U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

88–981 2015

ASSESSING INADEQUACIES IN VA DATA USAGE 

FOR AND SERVICES PROVIDED TO VISUALLYIMPAIRED VETERANS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, MAY 29, 2014 

Serial No. 113–70 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

PAUL COOK, California 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

DAVID JOLLY, Florida 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

NANCY DOLAN, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona, Ranking 

Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, May 29, 2014 

Page 

Assessing Inadequacies in VA Data Usage for and Services Provided to Visually-Impaired Veterans ...................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Hon. Mike Coffman, Chairman .............................................................................. 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 34 

Hon. Ann Kirkpatrick, Ranking Member .............................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Travis Fugate, Veteran .................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 35 

Mr. Terry Kebbel, Veteran ...................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 38 

Mr. Gleen Minney, Veteran .................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 42 

Dr. Maureen McCarthy, MD, Deputy Chief Patient Care Services, Veterans 

Health Administration, Department of Veterans’ Affairs ................................. 22 

Ms. Lorraine Landfried, DCIO for Product Development, Office of Information 

Technology, Department of Veterans’ Affairs .................................................... 23 

Combined Statement of Dr. McCarthy and Ms. Landfried ........................... 46 

Accompanied by: 

Dr. Mary Lawrence, MD, Deputy Director, Vision Center of Excellence 

And 

Mr. Pat Sheehan, Director, 508 Compliance Office, Department of 

Veteran’ Affairs 

FOR THE RECORD 

Attachment of VCE .................................................................................................. 54 

Questions for the Record From: Subcommittee Chairman Mike Coffman .......... 55 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

ASSESSING INADEQUACIES IN VA DATA 

USAGE FOR AND SERVICES PROVIDED TO 

VISUALLY-IMPAIRED VETERANS 

Thursday, May 29, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 

Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Coffman 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Roe, Huelskamp, Benishek, 

Walorski, Kirkpatrick, Takano, Kuster, O’Rourke, Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE COFFMAN 

Mr. COFFMAN. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I 

want to welcome everybody to today’s hearing titled Assessing Inadequacies in VA Data Usage for and Services Provided to Visually 

Impaired Veterans. 

My name is Mike Coffman and prior to hearing testimony and 

asking questions to our witnesses, I ask that each member state 

his or her name to assist our witnesses in identifying who is speaking. Thank you for your cooperation. Now let us begin. 

This hearing focuses on continued problems within VA that have 

caused its contribution to the Vision Center of Excellence to stagnate, allowed VA systems to continue to operate in non-compliance 

with Section 508 of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and compromised other services provided to veterans with visual impairments. 

The creation of the Vision Center of Excellence, or ‘‘VCE’’ as we 

will refer to it today, was mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2008. It stated that the Department of Defense was required to create the facility and to collaborate with the 

Department of Veterans Affairs in doing so. 

One of the main responsibilities required in the 2008 NDAA for 

the operation of the VCE was to ‘‘enable the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to assess the registry and add information pertaining to additional treatments or surgical procedures and eventual visual outcomes for veterans who were entered into the registry and subsequently received treatment through the Veterans Health Administration.’’ 

The reference to the Registry is that the Department of Veterans 

Eye Injury and Vision Registry, which we will also refer to as the 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
2 

‘‘Registry’’ today for convenience. The DoD has done a commendable job of populating the Registry with over 20,000 unique patient 

entries. However, the most recent number VA has provided the 

Committee regarding the contribution of the Vision Registry is one 

entry. One, compared to 20,000. 

Notably, in an October, 2013 briefing, VA staff stated that the 

one entry was just a test case to ensure that the transfer of information would work. So, essentially, VA had not entered in any veterans information into the Registry, which precludes VA from 

meaningfully contributing to the very purpose the Registry was 

created—‘‘to collect the diagnosis, surgical intervention, operative 

procedures, and related treatments, and follow-up on each significant eye injury incurred by members of the Armed Forces while 

serving on active duty.’’ 

We will hear from a veteran today who will articulate the importance of VA fulfilling its obligation to contribute to the Registry. 

Another major issue we will address today is VA’s continued failure 

to bring its information systems into full compliance with Section 

508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The two separate of the Section 508 addresses access for people 

with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities in various types of 

technologies. Two separate memoranda, dated July 26, 2012, issued 

by then Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, Roger 

Baker, illustrated the ongoing problems with VA regarding Section 

508 compliance. Both memoranda reference how recent audits conducted by VA show that most of the content and information on VA 

web sites was not Section 508 compliant. 

Further, in a 2012 VA dashboard summary analysis, every site 

review showed a status of less than 50 percent compliance with 

Section 508. Some notable examples include VA jobs, e-benefits, 

and VA forms. VA jobs at 80 percent critical, e-benefits at 95 percent critical, and VA forms at 100 percent critical. 

The rating of critical in the analysis states that the listed percentage is the amount of that web site that is completely inoperable. 

We will hear today in VA’s testimony that they are making great 

strides in bringing VA systems into compliance with Section 508. 

However, we will also hear from a blinded veteran, who must actually navigate these pages himself. He may be inclined to disagree. 

With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Kirkpatrick for her 

opening statement. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN, MIKE COFFMAN AP- PEARS IN THE APPENDIX] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF ANN KIRKPATRICK, RANKING 

MEMBER 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ranking 

Member Ann Kirkpatrick from Congressional District 1 in Arizona. 

The hearing topic today is an important one and I look forward 

to an in-depth discussion with our witnesses. Today we are examining the Department of Veterans Affairs role in the operation of 

the Vision Centers of Excellence and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 compliance as they relate to proper access and 

services for blinded veterans. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
3 

We will also hear the testimony of Mr. Glenn Minney, from the 

Blinded Veterans Association on HR 1284, a bill introduced by my 

colleague and Ms. Brownley, a member of the House Committee on 

Veterans Affairs, and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 

Health. 

This bill will expand the VA’s Beneficiary Travel Coverage Program for some veterans who are not currently eligible for beneficiary travel, but who are in need of treatment at one of the VA’s 

Blind Rehabilitation Centers or Spinal Cord Injury locations. 

Mr. Minney, I look forward to hearing your testimony and as a 

result of being a cosponsor of HR 1284, I believe this bill will help 

remove another access to care obstacle within the VA medical system for our veterans. 

Many of our visually disabled veterans would greatly benefit and 

become capable of living independently in their own homes if able 

to receive rehabilitation. However, some of these veterans are not 

able to receive these treatments because of high travel costs and 

ineligibility for beneficiary travel under the VA programs, and this 

is a special problem in my district, which is a very large rural district in Arizona, and my veterans have to go to three different veterans hospitals depending on where they live, and travel hundreds 

of miles. 

This bill will expand eligibility for beneficiary travel so that more 

veterans are able to receive rehabilitative treatments. 

I understand that in the current conflicts, eye injuries have accounted for approximately 15 percent of all battlefield traumas. We 

also know that as many as 75 percent of traumatic brain injures, 

those patients also suffer visual dysfunctions that can affect their 

quality of life. 

When the Vision Center of Excellence was envisioned and established through the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the 

Department of Defense, in collaboration with Department of Veterans Affairs, was tasked with prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, 

treatment, and rehabilitation of eye injuries. While it took some 

time, I understand that the Center is now functioning, although 

problems such as staffing, funding, and clear policy remain challenging. 

In addition to the Center, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act also required the establishment of a Vision Registry. I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the progress of that 

collaboration, especially enrollment and seamless transfer of VA vision care data to the Vision Registry. 

Mr. Chairman, while the wars may be winding down, we know 

that the need for research, treatment, and rehabilitation will remain for eye injury veterans for decades to come. Today we are also 

looking at the Department of Veterans Affairs compliance with Section 508 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. 

Section 508 addresses access for the disabled to different types 

of technology. According to VA testimony, VA systems are still not 

compliant with the law. One of our witnesses today described the 

difficulty of navigating through the VA web sites because they are 

not 508 compliant, causing him frustration and a lot of extra time 

to get the information he is looking for. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
4 

Eye injured veterans are already challenged and we should be 

working as fast as we can to ensure that their next encounter on 

the VA web sites will not be so difficult. 

I would like to hear from our VA panel what they are doing to 

become compliant, why is it taking so long, and what resources are 

needed, if any, to aid in becoming compliant. We need to get this 

right sooner rather than later. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. I ask 

that all members waive their opening remarks as per this Committee’s custom. 

With that, I welcome the first panel at the witness table. On this 

panel, we will hear from Mr. Travis Fugate, Kentucky National 

Guard, Retired; Mr. Terry Kebbel—did I say that right—United 

States Army, Retired; and Mr. Glenn Minney, Director of Government Relations for the Blinded Veterans Association. All of your 

complete written statements will be made part of the hearing 

record. 

Mr. Fugate, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. TRAVIS FUGATE 

Mr. FUGATE. Thanks, Chairman, and Ranking Member, for inviting me here to speak again. 

It was over five years ago that I came here to speak about the 

VCE. It had been—the creation had been mandated the year prior 

to the time that I spoke before, which was March, 2009. Only a 

week before the day that I spoke, I had been told that my vision 

was totally gone and I wouldn’t see again. 

Most people who reviewed the case agreed that the vision that 

I had lost—let me explain something further. When I was injured, 

I had some remaining vision and I had it for three years, and then 

I got an infection within the VA and the doctors did not have access to the proper medical data. So they failed to do preventative 

surgeries, and when I had an emergency situation, they did not 

have access to the medical documentation, which may have lead to 

the vision loss that resulted after the surgery. 

Since I was here before, I have went on. I have went to school. 

I have worked to improve myself and my life. I have been active 

in the VA and the Blinded Veterans Association, trying to help 

other blinded veterans. I meet new young blind men coming from 

the wars every year. 

I am interested in hearing you ask questions about how things 

have changed since the testimony in March, 2009, in which I participated. If some young man went into the VA tomorrow, as I did, 

would his doctors be able to have access to electronic data that 

would allow them to perform preventative surgeries and see all of 

the surgeries he had in the past, or she? 

I am open for questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRAVIS FUGATE APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr. 

Fugate. Mr. Kebbel, you are now recognized for five minutes. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
5 

STATEMENT OF TERRY KEBBEL 

Mr. KEBBEL. As a blinded veteran, I have had an opportunity to 

assist other blinded veterans on how to use websites. We have done 

a good job of describing what 508 is, compliance. We have done a 

good job of stating that we need to do something about it. I want 

to talk about what we have not done yet, okay? 

As I was asked to investigate ten websites or ten web pages for 

this testimonial. I had the opportunity to design, with some help 

from some other blind veterans, a form that helped us to evaluate 

each of those web pages. In my opinion, each of those web pages 

failed. Each of those web pages failed in different areas—some very 

major and some very minor. 

When I get the opportunity to read a web page, I would like to 

be able to navigate properly, and I can do that with headings. And 

headings is a way for a non-visual person like myself to navigate 

a web page. 

One of the pages I evaluated had no heading level—heading on 

the page, which means that I have to navigate the whole web page 

to find out what the purpose of that web page is. A sighted person 

can visualize it and see what that purpose is right away. 

Another page that I had the opportunity to evaluate was one 

with link problems and I was kind of interested when you said the 

forms page failed 100 percent, well I am in total agreement with 

that one. I had the—you know, when I went to the web page I listed the links on the page and there was 217 of them, and these are 

links to forms. Every one of those links were named by a numerical 

number. It had no description on what that form was. 

Another one was—another form I evaluated is where I went to 

the web page. The first one I downloaded it was a form to fill in, 

okay? The first thing I noticed was that it was an image file. Well, 

for those of us who use a screen reader and who are blind, we know 

that we can not look at pictures, and that is an image file. So I 

can not read that image file. 

The second thing is that it was a form I was supposed to be able 

to fill out. Well, if it is an image file and there are no form of edit 

boxes on that page, I can not fill in the information needed to fill 

out that form. 

So when I hear that we are making progress on it, it is difficult 

for me to believe. You know, I would like the same opportunity to 

read a web page as a sighted person, and I can do that on web 

pages. I can go to Open Culture, which is a website from Stanford 

University and access all their information. I can take courses 

there. I can, you know, do a lot of things on that particular web 

page. 

I can go to the Library of Congress and do the same thing. I can 

go to the National Federation of the Blind, which is probably one 

of the best websites that I know of, and read as if I was a sighted 

person. 

What concerns me the most is that we are sitting here arguing 

about are we compliant or not. When I went to Viet Nam, I went 

to Viet Nam as a volunteer. I did not go because it was the law, 

you know, I went because I thought it was the right thing to do. 

And as we sit here now, I think the right thing is to do is to make 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
6 

it compliant, whether it is not the law or not. I just think it is an 

issue of that you have the right to do it. 

As I look back, you know, in the 20th century, the law became 

in fact, okay? We are now 13 percent into the 21st century, and as 

far as I am concerned, we have not made any progress. And I am 

not going to be around for the 22nd century, so I do not think I 

am really going to see anything happen. 

Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY KEBBEL APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you so much. And an inability to access 

care is really no different than a denial of care. 

Mr. Minney, you have five minutes for your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN MINNEY 

Mr. MINNEY. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick, 

and other distinguished members of the House Veterans Affairs 

Subcommittee on Oversight Investigation, thank you for allowing 

the Blind Veterans Association and its members to appear before 

you today. The Blind Veterans Association is here to express our 

views and concerns regarding specific VBA issues. The issue I am 

going to discuss is HR 1284, the Beneficial Travel. 

As a Director of the government relations for VBA, I have already spent many hours and days with members of the House 

Committee on Veterans Affairs regarding this bill. For veterans 

who are currently ineligible, which are non-service connected veterans for beneficiary travel, Title 38, U.S.C. Section 111 does not 

cover the costs of travel for those non-service connected veterans to 

one of the 13 blind rehab centers or to any of the 28 spinal cord 

injury locations. 

If the law continues to stay as written, the non-service connected 

veteran must bear the financial hardship of purchasing their own 

mode of travel to one of these rehab centers. The cost will certainly 

continue to discourage the non-service connected veteran from traveling to a blind rehab center or spinal cord injury center. 

At this time, most of the ER non-service connected veterans are 

of the age of 67 years old and their blindness or vision impairment 

is due to age-related conditions. They often live on Social Security, 

which is approximately $1,450 a month. And with having that limited income and requiring them to pay for their own mode of travel 

to a rehab center, that is really going to pay dividends and be detrimental to their monthly income. The Chief Business Office has scored this bill, HR 1284, as $3 

million which, to be honest, I do not think that is true. Because as 

the language states in Title 38, what we want changed is for it to 

say that it covers non-service connected veterans. We are not wanting $3 million. We are just wanting the wording, the language to 

state that 1284 covered non-service connected veterans as well as 

service connected veterans so they can have the access to the rehab 

centers that the VA has out there—the 13 blind rehab centers and 

the 29 spinal cord injury facilities. 

In a letter dated May 21, 2013, Under Secretary of Health, Dr. 

Robert Jessie clearly stated, ‘‘VA supports the intent of broadly 

travel eligibility for those who can most benefit from the program.’’ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
7 

And also he states the VA welcomes the opportunity to work with 

this Committee to craft the appropriate language so that those who 

are not service connected can have access to those rehab treatment 

facilities. 

One thing I have ran into with several other members, speaking 

with them, is the word, the ‘‘pay for’’ or the ‘‘pay go.’’ Well, VA 

travel budget continues to increase every year and they ask where 

are we going to get this $3 million? Well, in 2013 the VA collected 

$2.913 billion through the Medical Care Collection Fund. Well, 

there is money that they have collected and I sat up last night listening to last night’s hearing: $1.1 billion returned two years ago, 

$1 billion returned last night, and a half billion returned just this 

year. If there is that much money that can be turned back in from 

the VA to Congress, well, there is our $3 million to send these nonservice connected veterans to the rehab that they so dearly deserve. 

So there is no pay for or pay go. The money is there. It was clearly stated last night in the hearing that the VA is giving the money 

back. So if you want to pay for it, there is your pay go. 

Also, the VA right now is currently—there are 147 state veterans 

homes. I have been collecting data, and right now I have got 14 of 

those state veterans homes, which is ten percent. And of those— 

that 10 percent, those state veterans homes house 268 veterans 

who are there for blindness or visual impairment. Each one of those veterans the VA pays a per diem of $100.37 

a day per vet per day. You add that up—266 vets, 365 days a 

year—that is just ten percent. Now let us make it 100 percent, and 

to be honest, that total is $97.5 million annually we are paying to 

house veterans in state veterans homes just because of blindness. 

If we can send them to a blind rehab center, get them the rehab 

that they so dearly deserve, how many of them could we offer the 

opportunity to live independently? Not house in a state veterans 

home, but live independently—live on their own. 

The one thing I did want to mention here is, just remember this: 

there is no cure for blindness. There is not, no matter how much 

research we do. But what there is is rehab for those who are blind 

or visually impaired, and getting that rehab will allow them to enrich their lives, become independent, and be active members of 

their community. So let us not say, well, you are not service connected so we will not send you to a rehab. 

You know, blindness does not discriminate between service connected and non-serviced connected, and it does not know. Blindness 

is blindness. Let us eliminate service connected and non-service 

connected. Let us send the blind veteran to the rehab that the VA 

is providing. 

And lastly, I want to make this quote. George Washington once 

stated, ‘‘The willingness to which our young people are likely to 

serve in any war shall be directly perpetual to how they perceive 

the veteran of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their 

Nation.’’ This quote clearly begs the following question: As generations pass, will this great Nation continue to see young people volunteer to join the Armed Forces, knowing that their future 

healthcare issues will not be covered by the VA? Are we willing— 

are we all aware of the issues surrounding what is going on right 

now? Are we willing to enrich the lives of hundreds of non-service 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
8 

connected veterans by allowing them to go to a blind rehab center? 

Are you willing to sponsor 1284, push it up and see to it that it 

is voted on so that the non-service connected veteran can get the 

same rehab that the service connected veteran gets? 

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLENN MINNEY APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. This is Mike Coffman, Mr. Minney. Thank you for 

your testimony. I have got a few questions. Again, this is Mike 

Coffman. 

Mr. Fugate, unfortunately your story is not likely a unique one. 

Have you found that other blind veterans have gone through similar experiences with VA’s failure to populate the Vision Registry? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is really hard for me to say that I know individuals who have had situations that match to my own, but I am sure 

that they exist. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Mr. Fugate, again, Mike Coffman. In your 

opinion, what would have been the benefits during your past surgeries had the VA contributed to the Vision Registry? 

Mr. FUGATE. If my information was accessible to the VA doctors 

when I first met them, rather than asking me about the surgeries 

I had and thumbing through a two-inch stack of documents, they 

would have had access to—better access to the information. They 

would have seen that the DoD doctors wanted me to have a preventative surgery within the year. I told the doctor that. The doctor—my word is not as strong as the military doctors that had 

made the suggestion to me at Walter Reed. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. FUGUTE. Also, I am a number. I am a statistic, and it is 

meaningless. There is no research being done on the numbers. If 

my information and all of the other blinded veterans’ information 

were in this data set, much more information could be discovered 

and we could direct ourselves forward to help us—help us all much 

better. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Again, this is Mike Coffman. Mr. 

Kebbel, thank you for providing a number of findings and observations for improving the VA’s compliance with Section 508. Have 

you had an opportunity to share your findings with the VA? 

Mr. KEBBEL. This is my first opportunity to do that, but I do 

share my findings with other veterans. I belong to a lot of virtual 

supports groups in which us veterans talk about problems with veterans web sites. You know, how to deal with the inconsistencies, 

how to deal with the inaccuracies and how to deal with the problems of filling out forms. So, I do that virtually. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Mike Coffman, again. You stated earlier, 

Mr. Kebbel, you stated earlier that there are many good examples 

of 508 compliant web pages. Do you and your team keep repository 

of best practices and lessons learned associated with that? And do 

you have a list of performance metrics that agencies such as VA 

can strive to achieve? 

Mr. KEBBEL. Yes, we do. It is in various forms. It is not in one 

form that I would consider accessible yet and we’re in the process 

of developing that. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
9 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you very much. Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fugate, one of 

the things that our committee has been focused on is creating and 

making sure there is a seamless transfer of records from DoD to 

VA so that there is no gap at all in the records that a doctor might 

see, the day that you transition our of the Department of Defense. 

So, I am curious, did Walter Reed have the Department of Defense 

records but just not look through them? Can you just explain that 

to me? 

Mr. FUGATE. Walter Reed had my medical records and it was at 

the VA that I had the complications. It was the transfer between 

Walter Reed and the VA. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. So, did the VA have your Department of Defense records? 

Mr. FUGATE. My first meeting with my doctor at the VA was surprising. My father drove me three hours to get to the facility. I 

lived at the time in back glacier mountains of Eastern Kentucky. 

Once we got to the meeting the doctor came and sat with me and 

the nurse brought in my records, which was a big, heavy stack of 

records. I could not see them, but I heard the thump and he said 

there was—something along the lines of he could not do anything 

with that, he would have to review it later and find the information 

and I was sent back home, sent along my way. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Even though you told him that the doctors recommended that you have preventative surgery within a year? 

Mr. FUGATE. Absolutely. I told him that numerous times and 

after probably the third time he said that it was better for us to 

wait until an issue occurred and address it then and I am pretty 

sure he must have been aware that I was commuting two and a 

half, three hours. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Well, I am so sorry that treatment was not 

given to you in a timely manner and I just want to say your positive attitude is really an inspiration and I thank you for coming 

again. And I just wanted to take you up on what you said in your 

testimony and ask you what changes you have seen since your testimony before the committee in 2009. 

Mr. FUGATE. I have been deeply involved in my education. But, 

yearly I catch up with my blind veteran friends at the BVA and 

it is—every year it gets more discouraging, so for the last year or 

so I have stopped asking about it because it was just depressing 

to me. And this year when I got with them they told me that for 

the past years the staffing was inadequate and that the records 

were not being put into the registry and the collaboration was not 

taking place as it was supposed to. I never got any positive information about the progress of the VCE. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. If there were one thing that our committee 

could do to make a difference in that area, what would that be, in 

your estimation? 

Mr. FUGATE. To ask to—to see what—to ask the people responsible what they were asked to do and which of those tasks they’ve 

completed and how long it took them to complete that task. Just 

to hold the people responsible for creating this wonderful tool for 

us. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
10 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I think that is what our committee should do. And, Mr. Fugate, I understand that you are 

friends with our colleague, Tim Walz, and I am not going to hold 

that against you, but actually I want to tell you that he is a ardent 

supporter, a passionate advocate for our veterans, you could not 

have a better friend. 

So, thank you very much for your courage and your testimony 

here today. I yield back. 

Mr. FUGATE. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. Dr. 

Huelskamp, you have five minutes. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems like I was 

just here a few minutes ago and I do appreciate having more time 

to discuss these, but I appreciate the testimony. My name Tim 

Huelskamp and here from the State of Kansas. 

Mr. Fugate, I hope I pronounced your name correctly, mine is 

often mispronounced as well. But a little follow up on your particular situation and one thing I have seen lacking in just my years 

in Congress is accountability. 

Systems do fail. People do fail. I am curious with your particular 

situation and you described it in your testimony—in written and 

oral testimony. Has the VA followed up with you after this fact and 

determined yes, this is where we failed in this system? I mean, I 

see a number of things that, obviously, the electronic medical 

records did not happen and I’ll have a follow up question for Mr. 

Minney about other items in that vein. 

Did the VA ever contact you after this or after your testimony 

and say, hey this is where we failed? This is the doctor, this is 

where the system failed for you? 

Mr. FUGATE. No. No one ever phoned that I can recall, explained 

to me where the failure occurred or held themselves accountable or 

provided an apology. I have stuck with the VA and I have had 

great medical care and met and became friends with a lot of medical professionals within the VA, but the system clearly, clearly 

failed in my case and no one ever has explained to me what happened. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Do you still travel two and a half hours to a VA 

center for your current care with the VA or have you found one 

closer to you that would let you—or did you move? Can you describe that a little bit more? I come from a very rural district, plenty of veterans as well have to drive 100, 200, 300 miles one way 

for care often times they could get next door almost, literally, and 

the VA says no, you have to drive. And I am just curious of your 

particular situation. 

Mr. FUGATE. I moved out to California to go to school, to California State Monterey Bay. Luckily there is a VA in Palo Alto, a 

branch of the Pal Alto system right next to my campus. So, that 

was very helpful for me. 

I have came back home to Eastern Kentucky to spend some time 

with my family and we now have a branch of sorts. It is an office 

and a medical facility. They do not—I can’t get my medications 

there. I still have to travel or get them by mail. So, I have seen 

improvements in trying to get centers or branches into rural areas. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
11 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Yeah, appreciate that and I appreciate your testimony today. Mr. Minney, a follow up question. This electronic 

medical records issue which has been plaguing the VA and the DoD 

attempting to communicate. It is my understanding that it often— 

actually happens in the private world, they actually do communicate. It is a fairly regular process, but the VA and DoD cannot 

do that, it is my understanding. Can you describe the situation 

that occurred with Travis? Given the current scenario, would that 

likely occur again when a veteran walks in and says, here is my 

medical records where they show it is just paper; is that still the 

situation in many cases? 

Mr. MINNEY. Yes, it is. Travis was one of the unique individuals 

because he actually did have a copy of his health records. But I 

spent 21 years in the Navy as a corpsman in the medical field and 

then once I retired from there, then I actually went to work for the 

VA. So, I can tell you right now, DoD health records, they’re not 

being transferred into the VA healthcare system. 

If you take a young 0311 Marine that gets injured and he gets 

surgery and lunch stool, when he gets back home and he goes into 

a VA healthcare system and a doctor will ask him, what surgeries 

did you have? He is not going to know the names of these surgeries. So right there the VA has to start from scratch and build 

a health profile on him. 

If there was a transfer of those health records or a joint health 

record, the VA could access his DoD health records and see exactly 

what surgeries he has had, what medications he’s on and what 

therapies he is needed. That is where the benefit would come into 

play, but no, not everybody was as fortunate as Travis to actually 

have a copy. Some of the injured show up at the VA with nothing, 

no documentation at all. 

Dr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Minney, Mr. Fugate. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Huelskamp, that 

last question brought up some very, very bitter memories. I mean, 

one of my first committee hearings was about this issue of the medical records not being able to be transferred from DoD into Vista 

and I can barely contain the anger I feel about this situation and 

the millions and millions of dollars that have been spent trying to 

solve this situation, and then to hear in the interim months between my first hearing and now, that there seems to be no way to 

bridge this gulf between the two departments. 

It is bad enough to see a casualty of war, but it is even worse 

to see that casualty of war made even more tragic by this systemic 

failure between these two departments. I do not know what to do 

about this. I mean, it is frustrating to be a member of Congress 

and not be able to say, fix this thing and have it fixed. 

That being said, I do want to say to Mr. Fugate and—is it Mr. 

Kebbel or Kibbel? Mr. Kebbel, that I am proud to have started the 

first deaf caucus in the Congress, I’m one of the co-chairs and it 

has put me in touch with the disabilities community. One of the 

useful things that has come out of that is that we’ve made a commitment to have an intern from the deaf community from Guidant 

University. It is my belief that some of the disabilities communities 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
12 

are not well represented by advocates here on the hill compared to 

all the other very strongly represented interests here. 

And I want to ask Mr. Fugate, you’re a young man and you’re 

getting an education at Cal State. I am proud to call you a Californian now. Have you given much thought to what direction your life 

might take at this point? 

Mr. FUGATE. I was really excited after having the opportunity to 

speak here back in 2009. It felt great to be heard, but as the year 

went on and a couple more years passed and things did not happen, it was very discouraging. So, I was really happy that I had 

picked a career in computer science where I could talk to computers instead of asking people for help. 

Computers are much easier to talk to. They give you the answers 

out one end, so my path is in technology. 

Mr. TAKANO. Well, I am wondering if there might be some individuals in your capacity—the same situation that might be willing 

to intern on the hill to be able to kind of be a constant reminder 

to members about just what are the challenges. 

Mr. Minney, if there might be a way for us to have a pipeline 

of veterans in this situation, that might facilitate that. This is 

going to take a long—I mean, it has been several—I don’t know 

how much time it’s taken to get attention focused on DoD and the 

Veterans Affairs Department—the VA on its records issue—the 

health records issue and it seems like it is going to take us several 

more months, if not years of focus. 

Might it not be helpful to have a way to get some of these service 

members to intern or to even to have staff positions here on the 

hill? 

Mr. MINNEY. I think it would be an absolute wonderful thing to 

have a few blind veterans here up on the hill for the simple fact 

as members of Congress are walking the halls, their staff, or even 

individuals from the outside coming in, if they see the blind veteran maneuvering the halls, getting around, and seeing that their 

disability is not hindering them from being an active member of society or the community, then I am all for having some blind veterans doing internship here on the hill and I would advocate for 

that. 

Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Kebbel, do you think that we could understand—members might understand your struggles with the 

websites if we had to upgrade our systems to be able to accommodate blind interns—blind veteran interns here on the hill if our 

systems had to have the kind of software that would make it possible for them to work here and to advocate on behalf of their 

brothers and sisters in arms? 

Mr. KEBBEL. There is no question about it that it would help. 

There are some serious issues that have to be overcome first. There 

is that some of the Legacy software that the VA uses, no matter 

how much work you do on it will be accessible for Screen Reader. 

It would be valuable for someone to sit down and evaluate the 

process of using a website or even just documents to do that. As 

we look at it a little bit though, is right now I think the VA doesn’t 

even have—I think they are self audited as far as if a web page 

is usable. Okay. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
13 

The automation systems are fine. Okay. And that may give you 

an indication that it is ‘‘accessible.’’ But until you have someone 

who sits down and uses a Screen Reader with it I don’t think you 

are going to have very good results. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Dr. Roe, Tennessee. 

Dr. ROE. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to introduce someone before I start. Timothy Dennis is 19 years of age is here with 

us today. This is Foster Youth Shadow Day on the—and Timothy, 

if you would stand up. He has spent six years in foster care in Tennessee and he is here, as many of his other friends are, with the 

hill today. So, let us give him a warm round—— 

Phil Roe speaking. Travis, I remember your testimony very well 

and I remember you being here and it was powerful then, it is powerful now and thank you for coming back. And I am your neighbor 

just south of you in East Tennessee, so I am just down—where in 

Kentucky are you from? 

Mr. FUGATE. I’m from a small town in Knott County, Kentucky. 

We border Virginia. The closest city to me that people recognize is 

Hazard, Kentucky. 

Dr. ROE. So, you are Hazard. Okay, I know exactly where you 

live then. First of all, I appreciate your testimony and one of the 

things that you brought up is extremely important. Five years 

ago—last year we had the VA and DoD come in and they just 

burned a billion dollars, a billion. We are worried about three million. We burned a billions dollars trying to make the DoD and the 

VA health care records speak to each other and they can’t, they 

quit. So, three million dollars is nothing. 

And I have been to Great Lakes, Illinois twice to look at the system where they tried to get it to interact. It has not worked and 

I do not know, Travis, whether you are finding that information 

out, but it would certainly have been nice if they had that information out—whether it would have prevented what happened to you, 

no one—only God knows that, but it certainly would have been nice 

if a doctor would have had all the information available to be able 

to make those decisions and, by the way, just a commentary, when 

you go to California do not let them mess you up. You are just fine 

in eastern Kentucky, okay? Out there in California. 

And also, I think, Mr. Kebbel, what you said—tomorrow I go 

back. I am a veteran as you are, as all of you are and I am going 

back to Vietnam tomorrow, on a kodel, and what you just said 

when you made your testimony is the right thing to do is absolutely correct. Not because you have to do these things, because it 

is the right thing to do. 

And one of the things I do every year, we have—about January 

or February we have our sight impaired folks come to the hill and 

I go to my condo and I put a blindfold on for an hour and I try 

to walk around my condo, which is very small, and get around. Let 

me tell you, it is not easy. 

And we need to do everything we can for our veterans who have 

been—who are sight impaired and I agree with you, whether it’s 

service connected or not. If there are veterans—and I completely 

agree with that—I have a question that may be better for the next 

panel but I’m going to have to miss it, is that Glaucoma and 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
14 

Diabatic Retinopathy and Macular Degeneration are potentially 

blinding diseases that are highly prevalent in the aging veteran 

populations, as you mentioned. What procedures or processes are 

in place as far as you know to insure that veterans with advanced 

sight threatening eye diseases have been seen by an Ophthalmologist? 

Mr. FUGATE. I had trouble hearing you, sir. 

Dr. ROE. I said, what procedures or processes are in place to insure that veterans with advanced sight threatening eye diseases 

have been seen by an ophthalmologist? Do you know that in the 

VA hospital system? 

Mr. FUGATE. I do know that once they are first diagnosed with 

the first stages, that they are put on like a screening program 

where they monitor it three months, six months, but then that’s 

really all that they can do is monitor it, because Macular Degeneration, there is medication to slow the progress but there is no 

cure. Glaucoma, medications, no cure. So the only thing they can 

do is monitor it. 

Dr. ROE. Travis, just one other thing before I have to leave is 

that your comment here on your testimony, I am disappointed that 

after the passed three years while on DoD side they already have 

23,450 eye injured records in the vision registry, but today VA has 

one veteran’s record. The VA has not set this up because instead 

of having the clinical electronic data records contract—the contractors at DoD already doing the work. The VA, from we have been 

told now, is waiting for contract bids to be settled before getting 

started. 

It is now four years ago you were here. I recently had a chance 

to talk to my Congressman Harold Rogers to insure this is not delayed any longer. Thank you for that information right there. We 

will find out from the next panel. And the three of you, all of you, 

sincerely, thank you for your service to our country. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Roe. And now Command Sergeant 

Walz. 

Mr WALZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank you 

for holding this hearing. Great to have you all here again. Travis, 

I know my colleague gave a kind introduction and associated you 

and I together as friends, but I think Harry Truman was right. I 

know you’ve got a companion at your side a lot, if you need a friend 

in Washington, get a dog. You have got that one, so—but, I am 

honored, there’s no one I’d rather stand with. 

And I say that because—and we are going to hear the panel, but 

it is not often you get the opportunity, we’re going to discuss the 

intent of Congress, the spirit and the letter of the law. Today you 

got the folks in the room that wrote the law. We have got the person in the room that advocated for the funding and we work together. I am reminded and I had it here, I pulled it up. You would 

probably appreciate this, Travis. Here was a USA Today story that 

said, a military center devoted to finding new treatment for combat 

eye injuries has been delayed for a year by an ongoing squabble between Congress and the Pentagon over who will pay the five million needed to get it started, according to interviews. That was January 28th, 2009 and so we hear this—Mr. Takano asked the question, how long this issue of electronic records is going on and seamVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:54 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\88-981.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
15 

less transition. I can just say from my perspective, my entire adult 

life, we have advocated for this, both when I was in the military 

and then after. It is an important point. 

I also think it is important to note though because it was mentioned here, a February 2013 New England Journal of Medicine 

story though, made this clear, in the private sector 12.2 percent of 

physicians use electronic record meaningfully. Do not try and pretend that there is some type of magic bullet on the other side that 

it is working. That is nonsense, too. The issue on this is not trying 

to set up some pyridine here that the private sector is doing this 

and we are not, we are failing in getting this done here. Our purpose is to get this right and I would ask, Travis, on this, is your 

goal to have the Vision Center of Excellence up and running and 

doing what it is supposed to do and getting this care, or is your 

goal to go to the private sector to get your eye care? 

Mr. FUGATE. My goal is to have the—I care deeply about the VA 

and all the care they provided, recreational care, therapy, mental 

health counseling. I recently came back to Kentucky to help my 

parents who are getting up there in the years address some of their 

medical issues and they were unable to manage their care in the 

private sector. It was too complicated. I could not imagine trying 

to go into the private sector, to be honest with you. 

And one of the selling points when I am telling young men and 

women about my military experience is that you can avoid the private sector when it comes to medical care. It is so freeing to know 

that I can just take the bus to the VA and be around people who 

know me and care about me and understand my issues. 

Mr WALZ. This is an important point, because we need to really 

be careful because these service issues are absolutely fair issues. 

There is a role for that and there is a goal for that, but these core 

mission issues, especially on the issues of vision impairment and 

different things, you are not going to get off the hook by not fixing 

what is here. And I am angry too that this communication is not 

working. I said in this interview back in 2009 demanding that we 

get this right. But I think, collectively, together, when there is a 

role and a mission and a purpose and one that is working for people like Travis or our other veterans, we need to get that right. 

So, I agree with Dr. Roe’s on this, this is not a funding issue on 

that. They have got to get this figured out. I represent the Mayo 

Clinic and they tell me, the Vista system in the VA is the best 

medical record in the world, okay. So, we have that. 

DoD has a different one. Now, keep in mind, I understand DoD’s 

role is to fight wars, but until this Nation understands when we 

have our two biggest bureaucracies in government siloed up in DoD 

and VA not communicating with one another, you cannot separate 

Travis and these warriors and their injuries from the war that we 

fought. And now we have got the problem of a turf battle fighting 

over who is going to institute, who is going to put it in. 

Tom Gagliano, who is an absolute expert in this and everyone 

testified to that, in this article was talking about, yeah, I have an 

Eye Care Center of Excellence, but I do not have any computer and 

I cannot get going. 

So, we have got a responsibility here to avoid the easy flippant 

answers of what it’s going to do. Dig down and hold the accountVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:54 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\88-981.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
16 

ability, which we heard, get the accountability on this, get this 

thing up and running. Because as Travis came to me and told me, 

his goal is to get back and do the things you enjoy doing, get back 

into technology. Get that little place sometime and you did say 

Tennessee, I got to give Dr. Roe that, that at some point in time, 

going there. 

But we can do that. So I would appeal to my colleagues, let us 

let the data, let us let the oversight, let us drive this and get this 

going. We chose to do the Vision Center of Excellence, fully knowing that it was the best chance to do all the things that Mr. 

Minney, Mr. Kebbel, Mr. Fugate asked us to do. Now let us just 

make it work. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Dr. Benishek. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. I am Dan 

Benishek from Michigan, I am a physician as well as Mr. Roe, and 

I worked within the VA system for about 20 years as a consultant, 

and I have a couple questions for you all. 

Mr. Fugate, let me ask you this question. It sounds from your 

testimony that you are not quite happy with the care you are getting from the VA right now; is that correct? I mean what could the 

VA be doing? It seems to me that you are checking in with them 

periodically and that is about all you are doing; is that correct? 

Mr. FUGATE. It is tough for me because I am very satisfied and 

happy with the medical professionals and the community that I 

deal with and that I work with when I go to the VA. It is failures 

in the system that are causing the—you know, that bother me. 

Dr. BENISHEK. What could the VA be doing for you now that they 

are not doing? What would you like them to—is there something 

you would like them to do? I mean to me seems like you are not 

having that close a communication with the VA over this, you 

know, tragedy of your loss of sight. It seems to me that there 

should be some ongoing help to you to get your life in order as best 

as can be. Are you getting anything like that from the VA now? 

Mr. FUGATE. Yes, absolutely. They are serving—I go to mental 

health meetings regularly, I have been involved, as I said before, 

with the recreational departments. 

Dr. BENISHEK. What could they be doing that you would like 

them to do that they are not doing? 

Mr. FUGATE. Well currently everything they are doing fine by 

me, it is that they failed. And I could see a little bit, I had some 

vision, some very useful vision, and it was their failure in handling 

me when I transferred from the DoD to the VA that led to me losing that remaining vision. And what—my care is fine now. 

What I hope to do is prevent other soldiers, veterans from being 

hurt further by a failed transition between the DoD and the VA. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Right. 

Mr. Minney, do you have any comments on that question? I 

mean who could the VA be doing to, you know, besides avoiding the 

issues like Mr. Fugate talks about and the whole reason this testimony here is—— 

Mr. MINNEY. The biggest challenge I see that can be fixed once 

again is communication across the board. The two agencies need to 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
17 

communicate better. It needs to be a more seamless transition so 

that no one gets lost in the system. 

When I was injured my injuries required me to get surgery from 

a German hospital, Landstuhl wouldn’t touch me, so I had five eye 

surgeries from a German hospital. While Landstuhl had no idea— 

Landstuhl sent me there, but then when my unit was looking for 

me Landstuhl couldn’t tell them where I was at. Once they discovered where I was at I had already left Homburg. After Landstuhl 

my unit and my family were looking at Homburg. Homburg finally 

got around to telling them I was at Landstuhl. By the time they 

made it to Landstuhl I was back at Bethesda Naval Hospital. 

The same thing went on as far as my purple heart. My purple 

heart was delivered to me by the UPS man because it went from 

Homburg to Landstuhl to Bethesda. Everything was a month behind because no one was communicating. 

It is the tracking. They need better tracking. That is where I 

would see improvements being made. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Mr. Kebbel, I was intrigued by your statement 

here about the lack of—or the difficulty for a blind person to get 

through the VA website, and I guess I am really not familiar with 

the technology that involves the blind to deal with a computer, and 

I guess there is a big lack in the ability of the VA to communicate 

with the blind veteran. Could you just elaborate on that a little bit 

more than your testimony before? 

Mr. KEBBEL. Yeah, I will be glad to do that. 

Let me just go back in history a little bit and down scale the situation a little bit instead of being at a government level I will be 

at the city level in the City of Las Cruces. 

Okay, they were in the process of redesigning their website so I 

had an opportunity to sit there with their IT department and discuss what that means to us. And the next thing is once the IT department had the concept of what to do I sat down and performed 

training for the city employees to give them a basic understanding 

on why we need accessibility and why we need properly tagged elements. Okay. Once I was able to do that, okay, the city employees 

were 100 percent in. 

So I think right now what I see the problem is, is that we understand what needs to be done but nobody really understands why 

it should be done. 

Dr. BENISHEK. All right. Well, I know why it should be done, Mr. 

Kebbel, and I appreciate you being here to tell us. 

Thank you all for your testimony, I am out of time. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Benishek. 

Mr. O’Rourke from the State of Texas. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank the witnesses for being here. And I wanted 

to begin my comments and then ask a question to Mr. Fugate. 

You know, in the beginning of your comments you talked about 

being here five years ago in 2009 and implied in that was, you 

know, what difference did your testimony then make, what 

progress have we made since then, what is the value of your appearance here today? 

And I want to just tell you from my perspective as a member of 

this committee you have focused my attention on this problem, I 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
18 

have learned many things today that I did not know before today’s 

hearing. I am a new member of Congress, this is my first session 

in Congress, my first session as a member of this committee, and 

I am now resolved, as I know the rest of this committee is, in insuring that we correct the mistakes that were made in your individual case and the larger systemic problems that today’s hearing 

has uncovered in these Vision Centers of Excellence and other 

problems for those who are sight impaired and are working with 

the VA. 

So I first want to begin my thanking you and telling you that 

what you are doing today is very powerful, very impactful, and it 

has set up I think some excellent questions that this committee 

will then ask the VA. You are helping us to hold the VA accountable, so I wanted to tell you that. 

And I also wanted to make you aware of a bill that we authored 

this session of Congress, H.R. 3045, which would require the DoD 

to provide every transitioning service member with a portable electronic record so that they have that, they own it, and they can 

bring it to their visit with a VA doctor, they can bring it to their 

visit with a private medical doctor, they can just have it and refer 

to it as they need it, and you have given us a poignant example 

of why that is so badly needed. 

I will say that we have cosponsors that include the chairman of 

this committee, the ranking member of this committee, Mr. Walz, 

Mr. Takano, members from both parties, we would welcome additional support, but as you continue to advocate on that issue, and 

Mr. Minney and Mr. Kebbel as well, we would certainly encourage 

you to make sure that members are aware that we have a bill that 

would provide part of the solution to some of these problems. 

You, Mr. Fugate, offered some good advice when asked what you 

would ask other veterans to do who might be in your situation. You 

know, you said that working within the VA you found to be helpful 

versus working within the private sector. 

And let me also just say I really appreciate your even-handed description of VA services. You talked about providers both on the 

physical and mental health side who were there to help you, the 

great quality care that you got once you got in, despite the unfortunate decision that was made initially, so I really appreciate that. 

What else? Because besides influencing this committee and the 

VA I think there is a wider public that is listening to your remarks 

today. 

The veteran who is returning from Afghanistan today who has 

sight impairment, what is your advice to that veteran, what would 

you like them to keep in mind? 

Mr. FUGATE. I would hope that they would understand that the 

VA is there for them, it is a veteran community. I have enjoyed sitting in the waiting rooms and meeting veterans from the pastors 

and their wives and their families and having coffee with them 

from down the hall while they are waiting. 

It is a community and the system is slow and you have to reach 

really deep to find the patience sometimes to allow the system to 

turn. The system is not turning fast enough. The people in the VA 

aren’t out to get you, they are not against you, the system just is 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
19 

turning too slowly. People care deeply about their returning veterans. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you for saying that. And again, thank you 

for finding the good within the system that we can build upon 

while also recognizing the frustrations that you and others have 

with parts of that system that do not work. 

Mr. Kebbel, I am about out of time and I may ask you some 

questions following the hearing, but I did want to follow up on a 

point that you are making about inaccessibility on the VA’s 

website, and really make sure that this committee is also doing everything it can. Mr. Walz leaned over earlier during your testimony 

and asked is this committee’s website fully compliant and accessible to you and others who are sight impaired? And I think the 

answer we received from staff initially is that it is not. 

So I think we need to do our part to make sure that we are not 

just blaming the VA and not just holding them accountable, which 

we should do, but also holding ourselves accountable. 

You mentioned the Library of Congress as an example of a federal agency that is doing it right. I am going to have to give my 

time back to the chairman, but I would like to follow up with you 

after the hearing to find other agencies and federal departments 

who are doing the job the right way and see what we can learn 

from them. 

So I wanted to thank you and Mr. Minney also for being here. 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I will yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Kuster, State of New Hampshire. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to your witnesses here today both for your courage and articulating the problem, but also I want to join my colleague, Mr. O’Rourke, in his comments because I want you to understand we are—I am also a new 

member of Congress, a new member of this committee, and Mr. 

Fugate, when you said people cared deeply within the VA but the 

system is slow this has been our experience within the United 

States Congress. People care deeply but the system is very slow. 

And I want to revisit a letter that I led with my colleagues, a 

bipartisan letter that we wrote last summer, July 22, 2013, to Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Eric Shinseki, where we raised our concerns about the Vision Centers of Excellence and asked for information to get a sense. Sometimes around here it is difficult to even get the information about 

where things stand, because obviously we have colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle that came before us that cared deeply about creating this Vision Center of Excellence. 

And one of the parts of the response that I find troubling, this 

is dated January 4, 2014 from Secretary Shinseki, is that there 

seem to be a number of positions that are open. The VA contributed 6.6 full-time equivalent employees for the vision center. Now 

that doesn’t sound like very many to me given the scope of this 

project. 2.6 are currently filled, 4 are in the hiring process, and 

then this is also the case with the Hearing Center of Excellence, 

4 FTEEs of which one position was filled and 3 were in the hiring 

process. And I don’t know if anyone of this panel can help us with 

this, but I do want to convey to you, as Mr. O’Rourke has, that you 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
20 

have focused our attention on this issue and that we intend to 

press this case forward, because the very purpose of setting up the 

Vision Center of Excellence is to address these concerns. We have 

so many new veterans are Iraq and Afghanistan with sight impairment from the war and then aging veterans with sight issues. 

So could you comment on, if you know, any member of the panel, 

what is the current progress and do you think there are sufficient 

resources, including people power, to address these concerns about 

registering the people into the system and the computer issue that 

you have raised? Mr. Minney. 

Mr. MINNEY. Well, I know the last word that we got was on the 

VA side there is a blind rehab specialist position that is—they are 

interviewing for, and then the VA side will have all their FTEs 

filled, but now they are looking—they are putting bids out for contractors. 

My question is, the inception was in 2009. There was $6.9 million that was budgeted for the VA side for 2.6 employees between 

2010 and 2014. I would like to have that salary. 6.9 million split 

between 2.6 employees over 4 years? So my question is I don’t 

know where that funding went. 

Ms. KUSTER. Right. 

Mr. MINNEY. So that is what I would like to know. 

Ms. KUSTER. And I also think the comment was well taken about 

the funds that are returned to the treasury. 

It is a fine thing in this world to be frugal, we don’t see a lot 

of that around here, but the point is how can funds be returned to 

the treasury if there are issues like this that remain up resolved 

and not addressed. 

So I am going close my time and I just want to thank you for 

coming, and I also want to join Dr. Roe in addressing, I have a constituent here, Dakota Umbro from Berlin High School who is joining us in the back of the room and fostered—not child, young person here to learn more about our congress. 

And Mr. Fugate, I think you have a bright future and I can just 

hope and pray that you might choose to address it to resolving the 

computer issues at the VA. 

So thank you for joining us. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Kuster. 

Before the panel leaves I would like to have Mr. Hannel discuss 

an issue that Mr. O’Rourke raised relative to the compliance of this 

committee’s website. 

Mr. HANNEL. Thank you, chairman. 

To your question, sir, the committee’s web site does use a reader 

and it is called BrowseAloud, which is an element of a five-way 

compliance. So have you folks at the panel been able to access 

that? 

Mr. FUGATE. Could you say the name again, please. 

Mr. HANNEL. BrowseAloud. 

Mr. FUGATE. I never heard that term in my life. 

Mr. KEBBEL. I have not used it. 

Mr. HANNEL. Okay. Then we will get with you after this and you 

can walk us through to make sure that it does address your needs. 

Mr. FUGATE. Can I make a comment on that? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes, sir. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
21 

Mr. HANNEL. Yes, please. 

Mr. FUGATE. There is standard screen reading software that 

blind folks use, and when you introduce a screen reader that a 

blind person isn’t accustomed to using it is hard to expect that they 

will be able to interact with your—the information the way that 

they are accustomed to interacting with information on other web 

pages. So in my opinion a custom screen reading solution for a web 

page is inadequate. 

Mr. KEBBEL. Can I address that too? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes. 

Mr. KEBBEL. Yeah, this is Terry Kebbel. 

The problem with an automated system is it is designed by someone who looks at a script and says this is what it is supposed to 

do. Okay. So I would say most of the time it is probably accurate, 

okay? But there is a lot of times where it will look at a tag and 

there will be a description of the tag of the label and the label will 

say button, well it passes the test, but the button—I don’t know 

what the button does. Okay? Is it a button for searching something, 

is it the blue button that we are talking about, is it a button that 

sends me nowhere? Okay? So yes, it all passed test, but is it effectively labeled, is it effectively described? 

You can probably go to the form fields web site on the VA web 

site and look at the link, because I bet you every one of those links 

will pass inspection, but every one of those links are numerically 

described. There is no description of what that form is. 

So yes, yeah, you can use that, but as I spoke later, that you 

really need someone to sit down and evaluate it who uses a screen 

reader. Either Jaws or voice over or whatever screen reader you 

are using. If it is designed correctly any other screen readers will 

be able to address that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Let me have Mr. Takano and then we need to 

move to the second panel. Mr. Takano. 

Mr. TAKANO. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate that you and your staff are going to work with Mr. 

Kebbel after the hearing, but could we not share this information 

with the House Administration Committee and our counterparts in 

the Senate? I think it is important that the entire institution of the 

Congress, every members’ web site should be able to accommodate 

blind veterans and the blind community in general. 

Mr. COFFMAN. We will certainly do that, and this is the same 

system I think that is on the House VA committee that the Library 

of Congress uses, as I understand it, but I think there is always 

room for improvement and we will certainly look at that. 

I want to thank you all so much for coming and testifying here 

today. Really appreciate your service to our country. 

Mr. Kebbel. 

Mr. KEBBEL. Yeah. As a Vietnam veteran what I hear concerns 

me, okay, because we are talking about all the young veterans coming back. Okay? What concerns me about us Vietnam veterans is 

Agent Orange, okay? I had a catastrophic heart failure that led to 

a heart transplant, okay? I feel that is because of Agent Orange. 

That led to my blindness. There are a lot of us Vietnam veterans 

out there who are dying without any health care right now. Okay? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
22 

And I have a concern about that and I don’t think we addressed 

that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Appreciate 

your service to our country, all three of you. Thank you very much. 

And now we will move to the next panel, the second panel. I now 

invite the second panel to the witness table. 

On our second panel we will hear from Dr. Maureen McCarthy, 

Deputy Chief of Patient Care Services for the Veterans Health Administration, and Ms. Lorraine Landfried, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Product Development for VA’s Office of Information 

Technology. They are accompanied by Dr. Mary Lawrence, Deputy 

Director of the Vision Center of Excellence, and Mr. Pat Sheehan, 

Director of VA’s 508 Compliance Office. 

I think we will continue the—for committee members we will 

continue the process of stating your name so those that are vision 

impaired in the audience can know who is speaking, and I would 

ask the panel to do the same. 

Dr. McCarthy, your complete written statement will be made 

part of the hearing record and you are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF DR. MAUREEN McCARTHY, MD, DEPUTY 

CHIEF PATIENT CARE SERVICES, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; MS. 

LORRAINE LANDFRIED, DEPUTY CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER FOR PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

ACCOMPANIED BY DR. MARY LAWRENCE, MD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VISION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, AND MR. PAT 

SHEEHAN, DIRECTOR, 508 COMPLIANCE OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

STATEMENT OF DR. MAUREEN McCARTHY 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Good morning Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick, 

and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs contributions to the Vision 

Center of Excellence and the care and services provided to veterans 

with visual impairments. 

I am accompanied today by Dr. Mary Lawrence, Deputy Director 

of the Vision Center of Excellence. 

The Vision Center of Excellence, or VCE, was established by the 

National Defense Authorization Act in January of 2008. In October 

of 2009 a DoD and VA memorandum of understanding defined the 

roles and responsibilities of the departments and the establishment 

and operation of the VCE. 

VCE’s efforts are directed at improved vision health, optimized 

readiness, and enhanced quality of life. 

The National Defense Authorization Act also required the implementation of the defense and veterans eye injury and vision registry. The vision registry collects longitudinal data on eye injuries, 

guides research and clinical education, promotes best practices, and 

informs policy for the treatment of eye and vision-related injuries 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
23 

for service members and veterans. I am pleased to share that the 

vision registry is on schedule and on budget. 

VCE has achieved many significant accomplishments since its inception. VCE has identified and addressed 33 process improvement 

opportunities through the monthly VCE hosted World-wide Ocular 

Trauma Video Teleconferences which connect providers across the 

continuum from combat support hospitals and coalition providers to 

VA Poly-Trauma Centers. It has also led the way to initial inclusion of Fox protective eye shields in joint first aid kits and is attempting to expand them into individual first aid kits. 

In addition VCE, in collaboration with VA Blind Rehab Services, 

has designed an educational pamphlet geared toward in-patient 

care teams in hospitalized settings to assist with transitions. 

Mr. Chairman, the consequences of vision injuries to our service 

members and veterans will be with us for decades to come, therefore VA will continue to partner with DoD to provide eye care providers, clinical care practitioners, and researchers to have access to 

the information needed to develop strategies that will enhance and 

improve patient care outcomes. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, I am prepared to 

answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Next I would like to introduce Lorraine Landfried, 

Deputy Chief Information Officer for Product development, Office 

of Information and Technology, to address issues related to 508 

compliance. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MAUREEN MCCARTHY APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX] 

STATEMENT OF LORRAINE LANDFRIED 

Ms. LANDFRIED. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy, and good morning 

Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick, and members of 

the committee. 

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss veterans affairs work to 

improve access to information technology resources for visually impaired veterans, stakeholders, and employees. Accompanying me 

today is Mr. Pat Sheehan, Director of our 508 program office. 

Since 2001 this office has provided validation testing on VA web 

sites and applications using a combination of automated tools and 

manual auditing, the latter of which is performed by users who 

have a disability, including those with a visual impairment. 

When VA identifies non-conformant applications or web sites 

Section 508 staff work with relevant parties to correct or remedy 

accessibility issues. 

As critical as it is for us to audit and improve our existing web 

sites it is just as important to insure that all future applications 

and web sites are in conformance with 508 standards as well. 

To do this we have implemented formal policies requiring all information technology developed by VA to complete a four-step milestone process. This helps us insure that accessibility is planned for 

and built in up front rather than trying to inspect it in the future. 

We also provide training to VA’s system content creators providing them with the tools and the know how to make VA information 508 conformant. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
24 

We have made tremendous progress over the past year. For example, we improved the conformance of the my healthy vet web 

site from 16 percent in November to 95 percent today, and we will 

continue to pursue an aggressive strategy to insure access to all 

covered systems and electronic information. 

We are also committed to working with our veteran stakeholder 

groups. VA will attend the Blinded Veterans Association’s upcoming national conference to review recent updates to frequently used 

applications and web sites with BVA stakeholders and work with 

them to identify ways that usability can be improved, even in areas 

where we are technically already Section 508 conformant. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and Mr. 

Sheehan and I look forward to answering any questions you may 

have. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF LORRAINE LANDFRIED APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Are there further remarks? 

Okay. Dr. McCarthy, again this is Mike Coffman. According to 

your testimony there were 23,664 unique patients enrolled in the 

vision registry. How many of those patients were enrolled by the 

Department of Defense and how many from the Veterans Administration? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Coffman, that is an important question. The 

actual entry of the data was primarily done by the Department of 

Defense. You heard mention that there was one person entered by 

VA and that was to test the systems. 

I want to explain the registry just for a minute if I could. The 

registry is seated at the Department of Defense and so it is set up 

to take information more directly from the Department of Defense 

for servicemembers who do receive eye injuries. 

Okay. VA set up the architecture for the registry and over 50 

percent of it was used by the Department of Defense in order to 

enter service members’ data into it. 

VA has to go through a two-step process to enter the data into 

the registry. It is typical with cancer registries and all kinds of registries of that sort that information is harvested from a particular 

medical record, placed in a repository, and then entered into the 

registry. 

VA’s contract you may have heard is currently out for bid that 

we—the bids close June 9th, for the completion of the data entry 

into the registry—well first into the repository to go into the registry. So the two-step process for VA is under way. 

We did look at how many veterans—let me rephrase that—how 

many people who are—have treated in the VA because some active 

duty servicemembers have been through our blind rehab program. 

How many people have actually been treated at the VA that already have data in the registry, and currently there are at least 

2,400 veterans who have data in the registry, but you are accurate 

that that data was entered by—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. If we could just go back to the question, and that 

is that I get the Department of Defense, because they are going to 

have the service connection ones as folks are out processing in active duty so they are going to enter that in, but this registry is also 

for non-service connected veteran eye issues is it not? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
25 

Dr. MCCARTHY. It is about eye injuries. 

Mr. COFFMAN. So whether it is service connected or not service 

connected it is about veteran eye injuries. And so, but the fact remains you haven’t entered into a single person, so what it tells me 

is you are not participating. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I understand why you say that, and it is regrettable that none have been entered, but the framework is in place, 

the target date for the registry to be functional is by the end of fiscal year 2015, and so the fact that the contract is out for bid at 

this point is progress and we are looking forward to data being entered by the end of the fiscal year. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Well we had a lot of those definitions in progress 

last night before the full committee and it is disconcerting. 

Ms. Landfried, in VA’s February 2014 response to a letter I wrote 

in October 2013 I was told that VA had not awarded a data abstraction contract due to contracting delays. What were those 

delays and have the problems that caused them been corrected? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. That is actually probably better answered by Dr. 

McCarthy. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. And, Mr. Coffman, I am not aware of the exact 

delays. I would be happy to take that for the record and get back 

to you. Before the hearing I did ask if we could find a timeline for 

the process of the contract awards and what the delays were. I 

don’t have that at this point but we will get back with you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Mike Coffman again. 

Ms. Landfried, according to a July 26th, 2012 memo from the assistant secretary for information and technology all VA IT software 

was required to be compliant with Section 508 by January 2013. 

Is all VA software compliant at this point in time? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. At this point in time it is not. We have not 

achieved 100 percent conformance with the 508 standard. We have 

made significant progress since that time. 

Mr. COFFMAN. What percentage are you at right now? This is 

Mike Coffman again, and I want to remind people to identify themselves for this hearing before they speak. What percentage are you 

at right now? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. Mr. Sheehan, would you like to take that? 

Mr. SHEEHAN. Yes. This is Pat Sheehan. Thank you. 

The percentage is difficult for me to address right now, because 

the software that we are looking at particularly on the web and 

particularly the software that we look at as far as applications are 

concerned are pretty much in development. 

I think the important point that I want to make here is that the 

process that what we are doing with the software is working 

through the processes that we have established so that we can 

build software in at the beginning of the software life cycle and 

through the test process. 

Mr. COFFMAN. So I think the simple answer would be you are not 

compliant at this point in time. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kirkpatrick. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. This is Ann Kirkpatrick. 

And, Dr. McCarthy, I would like to go back to your description 

about the VCE. So it is housed at the DoD, but does the VA have 

access to the records that are at DoD? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
26 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes, there would be the opportunity for a VA 

provider to access that record. That would be the opportunity. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. And does that happen? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. At this point I am going to defer to Dr. Lawrence 

on that question. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Okay. 

Dr. LAWRENCE. Yes, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick, the registry 

is designed so that eventually individual providers from DoD or VA 

will be able to access the information in the registry on their individual patients and de-identify data on other patients. So they 

could, for example, put in some criteria that may be characteristic 

of a patient they are seeing and look at de-identified data and look 

at the outcomes of that de-identified data to help inform the provider and the patient as a—— 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. I appreciate that. My concern is suppose that 

a military member transitions out today, goes to a doctor tomorrow, 

technically in the VA system, will that doctor be able to see that 

person’s records regarding the eye injury that was service connected? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. This is Dr. McCarthy speaking. 

There are multiple opportunities for VA doctors to be able to access records from the Department of Defense. In our CPRS record 

system screen there is an opportunity to use a web-based interface 

in order to have access to those records. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. So I am still not clear what your answer is. 

Would that doctor be able to see that patient’s military medical 

records the day after they transition out? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. It is my understanding that if those records are 

electronic those records can be accessed, and most of the records 

are electronic at this point. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Do you know what percentage? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I do not have that number but we could check 

with DoD and get back with you. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Okay. So then the VA’s portion of this is just 

eye injuries, not necessarily military connected, and that is where 

your contracting out to have somebody enter that information? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. What we are contracting for is for someone to go 

through our CPRS records and pull out information such as eye 

exams, data from those exams, visual acuity, treatment interventions that were made so that over time progress can be tracked by 

the individual but looked at collaboratively. That is the point of the 

registry. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. I have a question about the funding, Dr. 

McCarthy. Again, this is Ann Kirkpatrick. 

Your testimony notes a total of 6.9 million that the VA has budgeted for the center from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2014. Has 

the funding been consistent each year, and can you provide a year 

by year breakdown of the funding over the past five years? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. This 

is Dr. McCarthy speaking. The $6.9 million was allocated in an accumulative amount for 

that period of initially from fiscal year 2009 to 2013, extended to 

2014. So really over a five to six-year period. What happened was 

an initial kind of ramping up of salary dollars, but in addition a 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
27 

kind of fencing of the money for contracting to enter the data that 

we are talking about from that VA medical record into the repository. So that money has kind of been kept separate, but the money 

that has been used over time, and I will be happy to provide those 

dollars for you for the record if you like, that is a gradual increase 

over time as salaries have increased and functions have increased. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Dr. McCarthy. I would like to see 

the breakdown, the year by year breakdown since the funding 

started. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. And then how much is set aside for the contractor. 

And thank you, ranking member, I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Kirkpatrick. 

Dr. Benishek. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I can’t believe it takes five years to get this thing going. What 

is the story with that? I mean apparently it is not even all staffed 

up yet, this Center of Excellence. Why has it taken five years? I 

mean the entire Second World War was four years for us. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Sir, this is Dr. McCarthy speaking. I would like 

to respond. 

There have been processes involved in getting this set up. The 

joint executive committee, VA, DoD set—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. Five years? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. They set a target for the registry to be functional. 

Dr. BENISHEK. I know, but five years seems like a really long 

time. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I appreciate that. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well let me get to something a little bit more pertinent. 

Dr. McCarthy, it has come to my attention that there is many 

issues with our veterans with their eye diseases, glaucoma, and Dr. 

Roe brought it up earlier, this diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration, blinding eye conditions that if left untreated will lead to 

blindness and we are very prevalent in our ageing veterans population. So what procedures are in place to insure that veterans with 

these eye diseases are seen by an ophthalmologist? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Sir, this is Dr. McCarthy speaking again. 

What I would be happy to tell you about is some of the processes 

we have in place. For instance a patient who has diabetes is at risk 

for diabetic retinopathy. They are screening processes in place in 

which we use telemedicine and photographs of the retina of every 

patient with diabetes are taken and read by an optometrist or an 

ophthalmologist, and if needed then that patient is referred to an 

ophthalmologist for care, but it is part of the routine screening for 

diabetics. 

In addition patients with glaucoma are followed regularly in our 

eye clinics. 

And you mentioned one other disease, I am sorry. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Macular degeneration. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. And macular degeneration is a tragedy. We do 

have ophthalmologists carefully following people with macular deVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:54 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\88-981.TXT PAT

VACREP180 with DISTILLER
28 

generation. I can’t speak to the exact screening procedures that are 

developed for those patients, but I—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, I have a concern because, you know, I 

worked at a VA hospital, and you know, it is tough to staff many 

of these clinics with ophthalmologists, I mean they have a hard 

time keeping people. 

Are you aware of any of the procedures for hiring local ophthalmologists for staffing VA centers on a part-time basis? Are you familiar with any of that? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Well, I am a former chief of staff from a VA facility in Salem, Virginia, and it was our experience there that we did 

try to hire full-time ophthalmologists or we would ask for people 

to come in on a contract basis. Because we were an academic facility we had a strong partnership with the University of Virginia and 

we were able to recruit people effectively there. But I am aware 

that other institutions do have contracts for folks to be hired. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, I am somewhat concerned because, you 

know, some of my friends are ophthalmologists that work at the 

VA—— 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Dr. BENISHEK [continuing]. And they are concerned of the fact 

that the VA limits their ability to work at the VA because once 

they reach a certain dollar amount then they can’t work anymore 

for the year, and so—because they think well maybe it is more cost 

effective to be a full-time ophthalmologist within the VA, but of 

course they don’t have any full-time ophthalmologist so the patient 

then travels 250 miles to Milwaukee to get to see the ophthalmologist. 

So they say well you can’t pay them more because it would be 

more efficient to hire a full-time ophthalmologists but yet they 

don’t hire a full-time ophthalmologist so the patient just goes without. Whereas if they just would allow him to work there a little 

longer he could continue to provide the care and not have the patient go to Milwaukee. And I don’t understand the reasoning for 

that rule. If you say that it is more efficient to hire a full-time ophthalmologist then hire a part-time ophthalmologist. So it seems like 

it is sort of a catch-22 problem. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. But it doesn’t—I can respond. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Let me ask another question. 

Apparently I have also heard that in order to improve the access 

to eye care that they are having like eye technicians do some of the 

work rather than physicians, some of the screening work. I mean 

you mentioned, you know, the screening the retinal pictures. You 

know, it concerns me when, you know, people other than physicians are providing care. I mean how do we know those people are 

trained properly? Do you know what the status of that situation is? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. This is Dr. McCarthy speaking again. 

I can talk about the training for teleretinal imagers or I could 

talk about a typical eye doctor appointment in which there are 

other non-physician people that are involved, you know, that might 

check visual acuity or might be involved in checking—— 

Dr. BENISHEK. I know, but I am talking about like things that 

physicians typically do. I mean I am always concerned about the 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
29 

quality of care when physicians aren’t doing the things that they 

are supposed to do. 

I am sorry, I guess I am out of time, but maybe we with further 

that later. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Discuss later. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Takano, State of California. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. McCarthy, just help me, where is this central—where is your 

center located physically? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. The Vision Center of Excellence? 

Mr. TAKANO. The Vision Centers for Excellence. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I am going to defer to Dr. Lawrence. 

Dr. LAWRENCE. Yes, Dr. Mary Lawrence. 

The Vision Center of Excellence has two locations in the national 

capital region. One, our headquarters is at Walter Reed National 

Military Medical Center in Bethesda, and we also have an office in 

Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia, and we also have a small office 

at Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, Washington. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. And Walter Reed is under the agents of the 

DoD, right, but nevertheless this veteran Center for Vision of Excellence is located at—one of them is located at Walter Reed; is 

that right? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. This is Dr. McCarthy again. 

The Vision Center of Excellence is a joint effort between DoD 

and—— 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. 

Ms. MCQUEEN [continuing]. And VA, and of the Centers of Excellence DoD authorized navy to be involved with this, and so it is a 

partnership between the navy on behalf of DoD with VA. 

Mr. TAKANO. That clears up something. I have actually been to 

Walter Reed and actually saw the center and so I said is that the 

same center? But nevertheless we are still having problems with 

the registry being populated. 

Now help me understand this registry. The registry has not been 

populated, we are waiting for the contracts to be filled and you are 

saying by the end of fiscal 2015 is when we expect this registry 

work to be done or begin? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. No, sir. Dr. McCarthy again. 

The registry contract is out for bid at this point, it is on the 

streets and we will have the bids in mid June and we expect it to 

be awarded and the data entry to start by the end of fiscal year. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. All right. And you are saying—and I want 

to clear up a question that—the answer to Ms. Kirkpatrick’s question about a provider being able to access a servicemember’s 

records once they leave service and go to the VA. 

So even without the registry being populated you are saying that 

the entire record is still theoretically accessible if it is electronic, 

if it exists in electronic form at DoD the medical provider on the 

VA side still can access it—should be able to access it overnight or 

you know the next day? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. It is actually realtime, it is not exactly instantaneous. I have to say it does take some time. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
30 

Dr. MCCARTHY. But I would like to yield to Lorraine to see if she 

could say more about that. 

Ms. LANDFRIED. On how interoperability works? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yeah, I just wanted—I think she asked the question—Ms. Kirkpatrick asked the question, a servicemember leaves 

defense, next day sees a VA doctor, can that VA doctor access the 

record? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. As long as it is an electronic record then yes, 

and as was stated earlier most of the records in DoD are now in 

electronic form in their health record system. 

I guess the daylight there or the gap there is between interoperability and seamless interoperability. So if it is DoD data then essentially you have to, you know, push a button to say go fetch it 

and bring it to me. It is not stored locally as part of the VA system, 

and that is what a lot of the work recently has been about is to 

go from interoperability to seamless interoperability. So as you are 

conducting a clinical work flow that the information that you need 

is there hand in hand with the step that you are doing. 

Mr. TAKANO. I have a couple more questions, I will try to ask 

them really quickly. It has to do with accounting for diversity. 

I know that in certain ethnic groups, Asians in particular, that 

glaucoma can show up much earlier in a patient. Do you have procedures in place to be able to accommodate the different health 

needs among servicemembers according to ethnicity? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. You know, VA has set up an office of healthcare 

equity and diversity and I would want to yield to them, so if it is 

possible I would like to take that one for the record and get back 

to you. 

Mr. TAKANO. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

And related to Mr. Kebbel’s—he raised the point about Agent Orange and its connection to his blindness. Is there anything being 

done to sort of deal with this huge Agent Orange population that 

we are going to have to address from the point of view of any kind 

of preventative work we can do? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. This is one, sir, I would have to take for the 

record. I don’t have an answer for that. 

Mr. TAKANO. Okay. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I mean I could talk about Agent Orange in general but not specifically related to blindness. 

Mr. TAKANO. Yeah, I would like to sort of address that issue if 

you—and we can deal with that later in written form. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Okay. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. O’Rourke, State of Texas. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Beto 

O’Rourke, El Paso, Texas. 

So for Dr. McCarthy, some of these questions you may have already answered and they may be repetitive, but I am new to this 

and I want to make sure that I fully understand it. You mentioned 

that January ’08 was the start date for this initiative for the eye 

injury and vision registry. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I mentioned—I am sorry, this is Dr. McCarthy. 

I mentioned that the act that established it was January 2008. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. That is when it became law? 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
31 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay. And then the funding was appropriated 

the next year? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. I don’t have the date of the funding, I can tell 

you the date that the MOU was signed—— 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay. 

Dr. MCCARTHY [continuing]. Between DoD and VA, and that was 

October 2009. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And the back up I received shows that at least $5 million of that funding has been spent, and I hope I am speaking about the same pot of money, there was a total of $6.9 million 

appropriated, $5 million has been spent. What has that $5 million 

been spent on? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Okay, let me just back up. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And in the plainest terms possible just because 

we are limited on time. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Okay, I am sorry, and again this is Dr. McCarthy. We have $2.8 of that $6.9 million set aside for the contract, so 

that brings us to $4.1. The $4.1 million has been used for salaries 

for individuals as we have ramped up the employment over the 

past five years, and in addition to education and training events, 

and I would yield to Dr. Lawrence for more details about that if 

you like. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Not just yet. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you though. 

You in responding to an earlier question about how long it has 

taken you said it is regrettable but that you also mentioned that 

we are on schedule and on budget. So when this became law in 

January of ’08 and when the funding was appropriated in the year 

thereafter was it always understood that June 9 of 2014 was when 

we would go out to bid or make a decision on closing those bids? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. This is Dr. McCarthy again. 

Actually it was always understood that by the end of fiscal year 

2015 the registry would be operational. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay. Thank you. And it does just from a layman’s perspective seem like a very long time. Dr. Benishek compared it to the amount of time that we spent in World War II and 

the number of people who are affected by these issues who do not 

have access to this care. 

And I would like to take one that we had as an example today 

from Mr. Fugate. Based on his testimony from ’09, to the extent 

you are familiar with it and his testimony today, do you have anything to offer in response to concerns that he raised or the specific 

case study that he has offered and how we are or have not yet 

learned from it and are or not yet able to provide the kind of care 

that might have provided for a better outcome in Mr. Fugate’s 

case? 

Dr. MCCARTHY. This is Dr. McCarthy again. And I am happy to 

be in touch with Mr. Fugate after the hearing and I would be interested in offering support in that way. 

I do want to mention the 33 process improvement activities that 

were identified as part of the Vision Center of Excellence calls in 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
32 

which the people in the field and the people at Vision Center of Excellence and the people at the polytrauma centers have worked together to try and solve those kind of communication issues. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Okay, and that might be good for myself and the 

entire committee to understand from your perspective Mr. Fugate’s 

specific case and how that case in 2014 might be handled differently and how the interoperability between DoD records and 

medical recommendations and decisions and those in the VA might 

provide for a better outcome or might not where we still have some 

ground to make up. And so I think it is very important for us if 

nothing else to learn from his specific case and ensure that it is not 

repeated, and I think you could probably agree with me on that. 

Dr. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And then for Ms. Landfried and the Section 508 

issues. I think this discussion today is happening within the larger 

context of the American publics’ and Congress’ frustration with 

lack of accountability within the VA. And so again, just looking at 

the backup and all of the chances that the VA had to come into 

compliance, the waivers that were issued to allow the VA to remain 

out of compliance, the fact that on some of the most critical issues 

like the ability to fill out a VA form that Mr. Kebbel brought to 

our attention, it seems like not only would that be a benefit to the 

sight-impaired veteran, it would be a benefit to the VA to be able 

to have that information entered there by the veteran himself or 

herself instead of have been to go to a VBA office. 

How do you answer in the plainest terms possible what I feel is 

very justified frustration at the amount of time that the VA has 

had to get it right? And you and Mr. Sheehan spoke earlier of the 

processes involved, all the things you have got to do, which are 

really lost on me. I think we just really want to know what is taking so long, where is the accountability, when will you be able to 

assure this committee and the veterans who depend on these services through the web that you will be 100 percent compliant? 

Ms. LANDFRIED. Sure, I would be happy to address that. 

We are absolutely committed to making sure that all of the information that veterans need about benefits, about healthcare available to them, and everything else that we have to offer is available 

to them as electronic products through our web sites and forms. 

And the memo that was mentioned earlier by the chairman, that 

was I think a wake-up call and accountability for us to say there 

are these waivers out there, what are we doing with them? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. With the chairman’s indulgence could I just ask 

you a really quick pointed question? Give us a date by when every 

single page on every single VA web site will be 508 compliant. 

Ms. LANDFRIED. And the reason that we keep talking about the 

process is, is that if I was 100 percent compliant tomorrow new 

systems are going to come online, additional forms are going to be 

added, additional web pages are going to be added, additional documents are going to be added, so—— 

Mr. O’ROURKE. This does not build confidence in you and what 

you are doing and what our veterans can expect, and I would hope 

that you could come back to this committee with a set date and 

from that date we are 100 percent compliant and every day there 

forward we will be 100 percent compliant. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
33 

Ms. LANDFRIED. Okay. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. I think that is what we are asking, I don’t think 

it is too much to expect, and I think that is what the veterans that 

we serve deserve. 

So with that I yield back to the chair. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. O’Rourke. 

Ms. Kirkpatrick. 

Ms. KIRKPATRICK. Dr. McCarthy, I appreciate your willingness to 

provide the committee with a year by year breakdown of how the 

money has been spent. You know, that is part of our responsibility 

on this committee is, Mr. Chairman, to oversee how taxpayer dollars are being spent. So I am going to ask that within that year 

by year breakdown you also categorize that and work with the committee staff on what categories seem to be appropriate and we will 

get that to you and just like to have some dialogue with our staff 

on that. In other words I would like to know how much is spent 

on salaries, how much is spent on space, how much is spent in 

other areas just so we have got an idea of how that is being spent. 

And I thank the panel for being here today, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for having this meeting. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Our thanks to the panel. Second panel 

you are now excused. Again this is Mike Coffman. 

All right, today we have had a chance to hear about problems 

that have led to many years passing while virtually—I am sorry— 

visually-impaired veterans continue to be denied equivalent access 

to VA services due to VA failures. As such this hearing was necessary to accomplish a number of items. 

First to identify the reasoning for VA’s lack of progress in implementing the vision registry, despite years having past since authorization. 

Second to receive an explanation on why VA has not brought its 

system into compliance with Section 508, of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. 

And third to determine what steps are being taken to correct 

these issues and improve the care provided to veterans and their 

ability to access crucial information. 

I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative 

days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous 

material. Without objection so ordered. 

I would like to once again thank all of the witnesses and the audience members for joining us in today’s conversation. 

With that this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
34 

f 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE COFFMAN

Good morning. This hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing titled, ‘‘Assessing Inadequacies in 

VA Data Usage for and Services Provided to Visually-Impaired Veterans.’’ My name 

is Mike Coffman, and prior to hearing testimony and asking questions to our witnesses, I ask that each Member state his or her name to assist our witnesses in 

identifying who is speaking. Thank you for your cooperation. Now let us begin. 

This hearing focuses on continued problems within VA that have caused its contribution to the Vision Center of Excellence to stagnate, allowed VA systems to continue to operate in noncompliance with Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and compromised other services provided to veterans with visual impairments. 

The creation of the Vision Center of Excellence, or VCE as we will refer to it 

today, was mandated by the National Defense and Authorization Act of FY 2008. 

It stated that the Department of Defense was required to create the facility and to 

collaborate with the Department of Veterans Affairs in doing so. One of the main 

responsibilities required in the 2008 NDAA for the operation of the VCE was to ‘‘enable the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to access the registry and add information 

pertaining to additional treatments or surgical procedures and eventual visual outcomes for veterans who were entered into the registry and subsequently received 

treatment through the Veterans Health Administration.’’ 

The reference to the registry is that of the Defense and Veterans Eye Injury and 

Vision Registry, which we will also refer to as the Registry today for convenience. 

The DoD has done a commendable job of populating the Registry, with over 20,000 

unique patient entries. However, the most recent number VA has provided the Committee regarding its contribution to the Vision Registry is one entry. One, compared 

to 20,000. Notably, in an October 2013 briefing, VA staff stated that the one entry 

was just a test case to ensure that their transfer of information would work. So, 

essentially, VA had not entered any veterans information into the Registry, which 

precludes VA from meaningfully contributing to the very purpose the Registry was 

created, ‘‘to collect the diagnosis, surgical intervention, operative procedures and related treatments, and follow up of each significant eye injury incurred by members 

of the Armed Forces while serving on active duty.’’ We will hear from a veteran 

today who will articulate the importance of VA fulfilling its obligation to contribute 

to the Registry. 

Another major issue we will address today is VA’s continued failure to bring its 

information systems into full compliance with Section 508 of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. Section 508 addresses access for people with physical, sensory, or 

cognitive disabilities to various types of technologies. Two separate memoranda, 

dated July 26, 2012, issued by then-Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology Roger Baker, illustrated the ongoing problems within VA regarding Section 

508 compliance. Both memoranda reference how recent audits conducted by the VA 

showed that most of the content and information on VA web sites was not Section 

508 compliant. 

Further, in a 2012 VA Dashboard Summary analysis, every site reviewed showed 

a status of less than 50% compliance with Section 508. Some notable examples include: VA Jobs (86% critical), eBenefits (95% critical), and VA Forms (100% critical). 

The rating of ‘‘critical’’ in the analysis states that the listed percentage is the 

amount of that web site that is ‘‘completely inoperable.’’ We will hear today in VA’s 

testimony that they are making great strides in bringing VA systems into compliance with Section 508. However, we will also hear from a blinded veteran who must 

actually navigate these pages himself. He may be inclined to disagree. 

With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Kirkpatrick for her opening statement. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
35 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 88981.009
36 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 88981.010
37 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 88981.011
38 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 88981.005
39 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 88981.006
40 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 88981.007
41 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 88981.008
42 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 88981.001
43 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 88981.002
44 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 88981.003
45 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 88981.004
46 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 88981.012
47 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 88981.013
48 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 88981.014
49 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 88981.015
50 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 88981.016
51 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 88981.017
52 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 88981.018
53 


VACREP180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 88981.019
54 

ATTACHMENT VISION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE (VCE) DATA ABSTRACTION CONTRACT

SUMMARY

SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 

1. June 12, 2012: VCE contacts General Services Administration (GSA) Contracting Officer (CO) regarding involvement of VA for funding of the Data Abstraction contract. 

2. July 3, 2012: Office of Specialty Care Transformation contacted by Department of Defense (DoD) representative supporting VCE, requesting assistance with 

VCE Data Abstraction Contract. 

3. July 3, 2012: Office of Specialty Care Transformation contacted the Office of 

Specialty Care Services (SCS) to assist VCE. 

4. Patient Care Services (PCS) Budget Office was contacted by SCS on July 3, 

2012, to review funding for VCE in support of the Data Abstraction Contract. 

5. July 16, 2012: 

a. VCE sends initial paperwork for Data Abstraction Contract to SCS. 

b. VCE staff provides virtual introduction for VA Contracting, GSA Contracting, 

and VHA SCS staff. 

c. VA Office of Acquisition Services (OAS) assigns Contract Specialist advisor. 

6. July 17, 2012: SCS notified by PCS Budget Office that funding would have 

to go through VA OAS. 

7. July 22, 2012: VA OAS notifies SCS that funds transfer documents must be 

loaded into the VOA portal. 

8. July 26, 2012: Attempt made to set up funds transfer to OAS. 

9. August 22, 2012: 

a.Contracting documents forwarded to SCS Executive Assistant for entry into the 

Veterans Online Application (VOA) portal for acquisition. 

b.Contracting specialist notifies SCS that award is now high risk for not being 

awarded by October 1, 2012. 

10. September 4, 2012: All requirements documents loaded into VOA portal. 

11. September 11, 2012: Contracting Specialist notifies SCS that contracting requirement is not within the scope of the Interagency Agreement (IAA). Contracting 

Specialist recommends initiating contract in Quarter 1, Fiscal Year 2013. 

12. September 30, 2012, Fiscal Year 2012 closed out. Contract not awarded. 

13. October 1, 2012, contracting process reinitiated. 

14. November 16, 2012: Rolling discussions between Contracting Specialist and 

General Services Administration (GSA) regarding use of the DoD/GSA IAA. 

15. November 27, 2012: Contracting Specialist starts research to find another 

contracting vehicle to use. 

16. November 28, 2012: Contracting Specialist request copy of DoD/GSA IAA 

award for review. 

17. November 30, 2012: Attempts to load requirements documents into VOA portal unsuccessful due to technical issue with the portal. 

18. December 3, 2012: Requirements successfully loaded into VOA portal and 

Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist assigned. 

19. December 13, 2012: Conference call held with GSA, Contracting Specialist, 

VCE, and SCS representative to discuss issues with security clause. 

20. December 18, 2012: Contracting Specialist requests new Determination and 

Findings (D&F) and part B be completed. 

21. December 20, 2012: New 2237 issued for funding. 

22. January 8, 2013: Contracting Specialist request submission of completely 

new requirements package to include D&F, Independent Government Cost Estimate, Part A and B. 

23. February 12. 2013: New documents submitted to Contracting Specialist for 

review. 

24. February 21, 2013: Contracting Specialist returns documents with comments.

Proposes to GSA to push contracting date to May/June 2013. 

25. March 5, 2013: Contracting Specialist returns IGCE to modify period of performance 

26. March 6, 2013: Contracting Specialist notifies SCS that market research 

must be signed by an SES as the acquisition would be awarded to a large business 

vice a small business. 

27. March 14, 2013: 2237 funding document submitted to OAS Contracting for 

base year IAA between GSA and VA. Contracting Specialist returns PWS with 

comments for revision. 

28. March 15, 2013: Contracting Specialist returns D&F with comments for revision. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
55 

29. March 21, 2013: Contracting Specialist sends Memorandum for the Record 

to SCS, ‘‘the VHA Program Office is not making a serious effort to take ownership 

of this requirement and to take action to refine this requirement so that it can be 

determined actionable and can be reviewed and recommended for award. 

30. April 1, 2013: Contracting Specialist informs SCS/VCE that contracting action is being cancelled due to shifting resources at OAS contracting. 

31. April 12, 2013: Contract reinitiated with TAC. 

32. April 19, 2013: New Contracting Specialist assigned. 

33. June 12, 2013: GSA working on new IAA. 

34. June 21, 2013: New documents loaded to VOA. 

35. June 25, 2013: Previous Contracting Specialist notifies SCS/VCE that contract will stay in Frederick OAS with new Contracting Specialist assigned. 

36. June 26, 2013: OAS VOA notification received that all documents have been 

received for processing and new Contracting Officer and new Contracting Specialist 

have been assigned. 

37. July 30, 2013: Informed by the Contracting Specialist that due to new VA 

policy this contracting action is cancelled and will be transferred to VHA for procurement. 

38. July 31, 2013: SCS POC sends copies of procurement package to VHA Service Area Office (SAO) East contracting Officer as VA OAS had not transferred package. 

39. August 8, 2013: VHA SAO East Contracting Officer requests copy of current 

DoD/GSA IAA for review. 

40. August 16. 2013: Procurement package has to be loaded into VHA contracting portal eCMS. Requires establishment of account. Technical problems prevent establishment of account. 

41. August 19, 2013: Electronic Contract Management System (eCMS) account 

established and procurement package loaded. 

42. August 20, 2013: Informed by GSA that they are no longer accepting Fiscal 

Year 2013 fund transfers. 

43. October 1, 2013: Non-essential Government employees furloughed. 

44. October 16, 2013: New procurement package uploaded into eCMS portal. 

45. November 14, 2013: New funding received for procurement. 

46. November 15, 2013: Contracting Officer load’s procurement package into actions folder. 

47. December 12, 2014: New Contracting Officer assigned to the procurement. 

48. January 2, 2014: Contracting Officer notifies SCS/VCE that he can proceed 

with processing IAAs at this time. 

49. February 3, 2014: Contracting Officer notifies SCS/VCE that new procurement package required and that only VHA employees may have input into the package. This is crippling to VCE as DoD staff have been working original IAA since 

its inception. 

50. February 6, 2014: Contracting Officer sends PWS back to SCS/VCE for revision. 

51. March 3, 2014: General Counsel makes statement that DoD personnel are 

excluded from working on this contract. 

52. March 4, 2014: Contracting Officer decides competitive contracting is appropriate vehicle vice IAA. 

53. March 26, 2014: Drafting of new Performance Work Statement starts. 

54. March 27–June 16, 2014: Processing of contract continues. 

f 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Questions for the Record from Subcommittee Chairman Mike Coffman 

Question 1: During the hearing, I asked the VA witnesses about the February 

2014 response to my October 2013 letter; particularly regarding the statement that 

a data abstraction contract had not been awarded due to contracting delays. Dr. 

McCarthy asked if she could take that question for the record. Please provide me 

an answer on what specific contract delays led to a data abstraction contract not 

being awarded. 

VA Response: The specific delays include changes in the two contracting agencies 

(VA to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)); multiple changes in contracting 

specialists; VA and VHA not clearly understanding how Interagency Agreements 

work; and multiple requests to redo the procurement package. 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER
56 

Question 2: Similarly, I was told that I would be provided with a timeline for 

the process of the contract awards and what the delays were. Please provide that 

response as well. 

VA Response: A timeline summary is attached. 

Question 3: Once the contract is awarded, how long will it be before VA begins 

populating the Vision Registry? 

VA Response: Due to the contract going out for bid, an exact date cannot be established at this time. VA is targeting an award by mid-July 2014. The VA expects to 

begin populating the registry in fiscal year 2015. 

Question 4: According to a July 26, 2012, memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology (ASIT), no new IT software could be deployed 

unless it was Section 508 complaint. Was any such software created after the date 

of that memorandum that was or is not currently 508 compliant? 

VA Response: The 2012 memo effectively rescinded hundreds of waivers, some in 

effect for years. Waivers were granted to the July 26, 2012, memorandum for various software products that VA considered critical to serving the needs of Veterans, 

including software products that contain information about how Veterans can access 

health and benefits information. However, these products were only allowed to be 

deployed after their respective development teams provided remediation plans that 

would move their applications towards full compliance with the requirements of Section 508, and the 508 Team approved their remediation plans as sufficient. Of the 

mission-critical products that were granted waivers to the memo, 25 remain noncompliant. Sixteen of these products are internal facing, meaning that they are used 

exclusively by members of the VA workforce. The other nine are external facing, 

meaning that they are used by members of the public. VA leadership and staff are 

actively engaged in implementing the approved remediation plans for each of these 

products. 

Question 5: The same memorandum also states that the Section 508 Program 

Office would audit VA’s 508 compliance and provide reports on a monthly basis. 

Please provide the Subcommittee with digital copies of these reports from July 2012 

to present. 

VA Response: Requested information is enclosed. 

Question 6: In a separate memorandum from the ASIT from the same date, he 

stated that a recent audit of VA’s internet framework, HTML code, and site framework showed that most of VA’s internet sites were not 508 compliant. Please provide 

the Subcommittee with a digital copy of that audit and any subsequent audits. 

VA Response: Requested information is enclosed. 

Question 7: Of the top 12 busiest VA-related sites listed in the July 2012 memo, 

are there any listed that remain noncompliant with Section 508? If so, which ones 

and why are they still noncompliant? 

VA Response: The top 12 busiest VA Web sites are listed below. VA’s Web sites 

are constantly being changed and modified, which creates challenges in maintaining 

compliance with Section 508 standards. However, over the last 2 years, VA’s enterprise-wide use of Section 508 compliant Web design templates has greatly improved 

the level of compliance with Section 508. 

Web sites from July 2012 memo 

Current 508 

compliance rate 

(as of June 

2014) 

www.va.gov .......................................................................................................................................................... 59% 

www.vba.va.gov .................................................................................................................................................... 57% 

www.gibill.va.gov ................................................................................................................................................. 89% 

www.va.gov/opa ................................................................................................................................................... 52% 

www.va.gov/directory ............................................................................................................................................ 80% 

www.va.gov/forms ................................................................................................................................................ 92% 

www.vacareers.va.gov .......................................................................................................................................... 87% 

www.va.gov/health ............................................................................................................................................... 78% 

www.insurance.va.gov .......................................................................................................................................... 92% 

www.va.gov/jobs ................................................................................................................................................... 50% 

www.ebenefits.va.gov/ebenefits-portal/ebenefits.portal ...................................................................................... 15% 

www.myhealth.va.gov ........................................................................................................................................... 95% 

Æ 


VACREP180 with DISTILLER