

by competitive grants under the VA merit review program. I also held funding 

through the NIH, but based that entire activity at the VA. 

In subsequent years I became interested in the new discipline of geriatrics and 

led the effort at our institution to secure a Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center in the early 1980’s, and from that point forward concentrated my efforts 

on geriatrics with an emphasis on cancer in the older individual. This further cemented my ties with the VA as we continued to expand and develop our programs. 

Those programs became the basis for the development of the entire geriatrics program at Duke University as well as the VA, a program that has for the last several 

years been consistently ranked in the top five in the country. Over those years, as 

my research interests evolved, the VA Research Service offered me the opportunity 

not only to compete for more basic research, but subsequently for more health services-oriented research and cooperative studies. Each of these, I hope, made contributions to our ability to care for our patients better, but also offered me wonderful 

opportunities which further cemented my relationship with the VA. This is just one 

example of how the broad spectrum of the portfolio of VA research can accommodate 

and encourage physicians with many different interests to serve within the VA system. Personally the VA Research Service allowed me the opportunity to take on clinical and administrative roles which kept me within the system for virtually my enVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:23 Apr 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\41918.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
96 

tire career. I could not be more enthusiastic about the potential of the VA Research 

Service. 

However, currently there are great challenges despite the tremendous opportunities that continue to exist. Among these challenges is that over the years, the clinical load has increased for many of the physicians within the VA, and this has had 

consequences in the ability to devote time to research. This is not a problem for people in the career development program. However, for those who are in the clinical 

service, despite having funding for merit review grants, the time to do the research 

is difficult to carve out. While it is my understanding that accommodations have 

been made for this through the VERA modeling, and funding is supposed to be provided to support these investigators’ research time, it would appear that because of 

tight budgetary constraints and other priorities, these dollars do not end up supporting that time directly. It seems to me that the VA might consider an option 

somewhat like one that the NIH uses when money is awarded to the VA Research 

Service, such that when physician investigators apply for research grants a portion 

of their time and FTE could be budgeted directly on the grant, and thus will directly 

protect that time for the research activity. A second challenge is that science has 

evolved. In past years, when I was beginning my career the individual investigator 

working in his laboratory, perhaps with some collaborations, could be successful. 

Currently, however, with the evolution of scientific technology, it is rare that this 

situation occurs. Rather, science has become a team game. One needs an environment that is supportive both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of colleagues 

with complementary scientific expertise. This is sometimes difficult to achieve within a given VA institution’s walls, although at some of the more complex tertiary care 

medical centers with substantial affiliations this can be done. However, even in 

those circumstances, a flexible and fluid approach to location and activities for any 

budding investigator must be encouraged, to allow the best of translational science 

to bring the best of care for the future, to the VA. 

Despite these challenges I believe that the VA research system still has great potential. In particular, it has substantial advantages related to the patient population. This is a national system with national databases and the potential to provide accurate patient descriptions (sometimes referred to as the phenotype) which 

can inform research in many different areas, in particular genomics research. This 

would allow the VA to participate actively in the coming revolution in the approach 

to personalized medicine. The databases within the VA are a natural for large-scale 

epidemiologic work, and the patient population is a natural for cooperative studies. 

Moreover, as the proportion of women now being cared for by the VA has increased, 

the patient population becomes even more representative for such studies. 

Finally, let me say a bit about the critical role that VA research has played in 

supporting the growth of certain areas and disciplines. Perhaps the best example 

of this is geriatrics. My own career parallels the growth of geriatrics in this country, 

a growth largely initiated and sustained by funding of centers such as the Geriatrics 

Research Education and Clinical Centers, and subsequently MIRECs and others. 

These have been able to focus activity through groups of investigators with similar 

interests to work together and have made great advances, both for the VA and the 

country at large. Such centers, especially the GRECCS, are under substantial budgetary threats. I would urge the Committee, as it looks at VA research, to find ways 

to protect these jewels in the VA’s crown. 

As you can tell, I am most enthusiastic about the VA and its research. Why 

should I not be? It has afforded me the ability to grow my career while being able 

to be of service to the veterans in this country to whom we owe so much. Thank 

you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

Sincerely, 

HARVEY JAY COHEN, M.D., 

Walter Kempner Professor and Chair, Department of Medicine, 

Director, Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, 

Duke University Medical Center. 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY ANN CONVERSO, RN, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED AMERICAN NURSES, AFL–CIO 

I would like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Republican Member, and Members 

of the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony for the hearing on ‘‘Making the VA the Workplace of Choice for Health Care Providers.’’ My name is Ann 

Converso and I have been a registered nurse in acute medical/surgical units and 

later I.V. therapy at the VA Western New York Health Care in New York’s VISN 

2 region for more than 30 years. I have also been an active member of my union, 

97 

the United American Nurses (UAN), AFL–CIO, during that time. I am testifying 

today as the President of the United American Nurses, a union representing registered nurses—6,000 of whom are VA nurses. 

There exists a health care crisis in our country regarding the shortage of registered nurses. A 2002 report by the Health Resources and Services Administration 

states that by 2020, hospitals will be short 808,416 RNs. In a 2002 survey by the 

United American Nurses, three out of every ten nurses said it was unlikely they 

would be a hospital staff nurse in 5 years. The VA health care system has by no 

means been immune to the shortage. 

As nurses leave the VA system, new nurses are not joining the VA at comparable 

rates, and patient load is increasing. In its own report, ‘‘A Call to Action,’’ the VA 

states that it must replace up to 5.3 percent of its RN workforce per year to keep 

up with RNs retiring. By all accounts, that is not happening. In its Web site documentation of system-wide capacities, VA statistics show that between 1996 and 2002 

the number of full-time-equivalent RNs went down by 8.4 percent. During that same 

time period, the number of ‘‘unique patients’’ treated at the VA went up by 55 percent. 

In my years as a VA nurse, I have experienced several nursing shortages firsthand. I believe I speak for other VA nurses when I say that we love our jobs and 

the important work we do in caring for our Nation’s veterans. With that said, registered nurses are leaving the bedside in favor of the many other job options now 

available to us, from clinic jobs, outpatient jobs, computer jobs, quality management, 

doctors’ offices, pharmaceutical jobs or leaving nursing entirely. A contributing factor causing registered nurse to leave the VA is problems they are experiencing with 

section 7422 of title 38. 

Congress amended Title 38 to provide medical professionals who work at VA facilities with collective bargaining rights, which include the rights to use the negotiated grievance procedure and arbitration. Under 38 U.S.C., section 7422, covered 

employees can negotiate, file grievances and arbitrate disputes over working conditions except ‘‘any matter or question concerning or arising out of:’’ 

• professional conduct or competence (defined as direct patient care or clinical 

competence; 

• peer review; or 

• the establishment, determination, or adjustment of employee compensation. 

Increasingly, VA management has interpreted these exceptions very broadly, and 

has refused to bargain over significant workplace issues affecting medical professionals. Recent court decisions are upholding VA’s broad reading of Section 7422, 

even when management raises it after completion of the arbitration process. 

Congress passed this law in 1991 to strengthen the bargaining rights of VA medical professionals. By its own admission, the VA recognizes the critical role that 

health care professionals play in improving quality of care. According to the VA Office of Nursing, ‘‘VA nurses have been widely recognized for their instrumental work 

in initiating, developing, implementing, and monitoring the practices and policies 

that made VHA one of the world’s foremost authorities in patient safety and quality 

outcomes evidenced by performance measures—an exceptional achievement by any 

assessment.’’ (DVA Web site, April 30, 2007) 

In practice, VA health care professionals have a shrinking role in quality assurance and patient safety. Too often, the Human Resource staff is making health care 

decisions instead. The VA’s current 7422 policy goes directly against good medicine 

and Congressional intent. Employees leave the VA for other public and private 

health care systems where they have more rights, which in turn pose’s a threat on 

recruitment and retention at the VA. Congress needs to amend section 7422 of Title 

38 to ensure that the VA complies with Congressional intent and that registered 

nurses are able to care for veterans with dignity, respect and the basic bargaining 

rights they were intended to have. 

To address this problem, Senator Rockefeller, along with Senators Webb, Brown, 

and Mikulski introduced S. 2824, a bill that would improve collective bargaining 

rights of registered nurses in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The UAN is 

pleased by the introduction of this legislation and strongly endorses it. The UAN 

strongly urges Members of the Committee to support and work for the passage of 

this important legislation. 

Thank you again for opportunity to provide testimony regarding this important 

issue. The UAN looks forward to working with the Committee to protect registered 

nurses and the veterans they take care of. 

98 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY CHARLES INGOGLIA, VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COMMUNITY BEHAVIORAL

HEALTHCARE

The National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of its 1,400 member agencies who provide 

medical and rehabilitative treatment and support services to nearly six million 

adults, children, and families with mental and addiction disorders in every community across America. 

We appreciate the Committee’s interest in meeting the physical and behavioral 

health needs of our Nation’s veterans. Since the initiation of OEF and OIF, nearly 

800,000 servicemembers have been discharged and are eligible for VA care. Of 

those, more than one-third sought medical care within the VA. The Department has 

also acknowledged that mental disorders are the second most commonly reported 

health concern by veterans seeking care. 

A June 2007 Army study found that 49% of Army National Guard soldiers and 

43% of Marine reservists reported symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression. At 

the end of their tours of duty, these citizen soldiers return to their families and communities, oftentimes miles away from a VA facility. 

To meet this need, the VA has hired nearly 3,800 mental health workers, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and clinical psychologists, since 

2005. Most of these professionals have been hired in the past 18 months. The Department has expressed interest in hiring at least an additional 500 mental health 

workers in the near future. 

The VA’s interest in hiring permanent full time staff to meet this need is based 

on a stated desire to assure sustainable, evidence-based programs. This approach, 

however, is exacerbating an existing mental health workforce shortage, and may not 

meet the long-term treatment and rehabilitation needs of returning veterans. 

Most Americans with serious mental illnesses receive their treatment from government sponsored or not-for-profit community-based mental health organizations. 

From California to Maine, and in every State in between, there is currently a shortage of qualified mental health workers. While the shortage of psychiatrists and 

nurses is the most severe, there are shortages in all areas, including social workers, 

mental health counselors, and psychologists. 

The VA’s recent efforts to increase its mental health workforce have exacerbated 

this shortage. Community-based mental health organizations around the country report that staff are being recruited away by the VA, leaving them unable to serve 

current clients and looking once again for qualified replacements in a market with 

few to choose from. This situation is even more acute in rural areas of the country. 

While it is clear that many returning servicemembers are currently seeking care 

for mental disorders, it is less than clear what their long-term treatment needs will 

be. Instead of providing for a ‘‘surge capacity’’ to meet the current need, the VA is 

hiring permanent, full time staff in a system where the average employee remains 

until retirement. Such as approach would also provide the Department, and Congress, time to understand the long-term treatment needs of Veterans and to develop 

effective programs to meet them, as opposed to building a system that may not be 

relevant to what veterans need or want. 

In our view, rather than competing with, or recruiting from, existing communitybased mental organizations, the VA could pursue a targeted strategy of cooperation 

and collaboration through service partnerships. Such a course of action would provide immediate treatment capacity, as well as ameliorate the ongoing damage to the 

private sector inflicted by VA recruitment of mental health professionals. 

Further, the establishment of service partnerships with existing community-based 

organizations would also extend the ability of the VA to provide needed treatment 

services in rural areas of the country where many returning National Guard and 

Reserve component veterans live. The stigma associated with mental illnesses already serves as a barrier to care, veterans do not need the further barrier of long 

travel times to access care. 

Effective service partnership would be characterized by VA control of the referral 

process, as well as minimum standards for clinical training. Community organizations participating in such arrangements would be required to hire veterans as peer 

outreach workers, and to be competent in understanding the military culture and 

mindset. Additionally, all treatment records would be transmitted to the VA for inclusion in the veteran’s electronic medical record to assure continuity of care. 

Such models of cooperation exist, albeit in short supply. It is recognized that any 

such arrangements would be in existence only as long as the need existed and are 

not intended to replace the existing network of VA controlled care. 

99 

We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to further develop 

these issues in support of our troops, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Please feel free to contact me by telephone at 301.984.6200, 

ext. 249, or via email—chucki@thenationalcouncil.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARA MARBERRY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AND ANJALI

JOSEPH, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AT THE CENTER FOR HEALTH DESIGN

Chairman Akaka and distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Sara 

Marberry with The Center for Health Design, along with my colleague Anjali Joseph. Thank you for the opportunity to present our thoughts on how the design of 

the physical environment of health care can help increase patient and staff safety 

and satisfaction, and worker efficiency. 

The Center for Health Design, which was founded in 1993, is a nonprofit research, 

education, and advocacy organization of forward-thinking health care, elder care, design, and construction professionals who are leading the quest to improve the quality of health care facilities and create new environments for healthy aging. Our mission is to transform health care settings into healing environments that improve 

outcomes through the creative use of evidence-based design. 

Traditionally, health care environments have been organized to support the individual work efforts of practitioners in various roles and disciplines (doctors, nurses, 

therapists, dieticians, and many others) who work primarily in their areas of expertise and attempt to coordinate with others by orders, notes, phone calls, pages and 

other methods of individual communication. Patients and families have traditionally 

been viewed as passive recipients of care rather than as active experts in their own 

life and health conditions. 

In contrast, a growing body of evidence compiled by The Center for Health Design 

and others demonstrates that health care work happens most effectively when practitioners work highly interdependently in well-functioning teams, with active participation by patients and families (McCarthy & Blumenthal, 2006; Uhlig, Brown, 

Nason, Camelio, & Kendall, 2002). As care moves from simply ‘‘treating disease’’ to 

healing the individual in a holistic sense—physically, emotionally and psychologically—health care teams must increasingly work seamlessly together and include the patient and family as integral team members. 

A disconnect has arisen between the traditional, individual-centric health care organizational and physical infrastructure of the workplace and the way that health 

care practitioners, patients, and families optimally must work together. This manifests itself in the form of inefficiencies, communication breakdowns, occupational 

stress, medical errors, and other operational failures that are alarmingly common 

in health care today. 

Further, the physical environment of the health care workplace, along with other 

factors such as culture and work processes, also impacts the health and safety of 

the health care workforce. According to the Peter D. Hart Research Associates’ 

(2001) survey of registered nurses (RN), the primary reason why nurses leave health 

care other than for retirement reasons is to find a job that is less stressful and physically demanding. In a survey of nurses conducted by the American Nurses Association (2001), 76% of the nurses stated that unsafe working conditions interfered with 

their ability to provide quality care. 

In order to understand and address these problems, it is necessary to consider the 

health care workplace as an interdependent system comprised of the physical environment, work processes, organizational culture (e.g. formal and informal values, 

norms, expectations and policies, etc.), workforce demographics, and information 

technology (Becker, 2006). It is important to consider the interdependencies and patterns of interaction between these elements, rather than focusing on individual elements alone. 

While several studies indicate that the physical environment impacts staff outcomes in health care settings, it is clear that a well-designed environment alone is 

unlikely to achieve its intent without a supportive work culture and the technology 

in place. Likewise, a supportive work culture such as one that promotes family and 

patient participation in care processes is unlikely to function successfully without 

the presence of design features (such as space for families in patient rooms) that 

make this possible. 

Hospital redesign and renovation projects provide the opportunity to consider how 

these different elements might interact. The challenge is to create settings where 

the physical environment, technology and organizational culture together support 

ways of working that ensure health, safety and effectiveness for all in health care. 

100 

HOSPITALS ARE DANGEROUS PLACES TO WORK

Of the 14 industries with the highest numbers of occupational injuries and illnesses, three are in health care, with the top two being hospitals and nursing and 

residential care facilities. Health care workers are exposed to various occupational 

hazards on a daily basis. They are exposed to airborne infections in the hospital as 

well as those acquired through direct contact with patients. Taking care of patients 

in the hospital is often back breaking work with nurses required to manually lift 

heavy patient loads. This is an issue of great concern today with the increasing 

bariatric population in US hospitals. 

For night shift nurses, poorly entrained circadian rhythms and lack of sleep contribute to stress, fatigue and health deterioration. In addition, other environmental 

stressors such as high noise levels, inadequate light and poorly designed workspaces 

impact staff health and safety. Proper design of health care settings along with a 

culture that prioritizes the health and safety of the care team through its policies 

and values can reduce the risk of disease and injury to hospital staff and provide 

the necessary support needed to perform critical tasks. 

Health care employees are at serious risk of contracting infectious diseases from 

patients due to airborne and surface contamination (Clarke, Sloane, & Aiken, 2002; 

Jiang et al., 2003; Kromhout et al., 2000; Kumari et al., 1998; Smedbold et al., 

2002). Factors such as poor ventilation and fungal contamination of the ventilation 

system that have been linked to the spread of nosocomial infections among patients 

may also impact staff. For example, one study that examined the relationship between indoor environmental factors and nasal inflammation among nursing personnel found the contamination of air ducts with Aspergillus fumigatus to be the 

source of infection (Smedbold et al., 2002). A recent study conducted in the wake 

of the SARS epidemic in China found that isolating SARS cases in wards with good 

ventilation could reduce the viral load of the ward and might be the key to preventing outbreaks of SARS among health care workers, along with strict personal 

protection measures in isolation units (Jiang et al., 2003). 

While ventilation system design and maintenance is critical to controlling the 

spread of airborne infections, infections are often spread through direct and indirect 

contact with patients. Ulrich and colleagues (2004) in their extensive literature review concluded that poor handwashing compliance among staff is the primary cause 

of contact transmission of infections. They suggest that providing environmental 

supports to increase handwashing including visible, conveniently placed sinks, 

handwashing liquid dispensers, and alcohol rubs might be more successful in improving and sustaining handwashing compliance than education programs alone 

(Ulrich, Zimring, Joseph, Quan, & Choudhary, 2004). They also document several 

studies that clearly show that nosocomial infection rates are lower in single patient 

rooms as compared to semiprivate rooms (Ulrich, Zimring, Joseph, Quan, & 

Choudhary, 2004). These environmental measures that are linked to increased patient safety are also likely to protect staff from infection. 

44% of injuries to staff are strains & sprains 

Nursing work has become increasingly complex with changing technology, changing work practices, and increasing documentation requirements. Further, nurses are 

growing older and the patient demographics are changing as well. Lower back pain 

is a pervasive problem among nursing staff and is a result of poor fitness, long periods of standing and efforts far exceeding workers’ strengths (Brophy, Achimore, & 

Moore-Dawson, 2001; Camerino et al., 2001; Miller, Engst, Tate, & Yassi, 2006). Patient lifting in particular is a major cause of injury to health care workers. According to Fragala and Bailey (2003), 44% of injuries to nursing staff in hospitals that 

result in lost workdays are strains and sprains (mostly of the back), and 10.5% of 

back injuries in the United States are associated with moving and assisting patients. Reducing injuries that result from patient-lifting tasks cannot only result in 

significant economic benefit (reduced cost of claims, staff lost workdays), but also 

reduce pain and suffering among workers. 

Ergonomic programs, staff education, a no-manual lift policy, and use of mechanical lifts have been successful in reducing back injuries that result from patient-handling tasks (Engst, Chhokar, Miller, Tate, & Yassi, 2005; Garg & Owen, 1992; Garg, 

Owen, Beller, & Banaag, 1991; Joseph & Fritz, 2006; Miller, Engst, Tate, & Yassi, 

2006). When PeaceHealth in Oregon installed ceiling lifts in most patient rooms in 

their intensive care unit and neurology unit, they found that the number of staff 

injuries related to patient handling came down from 10 in the 2 years preceding lift 

installation to two in the 3 years after lift installation (Joseph & Fritz, 2006). The 

annual cost of patient handling injuries in these units reduced by 83% after the lifts 

were installed (Joseph & Fritz, 2006). 

101 

This study, as well as others, has emphasized the importance of instituting a nomanual lift policy (along with the installation of mechanical lifts) in hospitals to prevent such injuries from occurring. Another environmental design feature that has 

been linked to reduced discomfort (particularly for the lower extremities and lower 

back) for workers who spend large amounts of time on their feet, is using softer 

floors (such as rubber floors) (Redfern & Cham, 2000). 

Ergonomic evaluations of the work area of different types of nursing staff might 

provide solutions to problems that are specific to different groups. For example, 

based on an ergonomic evaluation of the work area of scrub nurses in the operating 

room, Gerbrands and colleagues (2004) provided short term solutions for reducing 

the neck and back problems experienced by this group as well as suggested guidelines for operating room design. 

Noise levels in hospitals are louder than a jackhammer 

The effects of noise on patients are well known. However, few studies have examined the impact of noise on health care staff. Ulrich and colleagues (2004) analyzed 

several studies that measured noise levels in hospitals and found that background 

noise levels in hospitals were typically in the range of 45 dB to 68 dB, with peaks 

frequently exceeding 85 dB to 90 dB, which is as loud as a jackhammer. This is well 

above the values (35 dB) recommended by the World Health Organization guidelines 

(Berglund, Lindvall, & Schwela, 1999). 

Staff perceive higher sounds levels as interfering with their work (Bayo, Garcia, 

& Garcia, 1995) and higher sounds levels are also related to greater stress and annoyance among nursing staff (Morrison, Haas, Shaffner, Garrett, & Fackler, 2003). 

Importantly, noise-induced stress in nurses correlates with reported emotional exhaustion or burnout (Topf & Dillon, 1988). Blomkvist and colleagues (2005) examined the effects of changing the acoustic conditions on a coronary intensive-care unit 

(using sound absorbing versus sound reflecting ceiling tiles) on the same group of 

nurses over a period of months. During the periods of lower noise, many positive 

outcomes were observed among staff including improved speech intelligibility, reduced perceived work demands and perceived pressure and strain (Blomkvist, 

Eriksen, Theorell, Ulrich, & Rasmanis, 2005). 

DESIGNING BETTER WORKPLACES CAN REDUCE ERRORS & INCREASE EFFICIENCY

The tasks performed by the health care team involve a complex choreography of 

multiple activities including direct patient care, indirect care such as filling meds, 

coordination with care team members, accessing and communicating information, 

documentation of patient records and other housekeeping tasks (Lundgren & 

Segesten, 2001; Tucker & Spear, 2006). Studies have shown that increased nursing 

time per patient results in better patient outcomes (Institute for Health care Improvement, 2004; Tucker & Spear, 2006). 

However, the fact remains that nurses spend less than half their time delivering 

direct patient care (Institute for Health care Improvement, 2004). Nurses spend a 

lot of their time searching for other staff, materials, missing meds and supplies and 

also are frequently interrupted during their work to address these problems (Tucker 

& Spear, 2006). In one study, a hospital nurse was interrupted 43 times during a 

10-hour period, including 10 instances when necessary materials, equipment and 

personnel were unavailable (Potter et al., 2004). 

At the root of the inefficiencies in health care is a physical and organizational infrastructure that is completely out of sync with the optimal practice of health care. 

It is becoming increasingly clear that poorly designed physical environments along 

with other factors such as lack of social support and an unsupportive work culture, 

reduces the effectiveness of staff in providing care and potentially leads to medical 

errors. 

Nurses spend a lot of time walking 

According to an unpublished time and motion study by Hendrich and colleagues 

(cited in the 2004 Institute of Medicine Report, Keeping patients safe: Transforming 

the work environment of nurses, pp. 251), most of nurses’ time is spent walking between patient rooms, the nursing unit core and the nurses’ station. Most older existing hospital units have centralized nursing stations with different configurations 

such as radial, racetrack, single or double corridor where the nursing station is located centrally and patient rooms are located around the perimeter. This kind of 

arrangement necessitates frequent trips between patient rooms and the nurses’ station to look for supplies, charting, filling meds, and so on. According to one study, 

almost 28.9 percent of nursing staff time was spent walking (Burgio, Engel, Hawkins, McCorick, & Scheve, 1990). This came second only to patient-care activities, 

which accounted for 56.9 percent of observed behavior. 

102 

A few studies have examined the impact of unit layout on the amount of time 

spent walking (Shepley, 2002; Shepley & Davies, 2003; Sturdavant, 1960; Trites, 

Galbraith, Sturdavant, & Leckwart, 1970) and two studies showed that time saved 

walking was translated into more time spent on patient-care activities and interaction with family members. Shepley and colleagues (2003) found that nursing staff 

in a radial unit walked significantly less than staff in a rectangular unit (4.7 steps 

per minute versus 7.9 steps per minute). Two other studies also found that time 

spent walking was lower in radial units as compared to rectangular units 

(Sturdavant, 1960; Trites, Galbraith, Sturdavant, & Leckwart, 1970). It must be 

noted that in the units examined in these studies, the nursing station was centralized with rooms arrayed around it. 

These studies seem to suggest that bringing staff and supplies physically and visually closer to the patients helps in reducing the time spent walking. Centralized 

location of supplies, however, could double staff walking and substantially reduce 

care time irrespective of whether nurses stations were decentralized (Hendrich, 

2003). There is also anecdotal evidence that staff members who move from a centralized nursing unit to a decentralized unit often feel isolated and miss the camaraderie and support of the centralized unit. The social interactions that occur within 

the care team are critical for information sharing and effective communication. 

While the decentralized unit potentially has many benefits, it is important to consider how the design might impact staff interactions. 

98,000 needless deaths a year 

According to the IOM report, ‘‘To err is human: Building a safer health care system’’, more than 98,000 people die each year in U.S. hospitals due to medical errors 

(Kohn, Corrigan, & Donaldson, 1999). According to Reiling and colleagues (2004) 

while some errors (active failures) occur at the point of service (for example, a nurse 

administering the wrong drug), most occur due to flaws in the health care system 

or facility design—such as due to high noise levels or inadequate communication 

systems. 

Inadequate lighting and a disorganized chaotic environment are likely to compound the burden of stress for nurses and lead to errors. A few studies have shown 

that lighting levels and workplace design can impact errors in dispensing medication in pharmacies. One study examined the effect of different illumination levels 

on pharmacists’ prescription-dispensing error rate (Buchanan, Barker, Gibson, 

Jiang, & Pearson, 1991). They found that error rates were reduced when work-surface light levels were relatively high (Buchanan et al., 1991). In this study, three 

different illumination levels were evaluated (450 lux; 1,100 lux; 1,500 lux). Medication-dispensing error rates were significantly lower (2.6%) at an illumination level 

of 1,500 lux (highest level), compared to an error rate of 3.8% at 450 lux. 

This is consistent with findings from other settings that show that task performance improves with increased light levels (Boyce, Hunter, & Howlett, 2003). Two investigations of medication dispensing errors by hospital pharmacists found that 

error rates increased sharply for prescriptions when an interruption or distraction 

occurred, such as a telephone call (Flynn et al., 1999; Kistner, Keith, Sergeant, & 

Hokanson, 1994). Thus, lighting levels, frequent interruptions or distractions during 

work, and inadequate private space for performing work can be expected to worsen 

medication errors. 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS STAFF & PATIENT SATISFACTION

There is evidence that a supportive physical work environment, along with other 

factors such as high autonomy, low work pressure and supervisor support, positively 

impacts job satisfaction and burnout among nurses (Constable & Russell, 1986; 

Mroczek, Mikitarian, Vieira, & Rotarius, 2005; Tumulty, Jernigan, & Kohut, 1994; 

Tyson, Lambert, & Beattie, 2002). Further, studies show that environments (i.e. 

physical environment, culture and work processes) that include patients and families as active participants in the care process (as opposed to passive recipients of 

care) result in higher levels of satisfaction among patients and families (Sallstrom, 

Sandman, & Norberg, 1987; Uhlig, Brown, Nason, Camelio, & Kendall, 2002). 

Studies show that physical design changes in long-term care settings such as interior design modifications, natural elements, furniture repositioning to support social 

interaction, design supports for resident independence (such as large clocks, handrails, additional mirrors) and orientation (large, clear signposts and reality orientation boards), and artwork were related to improved morale and satisfaction among 

staff (Christenfeld, Wagner, Pastva, & Acrish, 1989; Cohen-Mansfield & Werner, 

1999; Jones, 1988; Loeb, Wilcox, Thornley, Gun-Munro, & Richardson, 1995; Parker 

et al., 2004). Tumulty and colleagues (1994) suggest that if staff were allowed to 

103 

make small design modifications to their existing environments, their satisfaction 

with their jobs might increase. 

Other studies, primarily conducted in long-term-care settings, suggest that smaller units contribute to reduced stress and increased staff satisfaction. A cross-sectional survey of 1,194 employees and 1,079 relatives of residents in 107 residentialhome units and health-center bed wards found that large unit size was related to 

increased time pressure among employees and reduced quality-of-life for residents 

(Pekkarinen, Sinervo, Perala, & Elovainio, 2004). Other studies found that small 

unit sizes were positively associated with increased supervision and interaction between staff and residents in a special-care unit for residents with dementia 

(McCracken & Fitzwater, 1989). However, no consistent numbers are offered on 

what makes a unit large or small (Day, Carreon, & Stump, 2000) and it is also not 

clear how these findings translate to acute care settings. Further, even in small 

units, it is important to consider how the design impacts staff ability to monitor 

residents. Morgan and Stewart (Morgan & Stewart, 1998) found that in a newly designed, low-density special-care unit with private rooms, enclosed charting spaces, 

and secluded outdoor areas and activity areas, staff spent increased time monitoring 

and locating residents. 

An important point that is emphasized in many of these studies is that design 

changes alone are not likely to impact staff behavior, satisfaction and stress. They 

must be accompanied by a supportive culture and progressive work practices to result in overall beneficial outcomes for patients and staff. 

NOW IS THE TIME

We believe there is an urgent need to address the inherent problems in the health 

care workplace that lead to staff injuries, medical errors, and waste. The physical 

environment plays an important role in improving the health and safety for staff, 

increasing effectiveness in providing care, reducing errors and increasing job satisfaction. By utilizing available evidence to plan and design new facilities, VA hospitals can create work environments that help reduce staff turnover and increase 

retention, two key factors related to providing quality care. 

However, it has become increasingly clear to us that efforts to improve the physical environment alone are not likely to help any health care organization achieve 

its goals without a complementary shift in work culture and work practices. While 

the studies we cited in this testimony demonstrate that well designed physical 

workplaces can support staff in their work and increase health and safety for both 

staff and patients, there is a definite need for more research examining the effectiveness of new design innovations such as acuity adaptability, standardized patient 

rooms, and decentralized nursing stations within the larger context of any health 

care organization’s culture, technology changes, and work practices. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SARA MARBERRY & ANJALI JOSEPH, 

The Center for Health Design, 

1850 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1083, 

Concord, CA 94520, 

Tel. 925.521.9404; www.healthdesign.org. 

References Cited 

American Nurses Association. 2001. American Nurses Association/ 

NursingWorld.org online health and safety survey: Key findings (Survey results). Washington, DC: American Nurses Association. 

Bayo, M. V., Garcia, A. M., & Garcia, A. (1995). Noise levels in an urban hospital 

and workers’ subjective responses. Archives of Environmental Health, 50(3), 

247–251. 

Becker, F. 2006. Organizational ecology and knowledge networks. California Management Review. Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., & Schwela, D. H. (1999). Guidelines for community noise. Blomkvist, V., Eriksen, C. A., Theorell, T., Ulrich, R. S., & Rasmanis, G. (2005). 

Acoustics and psychosocial environment in coronary intensive care. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 1–8. 

Boyce, P., Hunter, C., & Howlett, O. (2003). The benefits of daylight through windows. Troy, New York: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 

Brophy, M. O. R., Achimore, L., & Moore-Dawson, J. (2001). Reducing incidence of 

low-back injuries reduces cost. American Industrial Hygiene Association journal, 62(4), 508–511. 

Buchanan, T. L., Barker, K. N., Gibson, J. T., Jiang, B. C., & Pearson, R. E. (1991). 

Illumination and errors in dispensing. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 48(10), 2137–2145. 

104 

Burgio, L., Engel, B., Hawkins, A., McCorick, K., & Scheve, A. (1990). A descriptive 

analysis of nursing staff behaviors in a teaching nursing home: Differences 

among NAs, LPNs and RNs. The Gerontologist, 30, 107–112. 

Camerino, D., Cesana, G. C., Molteni, G., Vito, G. D., Evaristi, C., & Latocca, R. 

(2001). Job strain and musculoskeletal disorders of Italian nurses, Occupational Ergonomics (Vol. 2, pp. 215): IOS Press. 

Clarke, S., Sloane, D., & Aiken, L. (2002). Effects of hospital staffing and organizational climate on needlestick injuries to nurses. American Journal of Public 

Health, 92(7), 1115–1119. 

Constable, J., & Russell, D. (1986). The effect of social support and the work environment upon burnout among nurses. Journal of Human Stress, 12(1), 20– 

26. 

Engst, C., Chhokar, R., Miller, A., Tate, R. B., & Yassi, A. (2005). Effectiveness of 

overhead lifting devices in reducing the risk of injury to care staff in extended 

care facilities. Ergonomics, 48(2), 187–199. 

Flynn, E. A., Barker, K. N., Gibson, J. T., Pearson, R. E., Berger, B. A., & Smith, 

L. A. (1999). Impact of interruptions and distractions on dispensing errors in 

an ambulatory care pharmacy. American Journal of Health Systems Pharmacy, 56(13), 1319–1325. 

Garg, A., & Owen, B. (1992). Reducing back stress to nursing personnel: An ergonomic intervention in a nursing home. Ergonomics, 35(11), 1353–1375. 

Garg, A., Owen, B., Beller, D., & Banaag, J. (1991). A biomechanical and ergonomic 

evaluation of patient transferring tasks: Bed to wheelchair and wheelchair to 

bed. Ergonomics, 34, 289–312. 

Gerbrands, A., Albayrak, A., & Kazemier, G. (2004). Ergonomic evaluation of the 

work area of the scrub nurse. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technology, 13(3), 142–146. 

Institute for Health care Improvement. (2004). Transforming care at the bedside. 

Cambridge, MA: Institute for Health care Improvement. 

Institute of Medicine. (2004). Work and workspace design to prevent and mitigate 

errors. In A. Page (Ed.), Keeping patients safe: Transforming the work environment of nurses (pp. 226–285). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

Jiang, S., Huang, L., Chen, X., Wang, J., Wu, W., Yin, S., et al. (2003). Ventilation 

of wards and nosocomial outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome 

among health care workers. Chinese Medical Journal, 116(9), 1293–1297. 

Joseph, A., & Fritz, L. (2006, March). Ceiling lifts reduce patient-handling injuries. 

Healthcare Design, 6, 10–13. 

Kistner, U. A., Keith, M. R., Sergeant, K. A., & Hokanson, J. A. (1994). Accuracy 

of dispensing in a high-volume, hospital-based outpatient pharmacy. American Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 51(22), 2793–2797. 

Kohn, L., Corrigan, J., & Donaldson, M. (Eds.). (1999). To err is human: Building 

a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Kromhout, H., Hoek, F., Uitterhoeve, R., Huijbers, R., Overmars, R. F., Anzion, R., 

et al. (2000). Postulating a dermal pathway for exposure to anti-neoplastic 

drugs among hospital workers: Applying a conceptual model to the results of 

three workplace surveys. The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 44(7), 551–560. 

Lundgren, S., & Segesten, K. (2001). Nurses’ use of time in a medical-surgical ward 

with all-RN staffing. Journal of Nursing Management, 9, 13–20. 

McCarthy, D., & Blumenthal, D. (2006). Committed to safety: Ten case studies on 

reducing harm to patients (No. 923). New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund. 

Miller, A., Engst, C., Tate, R., & Yassi, A. (2006). Evaluation of the effectiveness 

of portable ceiling lifts in a new long-term care facility. Applied Ergonomics, 

37, 377–385. 

Morrison, W. E., Haas, E. C., Shaffner, D. H., Garrett, E. S., & Fackler, J. C. (2003). 

Noise, stress, and annoyance in a pediatric intensive care unit. Critical Care 

Medicine, 31(1), 113–119. 

Mroczek, J., Mikitarian, G., Vieira, E. K., & Rotarius, T. (2005). Hospital design and 

staff perceptions: An exploratory analysis. The Health Care Manager, 24(3), 

233–244. 

Potter, P., Boxerman, S., Wolf, L., Marshall, J., Grayson, D., Sledge, J., et al. (2004). 

Mapping the nursing process: A new approach for understanding the work of 

nursing. Journal of Nursing Administration, 34(2), 101–109. 

Redfern, M., & Cham, R. (2000). The influence of flooring on standing comfort and 

fatigue. American Industrial Hygiene Association journal, 61, 700–708. 

Reiling, J., Knutzen, B., Wallen, T., McCullough, S., Miller, R., & Chernos, S. 

(2004). Enhancing the traditional hospital design process: A focus on patient 

safety. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, 30(3), 115–124. 

105 

Sallstrom, C., Sandman, P. O., & Norberg, A. (1987). Relatives’ experience of the 

terminal care of long-term geriatric patients in open-plan rooms. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 1(3–4), 133–140. 

Shepley, M. M. (2002). Predesign and postoccupancy analysis of staff behavior in a 

neonatal intensive care unit. Children’s Health Care, 31(3), 237–253. 

Shepley, M. M., & Davies, K. (2003). Nursing unit configuration and its relationship 

to noise and nurse walking behavior: An AIDS/HIV unit case study. AIA 

Academy Journal Retrieved 5/26/2004, 2004, from http://www.aia.org/aah/journal/0401/article4.asp 

Smedbold, H. T., Ahlen, C., Unimed, S., Nilsen, A. M., Norbaeck, D., & Hilt, B. 

(2002). Relationships between indoor environments and nasal inflammation in 

nursing personnel. Archives of Environmental Health, 57(2), 155–161. 

Sturdavant, M. (1960). Intensive nursing service in circular and rectangular units. 

Hospitals, JAHA, 34, 46–48, 71–78. 

Topf, M., & Dillon, E. (1988). Noise-induced stress as a predictor of burnout in critical care nurses. Heart Lung, 17(5), 567–574. 

Tucker, A., & Spear, S. (2006). Operational failures and interruptions in hospital 

nursing. Health Services Research, 41(3), 643–662. 

Tumulty, G., Jernigan, I. E., & Kohut, G. F. (1994). The impact of perceived work 

environment on job satisfaction of hospital staff nurses. Applied Nursing Research, 7(2), 84–90. 

Tyson, G. A., Lambert, G., & Beattie, L. (2002). The impact of ward design on the 

behavior, occupational satisfaction and well-being of psychiatric nurses. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 11(2), 94–102. 

Uhlig, P., Brown, J., Nason, A., Camelio, A., & Kendall, E. (2002). System innovation: Concord Hospital. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 28(12), 666–672. 

Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C., Joseph, A., Quan, X., & Choudhary, R. (2004). The role 

of the physical environment in the hospital of the 21st century: A once-in-alifetime opportunity. Concord, CA: The Center for Health Design. 

Æ