GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

August 18, 2003 

The Honorable Everett Alvarez, Jr. 

Chairman, CARES Commission 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Subject: VA Health Care: Framework for Analyzing Capital Asset Realignment for 

Enhanced Services Decisions 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On May 14, 2003, at your request, we briefed you on our preliminary views on the 

Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) process initiated by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). On July 29, 2003, we met with your staff to 

share our additional perspectives, which they indicated would be helpful to the 

Commission as it considers the draft National CARES Plan that VA presented on 

August 4, 2003. For this reason, we are providing, for your consideration, an 

overview of the approach that we plan to use during our continuing review of CARES. 

As you know, VA operates one of the nation’s largest health care systems, having 

provided health care services to almost 4.3 million veterans in fiscal year 2002. In 

1999, we reported that better management of VA’s large, aged capital assets—

consisting of a real property infrastructure that includes over 4,700 buildings and 

structures and 15,000 acres of land—could significantly reduce funds used to operate 

and maintain underused, unneeded, or inefficient properties.1

 We also noted that 

these funds could be used to enhance health care services for veterans. Specifically, 

we recommended that VA develop market-based asset-restructuring plans2

 that are 

consistent with guidelines from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which 

provide key principles and concepts for disciplined, cost-effective management of 

real property.3

 In response, VA initiated the CARES process in October 2000. 

 

1

See U.S. General Accounting Office, VA Health Care: Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting Need 

Improvement, GAO/T-HEHS-99-83 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 1999), and VA Health Care: 

Improvements Needed in Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting, GAO/HEHS-99-145 (Washington,

D.C.: Aug. 13, 1999). 

2

VA subsequently defined a health care market as a geographic area having a sufficient population and 

geographic size to benefit from the coordination and planning of health care services and to support a 

full health care delivery system. 

3

Office of Management and Budget, Capital Programming Guide, Version 1.0 (Washington, D.C.: July 

1997).
2 GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets

The challenge of misaligned infrastructure is not unique to VA. We identified federal 

real property management as a high-risk area in January 2003 because of the 

nationwide importance of this issue for all federal agencies.4 We did this to draw 

attention to the need for broad-based transformation in this area, which, if well 

implemented, will better position federal agencies to achieve mission effectiveness 

and reduce operating costs. But VA and other agencies face common challenges, such 

as competing stakeholder interests in real property decisions. In VA’s case, this 

involves achieving consensus among such stakeholders as veterans’ service 

organizations, affiliated medical schools, employee unions, and communities. 

Recently, bills have been introduced in the Senate and House that would require a 

minimum 60-day period for congressional committees to review and consider CARES 

decisions before implementation.5

 

VA’s draft National CARES Plan proposes a wide range of health care asset 

realignments and service enhancements based on analysis of VA’s current capacity 

and accessibility to veterans and projections of the capacity necessary to meet the 

future health care needs of veterans. This plan includes recommendations for 

realigning clinical services from certain VA locations to existing VA-owned, new VAowned, or non-VA-owned health care delivery locations and includes proposals to 

open some new VA delivery locations and close others. The Commission will play a 

critical role in 

• reviewing the draft national plan and documents that support it, 

• collecting information through site visits and public hearings, and 

• making specific recommendations to the Secretary based on its 

acceptance, modification, or rejection (with supporting comments) of VA’s 

draft recommendations. 

Like the Commission, our continuing review of CARES is intended to help assure that 

veterans’ health care needs are met effectively and efficiently. In developing our 

approach, we relied on our prior testimonies and reports,6

 OMB’s guidelines for 

capital planning, VA’s CARES guidelines and other documents, VA’s capital 

investment guidelines, and Commission documents. In addition, we spoke with 

Commission staff and VA’s CARES staff. We conducted our work from February 

through August 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In summary, our approach for analyzing CARES decisions will focus on a series of 

fundamental questions regarding whether 

• appropriate alternatives were considered and 

• key impacts of competing alternatives were appropriately evaluated. 

 

4

See U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: Federal Real Property, GAO-03-122

(Washington, D.C.: January 2003) . 5

S. 1283, H.R. 2659, and H.R. 2808, 108th Cong. (2003). 6

See Related GAO Products at the end of this report. 
3 GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets

As shown in the figure below, our framework examines whether choices about the 

development of capital asset realignment alternatives ensure consideration of 

alternatives that potentially provide the greatest payoffs, particularly in comparison 

to the status quo, that is, maintaining VA’s existing real property infrastructure for the 

delivery of health care. It also examines the impacts of such alternatives, focusing on 

comparisons of their key costs and benefits in a manner consistent with OMB and 

CARES guidelines. 

Figure 1: GAO’s Framework for Analyzing CARES Decisions 

In our view, the success of CARES depends on ensuring that the best alternatives for 

meeting veterans’ needs within a market are recommended and a transparent public 

record is developed that sufficiently documents the justification supporting CARES 

decisions. A complete, fact-based public record can facilitate political consensus by 

allowing the Congress and other stakeholders to focus their deliberations on tradeoffs among the benefits and costs of alternatives for realigning health care assets and 

enhancing care. 

Ensuring That Appropriate Alternatives Are Considered 

OMB guidelines state that when evaluating capital assets, a comparison of 

alternatives is critical for ensuring that the best alternative is selected. In its 

guidance, OMB challenges decision makers to consider the different ways in which 

various functions, most notably health care service delivery in VA’s case, can be 
4 GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets

performed. Moreover, OMB encourages the use of imagination, tempered with 

experience, to develop ideas that could have the greatest payoffs. In this regard, 

OMB labeled the development of alternatives the single most important element in 

that process. 

OMB's guidelines also suggest that alternatives include an assessment of the 

continued viability of existing capital assets. VA currently owns and operates 

significant investments in real property at 173 health care delivery locations. For 

CARES purposes, VA designated 77 geographic areas as health care markets with the 

goal of ensuring the availability of an appropriate continuum of care for veterans in 

each market. Thus, in the CARES context, assessing the desirability of VA’s existing 

assets would mean evaluating the contribution of VA’s current delivery locations to 

their respective markets’ continuum of care. A full assessment of alternatives for any 

market will require consideration of alternatives to the status quo for each location, 

including whether some existing locations might need to be supplemented or 

enhanced and whether it might be better to replace some existing locations with a 

more effective and efficient configuration of assets. VA's CARES process also targets 

higher priority situations that warrant special attention, including 

• markets with the largest increases or decreases in predicted workload 

(such as the number of days of inpatient care and outpatient visits) 

over the next 20 years, 

• markets with the largest proportions of veterans who have long travel 

times to existing VA health care delivery locations, 

• individual health care delivery locations that are proximate to each 

other, and 

• individual inpatient care delivery locations that are predicted to have 

small workloads. 

Consistent with OMB and CARES guidelines, our approach will examine whether 

alternatives considered by VA and the Commission represent the best CARES service 

realignment outcomes that are potentially available for each individual health care 

delivery location within the CARES-designated markets. Toward that end, we plan to 

review whether the evidence indicates that consideration was given to realignment 

alternatives that reflect an appropriate range of alternatives involving health care 

services, delivery locations, and capital investments. In terms of the health care 

services offered at individual locations, alternatives range from maintaining the status 

quo to closing a delivery location. Intermediate alternatives could involve realigning 

one or more clinical services (such as vascular surgery or hemodialysis) or groups of 

related services (such as acute inpatient care or inpatient surgery) from one location 

to another. In terms of delivery locations, alternatives include maintaining existing or 

developing new VA-owned delivery locations, collaborating with other federal 

agencies such as the Department of Defense (DOD), or purchasing care from 

nonfederal providers such as community hospitals. In terms of capital investment 

decisions, alternatives include renovating existing assets, acquiring new assets, and 

disposing of unneeded assets. 

Potentially viable alternatives would depend on the individual circumstances within 

CARES-designated markets, most notably, whether VA owns and operates assets at 
5 GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets

more than one health care delivery location in a market. Of the 74 CARES markets 

currently under consideration,7 24 have a single delivery location with significant real 

property investments, 47 have two or more such locations, and 3 have no locations 

with significant real property investments. For example, the best alternatives in VA’s 

24 single-location markets could include the status quo, establishment of a new VA 

delivery location, collaborating with federal agencies, or purchasing care from private 

providers. In the 47 markets where VA operates multiple delivery locations, the best 

alternatives for delivery locations could also involve realigning individual services, 

groups of services, or all services to nearby VA delivery locations. 

Ensuring That Key Impacts of Competing Alternatives Are Evaluated 

OMB guidelines state that robust comparisons of costs and benefits facilitate 

selection among competing alternatives and that information regarding such analyses 

of competing alternatives should be provided in a simple, easy to understand format. 

Doing so involves identifying the likely consequences of specific alternatives on key 

impact areas and then comparing the costs and benefits of competing alternatives to 

determine which alternative best meets veterans’ health care needs effectively and 

efficiently. Consistent with OMB guidelines, CARES guidelines call for impact 

analyses of specific costs and benefits to be considered when evaluating health care 

service realignment alternatives. Our approach to reviewing competing alternatives 

will focus on whether evidence is available for decision makers and stakeholders to 

understand the trade-offs among key impact areas—quality of care, access to care, 

cost to the government, support for VA’s other strategic goals, and economic impact 

on the local community. 

Quality of care includes continuity and coordination of care and patient safety. We 

will examine evidence documenting how alternatives are likely to preserve or 

improve the quality of care, for example, by ensuring that the volume of procedures 

will be sufficient to maintain the proficiency of providers, such as surgeons. 

Similarly, we will examine documentation indicating how outcomes could be affected 

if there are changes in interdependent services, such as cardiac surgery and intensive 

care. 

Access to health care services is also a key impact area. For CARES, VA defines 

reasonable access in terms of travel times to its health care delivery locations. We 

will examine evidence to determine how the percentage of patients currently meeting 

VA’s access goals compares to the expected percentage of patients meeting VA goals 

under each competing alternative and whether CARES realignments bring services 

closer to where veterans live. CARES also addresses access to health care in terms 

of capacity and projected workloads. We will examine evidence of the likely effects 

of realignment alternatives on ensuring that capacity will match projected demand, 

an important factor in ensuring reasonable access in terms of waiting times for 

appointments. 

 

7

Three of VA’s markets are not currently being considered because VA made realignment decisions for 

those markets during a pilot phase of the CARES process. These markets cover parts of Indiana, 

Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 
6 GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets

In addition, the cost to the government, which involves one-time, recurring, and 

opportunity costs, is another key area in which alternatives can have varying impacts. 

We will examine evidence documenting how alternatives differ in their life cycle 

costs—the discounted present value of all one-time capital costs, continuing costs of 

operation and maintenance, and cost offsets available through potential revenue 

generation. A focus on life cycle costs is especially critical to assessing the efficiency 

of resource use when there is significant variation across competing alternatives in 

the initial one-time capital investment requirements and ongoing costs of operation 

and maintenance. 

Another key element is support of other VA strategic goals. These strategic goals 

include educating health care professionals, conducting research, and serving as a 

primary backup to DOD in the event of a national emergency or natural disaster, and 

other strategic goals related to providing disability compensation and ensuring that 

veterans’ burial needs are met. For example, we will examine evidence documenting 

how alternatives affect education programs, research opportunities and funding, and 

VA’s ability to meet DOD contingency needs in the event of national emergency. 

Economic impact on communities, including employees and local health care 

delivery systems, is the final key element we will review. For example, we will 

examine evidence to determine how alternatives could affect employment 

opportunities and the viability of other health care providers and related businesses 

and how VA plans to mitigate likely adverse consequences of CARES decisions. 

OMB guidelines state that once the impacts on these key elements have been 

identified for each alternative developed, the best alternative can be identified 

through an explicit comparison of their relative expected costs and benefits. We will 

examine evidence to determine whether descriptions of such comparisons 

demonstrate how the recommended alternative better ensures appropriate quality of 

care, reasonable access to care, reasonable cost to the government, effective support 

for other VA strategic goals, and acceptable economic impact on communities. 

Because decisions will typically involve trade-offs between benefits and costs, we 

will focus especially on whether the priorities that influenced trade-off choices were 

clearly articulated. Finally, we will examine the explanations to determine if 

decisions in different markets were based on different priorities and if so, whether 

such differences were well documented. 

Concluding Observations 

Veterans and stakeholders such as affiliated medical schools, employee unions, 

communities, and the Congress will likely be more confident that CARES service 

realignments and enhancements represent the best alternatives for meeting veterans’ 

health care needs if the public record provides transparent and well-supported 

answers to the types of questions we are using in our approach. Reaching consensus 

on the realignment of VA’s health care capital assets as expeditiously as possible 
7 GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets

depends on the sufficiency of the information provided in support of CARES 

decisions and the clarity of that documentation. 

- - - - - 

We will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. We will make copies available to others upon 

request. If you have questions, please contact me at (202) 512-7101 or Paul Reynolds 

at (202) 512-7109. Kristen Joan Anderson and Frederick Caison also contributed to 

this report. 

Sincerely yours, 

Cynthia A. Bascetta 

Director, Health Care—Veterans’ 

 Health and Benefits Issues 
8 GAO-03-1103R Enhancing VA Health Care by Realigning Assets

Related GAO Products 

Department of Veterans Affairs: Key Management Challenges in Health and 

Disability Programs. GAO-03-756T. Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2003. 

VA Health Care: Improved Planning Needed for Management of Excess Real 

Property. GAO-03-326. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2003. 

High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property. GAO-03-122. Washington, D.C.: January 

2003. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Veterans 

Affairs. GAO-03-110. Washington, D.C.: January 2003. 

VA Health Care: Community-Based Clinics Improve Primary Care Access. GAO01-678T. Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2001. 

VA Health Care: VA Is Struggling to Address Asset Realignment Challenges. 

GAO/T-HEHS-00-88. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2000. 

VA Health Care: Improvements Needed in Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting. 

GAO/HEHS-99-145. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 1999. 

VA Health Care: Challenges Facing VA in Developing an Asset Realignment 

Process. GAO/T-HEHS-99-173. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 1999. 

Veterans’ Affairs: Progress and Challenges in Transforming Health Care. GAO/THEHS-99-109. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 1999. 

VA Health Care: Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting Need Improvement. 

GAO/T-HEHS-99-83. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 1999. 

Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making. GAO/AIMD-99-

32. Washington, D.C.: December 1998. 

VA Health Care: Closing a Chicago Hospital Would Save Millions and Enhance 

Access to Services. GAO/HEHS-98-64. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 1998. 

(290321) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good 

government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 

reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web 

site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to

a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs