U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

80–110 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–040 

VA CLAIMS PROCESS: REVIEW OF VA’S 

TRANSFORMATION EFFORTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Ranking 

Member 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

STEVE ROBERTSON, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 13, 2013 

SENATORS 

Page 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Vermont ........................ 1 

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

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 5 

Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from Nevada ..................................................... 5 

Burr, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....... 6 

Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska ..................................................... 33 

Moran, Hon. Jerry., U.S. Senator from Kansas .................................................... 38 

Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Nebraska ............................................... 45 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from Connecticut ................................ 49 

WITNESSES 

Hickey, Allison A., Under Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Stephen Warren, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Information and Technology; and 

Alan Bozeman, Director, Veterans Benefits Management System Program 

Office ..................................................................................................................... 6 

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

Response to posthearing questions submitted by: 

Hon. Bernard Sanders .................................................................................. 17 

Hon. Richard Burr ........................................................................................ 18 

Hon. Mark Begich ......................................................................................... 19 

Hon. Mazi Hirono .......................................................................................... 22 

Response to request arising during the hearing by Hon. Richard Burr ...... 28 

Bertoni, Daniel, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 52 

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

Thompson, Joseph, Project Director, National Academy of Public Administration and Former Under Secretary for Benefits, U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Stichman, Bart, Joint Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Services 

Program ................................................................................................................ 81 

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

Violante, Joseph, National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans .. 85 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

(1) 

VA CLAIMS PROCESS: REVIEW OF VA’S 

TRANSFORMATION EFFORTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bernard Sanders, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sanders, Tester, Begich, Burr, Isakson, 

Johanns, Moran, and Heller. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT 

Chairman SANDERS. The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

hearing is going to begin. 

We are glad to see Senator Isakson with us. As I understand it, 

Senator Burr will be here later. OK. We have the Senator from 

Montana here as well, Jon Tester. I think we will see Senators 

coming in and out. This is a busy time in the Senate. 

We want to thank our panelists for being with us for this important hearing. 

Let me begin by saying that during the last several weeks, the 

Veterans’ Committees in the House and the Senate have held four 

hearings including virtually all of the veterans’ organizations. 

During their testimonies, the organizations raised a number of 

issues, but I think it is fair to say that the number 1 issue they 

raised, the number 1 concern that they have and a concern that 

many of us on this Committee share is that the most pressing problem within the VA now is the very significant backlog that we have 

in processing claims for our veterans. 

That is the number 1 issue I believe that the service organizations believe is out there. It is my concern as well, being the number 1 issue facing the VA, which is why the very first hearing that 

we are having since I have become chair of this Committee will address this issue. 

My understanding is that as of March 2, 2013, 70 percent of the 

compensation and pension inventory of 895,000 claims have been 

pending for over 125 days. Further, the accuracy rate of 86 percent 

at the end of fiscal year 2012 is significantly lower than what must 

be accomplished. 

In addition, such agencies as the GAO and the VA’s own Inspector General have raised some very, very serious concerns about the 

2 

work and efforts that the VA is undertaking in addressing the 

claims processing crisis. 

It is my view, and I believe that I speak for every Member of this 

Committee, that when men and women put their lives on the line 

to defend this country, they must be treated with dignity and respect when they return; not with red tape, not with bureaucracy, 

not with, in some cases, years of delay before they get the benefits 

to which they are entitled. 

Without being overly dramatic here, we all know that one of the 

tragedies facing the veterans’ community right now is that 22 veterans every single day are committing suicide, and I know that no 

one in the VA and no one in the Congress wants to add to that 

problem, wants to add to the frustration and the problems that veterans have by delaying the benefits to which they are entitled. 

That is the bad news; and those are some very, very serious 

problems that we are going to be discussing today. We look forward 

to the testimony of our panelists. 

Here is some better news—it is important to put this issue in a 

broader context. Despite, I believe, a popular misconception, as I 

understand it, the VA today is processing far more claims than 

they have ever processed before. 

So, this is not a case of the VA system falling apart and being 

unable to process claims. In fact, they are processing more claims 

today, significantly more than they have ever processed before. 

As I understand it, in 2001, the VA completed some 480,000 

claims. In 2002, about 796,000 claims. In 2003, 827,000 claims. 

During the last 3 years, the VA has processed over one million 

claims in each of those years. 

Further, it is generally believed that the VA did exactly the right 

thing—and I want to thank General Shinseki and the VA for doing 

this—making certain that Vietnam veterans who were exposed to 

Agent Orange and became ill as a result of that exposure, finally 

after years and years of delay, get the benefits that they were entitled to. 

In the last several years, the VA has processed some 278,000 

new claims for Agent Orange. It is generally believed that they had 

done a pretty good job in processing those claims and doing it in 

a timely manner. 

My last point. General Shinseki has set a very, very ambitious 

goal in terms of eliminating the backlog by 2015 and of having the 

VA process compensation claims so that no veteran or eligible 

spouse or child has to wait more than 125 days for a quality decision, meaning a 98-percent accuracy rate on claims. 

I think we can all agree that that is a very, very ambitious goal. 

Obviously, the subject of today’s hearing is whether or not we are 

going to achieve that goal. 

Let me conclude. Later on today we are going to hear testimony 

from Joe Violante who is with the Disabled American Veterans. 

The DAV, as I understand it, probably helps more veterans process 

claims than any other organization in the country. 

What Mr. Violante is going to tell us is that the DAV believes 

that the VBA, with the work that the VA is now doing, is on the 

right path, that they have set the right goals, and that they have 

3 

leadership committed to transforming and institutionalizing a new 

claims processing system to better serve veterans. 

That is more or less the testimony that we heard from the veterans’ service organizations during the House/Senate legislative 

presentation hearings. The understanding that it is absolutely imperative that we move away from the paper system and into the 

21st century where we have a paperless system; and there is the 

belief, I think, from the veterans’ community that we are moving 

in the right direction, but that many, many problems remain which 

must be addressed. 

So, that is kind of where we are right now. I look forward to 

hearing the testimony. 

Now, let me give the mic over to Senator Isakson, who will be 

acting as Ranking Member until Senator Burr comes. 

Senator Isakson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, thank you, Chairman Sanders, and thank 

you for your vigilant effort on what is the number 1 challenge facing the VA and the number-one frustration facing every American 

veteran returning home. 

I want to thank our witnesses for coming to testify today and 

welcome all in the audience for this hearing. 

As you know, the VA claims process has been plagued by errors, 

delays, and backlogs for many years. The latest examples to fix this 

system are: VA has hired thousands of claims processing staff; 

spent millions of dollars developing new IT solutions; and rolled 

out dozens of other initiatives. 

But, as the charts to your left indicate, this is yet to translate 

into better service for veterans, families, and their survivors. 

On chart one, over 4 years the number of claims waiting for a 

decision grew from less than 400,000 to nearly 850,000. Today it 

is even higher. The number of claims considered part of the backlog 

more than tripled. 

On chart two, you will notice the accuracy rate of VA decisions 

remained in the mid-80s, as Chairman Sanders referred to. The 

time it takes to process a claim has increased by 83 days, which 

is continuing to trend upward. 

As chart three shows, if someone disagrees with VA’s initial decision, it takes an average of 866 days for VA to decide the appeal, 

7 months longer than in 2008. 

Despite these trends, VA leaders say they are on track to eliminate the entire backlog and raise quality to 98 percent by 2015. In 

fact, the VA recently released a backlog reduction plan which reflects that VA aims to increase productivity by about 80 percent 

over the next 2 years. 

Perhaps more challenging, VA would need to significantly reduce 

its error rates while deciding hundreds of thousands of cases of additional claims each year. To gauge how realistic this may be, we 

should look at how well the VA has predicted its performance in 

recent years. 

For example, in 2011 and 2012, VA completed about 412,000 

fewer claims that had been projected. Last year VA estimated that 

4 

during the current fiscal year, no more than 40 percent of claims 

would be backlogged and claims would be decided with 90 percent 

accuracy in about 200 days. But today it takes 280 days for an initial decision. VA makes errors in 14 percent of the cases and 70 

percent of claims are backlogged. 

If you look at chart four, in addition, there has been a shift in 

VA projections about when we should see results from initiatives 

to improve claims’ processing. 

Back in 2010, we were told that those efforts would begin to yield 

results in 2011. As the chart shows, VA then projected that it 

would begin to reduce the backlog in 2012. Now, the VA expects 

the backlog to continue to grow until 2014. 

Also, in estimating the work that VA would need to do to eliminate the backlog, it appears VA did not take some factors into account, such as resisting laws that continue to increase the number 

of claims coming in. This was referred to by Chairman Sanders in 

his remarks. 

On top of that, both the Inspector General and the Government 

Accountability Office have raised concerns about VA’s ability to improve accuracy and timeliness, highlighting that the new IT system 

only partially functioned and that there were weaknesses in VA’s 

planning documentation. We have heard some veterans’ organizations expressed doubt about VA and whether it will reach its goal 

by 2015. 

Given all of this, we cannot simply wait until 2015 to see if the 

VA initiatives worked. We need to make sure the VA has a realistic 

plan to begin improving timely, accurate decisions to anyone who 

is seeking veterans’ benefits. 

If VA is not on track to do that, we must look at what can be 

done to make sure that there are not 2 years of discussion or, even 

worse, not 2 years more of discussion and continued delay in 

claims. 

To that end, VA must be completely transparent about what is 

working, what is not, and where changes are needed to bring about 

lasting improvement. 

I want to make a personal comment here after reading Senator 

Burr’s speech because he is a little late and I am happy to do so. 

I have run a company, Chairman Sanders, for 22 years, during 

that period of time where most businesses in America converted 

from a paper and pencil operation to high-tech Internet technology. 

It is hard to do. I screwed up more times than I succeeded. But 

once I learned how hard that was going to be to do, I planned for 

those problems and tried to manage the system transition so that 

it had the least affect on my employees and my salespeople and 

their performance. 

I hope the VA will be honest in evaluating what its new IT system will and will not do, planning for the problems that always 

come about and making sure that the number 1 goal is to see to 

it the least affected persons are the veterans of the United States 

military. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling the hearing. I look forward 

to working with you and the Veterans Administration on improving 

the backlog. 

5 

In Georgia, I will tell you claims is the number 1 challenge for 

my office, and I will continue to stay on this until it is done. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you for much, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Tester. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say, first 

of all, thanks for having this hearing. Second, congratulations on 

the new position. I look forward to working with you and hopefully 

I will continue to call you Chairman Sanders for a long time and 

not Bernie. OK. 

I also want to welcome the new Members, Senators Heller, 

Hirono, and Blumenthal. I look forward to their contributions to 

this Committee. It seems like every time I go to a Committee meeting and look across the way to Senator Heller sitting there. We 

have very similar Committee assignments. 

I also want to thank the witnesses. I want to thank you for the 

work that you have done and I want to thank you for the work you 

are going to do. It is not an easy issue. 

I think the first hearing we had in 2007, if not the first one, one 

shortly thereafter, dealt with the backlog issue. It has been going 

on much, much too long. 

You do not have an easy job. I think to get folks into the system 

and to do it accurately—making sure the folks who are trying to 

game the system do not take money away from the people who 

need it—is difficult but it needs to be done, and it needs to be done 

in a better, more timely manner than we have done so far. 

You know, the average Vietnam veteran had three to five injuries when filing for their VA claim. Now, I think it is closer to more 

than a dozen when new claims are being filed. 

We need to move forward in a better way. We need to have an 

open conversation on how to get that done, and we need to know 

if we are on the right path. 

As these wars wind down, that will be good thing as far as the 

pressure on you. Right now, though, we are just treading water. If 

we are doing a little better than that, you will have to tell me. It 

does not appear so, and we need to know what is working and have 

an honest discussion on that. 

With that, I just say thank you folks for your work once again. 

I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Tester, thank you very much. 

Senator Heller. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. 

I agree with Senator Isakson that this is an issue that I hear a 

lot about. Even as recent as last night, I got a phone call from a 

woman in Reno who’s husband has an Agent Orange issue and has 

been delayed for over a year and one-half. With the backlog of 

claims, they have concerns. 

6 

I will be really brief here, Mr. Chairman. But I understand how 

difficult this is; I really do understand how difficult it is. When I 

was Secretary of the State of Nevada, when I first walked into the 

office, I walked into a vault that had all the records of every company ever established in the State of Nevada all the way back to 

1864, and it was all on microfiche. We are talking hundreds of 

thousands of records, companies, so on and so forth, and there was 

only one person who knew how to find the record that we needed 

that day. 

It was a very, very difficult process. It was key in that office to 

take that fiche and move it to disk. Once we got it on a disk, we 

got it Internet based, and we made that transition over 3 or 4 

years which was not easy. Believe me, I understand how difficult 

this process can be, but you plan and you plan. 

I am concerned, as everybody else here on this Committee is, the 

fact that we have 10,000 claims backlogged right now in Nevada. 

And the concern from every organization that has come before 

this Committee is that we are not going to meet that 2015 deadline 

or the goal from the Secretary in order to eliminate this backlog. 

So anyway, I want to hear answers. I have some questions. I look 

forward to the questions but I, first of all, want to thank you for 

being here and for taking your time. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Heller. 

Senator Burr. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, RANKING MEMBER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I thank you. Welcome, 

Ms. Hickey. 

Since Senator Isakson has already given my opening remarks, I 

will yield the floor to the chair. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

OK. We are ready to hear from our panelists. We are going to 

begin with General Allison Hickey, who is the Under Secretary for 

Benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

General Hickey is accompanied by Stephen Warren, the Acting 

Assistant Secretary for the Office of Information and Technology, 

and Alan Bozeman, the Director of the Veterans Benefits Management System Program Office. 

General Hickey, welcome and please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ALLISON A. HICKEY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

BENEFITS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN WARREN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY; AND ALAN BOZEMAN, DIRECTOR, VETERANS BENEFITS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROGRAM OFFICE 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Sanders, 

Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss VBA’s transformation 

efforts. I am accompanied today, as you have already said, by Mr. 

Stephen Warren, Acting Assistant Secretary for Information and 

7 

Technology, and Mr. Alan Bozeman, to my right, the Director of 

the Veterans Benefits Management System Program Office. 

As a direct result of the support this Committee has provided, 

VBA is completing more compensation claims than ever before in 

VA history, over 3 million in the past three fiscal years and three 

times the amount since 2001 when this latest conflict began. 

Yet, despite these efforts, too many veterans still have to wait 

too long to get the compensation benefits they have earned, and 

that is unacceptable to us. 

My testimony today will focus on how execution of our transformation plan will allow VBA to eliminate the backlog in 2015. I 

would first like to discuss the inventory of claims and the factors 

impacting our timeliness. 

The current inventory represents claims from veterans of all 

eras. The largest percentage of claims comes from our Vietnam-era 

veterans who make up 37 percent of our inventory and backlog. 

1990s Gulf War-era veterans make up 23 percent, while veterans 

of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts today make up only 20 percent of that inventory and backlog. Our World War II- and Koreaera veterans make up less than 10 percent. 

The inventory contains original claims, those submitted by veterans who are claiming disability compensation from VA for the 

very first time, and supplemental claims from veterans who have 

previously filed and are seeking additional benefit. 

As of January, 61 percent of the inventory are supplemental 

claims or second filers; 39 percent are original first-time filers. 

These percentages hold true for the backlog as well. Of those veterans filing supplemental claims, 78 percent are currently receiving 

a monetary benefit from VA; 40 percent of veterans filing supplemental claims have a disability rating between 50 and 100 percent, 

receiving payments from $1,000-$2,800 monthly. 

In all, about half of the veterans in the total inventory are already receiving some level of compensation from VA. What is clear 

is the demand for this benefit is at an all-time high. 

We have added more than 940,000 veterans, almost 1 million 

veterans to the VA compensation rolls by completing their claim 

over the past 4 years which is more than today’s active-duty Army 

and Navy combined. 

Coupled with this increase are the impacts of claims associated 

with Agent Orange exposure and the dramatic increase in the 

number of individual medical issues included inside each claim. 

The bottom line, these claims are substantially more complex by 

more than 180 percent yet we still have done 27 percent more of 

these claims today than in 2009. 

In 2009, Secretary Shinseki made the decision to add three presumptive conditions for Vietnam veterans who were exposed to the 

herbicide Agent Orange. Over the next two and half years, VBA 

dedicated over 2300 of our most experienced claims staff, about 37 

percent of our workforce, to re-adjudicate these claims for these 

conditions that were previously denied. 

By October 2012, we had completed all 260,000 Agent Orange 

claims and paid over $4.5 billion in retroactive benefits to over 

164,000 Vietnam veterans and their survivors. 

8 

While the decision was absolutely the right thing to do, it did 

have an impact on our ability to keep up with new claims coming 

in and on aging claims already in the system. 

Another key factor is the increase in complexity of the claims 

themselves. There has been a 200 percent increase over the last 10 

years in original claims containing eight or more medical issues. 

From 2009 to 2012, the number of medical issues inside the 

claims increased from 2.7 million to over 4 million, a 50 percent 

growth in medical issues which is a truer measure of the time it 

takes to complete a claim. 

It is having a significant impact on our production, the growth 

in our inventory, and the timeliness of claims processing. Given a 

growing demand and complexity of our claims, it is clear to us that 

continuing a legacy approach in paper will not meet the needs of 

our veterans. 

I am happy to report that we have achieved momentum with our 

transformation plan that will improve how veterans’ benefits are 

delivered for generations to come, and 2013 is the year of full deployment and change for us. 

Our transformation with its people, process, and technology initiative represents the single, largest reinvention of VBA in all of 

its history. Our focus is on managing that change while sustaining 

production and improving quality. 

VBA’s employees are key to transformation success. Over 52 percent of them are veterans themselves, and we have a work force 

that we have reorganized into new cross-functional teams, new segmented claims—express, special ops and cores—and after 60 days 

in this new organizational model, overall productivity per claims 

rater has increased by 17 percent. 

The productivity of the work force and the accuracy of our decisions are being increased through new national training programs 

and standards. There are 2150 new employees who have received 

our new challenge training that now decide 150 percent more 

claims in their first 6 months on the job with a 30 percent increase 

in their quality. 

Through process improvement teams, we have conducted rapid 

development, testing and launch of process initiatives like simplified notification letters, disability benefit questionnaires, acceptable clinical evidence, fully-developed claims and automated processing tools which are showing positive results with increased implementation. 

The Veteran Benefit Management System, or VBMS, is a webbased electronic claims processing solution that serves as our technology platform for quicker, more accurate processing. National deployment of the first generation of VBMS to our regional offices 

began in late 2012 and is now in full swing with the 28 January 

2013 release. 

We also now have end-to-end digital filing capability from portal 

to decision. With integration of the online portal eBenefits system 

with VBMS, veterans can now file a claim online using a 

‘‘TurboTax’’-like system to upload their own evidence to support 

their claim. 

Chairman SANDERS. General Hickey, summarize please. 

Ms. HICKEY. I will absolutely. 

9 

We will continue to pursue our plan and our initiatives of the direct and absolute imperative to improve delivery of benefits to our 

veterans, their families, and survivors. They deserve that from us. 

We are committed to make that happen, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hickey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLISON A. HICKEY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Good morning, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss VA’s benefits claims transformation efforts. I am accompanied today by Mr. Stephen Warren, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, and Mr. Alan Bozeman, Director of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) Program Office. 

As a direct result of the budget support provided by the Committee, VBA has completed more than one million disability compensation claims the last three years in 

a row—the highest numbers ever in the history of VA. Despite this stride, too many 

Veterans wait too long to get the benefits they have earned and deserve. My testimony today will focus on how execution of our Transformation Plan will allow VBA 

to meet the Secretary’s goal of claims completed in 125 days at a 98 percent accuracy level in pursuit of eliminating the claims backlog in 2015. 

MEETING THE NEEDS OF VETERANS

Veterans, their family members, and Survivors deserve our very best performance 

and the ability to deliver an array of benefits and services that Veterans have 

earned—faster, more accurately, and with greater efficiency and effectiveness. It is 

the growing inventory of disability claims, and our need to quickly process those 

claims, that is driving the urgency with which we are advancing our Transformation. 

VBA completed over one million claims per year in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 

2012. Yet the increased productivity in claims processing was not enough to keep 

pace with the number of claims received in several of those years. In 2010, VBA 

received 1.2 million claims. In 2011, VBA received another 1.3 million claims, including claims from Veterans made eligible for benefits as a result of the Secretary’s 

decision to add three new presumptive conditions for Veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In 2012, VBA received 1.08 million claims. Over the last three years, the 

claims backlog has grown from 180 thousand to 600 thousand claims at the beginning of this month. 

For decades, the VBA system has carried an inventory of pending claims, and a 

backlog that was undefined and therefore confused with inventory. In 2010, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs defined the backlog as any disability claim pending over 

125 days and increased transparency by making our performance against our established goals available on the internet. The backlog grows when the capacity does 

not match demand. 

In 2009, based on the Institute of Medicine’s Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 

2008, and considering all available scientific evidence, the Secretary made the decision to add three presumptive conditions (Parkinson’s disease, ischemic heart disease, and B-cell leukemias) for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam or 

were otherwise exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange. Beginning in 2010, VBA 

identified claims for these three conditions for special handling to ensure compliance 

with the provisions in the Nehmer court decision that requires VA to re-adjudicate 

claims for these conditions that were previously denied. Nehmer claims for all living 

Veterans were completed as of April 2012. VA identified the next of kin for the last 

remaining Nehmer survivor claim and awarded benefits in October 2012. To date, VA has received more than 278 thousand claims and awarded over $4.4 B in retroactive benefits for the three new Agent Orange presumptive conditions to more than 

164 thousand Veterans and survivors. 

Other factors that have resulted in the submission of more disability claims, and 

hence contributed to the backlog, include VA initiatives to increase access, and other 

conditions that increased demand for VA to address unmet disability compensation 

needs: 

Increased Access 

1. Increased use of technology and social media by Veterans, families, and survivors to self-inform about available benefits and resources. 

2. Improved access to benefits through the joint VA and DOD Pre-Discharge programs. 

10 

3. Creation of additional presumptions of service connection resulting in more 

claims for exposure-related disabilities. 

4. Extensive and successful use of VA outreach programs to inform more Veterans 

of their earned benefits, which can include compensation claims. 

Increased Demand 

1. Ten years of war with increased survival rates for our wounded 

2. Aging population of previous era Veterans such as Vietnam and Korea, whose 

conditions are worsening 

3. Impact of a difficult economy 

4. Growth in the complexity of claims decisions as of result of the increase in the 

average number of medical conditions for which each claimant files. 

The current composition of the inventory and backlog are claims from Veterans 

of all eras—from Veterans of the current conflicts to World War II Veterans who 

are just now filing a claim for the first time. As of January 31, 2013, the largest 

cohorts of claims come from our Vietnam-era Veterans who filed 448 thousand 

claims in FY 2012, and currently make up 37 percent of the inventory and 38 percent of the backlog. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts make up 20 percent 

of the total inventory and 22 percent of the backlog. Gulf War Era Veterans make 

up 23 percent of the total inventory and 22 percent of the backlog. Veterans of the 

Korean War and World War II and all others make up less than 10 percent of both 

total inventory and backlog. The remainder of the inventory and backlog is from 

Peacetime Veterans only. 

TRANSFORMATION

To meet the Secretary’s goal of eliminating the backlog by 2015, we have set out 

to transform VBA into a 21st century organization. VBA’s transformation is demanded by a new era, emerging technologies, and the latest demographic realities. 

In the face of increasing complexity and workloads, VBA must deliver first-rate and 

timely benefits and services—and they must be delivered with greater efficiency. 

VBA is aggressively pursuing its Transformation Plan, a series of tightly integrated 

people, process, and technology initiatives designed to eliminate the claims backlog 

and achieve our goal of processing all claims within 125 days with 98 percent accuracy in 2015. VBA is retraining, reorganizing, streamlining business processes, and 

building and implementing technology solutions based on the newly redesigned processes in order to improve benefits delivery. 

People 

VBA’s employees are the key to Transformation success, and over 52 percent of 

them are Veterans themselves. In order to have the best-trained, most efficient and 

highly skilled workforce, VBA is changing how its workforce is organized and 

trained to decide disability compensation claims. Sixty-three percent of VBA’s workforce has a bachelors’ degree or higher. Average length of service is 11 years, and 

average age is 44. Fourteen percent are retirement eligible, and our turnover rate 

is only seven percent annually. 

Transformation Organizational Model 

VBA’s new standardized organizational model incorporates a case-management 

approach to claims processing. VBA is reorganizing its workforce into cross-functional teams that enable employee visibility of the entire processing cycle of a Veteran’s claim. These cross-functional teams work together on one of three segmented 

lanes: express, special operations, or core. Distinct processing lanes are based on the 

complexity and priority of the claims and employees are assigned to the lanes based 

on their experience and skill levels. Claims that predictably can take less time flow 

through an express lane (30 percent); those taking more time or requiring special 

handling will flow through a special operations lane (10 percent); and the rest of 

the claims flow through the core lane (60 percent). Lanes were established based 

on the complexity and priority of the claims and employees are assigned to the lanes 

based on their experience and skill levels. 

The Express Lane was developed to identify those claims with a limited number 

of medical conditions (1–2 issues) and subject matter which could be developed and 

rated more quickly, including fully developed claims. The Special Operations Lane 

applies intense focus and case management on specific categories of claims that require special processing or training (e.g., homeless, terminally ill, military sexual 

trauma, former prisoners of war, seriously injured, etc.). The Core Lane includes 

claims with three more medical issues that do not involve special populations of Veterans. Less complex claims move quickly through the system in the express lane, 

11 

and the quality of our decisions improves by assigning more experienced and skilled 

employees to the more complex claims in our special operations lane. 

Initially planned for deployment throughout FY 2013, VBA accelerated the implementation of the new organizational model by nine months due to early indications 

of its positive impact on performance. Given the magnitude of this change, each office transitions to the new organizational model individually. Significant support 

and training from VBA Headquarters have been critical in this stage. As of the end 

of 2012, the new organizational model was fully operational at 51 regional offices, 

and three more have since implemented the new model. The remaining two regional 

offices will implement the model by the end of this month. 

Challenge Training and Quality Review Teams (QRTs) 

The productivity of the workforce and the accuracy of decisions are being increased through new national training programs and standards. VBA instituted 

Challenge training in 2011 and Quality Review Teams (QRTs) in 2012 to improve 

employee training and accuracy while decreasing rework time. Challenge training 

is focused on overall skills and readiness of the workforce, and QRTs focus on improving performance on the most common sources of error in the claims processing 

cycle; data on VBA’s largest sources of error are captured and analyzed by its National Accuracy Team. Today, for example, QRTs are focused on the process by 

which proper physical examinations are ordered; incorrect or insufficient exams previously accounted for 30 percent of VBA’s error rate. As a result of this focus, VBA 

has seen a 23 percent improvement in this area. 

The 1,900 new employees who have received Challenge training decide 150 percent more claims per day than predecessor cohorts, with a 30 percent increase in 

accuracy, (i.e. these new employees decide 150 percent more claims per day than 

previous groups of employees at a similar stage in their development). This is a 

marked improvement in performance, and is being scaled across the entire enterprise as new employees are hired. Five Challenge training sessions are planned for 

FY 2013. As of March 1, 2012, VBA initiated a new Challenge course focused on improving the low performing regional offices. At the first office quality increased by 

eight percentage points in three months and the number of claims processed per 

month increased by more than 27 percent. Similar results are being seen by the second RO that completed SET in January 2013. 

VBA tracks the impact of these initiatives on accuracy through a three-month 

rolling average accuracy metric that is reported in ASPIRE and can be seen online 

by anyone inside or outside VA. FY 2012 data demonstrated a three percent increase in national accuracy standards—from 83 percent to 86 percent. The accuracy 

outcome objectives for the next three years are: 90 percent in FY 2013, 93 percent 

in FY 2014, and 98 percent in FY 2015. 

The current 12-month measure of the accuracy of our disability rating decisions 

increased to over 86 percent—and further improved to over 87 percent when looking 

at just the last three months. It is important to recognize that under the existing 

quality review system, any one error on the claim, no matter how many medical 

conditions must be developed and evaluated, makes the entire claim in error—the 

claim is therefore counted as either 100 percent accurate or 100 percent in error, 

with no credit for anything in between. Issues are defined as individually evaluated 

medical conditions. A claim can, and often does, consist of many issues. Each issue 

represents a series of completed tasks, such as development, research, adjudication, 

and decision, that could result in a benefit adjustment for a Veteran, family member, or survivor. Given that the average number of claimed issues for our recently 

separated Servicemembers is now in the 12 to 16 range, we do not believe the current all-or-nothing measure reflects the actual level of decision accuracy achieved. 

When we measure the same claims based on assessments of the individual medical 

conditions rated (‘‘issue-based accuracy’’), the accuracy of our decisions is over 95 

percent. This issue-based accuracy approach also affords VBA the opportunity to 

target with precision those medical issues where we make the most errors—and includes employee level medical issue accuracy. 

Process Initiatives 

Through process-improvement initiatives, VBA is rapidly developing and testing 

streamlined business processes, focusing on eliminating repetition and rework. VBA 

established a ‘‘Design Team’’ concept to support business-process transformation. 

Using design teams, VBA conducts rapid development and testing of process 

changes and automated processing tools in the workplace. This design team process 

demonstrates through pilot initiatives that changes are actionable and effective before they are implemented nationwide. 

12 

Since 2009, VBA has actively solicited innovative ideas for process improvement 

from Veterans, employees, and industry stakeholders through a variety of structured mechanisms. Literally thousands of ideas were received and culled down to 

those with the largest potential to attack the backlog. For example, automated Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) (discussed below)—arguably one of the most 

highly leveraged changes—came from one of the VBA employee idea competitions. 

Additionally, VBA has also conducted Lean Six Sigma and Kaizen events on these 

selected targets of opportunity, all focused on five major areas of focus: wait time, 

rework, productivity, digital intake, and variance. 

Simplified Notification Letters 

The Simplified Notification Letter initiative has reduced keystrokes and automated production language in preparation of the Veteran’s decision letter, thus improving rating decision productivity and accuracy. VBA implemented this initiative 

nationally on March 1, 2012, and it decreased the number of claims ‘‘waiting’’ for 

a rating decision by 55 percent. This translated into over 10,000 more rating decisions in the month of December (94,292) than in the month of March (84,115). The 

SNL process does not change the way we consider and decide claims, but rather 

changes the primary focus of what appears in the final decision document. We do 

this in part through the use of an internal coding system designed to streamline 

processing and communicate standardized reasons and bases from the decisionmakers to the award processors (who generate the final notice letters, authorize the 

monetary awards, and perform other ministerial functions). SNL increased the number of auto-text selections available for raters to use to explain decisions, thereby 

improving decision accuracy and productivity. 

Calculators and Evaluation Builder 

VBA is building new decision-support tools to make our employees more efficient 

and their decisions more consistent and accurate. We already have developed rulesbased calculators for disability claims decisionmakers to provide suggested evaluations. For example, the hearing loss calculator automates decisions using objective 

audiology data and rules-based functionality to provide the decisionmaker with a 

suggested decision. 

The Evaluation Builder is essentially an interactive disability rating schedule. 

The VBA decisionmaker uses a series of check boxes that are associated with the 

Veteran’s symptoms. The Evaluation Builder determines the proper diagnostic code 

out of over 800 codes as well as the level of compensation based on the Veteran’s 

symptoms. The Veteran receives an accurate rating decision every time the Evaluation Builder is used. This saves employees time that would have been spent looking 

up the rating schedule in a paper format. To date, five of the 15 body systems in 

the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities have been embedded into VBMS, and the 

Evaluation Builder will have complete functionality (all body systems) in VBMS by 

November of this year. 

Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) 

DBQs replace traditional VA examination reports and are designed to capture all 

the needed medical information relevant to a specific condition at once and up front 

so that claims can be developed and processed in a more timely and accurate manner, with the end result being faster service for Veterans. DBQs change the way 

medical evidence is collected, giving Veterans the option of having their private physician complete a DBQ that provides the medical information needed to rate their 

claims—minimizing the need for a VA exam which adds additional time to the claim 

development process. Information in the DBQs maps to the VA Schedule for Rating 

Disabilities, and provides all of the necessary information to decide a disability 

claim. Fully and properly completed DBQs, whether from private providers or within the internal VA examination processes, have the potential to reduce rework, the 

largest category being exams with insufficient information. 

In FY 2013 to date, nearly 600,000 DBQs have been completed by VHA examiners. Since their introduction, VBA has received over 12,000 DBQs outside of the 

traditional examination process. Using DBQs, VA examination and examination-request accuracy improved to 92 percent nationwide, compared to the legacy quality 

program, which showed accuracy of 84 percent when last conducted in 2009. Seventy-one of eighty-one individual DBQs, unique forms designed to document specific 

health conditions are available to private physicians. VBA is reaching out to stakeholders, particularly Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), State and County partners, and private medical doctors to request their support in encouraging Veterans 

to use DBQs for more timely and accurate rating decisions. VA recently secured 

DOD concurrence to pilot the use of DBQs within the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) process. VBA’s future goal is to turn DBQ objective responses 

13 

into data to drive a calculator-based business-rules engine in VBMS to achieve automated decision support to improve consistency and accuracy of decisions and reduce 

processing time per case. 

Acceptable Clinical Evidence (ACE) 

ACE is a new approach that was implemented in October 2012. This process allows clinicians to review existing medical evidence and determine whether that evidence can be used to complete a DBQ without requiring the Veteran to report for 

an in-person examination. For many Veterans, this means they no longer need to 

travel and take time off for an examination, which can be a significant burden requiring them to leave work and interfering with their family life. Clinicians also 

have the option to supplement medical evidence with telephone interviews with the 

Veteran, or to conduct an in-person examination if determined necessary. To date, 

VA has processed 1,931 claims using the ACE initiative. 

Compensation and Pension Records Interchange (CAPRI) 

CAPRI software provides VBA employees with a standardized, user-friendly method to access Veterans’ medical records throughout the VA healthcare system. In November 2011, VBA stopped printing Veterans Health Administration (VHA) treatment records, saving the effort and dollars associated with printing, filing, and storing these records. Under a partnership with VHA, the CAPRI program has recently 

been enhanced to send records electronically to VBA’s paperless repository with just 

a few mouse clicks, further simplifying the process and reducing the task time. As 

of March 1, 2013, 45 sites within VBA have received this upgrade, with deployment 

for remaining sites scheduled to begin on March 31, 2013. To date, VBA has avoided 

printing more than 90 million pages of digital medical records (currently averaging 

six million/month) and spending over 422,000 man hours printing and filing—saving 

time and resources that are redirected toward backlog elimination. Because of these 

CAPRI enhancements, VBA estimates a $2.5 million cost avoidance annually on 

paper and toner that is also being used to support staffing resources to help eliminate the backlog. 

Fully Developed Claims (FDCs) 

FDCs are critical to achieving VBA’s goals. A fully developed claim is one that 

includes all DOD service medical and personnel records, including entrance and exit 

exams, applicable DBQs, any private medical records, and a fully completed claim 

form. An FDC is critical to reducing ‘‘wait time’’ and ‘‘rework.’’ Today, VBA receives 

only 4.8 percent of claims in fully developed form, which equates to 5,600 claims 

this fiscal year through February. When a qualified FDC is received, VBA is able 

to discharge its evidence-gathering responsibilities under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act much more efficiently than in traditional claims. This evidence-gathering period is a major portion of the current 262-day process. Today, VBA completes these FDCs in 117 days. VBA’s target for FY 2013 is to increase these FDCs 

to 20 percent—meaning VBA will have the ability, if this goal is reached, to decide 

153,000 additional claims in 117 days. 

Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration Data Sharing 

VA developed an expanded data-sharing initiative with the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) for up-front verification of 

income for pension applicants and to streamline income verification matches. This 

initiative enabled VBA to eliminate an annual reporting surge of 150,000 work 

items and redirect significant FTE to address the backlog of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) claims from Survivors. 

Technology 

Key to VBA’s transformation is ending the reliance on the outmoded paper-intensive processes. VBA is deploying technology solutions that improve access, drive automation, reduce variance, and enable faster and more efficient operations. VBA’s 

digital, paperless environment also enables greater exchange of information and increased transparency to Veterans, the workforce, and stakeholders. Our technology 

initiatives are designed to transform claims processing from the time the Servicemember first enrolls in the joint VA and DOD eBenefits system and submits an online application to the issuance of the claims decision and receipt of compensation 

payments. 

Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) 

VBMS is a web-based, electronic claims processing solution complemented by improved business processes. It will assist in eliminating the existing claims backlog 

and serve as the technology platform for quicker, more accurate claims processing. 

14 

National deployment of VBMS began in 2012, with 18 regional offices operational 

as of the end of the calendar year. Deployment to the 38 remaining stations is ongoing. We estimate that once VBMS is fully developed in 2015, integrated, and implemented, it will help improve VBA’s production by at least 20 percent (in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015) and accuracy by at least eight percent. 

The evolution of VBMS is occurring across four distinct phases, or generations of 

development. Generation One of VBMS began in 2010 with the conceptualization, 

piloting, development, and deployment of baseline system functionality with improved quality (required actions and automation) and efficiency (no paper). Generation One of VBMS concluded with the successful implementation of Release 4.1 in 

January 2013. This generation culminated in a foundational web-based, electronic 

claims processing solution featuring: 

• Integrated claims establishment, development, and rating capabilities; 

• Basic baseline automation via features such as automated letter generation and 

data population; and 

• Basic workflow and workload management capabilities. 

With the deployment of the latest system release, integration with VONAPP Direct Connect (VDC) and the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP) further enhanced 

the system’s capabilities by improving data exchange and status transparency with 

applicants, VSO partners, State and County Veterans agencies, and other stakeholders. 

At the end of February, 2013, 1,084 paper-based and electronic claims have been 

rated using VBMS and 77,393 electronic folders (eFolders) have been created in 

VBMS. Claims are being completed in VBMS in an average of 92.4 days. There are 

over 12,000 users of VBMS to include VHA and VSOs. VBMS has also successfully 

received over 2.5 million documents and over 32.2 million images. 

As we move into Generation Two of VBMS, the focus is on building additional system capabilities while leveraging simple automation features and deploying the system to all remaining sites. Upcoming system releases include planned improvements 

to correspondence and work queue tools, additional rating calculator functionality, 

and more extensive data exchange and system integration capabilities. 

National deployment of VBMS to all 56 regional offices is on track for completion 

in 2013. Each VBMS site deployment is supported by organizational change management practices (including training) to ensure business lines are able to adapt to 

and adopt the new technologies and solutions. 

Generation Three of VBMS in 2014 will focus on continuing to improve electronic 

claims processing by providing increased system functionality and more complex automation capabilities for all VBMS end-users. VBMS enhancements will reduce dependency on legacy systems for claims establishment, development, and rating. 

VBMS will have the capability to accept electronic Veterans’ Service Treatment 

Records (STRs) and Personnel Records from DOD in support of the VOW to Hire 

Heroes legislation. Additionally, VBMS end-users (to include VA Medical Center 

personnel and VSOs) will be able to leverage enhanced system functionality to perform their work more efficiently and accurately. Development of functionality will 

provide end-users with the ability to process claims electronically from receipt to 

payment. The addition of functionality throughout 2014 and stabilization of system 

capabilities, in conjunction with business process improvements, will increase production and quality of claim decisions. This period of stability will also allow VA 

an additional opportunity to assess and validate the effectiveness of the model as 

a whole and implement improvements as needed. 

Generation Four of VBMS in 2015 will capitalize on efficiencies and quality improvements gained during the year of stabilization. These enhancements will allow 

end-users to focus on more difficult claims by reducing the time required to process 

less complex claims. This period will also allow VA to identify additional automation 

and process improvement opportunities, enabling VA to meet the Secretary’s goal 

of processing all claims within 125 days at 98 percent accuracy. 

When a claim is granted in VBMS, a payment is processed, and notification is 

sent to the Veteran through eBenefits and stakeholders through Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP). This notification completes the full lifecycle of paperless claims 

processing, from portal to payment. 

Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) 

VRM engages, empowers, and serves Veterans and other claimants with seamless, 

secure, and on-demand access to benefits and service information. Veterans now 

have access to benefits information from multiple channels—on the phone, on line, 

or through our shared DOD/VA portal called eBenefits. VRM provides multiple selfservice options for Veterans and other stakeholders. 

15 

eBenefits 

eBenefits—a joint VA/DOD client-services portal for life-long engagement with 

Servicemembers, Veterans, and their families—is a key component of VRM. 

eBenefits currently provides users with over 45 self-service options and greater access to benefits and health information at the time and method of their choosing. 

Through the eBenefits portal, users can now check the status of claims or appeals, 

review VA payment history, obtain military documents, and perform numerous 

other benefit actions. Veterans can also view their scheduled VA medical appointments, file benefits claims online in a Turbo Claim-like approach, and upload supporting claims information that feeds our paperless claims process. 

There are currently over 2.5 million eBenefits users. Through self-service, 

eBenefits users have generated over 228,000 requests for official military personnel 

documents, 198,000 requests for VA Guaranteed home loan certificates of eligibility, 

16.5 million claim status requests, and over 1.7 million self-service letters. Additional functionality and features will continue to be added to the site in the future, 

and VA will use milestones and life events to proactively notify Veterans about benefits they may be eligible to receive. 

VDC (Veterans Online Application, Direct Connect) 

VDC incorporates a complete redesign of the legacy VONAPP application system, 

leveraging the eBenefits portal. Claims filed through eBenefits use VDC to load information and data directly into the new VBMS application for paperless processing. 

Veterans can now file both original and supplemental compensation claims through 

VDC. Since the expanded version of VDC deployed in October 2012, over 1,500 

claims have been received. 

Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP) 

SEP is a secure web-based access point for VA’s business partners. This portal 

provides the ability for VSOs and other external VA business partners to represent 

Veterans quickly, efficiently, and electronically. Because SEP is a new release, specific results are not yet available. 

VCIP 

VBA recently established the Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP). This program is tasked with streamlining processes for receiving records and data into 

VBMS and other VBA systems. Scanning operations and the transfer of Veteran 

data into VBMS are primary intake capabilities that are managed by VCIP. As 

VBMS is deployed to additional regional offices, document scanning becomes increasingly important as the main mechanism for transitioning from paper-based 

claim folders to the new electronic environment. The VCIP contractors began scanning on September 10, 2012. The ramp-up volume mirrored the VBMS deployment 

plan for the 18 regional offices on VBMS as of the end of CY 2012. By the end of 

December 2012, the VBA contractors were providing five million images per month. 

By the end of CY 2013, the contractors will be providing up to 70 million images 

per month as they convert paper records to electronic format. 

Strategic Planning and Governance 

VBA’s Office of Strategic Planning (OSP) coordinates VBA’s strategic planning 

and the governance process for developing new transformation initiatives. The focus 

of this office is on creating a culture centered on advocacy for Veterans, reengineering business processes, integrating new technologies, and redesigning our 

organization and infrastructure. New ideas are approved through a governance process that includes senior VBA leadership who serve on the VBA Transformation Governance Board responsible for evaluating and making recommendations for my approval. This ensures VBA’s focus is on implementing initiatives that will achieve the 

greatest gains, without degrading current performance. 

The VBA Implementation Center/Operations Center (VBA-IC/OC) is a division of 

the Office of Field Operations. The VBA-IC/OC prepares, executes and assesses the 

implementation of transformation initiatives, managing the project lifecycle through 

a comprehensive Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Critical Path methodology. 

The VBA-IC/OC also serves as the liaison between the field and Headquarters 

throughout the implementation process, providing channels of communication that 

are essential to successful implementation. The VBA-IC/OC monitors and supports 

regional offices through an end-user hotline, which is open during normal business 

hours. In addition, I hold weekly three-hour ‘‘pulse-check’’ calls with the employees 

of all regional offices adopting new initiatives to ensure all issues are raised and 

properly assessed. The VBA-IC/OC gathers and reports implementation performance 

metrics to provide support for VA leadership decisionmaking. 

16 

STAT REVIEWS

VBA’s Stat Reviews are a performance technique and tool using statistical data 

(Stat) and visual displays of that data to monitor progress and improve performance. This process involves in-depth performance metric reviews with VBA’s Office 

of Field Operations and other members of VBA leadership to analyze and manage 

performance more effectively. 

VBA’s Stat Reviews are based on highly successful performance management programs conducted governmentwide. I sit at the table with regional office directors in 

the day-long meeting to discuss challenges and successes, using performance measures for accountability. This allows VBA leadership to more easily identify what improvements are needed to produce desired performance results. Stat Reviews also 

help VBA leadership understand what is or is not working, while motivating regional office managers and employees to focus their energy and creativity on achieving specific results. 

The Stat Review process encourages: 

1. Focus on accountability to achieve workload performance metrics. 

2. Information-sharing of best practices across VBA regional offices and VBA leadership. 

As a monthly event, the Stat Reviews identify patterns occurring at various regional offices, and every regional office participates either in person or by teleconference. These reviews help to ensure we have alignment across ROs on Transformation and that best practices and lessons learned are shared quickly across 

leadership teams. 

PARTNERSHIPS

Support from our partners and stakeholders is critical to better serving our Veterans, Servicemembers, and their families. Our transformation changes our interactions with employees, other Federal agencies, VSOs, and State and County service 

officers. VBA has worked to create partnerships through pilot projects with these 

organizations to improve benefits delivery. I continue to meet monthly with the Executive Directors of six national VSOs and have established quarterly stakeholder 

meetings with a larger group of VSOs directly affected by new processes and initiatives. VBA engages these organizations for their feedback and input at the beginning stages of the various initiatives. 

While stakeholder engagement is important to nearly all of VBA’s transformation 

initiatives, support from VSOs and State and County service officers will be especially critical to the success of four initiatives: eBenefits, SEP, FDC, and DBQs. VBA 

has involved stakeholders in development, user-access testing, and training for 

these initiatives, and we are now partnering to increase Veterans’ awareness and 

utilization in order to expedite the claims process. 

VBA is exploring incentives for its VSO and State and County partners to increase FDC submission because of the game-changing impact this can have on 

claims-decision timeliness and eliminating the disability claims backlog. A 20-percent FDC submission level is estimated to increase annual production by 70,000 

claims and reduce overall average days to complete by 18 days. 

VBA has an agreement with DOD to provide 100-percent-complete service treatment and personnel records in an electronic, searchable format for the 300,000 annually departing Active Duty, National Guard and Reserve Servicemembers. This 

will further increase the number of FDCs. When implemented, this action has potential to cut as much as 60–90 days from the ‘‘awaiting evidence’’ portion of claims 

processing, and reduce the time needed to make a claim ‘‘ready for decision’’ from 

133 days currently to 73 days for departing Servicemembers. 

VBA will continue to pursue various partnerships with Federal agencies, VSOs, 

as well as profit and non-profit organizations to expand and enhance our transformation initiatives. 

CONCLUSION

VA is in an era of unprecedented production and unprecedented demand, and our 

Transformation Plan is critical to achieving our goals for improving the delivery of 

benefits to our Veterans, their families, and Survivors. We will continue to vigorously pursue our people, process and technology-centered improvements designed to 

eliminate the claims backlog and achieve our goal in 2015 of processing all claims 

within 125 days with 98 percent accuracy. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. 

17 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BERNARD SANDERS

TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. General Hickey’s written testimony stated: 

‘‘It is important to recognize that under the existing quality review system, 

any one error on the claim, no matter how many medical conditions must 

be developed and evaluated, makes the entire claim in error—the claim is 

therefore counted as either 100 percent accurate or 100 percent in error, 

with no credit for anything in between. Issues are defined as individually 

evaluated medical conditions. A claim can, and often does, consist of many 

issues. Each issue represents a series of completed tasks, such as development, research, adjudication, and decision, that could result in a benefit adjustment for a Veteran, family member, or survivor. Given that the average 

number of claimed issues for our recently separated Servicemembers is now 

in the 12 to 16 range, we do not believe the current all-or-nothing measure 

reflects the actual level of decision accuracy achieved. When we measure 

the same claims based on assessments of the individual medical conditions 

rated (‘‘issue-based accuracy’’), the accuracy of our decisions is over 95 percent. This issue-based accuracy approach also affords VBA the opportunity 

to target with precision those medical issues where we make the most errors—and includes employee level medical issue accuracy.’’ 

This is a significant departure from the current method by which VA measures 

accuracy. Will VA also continue to measure accuracy by claim in order to allow 

stakeholders to evaluate quality in multiple ways including using comparable historical accuracy measurements? 

Response. VBA is currently tracking these measures in parallel. We continue to 

track the accuracy of each claim being reviewed under our existing quality review 

system as well as under the issued-based accuracy review approach. 

Question 2. During the hearing VA testified that VBA now receives information 

on a weekly basis from the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue 

Service. Are all regional offices currently receiving Social Security medical evidence 

on a weekly basis? Is this evidence being received in an electronic format which can 

be incorporated into VBMS? How many files have been received from the Social Security Administration at each regional office under this procedure? 

Response. Under the authority provided by 26 U.S.C. § 6103(l)(7) and 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5317, VA obtains from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) income information for certain VA beneficiaries. VA uses this 

information in its Income Verification Match (IVM) program to verify entitlement 

to, among other things, VA’s needs-based pension benefits. As discussed in the hearing, VA is working with IRS and SSA to expand the IVM program and develop a 

process in which VA exchanges records on a weekly basis with IRS and SSA to determine eligibility for pension before VA makes payments. 

In addition, VBA and SSA officials meet weekly to develop strategies for more 

quickly obtaining SSA medical records needed for VBA claims. As a result, SSA is 

now directly uploading electronic medical records into VA’s systems at four regional 

offices. Working collaboratively, SSA and VA have standardized the file size and format and also implemented procedures to exclude VA medical records from the SSA 

records sent. These improvements have reduced duplication and streamlined the 

transmittal and review process. Early results, based on two months of testing at 

these four stations, reflect that VA is receiving SSA records in an average of nine 

days, which is an improvement compared to the average of fifteen days using the 

current manual process (obtaining the information on a CD) and sixty days using 

the old paper process. VA plans to begin a phased deployment, starting with a regional office that is using VBMS, to finalize procedures before implementing nationwide. 

Question 3. Please explain how external users of VBMS, including VSOs and contractors who conduct disability exams, connect to and utilize VBMS. Have external 

users reported issues of network latency or reliability of connection for external 

VBMS users? If there have been reported issues, describe actions taken to address 

these issues and whether the issues have been resolved? 

Response. All VBMS users access the application through the VA network to ensure security of Veterans claim information and data. If users are located at a VA 

facility, VBMS is accessed through the local VA network. If users are not located 

at a VA facility, they must first access the VA network using approved VA software 

to create a Virtual Private Network connection. 

VBA continues to address and resolve all reported instances of latency and issues 

with access. For example, in response to VSOs reporting an issue with the total 

18 

number of claims loaded into the VSO work queue, VBA upgraded VBMS to increase the number of claims visible by VSOs to 1,000 in February 2013. In addition, 

contract examiners using a central location to access VBMS and distribute claims 

information to contract examiners throughout the country, reported an issue with 

viewing large files. Collaboration with the central location identified the need to 

issue government furnished equipment to ensure access and visibility at the central 

location. In addition, users not located at VA facilities may experience slow response 

times (latency) due to speed of the user’s connection as well as other internet-related 

performance and connectivity issues outside the control of VA. VBA is committed 

to ensuring all users requiring access to VBMS have the necessary access and continuing collaboration with our partners. 

Question 4. Testimony indicated VBA’s target for FY 2013 is to increase use of 

fully developed claims to 20 percent. Based upon Fast Letter 12–25, many claims 

are excluded from consideration as fully developed claims. For example, if a veteran 

has another claim pending or has an appeal pending and the claims folder is not 

located at the home RO, VA will not accept a fully developed claim on another issue. 

a. Please provide information concerning the number of claims filed as fully developed claims which are rejected because another claim is pending or on appeal? 

Response. Fiscal year to date, 17 percent of claims filed as fully developed have 

been excluded for various reasons. 

b. What is VA’s rationale for refusing to process fully developed claims in these 

circumstances? 

Response. VA designed the Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program to provide 

claimants the fastest possible decision on their claims. When a subsequent claim is 

received, VA must complete new development actions often required by the subsequent claim, which may impact the rating decision and delay completion of these 

claims. At the request of stakeholders, VA made an exception to this rule if the 

pending claim is an appeal, and the claim folder is located at the regional office of 

jurisdiction rather than at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA). This specific exception maintains the integrity of the FDC program and its promise of expeditious 

processing as it does not impact the timely completion of the FDCs. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. At the hearing, General Hickey provided this testimony: 

‘‘There are two major things that we need in order to decide those claims 

that are in inventory and in backlog. Three out of five times that we have 

an old claim it’s because of this issue. We need data from [the Department 

of Defense] in terms of the complete medical history of that member when 

they leave service in order for us to decide a claim. We also need their complete personnel records in order to know what their character of service is. 

Without those, we must ask. When we ask, we have in legislation today a 

60-day wait period before we may ask again. So there is built into our process part of that problem.’’ 

A. Please identify the specific legislative provision that is referenced above and 

explain why VA interprets it as requiring a 60-day wait period. 

Response. General Hickey was referring to VA’s duty under the Veterans Claims 

Assistance Act, 38 U.S.C. 5103A(b)(3), requiring that VA continue efforts to obtain 

Federal records ‘‘unless it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or 

that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile.’’ VBA has implemented 

this statutory requirement by providing guidance in its procedures manual, directing that VA claims processors are to make an initial request for Federal records, 

wait for 60 days for a response, to be followed by another request for the records, 

with a subsequent follow-up waiting period of 30 days. This ‘‘futility standard’’ for 

obtaining Federal records often adds considerable time to the claims process. The 

corresponding duty for non-Federal records requests only requires ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ to obtain them rather than ‘‘exhaustive efforts.’’ 

Neither statute nor regulation specifies a required wait time for response from a 

Federal agency. VA has discretion to determine what efforts and time limits are necessary to meet the statutory requirements for seeking records of another agency. 

However, the statute requires VA to continue to seek Federal records until it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain them 

would be futile. Such legislation was enacted to better define the standards for VA 

19 

requests for private (but not Federal) records in August 2012, as section 505 of Public Law 112–154. 

B. For the record, please provide a copy of any relevant VA policies (including regulations, Manual provisions, Fast Letters, Training Letters, or other internal VA 

guidance) regarding the procedures to be followed in obtaining evidence from the 

Department of Defense or Social Security Administration. 

Response. Please see the attached documents, which explain the policies and procedures surrounding VBA interaction with the Department of Defense and Social 

Security Administration in obtaining evidence required to process Veterans’ claims. 

Attachments include: 

• User guides for 

– the Defense Personnel Image Retrieval System (DPRIS), and 

– the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES) 

• A PowerPoint slide show that introduces DPRIS and its functionality 

• Compensation Service Fast Letter (FL) 11–01, MILPAY Application for VA Readjudication of Nehmer Claims 

• Compensation Service Training Letter (TL) 09–02, Uploading DPRIS-Imaged 

DD Forms 214 and 215 into Virtual VA 

• Two documents containing text from 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

– 3.159, Department of Veterans Affairs Assistance in Developing Claims, and 

– 3.201, Exchange of Evidence; Social Security and Department of Veterans Affairs 

• Documents containing text from M21–1MR 

– Part III, Subpart iii, Chapter 2, Developing for Service Records 

– Part III, Subpart iii, Chapter 3, Information Requests to and From the Social 

Security Administration (SSA), and 

– Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 1, Development. 

C. Please provide any relevant statistics on the number of claims that are considered backlogged solely because VA has not received relevant evidence from the Department of Defense or Social Security Administration. 

Response. This response requires programming for a data pull and will be provided at a later date. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. What type of time motion study is being conducted to study VBMS’ 

efficiencies/inefficiencies? Will this study be used to develop performance standards 

for employees? Is the study group soliciting the input of the employees doing the 

work on the front lines? (Senator, a few years ago IBM did a study of this at the 

direction of the Committee and determined that an evidence based time motion 

study was a good idea!) 

Response. VBA is currently conducting a time motion study to enhance its capacity management and estimating capabilities. VBA is observing employees at six regional offices and recording the time required to execute key claims processing activities. VBA is also conducting analysis to determine the frequency with which 

these activities are executed to fully adjudicate disability compensation and pension 

claims. Together, these analyses provide a basis for determining the manpower required to complete specific claims. Although the study is focused on the claims process in its entirety, observers will be noting when activities are implemented using 

VBMS, providing a basis for assessing how the system is impacting process efficiency. The data derived from this study will contribute to an evaluation of the entire claims process and assist in determining what improvement can be made in accomplishing the elements leading to claims completion. The results of the study will 

not be used to develop new performance standards. 

Question 2. Are you aware that in certain facilities, 49% of employees are not able 

to achieve the new performance standards? 

Response. Performance standards are used to make a basic determination that an 

employee is meeting his or her job requirements. Employees receive on-going feedback on the elements included in their performance standards. We recognize the importance of assessing the impact of our transformational initiatives on employees’ 

job requirements and appropriately adjusting performance standards. 

We recently revised our performance standards to account for segmented lanes. 

On December 1, 2012, the regional offices implemented new performance standards. 

We are still within a 90-day period allowed for Veterans Service Representatives 

(VSRs) and Rating VSRs (RVSRs) to become comfortable with the new standards. 

20 

VBA established a new team to work in conjunction with our labor union partner, 

the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to continue to develop 

standards that will better serve Veterans and our employees as we move into an 

electronic environment. 

Question 3. What type of training will VA be introducing to update employees on 

VBMS? 

Response. VBMS is using a combination of web-based training (WBT) and ‘‘trainthe-trainer’’ concepts to ensure all VBMS users receive system training and are prepared to use VBMS. 

Robust WBT focuses on application training in which users learn how to operate 

the new system and utilize the latest functionality. This system training includes 

curricula tailored to job functions and support resources to serve as quick reference 

guides. 

The ‘‘train-the-trainer’’ component focuses on ensuring resources are available to 

support users at regional offices. These local points of contact, called Superusers, 

provide local training and prepare users to successfully adopt VBMS. Superusers receive distance learning training in addition to WBT and ongoing support sessions. 

Superusers deliver information from their training to employees at their respective 

regional offices. For example, prior to the release of new system functionality, 

VBMS Superusers receive Delta training, which is conducted virtually using LiveMeeting, on new functionality related to major system releases. After attending 

Delta training, Superusers facilitate Delta training to users at their Regional Office. 

Delta training materials and instructions are made readily available to the 

Superusers. 

Question 4. Is VA soliciting input from employees on VBMS? What is the mechanism for employees to discuss problems with the new system with management? 

Response. VA is utilizing a user-in-the-middle approach to solicit system requirements for the development and enhancement of VBMS. Field subject matter experts 

(SMEs) from across the country participate in requirements gathering sessions with 

system developers every three weeks in Charleston, South Carolina and in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area. SMEs provide input and are able to see their 

input during pre-implementation review sessions. 

Regional offices where VBMS is fully implemented participate in a biweekly enduser experience conference call with the VBA Operations Center to discuss issues 

and provide feedback on VBMS. Regional offices may also exercise two additional 

options to provide feedback: the VBMS Issue Tracker and a dedicated telephone 

hotline. 

• The VBMS Issue Tracker is for non-sensitive and/or non-urgent issues requiring 

guidance and/or clarification. 

• The telephone hotline is for sensitive and/or urgent issues where production is 

impacted. Stations may call into the hotline and at that point, support is provided 

from a number of resources until the issue is resolved. 

Additionally, end-users at regional offices where VBMS is fully-implemented participate in a weekly call with the Under Secretary for Benefits to discuss both positive impact of the system as well as issues of concern. Issues that end-users express 

as critical or necessary to perform their job are addressed on the call and when possible, new requirements and/or fixes are worked into a software patch or future release. VBMS streamlined the release methodology by implementing a Continuous 

Release process. This process leverages agile methodologies to implement system 

updates via a continuous and steady product release schedule. Each software release 

includes new functionality and prioritized defect fixes. For example, the latest 

VBMS Release 4.2 resolved more than 300 defects in addition to adding new correspondence, rating, and evidence management functionality. The incremental delivery approach allows the software development team to continuously and quickly respond to user needs and feedback as the software product is built. As the system 

evolves, new functionality will be delivered to the field and build upon the 

foundational architecture available in the latest system release. 

Question 5. Are the scanning contractors paid by the page? What types of quality 

review is VBA conducting to assess the quality of the contractor’s work? 

Response. Scanning contractors are paid by the image, which is defined as one 

side of one paper page. For quality review, VBA contracted for independent verification and validation with a service-disabled, Veteran-owned small business to evaluate the scanning contractors’ digital images. Metrics include image quality (99 percent) indexing accuracy (99 percent) and data extraction from completed VA forms 

(95 percent). 

21 

Question 6. Are there any plans to hire service-connected disabled veterans to 

work directly for VBA to carry out scanning functions? Have you assessed the quality and security risks involved in using outside contractors? 

Response. VA’s focus is claims processing. The business case analysis supports a 

centralized scanning model, with image volumes that necessitate contractor support. 

VA incorporated a preference for Veteran-owned small businesses as an evaluation 

factor. One of the two VBMS scanning contracts was awarded to a service-disabled, 

Veteran-owned small business. VA requires both scanning contractors to incorporate 

Veterans hiring into their staffing plans. Also, VA facilitates direct communications 

between Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service, Vet Center Veteran 

candidates, and scanning contractors. 

VA assessed the security and quality risks associated with outside contractors for 

this work. Outside vendors must comply with all VA security regulations and have 

site security better than or equal to VA regional offices. VA is not currently staffed, 

equipped, or trained to do large-scale imaging and image quality review. Outside 

vendors contribute their organizational expertise in document conversion and industry best practices in image quality reviews. 

Question 7. Have you put in place any plans for VBA claims processors who are 

unable to read low quality scans (with bent or upside pages?) 

Response. Yes, VBA has done the following to help claims processors view scanned 

images: 

• During the second quarter of FY 2013, scanning contractors implemented software that auto-rotates an image. 

• VBA implemented procedures for claims processors to resolve incorrectly oriented VBMS images. 

• VBMS rotation-functionality enables claims processors to orient an inverted 

page when this occasionally occurs. 

• For systemic incorrectly-oriented images, claims processors notify the VBMS 

help desk or designated VBA staff to request re-scanned or re-oriented images. 

Some records, by virtue of their original condition, are in such poor condition that 

a legible copy is unattainable. VBA provided the scanning vendors with specific 

guidelines to identify these types of documents. Specifically, if images within a document do not scan clearly or are otherwise unclear, the scanning vendors are instructed to label those items as the ‘‘best copy’’ available. This process identifies documents that are creased, frayed, deteriorated, torn, faded, stained, or otherwise 

damaged. For documents that are bent or creased, the vendor utilizes specific document preparation techniques to straighten the document for scanning. 

Question 8. The next questions are about the VBMS system. There are significant 

bottlenecks in the implementation of this cost saving program. 

a. Has the VA assigned a senior management team to investigate these bottlenecks? 

Response. Yes, the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) tasked the Principal Deputy USB to examine the bottlenecks, and in conjunction with the Assistant Deputy 

Chief Information Officer for Program Management, they worked to resolve these 

issues. With resolution of these issues achieved, VBA has developed and is implementing a plan to ensure nationwide VBMS deployment by the end of 2013. 

b. What action plan has the VA developed to stem the bottlenecks and significantly increase the document flow to the imaging facility? 

Response. VA closely analyzes shipping rates and makes necessary adjustments 

to meet contractual minimums at the imaging facilities. The current configuration 

of the scanning contract identifies a 20 million minimum monthly image volume for 

each vendor, or a 40 million monthly cumulative image volume. Once the national 

deployment VBMS is completed and a review of contractor performance for the initial term is conducted, there is the capability and capacity to exceed these minimums based on organizational needs and through coordination with the scanning 

vendors. Normal shipping procedures are accomplished within four days. Once materials are received, the vendors process and upload the corresponding images within a five-day timeframe. 

To ensure there is no disruption to claims processing, VBA has implemented a 

phased deployment schedule to regional offices. A critical component of this schedule 

requires offices to send claims to the scanning vendors shortly in advance of the 

VBMS deployment date. This ensures that claims are not pending in VBMS and are 

ready to work as soon as the deployment activities are complete for the regional 

office. 

As VBMS is deployed to all stations, additional claims become eligible for VBMS 

processing. This increases the pool of claims that are eligible for imaging. 

22 

c. What is the timetable for achieving the maximum ship or transfer rate of files 

to the scanning facility to achieve the desired results? 

Response. The primary goal of the scanning contract is meeting the digital image 

demand to support VBMS deployment schedule and claims processing. The current 

scanning focus is on new or reopened VBMS claims. Volumes shipped to the scanning contractors will satisfy guaranteed minimum images, but will not achieve maximum ship rates. Alternative plans to increase volume include special projects to 

back-scan inactive claims. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MAZIE HIRONO TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. What specific legislation could Congress propose to improve the VA’s 

claims process, electronic transformation efforts and goals for a seamless transition 

for servicemembers from DOD to VA? 

Response. VA is in the process of submitting several legislative proposals to enhance and modernize the disability claims process with its fiscal year (FY) 2014 

budget. In addition, VA is working diligently to implement the Honoring America’s 

Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Public Law 112–154, 

which contains provisions that will improve the claims and appeals processes. 

Question 2. 2015 is Secretary Shinseki’s stated target year for eliminating the 

VA’s backlog of compensation claims along with a maximum waiting period 125 

days for a decision. Based on this month’s claims processing performance rate, is 

VA on track to meet this goal? 

Response. VBA’s Transformation Plan is designed to eliminate the claims backlog 

and achieve our goal of processing all claims within 125 days with 98 percent accuracy in 2015. Initially planned for deployment throughout FY 2013, VBA accelerated 

the implementation of the new organizational model by nine months due to early 

indications of its positive impact on performance. National deployment of Generation One of VBMS (our baseline system) began in 2012, with 18 regional offices 

operational as of the end of the calendar year. Deployment to the remaining stations 

is scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2013. 

Generation One of VBMS, our foundational web-based electronic claims processing 

system, is now in use at 25 regional offices and the Appeals Management Center. 

We will complete the deployment of VBMS to all regional offices by December 2013. 

We will also continue to enhance the automated functionalities and build additional 

system capabilities in three future generations of VBMS to be deployed over the 

next two years. As we move into future generations of VBMS, our focus is on 

leveraging more complex automation features and more extensive data exchange 

and system integration capabilities so that our employees will be able to process 

claims electronically from receipt to payment. 

Question 3. As you noted in your testimony, you gave the profile of the average 

Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA) employee and you stated that they are key 

to its transformation success into a 21st century organization. As their work specifically impacts veterans and their families, what percentage of VBA employees are 

veterans themselves? 

Response. As of February 28, 2013, 52 percent of VBA employees are Veterans. 

Question 4. In its December 2012 report, GAO recommended that VBA ‘‘seek improvements for partnering with relevant Federal and state military officials to reduce the time it takes to gather military service records from National Guard and 

Reserve sources.’’ What has the VA done to date in this regard? 

Response. Since the GAO report, VBA has accomplished the following: 

• The Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB) recently hosted the Under Secretary 

for Benefits as a pivotal speaker during the National Guard Senior Leadership Conference held on February 27, 2013. Significant messages specifically addressed National Guard and Reserve benefits and resources, elements of today’s operating environment, and collaborating in 2013 and beyond. 

• The Chief, NGB and the Under Secretary for Benefits agreed to charter an 

NGB/VBA Collaboration Team to immediately leverage efforts between both staffs 

to identify and prioritize key cooperative actions. The Collaboration Team will examine ways to refine the process of records retrieval and identify procedures to improve 

the claims process. 

• VA is including separating full-time National Guard and Reserve members (Titles 10 and 32) in its implementation of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011. 

• The Under Secretary for Benefits instructed all VBA regional office directors to 

contact their respective state Adjutant Generals to further engage in their critical 

23 

relationships and identify and overcome any barriers to obtaining Servicemembers’ 

personnel and medical records. • VBA created a comprehensive web site specifically aimed at informing National 

Guard and Reserve members on how to take advantage of their VA benefits (http:// 

www.benefits.va.gov/guardreserve/). • The VBA and DOD Disability Claims Reduction Task Force was formed to help 

VBA partner with Federal and state officials to reduce the time it takes to gather 

military service records from DOD, including National Guard and Reserve records. 

Question 5. My understanding is that VBMS, the electronic Veterans Benefits 

Management System has already been deployed to at least 18 VBA regional offices 

and will be fielded to all 56 regional offices by the end of this year. Secretary 

Shinseki has stated that ‘‘the faster we field VBMS, the more time we will have to 

eliminate the backlog.’’ What is the status of its implementation at the Honolulu 

Regional Office and by how much do you estimate it will improve the processing 

rate at that office? 

Response. Deployment of VBMS to the Honolulu Regional Office is scheduled for 

May 24, 2013. We anticipate that VBMS will provide a 15–20 percent increase in 

station production in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015 as we continue to add enhanced functionalities and automated tools to VBMS. 

Question 6. As you noted in your testimony you mention that the VBA has taken 

suggestions from veterans and veterans organization on how to improve the system? 

Aside from those the VA has already implemented, what other proposals are being 

considered? 

Response. Employees, Veterans, Veterans Service Organizations, and other stakeholders are encouraged to provide transformation ideas to VBA’s Office of Strategic 

Planning for consideration and evaluation in accordance with our governance review 

process. This process includes a determination as to whether the idea has merit, 

should be considered for a pilot, warrants a design team evaluation, and satisfies 

cost benefit considerations. Additional input is received from Veterans Service Organizations during the development and testing of initiatives. Numerous ideas are in 

different phases of this evaluation process, including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

• Appeals Design Team: Identifying recommendations to improve the timeliness, 

consistency, and accuracy of the appeal process. • Private Medical Records: Expediting claims development by utilizing a contractor to aggressively pursue private medical records. The goal is to support our 

duty to assist Veterans by obtaining and electronically incorporating records into 

the Veterans claims for more timely adjudication. • Click 2 Benefits: Establishing kiosks in VA medical facilities that are geographically separated from VA regional offices. These kiosks would support Veterans 

speaking with a VSR, who could be hundreds of miles away. It facilitates better 

communication when a Veteran needs assistance and cannot physically go to a regional office. • Issue-Based Quality Review: Evaluating rating quality based on each individual 

medical issue addressed within the rating decision. This approach more accurately 

reflects the actual quality of rating decisions. It also provides a greater level of specificity about errors being made that can be corrected by incorporating the lessons 

learned into National Challenge Training. • Rules-Based Processing: Automatically processing incoming dependency change 

requests utilizing a rules-based processing system. Successfully developing automated rules-based processing will relieve a significant portion of the workforce from 

handling these requests and allow them to work on more disability claims. • Telework: Developing and implementing a telework pilot program to meet agency telework requirements, while improving employee productivity and allowing office 

space to be more effectively shared and utilized. 

Question 7. Has the VA looked into hiring temporary claims processors, preferably 

veterans, similar to how the State Department has done with limited non-career appointments for visa processing? Does VA currently have the authority to do this? 

Response. Because of the extensive training required to process disability claims, 

VA prefers to use the funds made available by Congress to hire and train permanent employees. 

Question 8. You mentioned in your testimony that VA has partnered with the IRS 

and the Social Security Administration to share data for up-front verification of income for pension applicants and other claims. Are there other relevant Federal 

agencies that VA could partner with to streamline other claims processing? 

Response. VA partners with numerous Federal agencies to streamline claims processing. In addition to the IRS and SSA, VA also partners with the Department of 

24 

Justice, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Prisons, Health and Human 

Services, Department of Education, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Personnel Management. 

VA is currently working with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) to establish a new Computer Matching Agreement (CMA). The purpose of 

this CMA is to enable VA to identify pension beneficiaries who are receiving Medicaid-covered nursing home care in order to timely adjust their pension payments 

to the $90 monthly rate limit as prescribed by Section 5503(d)(2) of title 38, United 

States Code. 

Question 9. What outstanding requirements does VA need to meet in order to 

complete integration with DOD by 2015? 

Response. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are making significant progress with respect to sharing the information 

required to provide our Servicemembers and Veterans the benefits they have earned 

by virtue of their military service: 

• Personnel and Separation Data 

– VA and DOD currently share personnel and beneficiary information via the 

VA and DOD Information Repository (VADIR) 

– VA needs, and DOD is working to share, the entire personnel record by the 

end of CY 2013 

• Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) Case Files 

– VA and the Military Services have begun to share Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) case files electronically at several pilot locations across 

the country. Approximately 3,100 cases have been successfully transferred electronically as of December 14, 2012 

– VA needs, and the DOD is working aggressively to complete, the automation 

of the actual transfer of the IDES Case File from DOD to VA without human 

intervention. This automation will eliminate the manpower associated with the 

current manual process, thereby freeing up valuable resources to be reallocated 

to other IDES-related tasks 

• Service Treatment Records (STR) 

– VA personnel have the ability to view Servicemember medical records today 

– Additionally, as noted above, the DOD has started to provide the STR electronically to the VA for Servicemembers enrolled in the IDES program 

– VA needs, and DOD is aggressively working to provide, the STR electronically at time of discharge for all Servicemembers by the end of CY 2013 

– VA needs, and DOD is aggressively working to ensure, that all relevant medical information, including relevant information related to purchased care, is included in the STR provided to VA by DOD 

• Interagency Case Management and Care Coordination Information 

– VA and the Army currently share Care Coordinator information 

– VA and DOD both need, and are aggressively working to fully implement, the 

Interagency Comprehensive Plan (ICP) which will expand the existing sharing 

mechanism to share a single comprehensive care coordination plan amongst all 

DOD and VA case management and care coordination programs. 

Question 10. Assuming all outstanding VA claims are approved, what would be 

the cost to provide the benefits and services claimed? 

Response. As of March 14, 2013, 862,929 claims were pending for an average of 

280 days. If VBA granted all claims without regard for eligibility, under payments, 

and overpayments, and started payments on April 1, 2013, total obligations are estimated to be an additional $8.8 billion in 2013. 

Of the pending claims, we assume 39 percent are claims for service-connection, 

and the remaining 61 percent are claims for an increased disability rating. VA assumes that claims for service connection would receive a payment at the 40 percent 

rate as this is the average disability rating for Veterans currently in receipt of compensation. Based on historical information, on average, Veterans who reopen their 

claims and are granted an increased rating change from a 40 to 60 percent combined disability rating. Obligations for these Veterans were calculated by applying 

the difference in degree of disability average payment for six months. All retroactive 

payments were based on 280 days pending and have been factored into this 

estimate. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much, General. 

Mr. Warren. 

Mr. WARREN. I have no statement, Mr. Chairman. 

25 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. Let me begin by raising the issue that 

Senator Isakson raised a few moments ago. In my view, the goal 

of the VA—the very significant step forward in terms of accuracy 

and processing claims in a rapid way by 2015—is a very, very ambitious goal. 

I think what you have heard this morning from people around 

this table, from Senator Isakson and others, is, in some ways we 

have heard this before. 

The goal is a strong goal and I support that ambitious timeline. 

The question I am asking you, General Hickey, is what reason do 

we have to believe, what evidence are you going to give us to suggest that you, in fact, are going to achieve that very ambitious goal. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Chairman Sanders, for the question. I 

will tell you that everything in this plan has been tried in a real 

live environment in different regional offices across the country. We 

are not just leveraging the pilots that we have done for those initiatives; we are actually leveraging some of the experience we have 

had from previous efforts to improve our performance. 

I will give you an example. While not a compensation claim, one 

of the other major business lines that we have is education claims. 

We started from a dead start in paper. We did not do so red hot. 

It took us 49 days to do a claim for a student in school. 

In 2009, we brought on a first version of our long-term solution, 

our paperless IT system for education claims, and cut the time to 

do a claim in half and increased our quality. 

Chairman SANDERS. Are you suggesting that the technological 

breakthrough you made in terms of processing student claims is an 

indication of what you can do in terms of veterans claims? 

Ms. HICKEY. I am, Chairman Sanders, and I have a much stronger word than hope. I now have a reality point to lay before you all. 

Since 24 September 2012, we added a new capability into the longterm solution that lets us take 50 percent of our claims, automate 

those claims where they come in, and not a single person touches 

them. They fly through the system and they are completed in a 

day. 

Chairman SANDERS. This is the student process? 

Ms. HICKEY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, this is the student 

process. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. 

Ms. HICKEY. Let me tell you what the results of that is now that 

we have that new automated capability in the system. 

At this time last year if I had been sitting before you as I might 

have been on an occasion talking about education claims backlog, 

I would have told you I had 200,000 claims in inventory. Today I 

have 50,000 claims in inventory, because of the speed of the automation, which helps us cross-check against the rules, know that 

that student is where they need to be, and getting the pay they 

need to get. The use of this automation has really significantly improved the way we are doing education claims this semester. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. Let me ask you this. There has been 

consternation on this Committee and I think within the service organizations about the decision made by the DOD, I think it was the 

DOD, not to go forward in terms of collaboration with the VA in 

terms of the one system, one computer system for both agencies. 

26 

What impact is that decision going to have in your efforts to expedite claims? 

Ms. HICKEY. Chairman Sanders, I am going to first address at 

a very high level what we require from DOD and then I am going 

to ask my colleague, Mr. Warren, to address specifically iEHR. 

There are two major things that we need in order to decide those 

claims that are in inventory and in backlog. Three out of five times 

that we have an old claim it is because of this issue. 

We need data from DOD in terms of the complete medical history 

of that member when they leave service in order for us to decide 

a claim. We also need their complete personnel records in order to 

know what their character of service is. Without those, we must 

ask. When we ask, we have in legislation today a 60-day wait period before we may ask again. 

So, there is built into our process part of that problem. As of January, I have an agreement with DOD, under the great leadership 

of Mr. Fred Vollrath, now in OSD, where DOD now has a new cell 

in every single service where they will gather all records including 

TRICARE and contract medical records. They will pull it all together. They will validate for me that it is full and complete as of 

that time. They will put their signature on top of that document 

and give it to me. That is a game changer for us. 

Chairman SANDERS. So, is it fair to say that we are not going to 

make the kind of progress we want unless there is better cooperation between the DOD and the VA? 

Ms. HICKEY. DOD and VA cooperation is critical, absolutely critical to our eliminating this backlog and to our doing claims well. 

But specifically iEHR, I would like to defer to Mr. Warren, who is 

more actively engaged in that process. 

Chairman SANDERS. Mr. Warren. 

Mr. WARREN. Mr. Chairman, to your question about a change in 

direction, I think you would be surprised to hear that everything 

we hear in the press is not necessarily correct. 

Chairman SANDERS. We are shocked by that, those of us on the 

Hill. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WARREN. And appalled. Sir, I would like to share with you 

that we remain committed to that single, joint, common, integrated 

electronic health record. We stay on that path. We are on that 

path. 

Chairman SANDERS. Does the DOD remain committed? 

Mr. WARREN. The DOD has stated that they are committed to 

the goal of reaching IOC, or initial operating capability, at the two 

sites by 2014 and full operational capability by 2017. 

The announcement that I think was misconstrued was that because some progress had not been happening at the pace that it 

needed to, we threw some accelerators in there. We said, let us 

show we can do this. Let us show that we can deliver. If you will, 

the PMAS (Program Management Accountability System) to the 

iEHR approach. So the drive and the commitment was, now, let us 

take Janus—the interface that we use to access both systems—and 

accelerate it to seven more sites, and that is supposed to be completed by July 31. The Interagency Program Office (IPO) is committed to that. 

27 

Chairman SANDERS. My time has expired. 

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Warren, I read a release that was put out jointly. Your interpretation is not what I read. DOD is headed for a totally separate 

system. There is no assurance that it is going to be integrated in 

a way that will talk to VA. As a matter of fact, there is every reason to believe that if you talk to the DOD folks, there are no plans 

to have a seamless, single system. 

So, I will question that right from the start and I am sure when 

the Secretary is here for the budget hearing, this will be the subject of conversation. 

Ms. Hickey, wonderful testimony. It almost makes me embarrassed to ask questions that deal with facts, because I am looking 

at a trend line as it relates to backlogs of disability claims that, 

quite frankly, are just inconsistent. 

You talk about the increase over the last 10 years. I can look 

back just at last year to projections from the VA as to progress we 

were going to make on disability claims. Certainly, it took into account all the changes that you have seen for the last 10 years. It 

took into account the Secretary’s decisions to extend additional 

benefits to Agent Orange victims. If it did not, then we have a 

major problem within the VA on how we plan. 

But let me ask you. I think it is important for VA to be completely transparent about the efforts to reduce the backlog. In that 

regard, the backlog reduction plan VA submitted to Congress notes, 

‘‘VBA is tracking execution of its transformation plan against its 

key measures of performance that are tracked daily, weekly, and 

monthly.’’ 

To start with, I would like to ask you to provide the Committee 

on a regular basis with those performance metrics, particularly in 

the data that is not included in the Monday morning workload reports and the ASPIRE Dashboard. 

Do I have your commitment to do that on a monthly basis? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Burr, you are right in saying that things 

have changed for us. Our demand has increased. That was part of 

the reason for my focus on explaining what was in the inventory 

for you. We have been now 10 years at war where our men and 

women are 10 times more likely to survive than their previous 

cohorts. 

Senator BURR. I appreciate that. Do I have your commitment to 

provide this Committee with those performance metrics on a 

monthly basis? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Burr, I provide to this Committee on a daily 

basis everything we do. As of last year, we are actually transparent 

to a fault. Not just to this Committee, we have—— 

Senator BURR. General Hickey, this is a very specific question. 

It is not broadly asked and I really do need a yes or no answer. 

You state in your submission to Congress that VBA is tracking execution of its transformation plan against its key measurements of 

performance that are tracked daily, weekly, monthly. 

28 

Can you provide us those on a monthly basis that are not included in the Monday morning workload reports and the ASPIRE 

Dashboard? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Burr, we will continue to provide you and 

your staff the information we have provided and we will continue 

to make it transparent to the world as we do today in our ASPIRE 

Dashboard, in our annual reports, in our quarterly reports, in the 

request that you asked for. 

Senator BURR. I will take that as a no then. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Bozeman, as you know, when staff from the 

Committee went to VA last week for a demonstration of the VBA 

management system, it did not work. I do not think we need to get 

into exactly what happened, but I would like to know how often 

users in the field have IT problems that interfere with their ability 

to process claims in VBMS? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Burr, for your question. You are correct. The demonstration to the staff was conducted 

in what we consider a lower item level of buyer. It is not the production environment of VBMS. So, we did encounter some difficulties due to some changes we were making in the software at the 

time. 

So, I apologize to the Committee for that demonstration. However, field users in production VBMS have sustained very little outage time in VBMS over the course of, since generation one software 

was available. 

There would be isolated pockets which affect certain users with 

certain roles from time to time. Those are reported on our help 

desk. We isolate those issues, and resolve them as expeditiously as 

possible, sir. 

Senator BURR. Can you provide for the Committee the percentage of time that that system is unavailable to those in the field 

that are working on it? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. I do not have that at my disposal. I will take it 

for the record. 

Senator BURR. Is that something we track? 

Mr. BOZEMAN. Yes, we do track that, sir. Assistant Secretary 

Warren may be able to provide further insight on system outages. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. RICHARD BURR FROM

MATTHEW SANTOS, CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS, OCLA 

Provide details on the time lost due to problems with VBMS/VBMS-R? 

Response. The VBMS application itself has experienced little down time prohibiting users to process claims. Between December 6, 2012, and February 20, 2013, the 

VBMS application experienced a total of 2 hours and 43 minutes of unplanned 

downtime over the course of two production outages: 

• On December 6, 2012, users were being redirected to the VBMS login screen 

when they attempted to change tabs while in the rating application. The issue 

lasted for two hours and 13 minutes. It was determined that a security certificate 

on a VBMS server was not properly renewed during an anticipated service interruption which occurred the previous night. The certificate was redeployed to the affected application server and it was returned to service. 

• On February 20, 2013, users were unable to access the rating application for 30 

minutes due to a stuck thread. The server was restarted and access was restored. 

A VBA system wide outage occurred on January 28, 2013. The VBA corporate 

database became unavailable for 1.5 hours when a system board housing the corVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\031313.TXT PAULIN
29 

porate database at the Austin Information Technology Center (AITC) failed. During 

this unavailability, users were unable to access VBA applications including: VBMS, 

VETSNET, and Virtual VA. 

Senator BURR. I hope that would be provided to the Committee. 

General Hickey, according to your plan for reducing the backlog, 

VA’s goal is to have 20 percent of the claims fully developed at submittal during fiscal year 2013. 

At the time VA released that plan, only 3 percent of the claims 

were fully developed; and according to your testimony, it is now 

4.8. Tell me, if you will, how are we going to get to 20 percent? 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Senator Burr, for the question. I am 

going to say that the way we are doing that is with the absolute 

dedicated commitment of our partners in our veterans’ service organizations. Specifically, a new effort led by the American Legion, 

DAV, VFW, and others; they are working hard to help us with 

that. 

Senator BURR. How did you come up with 20 percent? Why was 

it not 40? 

Ms. HICKEY. Today, 60 percent of the time our veterans are represented by one of these VSOs in our system of both inventory and 

backlog. 

So, we took the opportunity to say let us start, let us ramp up, 

let us grow in our capability for our VSOs to help us do that part 

of our claims development effort that takes the biggest amount of 

time. 

Senator BURR. So, if we do not hit 20 percent, what effect does 

that have then on the backlog problem that we have? 

Ms. HICKEY. So, the 20 percent is a relatively new target that we 

have and we have asked our VSOs to help us with. They are eager, 

they are involved, they are engaged, they are training right and 

left on how to do that with their representatives who are in the 

field working every single day with the veteran. 

Just for example, very quickly, those VSOs have more face-toface contact when that veteran is working with them, and they 

have the opportunity to say, OK, you are claiming this condition, 

do you have a copy of your medical records or your private medical 

records that will help us make that decision for that rating condition. Our VSOs are critical partners in our effort to do this. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to go back to a point that the Chairman and the 

Ranking Member talked about, and that is, that I think partnerships are critically important. You talked about VSO partnerships. 

I think there is another partnership out there that is very important and it is with the DOD. 

The Ranking Member noted that the DOD is on a totally different plane and that a single seamless is not on the so-called DOD 

radar screen. 

I do not know if that is true or not. If it is, it is very disturbing. 

That is not your problem. That is our problem, to make sure that 

the DOD steps up to the plate and does what they need to do so 

you can be successful in what you have to do. 

30 

Could you give me any kind of analysis without throwing DOD 

under the bus, but please do if it is warranted, on what they are 

doing as far as helping you out making sure that there is a seamless transition for veterans? 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Senator Tester, for your question. There 

are many things that have been happening over the last year in 

agreement with DOD. 

First of which I already described. They have now made an 

agreement with me as of January to give us 100 percent certified 

full and complete medical records. We have never had that in our 

history before. We have had to go look for those records. They are 

now going to give them to us. 

Senator TESTER. Is that effective immediately? 

Ms. HICKEY. It is effective immediately. They are doing it right 

now. Every single service has stood up a team across the services. 

Every separating servicemember and every retiring servicemember’s records now go through this process with any service and 

then they will come to me with that designation. DOD is taking responsibility to ensure that the records are all up to speed so I do 

not have to keep looking. 

The second major effort that they are doing, and I think this is 

important, is that they have a team of people now sitting over with 

me to work on those really old claims that we have not been able 

to find records to justify the decision we want to make for a veteran. Their team is helping us to dig through all of their archives 

to find those records right now. 

So, those are two big areas where they are working with us very 

closely. 

Senator TESTER. What can they do better? 

Ms. HICKEY. They are working on it with us more effectively, but 

we still need to work on getting those papers that they will give 

me over the next year converted into images sooner and turned 

into a system that they will now have in 2013 called HAIMS, the 

Health Artifacts and Information Management System, which will 

bring the records in electronically to me so I can get those images 

across without having to deal with more paper coming in the door. 

Senator TESTER. All right. How about your partnership with 

groups like Social Security and the IRS? 

Ms. HICKEY. I have a really good new story to tell you about 

that. I have had strong new relationships with both SSA and IRS. 

They have critical information on earned and unearned income for 

us to be able to make decisions very quickly, especially for our folks 

who are the most destitute in our environment. 

Social Security and IRS have now made a decision to give us access to current data every week rather than once a year. The good 

news for our veterans is I have been able to take 100 people that 

used to have to spend 4 months doing nothing but matching and 

looking for earned income and validating earned income out of a 

year old’s worth of database, and I now have them pointing at 

doing DIC claims which are our most vulnerable widowed and orphaned individuals, getting them the resources they need faster. 

Senator TESTER. OK. A different area. From your perspective, 

what role does insufficient staffing play in the backlog? 

31 

Ms. HICKEY. Good question. I want to thank this Committee for 

the staffing we do have. I want to thank this Committee for the 

growth in budget that this organization has never enjoyed before 

this Administration and so thank you very much. 

I am reluctant to say let us throw more people at a problem 

where I have the capability to potentially make the work go faster 

by the nature of the change in the process we are doing and the 

changes in the technology. 

By example, when we went into a paperless environment for our 

loan guaranty efforts, we reduced the amount of work that had to 

be done by people because the system assisted or because the process assisted. 

I know we are all in a difficult economic environment. I would 

prefer to not make your life harder generating more people when 

I think that I might have oxygen in the system associated with 

what we are doing in the people aspect, the way we are organized 

and trained to do the work. 

You want me to be the most efficient, right? You want me to be 

the most effective, right? I want to get the efficiency and effectiveness out of a 1950s industrial age process, and bring us into the 

21st century. If I get through that and I still need more people, I 

will come to you. 

Senator TESTER. I certainly appreciate that perspective and appreciate the lean and mean and efficiency perspective, and I know 

that you are committed to making sure that this problem gets 

solved. 

I am out of time, though I would love to talk to you about the 

Ruth Moore Act, which I think I will put in questions for the record 

for you to answer. 

One other thing, if I might have the liberty, you talked a little 

bit about a 60-day window where you could ask veterans for information and you had to wait another 60 days. 

Ms. HICKEY. We do, Senator Tester. By the current rules, when 

we asked for records, we must wait a 60-day waiting period for a 

response. 

Senator TESTER. Is that an internal rule or is that a rule that 

we have set up? 

Ms. HICKEY. I believe that that is in legislation. 

Senator TESTER. OK. We may want to visit about that. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Warren, the VA Inspector General reported that the partial 

VBMS capability that has been deployed to date has experienced, 

‘‘system performance issues.’’ What are those system performance 

issues? 

Mr. WARREN. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I would like 

to point out two items, if I could. The first is that report was issued 

in September, last September. So, it was dealing with the pilot prototype system. Two, the Department did not agree with the conclusions that the Inspector General reached in their report. 

Senator ISAKSON. So, you have had no system performance 

issues? 

32 

Mr. WARREN. We had performance issues with a pilot system 

that was deployed whose intent was to find the issues we needed 

to solve before we reached full deployment of a first generation system. So, the report basically stated what we were trying to do 

which was to put it out there, put it out there fast, find out what 

works, find out what does not work. Make the improvements, and 

then deploy it against the enterprise. 

Senator ISAKSON. And that process has worked? 

Mr. WARREN. That process continues to work. We are using an 

agile methodology. So, one of the things that you will see different 

we applied it to Chapter 33 as a rolling change, add functionality, 

add capability is we get systems out there. We get capability out 

there quicker. We are not waiting 5 years to design a system that 

fails. We are making changes. We are deploying them every 3 

months. 

On some systems like eBenefits, we make deployments every 

month. The goal is to get capability in the hands of the user so we 

can evolve it, we can improve it, and bring that benefit to the veterans along the way. 

Senator ISAKSON. In Secretary Hickey’s testimony—I think I 

wrote this down right—she said the redeployment of VBMS was in 

full swing from portal to decision. Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. WARREN. That is an accurate statement. 

Senator ISAKSON. Then let me follow-up because I was not questioning it but I wanted to make sure it was accurate because, as 

I understand, and I could be wrong; this could be a problem. But 

I understand that is accurate with regard to pretty simple decisions that are made in terms of rating claims, but complex cases 

which, as the Secretary has mentioned that they have grown, is 

VBMS capable of making rating decisions on complex cases? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Isakson, if I can answer that question, yes. 

That is the short answer. In a very old version, the pilot version 

of this last summer, there was some restriction to limit it to claims 

with less medical issues. Not anymore. 

We now rate everything. In fact, if you are one of the 20 stations 

that are now live on VBMS, every new claim you have, whether it 

is an original one or a supplemental one, as it is coming in the door 

now immediately gets turned into the electronic environment. It is 

scanned, it is uploaded, it is ingested electronically; and we are not 

bringing the paper through the system from this point forward. 

Senator ISAKSON. What software does VBMS run on? 

Ms. HICKEY. I will defer that to my IT colleague. 

Mr. WARREN. Sir, we could probably spend a couple of hours 

walking through all of the different pieces. 

Senator ISAKSON. Let us not do that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WARREN. So, I do not think you would like to. 

So, when we talk about VBMS, we use Internet Explorer which 

is the browser. We use Windows 7 which is the desktop. We use 

an Internet Explorer server. So, there are a multitude of tools that 

we use. We use Oracle at the back-end. This is not a pitch for any 

of those companies. But again, we are using the tools that are used 

in industry today for these types of systems. 

Senator ISAKSON. Do you use SAP? 

33 

Mr. WARREN. No, we do not use SAP. 

Senator ISAKSON. That is good. OK. 

My last question. On the transfer of medical records from DOD 

to the Veterans Administration, that is done electronically now? 

Ms. HICKEY. Today’s medical records we received in paper. 

Senator ISAKSON. When you have fully installed VBMS, will 

DOD be able to transfer information electronically? 

Ms. HICKEY. So, Senator Isakson, that is a great question, and 

that is exactly what we are planning for with the new HAIMS system that the DOD is building, which will be delivered December of 

this year. The intention is for them to upload those claims into an 

electronic system that feeds directly into VBMS. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Isakson. 

Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me follow up on that last question. I thought I read something that DOD had some issues with their electronic transfer of 

the records. 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Begich, the part that I am talking about is 

a different agreement that I have with DOD where they are consolidating and pulling together all their paper medical records in 

order to give it to me to make a decision, full and complete records 

with their TRICARE and their contract medical records. 

I think the issue that you are talking about is iEHR and I will 

defer that question to my colleague, Mr. Stephen Warren. 

Mr. WARREN. So, if I could do just a quick sidebar in terms of 

the different terms that are used out in the popular press. 

Interoperability is the movement of information back and forth. 

There is the movement of medical information, clinician to clinician 

today from DOD to VA. There is a translation that takes place. It 

is not all the data. It is a limited amount of data. 

Senator BEGICH. Electronically? 

Mr. WARREN. Electronically. So, there is a limited flow. It is not 

the full treatment record. 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. 

Mr. WARREN. So, as a servicemember comes in to a VA facility— 

either Guard, Reserve—and now they are a veteran when they 

come over, we see some large percentage of data, not all of it. So, 

that is interoperability. 

The announcement that came out recently dealt with the goal to 

get to that single, joint, common, integrated electronic health 

record. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. WARREN. One system so you do not have to worry about 

translation. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. WARREN. It supports that goal of the virtual lifetime electronic record. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

34 

Mr. WARREN. So, when that citizen raises their hand like I did 

coming into the service, the data gathered from there forward is 

part of the benefits determination for compensation. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. WARREN. The larger issue. 

The VA is committed to that single integrated electronic health 

electronic health record. 

Senator BEGICH. I get that the VA is. It is the DOD, and I 

guess—Mr. Chairman, one thing that would be unusual but maybe 

we should have is DOD sitting here because I was on the Armed 

Services Committee 4 years and they still cannot get an audit of 

DOD. It is one Federal agency that cannot get their act together 

when it comes to figuring out how to audit what they do over there. 

So, I understand that you have an agreement. But I have been 

here now four years and claims—and I saw a scathing report 

which, of course, Alaska was highlighted in there for delays in disability claims. 

The number 1 issue I get in my office is the lack or inability to 

get these records and determine disability claims. On top of that, 

it is this ability to get the records from DOD over to VA. 

You are putting a lot of faith in DOD who still cannot even do 

an audit of their own functions—the only agency in the Federal 

Government. 

So, can you actually say right here—and you said it a couple of 

times. I want to hear you say again that at the end of 2013—because that is what I heard you say—we will be moving electronically the full records from DOD over to the VA so that I do not 

have to spend time with my staff on a regular basis calling up 

DOD saying, ‘‘What the hell, where is the information,’’ and then, 

‘‘VA why do you not have it yet?’’ 

Ms. HICKEY. So, Senator Begich, what I will tell you—— 

Senator BEGICH. That is a very simple question. Yes or no. 

Ms. HICKEY. And the very simple answer is I will have images 

from the record. He will not have data yet. 

Senator BEGICH. How are you going to get to that point, I mean, 

getting the images? First off, I was somewhat surprised and I 

thought the answer that DOD now is just kind of shipping over 

boxes of material. I am simplifying it but it is paper material, 

right? 

Ms. HICKEY. It is largely. 

Senator BEGICH. So now, you have a contractor that is scanning 

all this stuff which I have questions on its ability: how fast it is 

moving; efficiency; your own ability to audit that. 

But then you just get a pile of images. You know, I can scan stuff 

all the time and get a pile of images. How you interpret them to 

determine the outcome for that individual who is trying to get a 

claim? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Begich, that’s a great question. I will tell 

you how we did it. We used to take a stack of paper this big with 

peoples little rubber finger tips on their fingers and their eyeballs 

while trying to remember their rules in their head and that is what 

we asked our hard-working employees, 52 percent of which are veterans themselves. 

35 

Today in VBMS, they do not deal with the paper. Their rubber 

fingertips are gone. They do not have to remember all the rules. 

They are built into the system. The images come through. They can 

Google® search throughout these document to find that information. That is what VBMS does for us. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. On new claims? 

Ms. HICKEY. On all claims coming in the door today whether 

they are a Vietnam veteran, a World War II veteran, or today’s veterans. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you have data that shows the difference between the process time, the results, and efficiency between the ones 

that are now coming in versus the almost millions sitting in the 

backlog? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Begich, I will have it. I have just put 

20—— 

Senator BEGICH. When will you have it? 

Ms. HICKEY [continued].——ROs on it on 28 January, on what I 

consider, for the first time, the portal to decision processing. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. When will you have that? 

Ms. HICKEY. I am measuring it all the time. So, as soon as I have 

a valid enough sample to give you, I will give it to you. 

Senator BEGICH. I want to go back to Senator Burr’s question. It 

seemed like such a simple one. You obviously do a monthly matrix 

of some sort. It sounds like even weekly with now some of the data 

given on earned income. 

But can you just answer that question very simply? That you will 

provide—I heard your answer. It was kind of a stock answer that 

data that we request we will provide. 

The matrix that you have—because I know, as a former mayor, 

every agency in my department that I operated and managed had 

dashboards that gave data and weekly, daily, and monthly on the 

accessibility. 

I echo what Senator Burr asked and that is, will you provide that 

data on a monthly basis so we understand the success or failure; 

because, honestly, when I look at the numbers, 4 years later from 

my time here it is not getting better. 

I can tell you the increase in calls that I get in my office are not 

going down. So, answer yes to Mr. Burr’s question or no. I do not 

want the stock answer that I know you all get because OMB does 

sanitation to all your commentary. 

I just want to know the real simple answer. Yes or no. 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Begich, I will provide information to you. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Ms. HICKEY. I will provide information to you, yes. 

Senator BEGICH. There we go. 

OK, Mr. Burr, we maybe got halfway there; three quarters of the 

way. 

This will be the last comment, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

The VSOs do so much good work. It almost seems like they do 

all this work and then VA duplicates the work and it seems like 

we should figure out some partnership where VSOs can help us 

move some of these claims because they do a lot of work on that 

front. They have about an 80 percent hit rate. That is not a bad 

success rate based on the history here. 

36 

I will leave it at that and maybe ask for the record, Mr. Chairman, if that is OK. 

Ms. HICKEY. Chairman, may I answer that question? 

Chairman SANDERS. Briefly. 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Begich, we have a very deep relationship 

with our VSOs which is getting stronger every day. They are on 

VBMS with us. They are inside the fence line now more than they 

have ever been before. I am working very closely with them and 

am very thrilled with their willingness to do fully-developed claims 

which, in fact, will help exactly the issue that you are discussing. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Heller. 

Senator HELLER. Thanks for holding this hearing. This is good. 

This is really what we need across this country and in Nevada obviously I get the same phone calls that the other Senators are getting. 

I certainly do appreciate Senator Tester’s remarks. I am glad he 

is across the way. We have a tendency of marching, looking down 

the same road here. He made a comment that I want you to clarify 

that perhaps I do not understand, and that is in your testimony 

you stated that by law the VA must wait 60 days, by law. 

Ms. HICKEY. Yes, Senator. 

Senator HELLER. It is not part of your manual. It is by law. 

Ms. HICKEY. Yes, Senator, and then if I ask 60 days later and 

I do not get it, I must wait another 30 days. 

Senator HELLER. By law? 

Ms. HICKEY. By law. 

Senator HELLER. OK. So, you have a claim and you called the 

VA’s office or you fax them or whatever it may be. You set that in 

a file for 60 days. You do not do anything with it. You just wait 

for 60 days; and if you do not get a response, then you respond 

after 60 days; and then you must wait another 30 days. 

Ms. HICKEY. So, Senator, it is not that I do not do anything with 

it. We do many things with the claim besides that. We will continue to gather other evidence. We bring in private medical evidence from our veterans. We will get that. We will get our medical 

records; if the veteran is already seeing a VHA doctor, we will pull 

that in. We will continue to try to do everything we can to get that 

claim further down the process. But then we will, on occasion, more 

than one occasion, hit a brick wall. 

Senator HELLER. Let me move in a different direction with a 

similar question, and that has to do with the GAO report. Tell me 

if this is accurate. 

When obtaining Social Security Administration records, VBA’s 

policy manual instructs claims staff to fax a request for medical information and wait 60 working days to follow up if SSA does not 

reply. Then, staff faxes a follow-up request and then waits another 

30 days. 

Is that part of your manual or is that also by law? 

Ms. HICKEY. It is also by law, but it is no longer an issue because 

now Social Security and IRS are giving us weekly data. We have 

made agreements and are actually already seeing the flow of that 

information. I am very appreciative to our Social Security and our 

IRS partners in that effort. 

Senator HELLER. OK. So that is solved. 

37 

Ms. HICKEY. It is solved. 

Senator HELLER. I was going to say because that would make it 

about 25 percent more efficient, 25 to 35 percent more efficient if 

we could take those filings and at least make a phone call. 

My staff, you know, we get a number of cases and we get 2500 

cases a year; and we work with the same agencies you work with; 

and if we do not get an answer within 5 days, we pick up the phone 

and say, hey, where is our answer? We do not wait 60 days, we do 

not wait 30 days. But, of course, by law we are not limited to those 

delays. 

Let me ask you another question, and I certainly do appreciate 

the good hard work of the VA. My father is a veteran. He turns 

80 this year. He has received some really good service from the VA, 

the hospital in Reno; and I certainly have nothing but praise, nothing but praise for these hard-working individuals. 

I have been to, though, the VA claims office in Reno; and, as I 

mentioned earlier in my comments, we are some 10,000 claims behind. 

Over the last 5 years, I have consistently asked them, what do 

you need? What do you need? Do you need more individuals? Do 

you need more resources, bodies? What is it going to take to fix this 

backlog? And they have consistently told me we are going to solve 

this without additional resources or without new bodies. 

I had it here a second ago; but according to the GAO report, it 

said according the VBA officials, staff shortages represents a primary reason for backlog. 

So, I guess I’ll just ask the question again—and I think you have 

touched on this but maybe you can reiterate—what is the issue? Do 

you need more individuals, personnel, in order to fix this backlog? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator, thank you for your question. I have been 

to the Reno office as well and it is a terrific group of people out 

there working on behalf of Nevada veterans. 

Senator HELLER. Yes, it is. 

Ms. HICKEY. What I will say is the demand has risen, and I will 

go back to saying we have done a million claims the year. These 

hard-working folks out there want to do what is right for veterans, 

want to do what is right for the family members. 

Senator HELLER. I agree. 

Ms. HICKEY. They are not only doing a million rating claims, 

they are doing a million non-rating claims. They are not only doing 

that, they are doing half a million pension claims in the same year. 

They are doing 4.7 million medical issues a year. They are producing at record, record levels on behalf of our veterans. But the 

demand is coming in at record, record levels. 

The only way to go after this is to fundamentally reinvent ourselves, which is what we are doing in this transformation effort. 

You get to that many transactions in a year, you have got to have 

the benefit of some automation, some rules-based capability, all of 

which we have built now. We are continuing to add functionality 

every 8 to 10 weeks to get some additional rules and automation 

built into the system, to take some of the load off a person manually doing this much paper out of the system, to create that oxygen 

in the system so that the men and women—the 20,000 employees 

I have across the Nation who get up every single morning dediVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ACTIVE\031313.TXT PAULIN
38 

cated and committed to this mission—have an opportunity to really 

meet the needs of our veterans, their family members, and survivors as they truly wish to do. 

Senator HELLER. Thank you, General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Heller. 

Senator Moran. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. You can sense the 

frustration that many of us have on this topic and part of it is that 

we have heard the potential for success so many times without seeing the results that we want to see. 

I heard this last week when Disabled American Veterans from 

Kansas, The American Legion, VFW, all came in the office. This 

now is their number 1 priority and the most significant complaint 

that I continue to receive from Kansas veterans and their families. 

When I came to Congress, now sometime ago—I had served on 

the Veterans’ Committee my entire time in the House and now in 

the Senate—it was always health care that was the hot topic. Now 

it seems to me that the health care side of VA has done things that 

apparently the benefits side has not because the number of complaints about the quality and access to health care has diminished 

significantly and the number of complaints about benefits has increased dramatically. 

So, I do not know whether there is a role model within the VA; 

and while the health care side is not perfect, the progress and improvements seem to be evident, so you may have a role model within your own Department for guidelines. 

In addition to that, I assume that you have consulted with the 

private sector in trying to find out how they deal with this magnitude of claims and I assume—these are questions, you can tell 

me that my assumptions are wrong—that you have had genuine 

and real conversations with the employees that you describe as so 

loyal and so dedicated. 

I often think that Federal agencies, and employers in general, 

never take advantage or rarely take advantage of the knowledge of 

their own employees who may have the best solutions because they 

are the ones who deal with the issues every day. 

In regard to employees, is there a reward or benefit that accrues 

for employees who provide timeliness and accuracy in the benefit 

process? 

And finally, what is the process that you have in place to help 

the veteran who is in a dire circumstance? 

Often the calls, the concerns, the conversations that I have as a 

Member of Congress—and I would guess my colleagues as well— 

are from somebody who is about to lose their home to foreclosure 

or who say my dad is homeless and we have been waiting on an 

answers from the VA on benefits that very well may enable him 

or her to make their mortgage payment or get off the street. 

39 

What process is in place that allows you to prioritize those claims 

in which, if you fail to provide the benefits, the veteran suffers 

dramatically? 

Ms. HICKEY. Let me start, Senator Moran, with the last thing 

you mentioned which is how do we help our veterans who are in 

the most dire circumstances. 

We actually prioritize them. When we hear words like terminally 

ill, we hear words like on the verge of homelessness, we hear words 

like former prisoner of war, we hear words like Medal of Honor recipient, we prioritize those above all other claims. 

We routinely pull those out of the process and we raise those up 

and we do those quickly. So, I will start there by answering that 

question very clearly. 

Second, I will tell you that everything in this plan did not originate at 1800 G Street over in VA. In fact, every one of the initiatives that are in this plan were pulled together by including the 

thoughts of our employees. Many of the initiatives are employeegenerated initiatives. We could not do it without them. 

We have industry partners who are part of the process of helping 

us think this through. We have had conversations with Federal 

agencies that have gone through this before. I was at the IRS yesterday—we have meetings with them frequently—talking about 

how they went paperless, what were the issues that they saw, how 

can we prevent those issues as we go paperless. It’s the same with 

Social Security. 

We have definitely partnered with our VHA partners in doing 

this; and I would just say, VHA enjoyed the benefit of resources 

that VBA did not until 3 or 4 years ago. We were not so high on 

the priority budget list. We have been now and—I am so appreciative of that over the last 4 years, but we were not prior to this. 

Certainly not on the IT priority list. We are now. That is a very 

positive thing. 

But the last thing I really want to tell you is I leave today from 

this hearing and I go do what I have been doing for the last 4 

months. I get on a call with staff in all of our regional offices who 

are in VBMS today, all the way down to bargaining unit employees, and I ask them to tell me the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

We do it every week. I make every one of the program officers 

in there, all the IT people listening and these folks tell us like it 

is. When they do so, I take it, I task it, we get it fixed, and we get 

it done so that it gets better every single time. 

The people who are making VBMS today better are not our IT 

friends. It is our subject matter experts in the field who are getting 

on the system going bang, bang, bang on the keys, saying if you 

did that thing for me I could go much faster. 

They are doing that today by the bucket loads. I am so appreciative of getting that bargaining unit level employee’s input into 

our process and make sure that I get it every single week. I do not 

miss that phone call. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairman SANDERS. I thank you. You have stimulated interest, 

and there is a desire to ask you some more questions. So, we will 

go a second round. 

40 

Let me start that off by asking you something that I probably 

should have asked you at the very beginning. You know, we have 

talked about the 60-day requirement. We have talked about perhaps impediments in law. 

The goal of everybody up here is to see the claims process move 

as rapidly and as accurately as possible—no difference of opinion. 

If you were sitting here as a lawmaker, what changes would you 

make to help expedite the process, and say a few words. I know 

there are differences of opinion about the 60-day requirement and 

some of the VSOs have concerns about due process and so forth. 

Say a word about that but tell us what you would do up here in 

terms of law as to what we could do to expedite the process. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Chairman Sanders. 

First of all, I will tell you our appeals process today—I could take 

100 days and shave it off tomorrow if I had a standard notice of 

disagreement form. I do not. Our veterans do not have a standard 

form to appeal to us with, one that has all the information we need 

in order to identify that appeal. Frankly, we do not even know it 

is an appeal and we lose 100 days in the process. 

So, we have asked for a standard notice of disagreement appeal 

form. That is one way to cut the appeals process down. We have 

a new 526EZ form, which, by the way, is online to facilitate our online transmission like you do your taxes today. What the 526EZ 

form does is it takes the requirements for what has become a bit 

of a timeliness factor of back-and-forth mail, puts it right up front 

on the form and tells that veteran what we need from them in 

order to decide that claim. 

This fulfills part of our due process, part of our VCAA requirement, and when we do it electronically, I am not sending letters 

back and forth and the veteran is not sending letters back and 

forth. It has the ability to cut out time. 

If that were a mandatory form, that would be better for both the 

veteran and timeliness factors and it would be better for us to continue moving that claim. 

The other thing I will tell you is we are looking at this issue— 

which today I know a lot about—our pension recipients. I know 

they are in some of the most dire circumstances because there is 

a means-tested environment. 

I know when that pension veteran dies, today I am required by 

law to make that pension widow send me a claim and go back to 

the process to validate that pension. These are, for the most part, 

poverty-level widows that I ought to just be able to continue that 

pension, pay those pension widows at a very difficult time in their 

lives and then go back and audit them just to make sure that we 

are OK. I ought to have a period of time where I can do that. We 

are looking at that issue. I would need legislation to amend that 

issue. 

Those are the kind of things we are thinking about. I have 78 

percent of our veterans who are taking the GI Bill who tell me 

today, quit sending me the letter, just post it on eBenefits. I still 

have a requirement to send them a letter. That is cost. That is 

FTE. That is mail. That is ink. That is all the rest of those things. 

41 

Chairman SANDERS. I appreciate your comments and I suspect 

there is more that you are thinking about. I think this is an issue 

that we should explore together. 

Let me just ask you another question. As I understand it, VBMS 

is today operational in 18 regional offices. 

Ms. HICKEY. Twenty today. 

Chairman SANDERS. Twenty regional offices, right. And your testimony indicates that it will be deployed to the remaining 38 offices 

this year. 

Ms. HICKEY. We will have all 56 regional offices, yes, Chairman, 

on it by December of this year. 

Chairman SANDERS. Given the problems that keep popping up, 

are you confident that you can make that expansion work well? 

Ms. HICKEY. I am as of 28 January 2013. I believe I have a solid, 

not perfect, but a solid, dependable portal-to-decision system in 

place to be able to get more and more people on it, to be able to 

check it. 

Now, with that system in place, if I run into a problem, I am 

going to slow down. I am going to be methodical, deliberate, and 

I have demonstrated I will. I did it last fall. 

We were going to accelerate and put on those first ROs by a certain date. It had four major problems with it. I said, no, I will not 

deploy this until we get those four major problems fixed. 

They did. They fixed them. They are gone out of the system; and 

as a result, we went ahead and moved forward and now I have 20 

stations on. There will be another five next week. That is a solid 

system. Is it perfect? No. But our people will make it perfect. 

Chairman SANDERS. All right. My time is expiring here but what 

I would appreciate receiving from you as soon as possible is a 

memo telling me the very specific ideas that you have as to how 

Congress can move forward in helping the VA expedite the process 

and improve accuracy. Is that something you can get me? 

Ms. HICKEY. I can, Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. Thank you. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. General Hickey, I sense a level of frustration with 

some of the questions we have asked, and I feel compelled to state 

to you that most of the questions deal with prior testimony, prior 

goals established by you or within the VA. 

And I hope you do not take offense. I sense an obligation on the 

part of the Oversight Committee to track whether, in fact, you hit 

your goals and to fully explore if you do not what the reason was, 

to look at goals for next year, and to ask simple questions like what 

went into choosing that as a goal. 

One of the goals that you have out there right now is that the 

backlog is going to disappear in 2015. What is the plan if it does 

not? 

Ms. HICKEY. So, first, Senator Burr, I will apologize for my Irish 

heritage. Please do not interpret my hand-waving, pilot-talking excitement and energy around what we are doing right now as frustration; and I totally, totally understand and believe that you have 

oversight over what I do and hope to be very responsible to you in 

that regard. 

42 

So, my apologies for maybe perhaps projecting frustration. Not 

there. Not there at all with you. I will deliver for you as you need. 

But I have confidence that we will, in executing this plan, be better 

positioned for anything that happens. We have to do this. We cannot rely on the way we did things in the past. 

Senator BURR. We have wished a lot of years in disability claims 

as we have seen the trend to go up, we have seen the productivity 

of FTEs go down as we have added FTEs. You have seen the 

charts. You know the numbers. 

If the numbers are not right, again, I open up to you. Prove to 

me where I am wrong. I look at them. But if it does not work, what 

is the back-up plan? 

What do we do in 2015 if, in fact, we still see a trend going up 

of disability claims backlog? What do we do then? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Burr, you know one of my many jobs I had 

in my past life as an Air Force veteran was to help deploy quality 

management principles and practices and the idea that you never 

stop thinking you have got a perfect plan. You continue to look for 

ways in which to improve on what you have done. 

We will continue. From this point forward, we are doing it today. 

We are not even resting on what is in the plan. We are looking and 

delving into ways we can add even greater and greater 

functionality to the system. We are looking for ways in which we 

can shave off issues relative to accuracy. 

By the way, I would just like to tell you, we have actually this 

last year reversed a 4-year downward trend in our accuracy. We 

have increased our accuracy nationwide by almost 4 percentage 

points and we continue to do that by an investment that frankly 

is made in this plan, which is our new challenge training, which 

has resulted in people doing claims faster at a much higher quality 

level, as found by our quality review team people we have in the 

system. 

Senator BURR. Let me stop you if I can and I commend the 

Chairman for asking for your suggestions in writing. I would remind you, we have asked every year for the legislative changes 

that need to be made to facilitate a faster, more accurate system 

and, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time we have 

heard suggestions. 

Hopefully, those are things that you are going to work out with 

the VSOs because, as the Chairman said, VSOs have a little problem with the 60-day wait for the due process. But we are willing 

to entertain legislative changes where there is consensus and 

where there is a belief that we can improve accuracy and timeliness. 

Is there currently a hiring freeze on claims processors nationally? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Burr, there is not a hiring freeze on claims 

processors, but I will tell you I am maxed out right now for my end 

stream. I have everybody in a seat. 

Senator BURR. But there is not a directive at headquarters that 

there is a hiring freeze? 

Ms. HICKEY. No. 

Senator BURR. OK. 

43 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to end questions there, but I do want 

to loop back to something and it is something that Senator Begich 

stopped on. 

I am not going to ask the question again. I am just going to state 

fact. I think that this Committee needs the performance metrics 

that you do not find on the dashboard and you do not get in the 

monthly report for us to do our oversight correctly. I can only speak 

for myself. 

If we do not receive that, I will do everything I can to fence off 

headquarters money until the VA provides the Committee with 

that metrics performance. So, hopefully, take that back if, in fact, 

within the administration at VA that is a bit of information they 

do not want to share with us, then I will exercise the right of the 

Oversight Committee and the Authorizing Committee and I will 

work with appropriators to try to fence that off until we get it. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just say I think we have got to be very specific on what 

we are asking for if we are going to ask them to take time to do 

it. That is all. 

I think we need the information that we need to make our decisions and hold them accountable but it has got to be pretty specific 

what we are asking for and I do not mean to disagree in the least. 

Senator BURR. I will assure my good friend from Montana that 

I will put it in writing. It will be very specific, and it was specific. 

Senator TESTER. Metrics other than the dashboard; I think we 

need to be more specific than that. 

Senator BURR. I think General Hickey knows exactly what I am 

asking for. 

Senator TESTER. OK. That is good because I do not. 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Burr, I look forward to receiving your request with the ones that you are looking for. 

Senator TESTER. OK. First of all, I appreciate your passion and 

I think the Ranking Member is correct. We have asked and I very 

much appreciate you stepping up to the plate and giving us some 

good, solid, and I think pretty sound suggestions on how we can 

eliminate some of the red tape, so I want to thank you for that. 

I want to clarify a little bit on the Guard and Reserve medical 

records. Are they part of the guaranteed delivery from DOD to VA? 

Ms. HICKEY. They are, but there are complications, Senator Tester, with that. I will tell you that I have recently met with all the 

adjutants general from all the States, including yours, as well as 

the National Guard Bureau leadership here just in the last couple 

of weeks to ask for their help in getting a hold of National Guard 

records in particular, and I hope to be meeting with the Reserve 

leadership soon to do the same. 

The complication with National Guard records are that they have 

gone and served with units that are not in their States over the 

last decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

So, finding those records in other units in other States, in other 

places becomes a very, very difficult task. What I will tell you is 

the request I made of the adjutants general—and I have already 

had five come forward and say you bet you I will do it—is for them 

44 

to stand up people who stayed active duty, if nothing else, and help 

us go dig and find records on claims that we have that are in the 

National Guard. I am very appreciative of the National Guard adjutants general standing up to that task. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I think it is very, very important to get 

access to those records ASAP. These folks are being used as active 

military at this point in time. 

Ms. HICKEY. I agree with you. 

Senator TESTER. OK. You are familiar with Quick Start and 

VBMS discharge I would assume. 

Ms. HICKEY. Yes, I am. 

Senator TESTER. They have been described to me as pretty ineffective. In fact, if they do not use them, they tend to get their benefits quicker just going to the VA. Give me your assessment and if 

you have heard similar concerns. 

Ms. HICKEY. Very frankly, Senator Tester, when we were doing 

the Agent Orange work and when we were taking 37 percent of our 

workforce out of the system, that was every bit of our search capability across the country including all of the day-one brokering centers. Those are our 13 resource centers out there that handle national level work. 

All 13 of those were pointed at doing the Agent Orange Nehmer 

work. Therefore, what suffered in some respects, along with every 

other cohort of veterans, was our BDD and Quick Start work. 

The better news: as of March last year, we redirected our dayone brokering centers as soon as they finished the veterans’ Agent 

Orange claims, we redirected half of them toward BDD/Quick Start 

work. We have cut the inventory in half since doing that. 

And then, when we finished the survivor claims in October, we 

redirected more capability to work on the BDD/Quick Start claims. 

Senator TESTER. So, I got that. What you are saying is that the 

problem—because I am just trying to figure this out—the problem 

was not with the DOD, it was with the VA. And it was there because we gave you another job with the Agent Orange. 

Ms. HICKEY. Probably complicated by both. We still had to get 

medical records. We still had to get TRICARE and contract medical 

records but was less complicated by DOD in that process than it 

was with us and the fact that we are doing Agent Orange work. 

It took 37 percent of our workforce. 

Senator TESTER. OK. I got you. 

We have heard conflicting feedback from the VA advocates and 

employees regarding the role out of VBMS. Given the dramatic implications on not only the veterans but their families and the VA 

as a whole, there has been feedback that says there should be an 

independent panel to take a peek at what is going on. That has 

been the recommendation of the DAV, in fact. 

Do you think that would be appropriate, do you think that would 

be necessary, do you think it would be beneficial? 

Ms. HICKEY. I actually use a lot of independent feedback right 

now for doing this and have a lot of independent folks that like to 

come look at us. In fact, I am going through another OIG look and 

another GAO look right now since their previous reports. 

I also would say DAV and others have actually been very instrumental in helping us build the VBMS. We brought them in at the 

45 

requirements development portion of building the new paperless IT 

system. I depend heavily on all of our VSOs. I meet with them 

monthly and more frequently, if necessary. Frankly, I just took 

them down to Atlanta a month ago, and showed them the whole 

process end to end. 

Senator TESTER. So, what you are saying is outside of the DAV 

you are already using independent IT experts to review VBMS and 

its plans and its progress and that kind of stuff. 

Ms. HICKEY. I consider GAO and IG people fairly independent 

from VBA people and so I would say, yes. I have a fairly strong 

group of people keeping an eye on us and I think that one more 

set is not necessary at this time. 

Senator TESTER. Do they have the expertise in IT? 

Ms. HICKEY. I will defer to my colleague, Mr. Warren, on that 

issue. 

Senator TESTER. Go ahead. 

Mr. WARREN. I think to your question, does it make sense, is 

there value in inviting folks who know how to do the agile development methodology come in and look at what we are doing to make 

sure we are on the right path, makes sense. 

We tried going down this path and we kept running into Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in terms of how do you put advisory groups together. We have MITRE right now looking at the architecture, pulling in externals but finding a group, in the pure IT 

realm, because several times we have run into the oversight folks 

from the GAO and the IG not having the depth and knowledge necessary to truly understand what is agile, what is iterative. 

So, there is an interest. We have been trying to pursue it. We’ve 

run into some roadblocks. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. And once again I want to thank you 

guys for your service. I appreciate the job you do. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Tester. 

Senator Johanns. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA 

Senator JOHANNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here 

today. Let me, if I might, follow-up on Senator Tester’s question 

about the oversight group because I, having sat in a position similar to yours, you know; there was always a willingness to put together an oversight group. 

And as much as I value that, typically one of the things that I 

do not want to have happen is that, of course, with a new group 

everybody has to come up to speed. The group has to come up to 

speed, and we might be inadvertently actually slowing things 

down. 

Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator Johanns, thank you very much for that 

question. 

It does suck up energy when we have to work with another group 

for them to come in and look at it. We do not mind doing that. That 

is part of the rule of oversight. We will do that. 

But the very same people that are producing the data for how 

we are doing are the very same people that have to pull off that 

46 

task and now go and start working at gathering data and pulling 

data for new requirements that others need. 

So, it is a burden. It is a necessary burden in life to ensure that 

you are doing a good job. So, we will continue to do that for OIG 

and GAO and our partners that you asked to do, but it is a burden. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes. Let me ask you about the issue of the 

medical records with National Guard and, I guess, Reserve too, 

right? I note they are a part of the agreement. That would seem 

to be pretty straightforward. You provide medical records. 

But having said that, it is obviously not very straightforward. I 

do not want to pull rank on anybody, but it seems to me if you 

really need help with freeing up medical records, let us know and 

we can also make that request. Now again, I am sure that makes 

you a little uncomfortable, that you are end running people that 

you are trying to work with. But with the challenges you are dead 

stalled, right, until you get medical records? 

Ms. HICKEY. For the final decision, yes, Senator. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes. Until that happens you cannot get to a 

final decision I would not think. 

Ms. HICKEY. I can move the claim forward with the other kinds 

of evidence that I can gather, but I cannot make a decision on that 

claim; a rater cannot rate that claim until we have those medical 

records. 

Senator JOHANNS. Now, I am sure that is not the explanation to 

everything, obviously, but how many cases would be out there 

where you just simply need some medical records to move forward? 

Ms. HICKEY. I will give you an example by looking at the claims 

that we are really focused on right now, which are our very oldest 

claims, our 2-year and older claims; and I will tell you for every 

five of them, three of them are waiting medical records. 

Senator JOHANNS. That gives us a pretty good insight into at 

least a piece of the problem and if we could somehow jar that loose 

and you could deal with those claims in an expeditious way, it 

seems to me we take a pretty sizable step forward in dealing with 

these issues. 

Ms. HICKEY. It is a game changer, Senator. 

Senator JOHANNS. It would really be a game changer. The Chair 

asked you about a legislative approach. Again, I am guessing you 

are feeling uncomfortable, my goodness, I am trying to work with 

these people while somebody is pressing me about there being another strategy. 

I am interested in knowing and I think the Committee would be 

interested to know, is there another strategy to try to break the 

logjam here, get you medical records, get these claims decided, and 

get these people the benefits they deserve? 

Ms. HICKEY. So, to give credit to my DOD friends who are stepping forward with us through our joint governance bodies that have 

been working this issue, we recently made the decision between 

DOD and VA to do mandatory separation health exams. 

What that gets us is huge. That gives us a comparison between 

when you came into service and when you separate. At the time 

that you joined the military, you went through what we call a 

MEPS station, and we went extremely deep on your medical status 

at that time. 

47 

We do the same thing with a really good, strong, in-depth separation health exam at the end of your service. We now know everything that is service-connected between the two. 

DOD and VA have been working on that idea and we have the 

agreement now. We are digging in. The devil is in the details and 

we are working that issue inside of our governance structure process. 

Senator JOHANNS. Can you give us any kind of a sense of a 

timeline as to when you think you are going to work that intergovernmental process to a result? 

Ms. HICKEY. Left to me, you know, the energy that you see that 

can sometimes be seen as frustration is also the energy you see on 

‘‘get ’er done.’’ So, we are pushing hard to ‘‘get ’er done.’’ 

Senator JOHANNS. I would sure feel a lot more comfortable if 

there were some way you could look out there and say ‘‘get ’er 

done’’ means 12 months or 18 months or something else, because 

I think this is sizable. I think if there were a breakthrough, you 

would be back here a year from now saying I have got a great story 

to tell you. 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator, we have one of these meetings coming up 

shortly. I will push to see if we cannot get some milestones in 

place. 

Senator JOHANNS. And we would love to hear about it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Johanns. 

Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me follow up on that very good question by Senator Johanns. 

In one of your comments you said, ‘‘left to your own devices.’’ Is 

there something we can do to help with other agencies or groups 

that you are working with? 

Ms. HICKEY. Senator, there are two groups I would say will help 

us make this transformation. One is our private medical physicians 

who can now give us medical evidence for 71 of our 81 major body 

systems that they fill out on a form called a Disability Benefits 

Questionnaire. We shorten it to DBQ. 

When they fill that out, those boxes are made to give us explicitly the data that we need to make a decision. Today our VHA doctors are giving us those forms, and have been since the inception, 

and we have received 1.5 million of them. That helps us to make 

that decision right the first time if it is filled out completely. 

We have about 15,000 since we have initiated this with private 

medical physicians. Reaching out to the Nation’s private doctors 

and asking them to help us take care of these veterans by doing 

DBQ’s is another way to bring in the body of the Nation’s help for 

these veterans. 

The second thing I will tell you is actually in the veterans themselves. They can help us by bringing us the medical records they 

do have, by giving us copies of their DD–214, by filing online from 

this point forward, and then coming online and using our VSOs. 

I actually think we will have better, higher quality claims if our 

veterans go to a VSO across the board for assistance in bringing 

us in a fully developed claim, bringing us in all of the evidence we 

need to make a decision on that claim. 

48 

Our VSOs are trained very well on how to do that. I rely on them 

across-the-board, not only our VSOs in national organizations, but 

our State and county service officers are involved and engaged in 

that as well. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me ask you. Do you keep or can 

you develop—now that we are ending the second war that we have 

been engaged in the last 10 years, are you able to say over the next 

period of time, assuming certain growth rates in the Army and the 

Air Force and other services, what the VA numbers that you have 

to manage will be? Do you have such a document you could share 

with the Committee? Do you see? 

Ms. HICKEY. Yes, I do. 

Senator BEGICH. Can you project out and say, OK, by such-andsuch a day we are going to be—— 

Ms. HICKEY. I do, Senator. I will tell you that I have rudimentary capability. I will not tell you I have a model akin to what 

the VHA has, but I am building it right now. 

That is something we needed to do in VBA and we are doing it 

now. I will tell you what will drive VBA’s workload that is different 

than the way VHA looks at it. VHA looks at it from a veteran who 

is utilizing medical care. I have to look at it from how many medical issues inside a claim will drive workload. And that is a shift. 

Senator BEGICH. A given variable. 

Ms. HICKEY. It is a different variable. Our World War II veterans 

filed maybe 20 percent of the time with one or two medical issues. 

Our Vietnam veterans filed three to four medical issues maybe 25– 

28 percent of the time. 

Today’s veteran is filing at a much higher rate and with many 

more medical conditions inside of their claim. Why? One, we have 

done outreach, phenomenal outreach over the last 4 years. In fact, 

the year before last we touched 269,000 veterans. This last year we 

touched 609,000 veterans to teach them about their benefits. 

Senator BEGICH. Got you. Last question. When you mentioned 

the National Guard, you mentioned there are five States that have 

actually added personnel or done something internally to help 

amend your work. Is that what I heard? 

Ms. HICKEY. This is a brand-new thing, less than a month old. 

They have agreed to try to help us by standing up that capability. 

I will tell you one of the adjutants general that I believe does the 

best of this across the Nation—he is certainly held up by my personnel—is the Indiana TAG who has been helping us remarkably 

well already. I believe he sort of sets the bar. 

Senator BEGICH. A good model. 

Ms. HICKEY. A good model. He has people on the call, on the 

phone, ready to go look for that veteran’s medical information, that 

veteran’s personnel records to help us close on that claim. 

Senator BEGICH. Is Alaska one of those five yet? 

Ms. HICKEY. They are actually doing well in Alaska. I know we 

have a new regional office director over there for the last year and 

one-half. I am hearing very positive things about him from your 

State director. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. 

49 

Ms. HICKEY. I actually believe you will see Alaska’s numbers 

looking very good this year compared to where they have been in 

the past. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me end, Mr. Chairman, to say, 

you know, we love our veterans in Alaska. We have 77,000 veterans, one of the highest per capita in the Nation, and the VA does 

exceptional work. We have these challenges. You recognize that we 

have to continue to work through them. 

I just want to thank you and your team and the many people 

who work on the front lines every day trying to deal with the huge 

demands that are increasing literally daily on your organization 

and other veterans’ organizations. 

So, thank you for your testimony. Thanks for suffering through 

some of our questions. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Senator Sanders, and thank 

you for holding this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for 

your service to our Nation. 

General Hickey, I have been following some of your testimony 

and I apologize if my questions may repeat some of what you have 

already said. But I would like to take a moment to focus on the 

‘‘people’’ piece of the VBA’s transformation efforts. 

I have heard from some of the employees in Connecticut as to 

how they are evaluated in terms of claim processing, and many 

have said that they believe that the system actually values quantity over quality and accuracy. Accuracy obviously is an extraordinarily important part of what they do. 

Their view about quantity over quality and accuracy seems to be 

inconsistent or contradictory to what you have shared so far with 

this panel today. So, I wonder if you could please expand on how 

the VBA evaluates its employees and incentivizes high performance. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. I will be happy to 

do that. 

First and foremost, I would like to say, the 20,000 employees 

that work in VBA every day are absolutely committed to this mission in a way that is not driven by a job or a paycheck. 

It is driven by the fact that 52 percent of them are veterans 

themselves; and when I go to ROs and I have been to 36 or 37 of 

them now—I’ve lost count—I talk to those employees and ask how 

many of them have a direct family member who is a veteran. Ninety-eight percent of the hands go up in the room. 

That is why they do this job every day, and they come to work 

every day working hard to try to make a difference for our veterans 

and family members and survivors. 

Here is what I will tell you. I have heard some of the same 

things that you have heard. I am trying to change it. It is a culture 

change. The way I am trying to change it is to have made bigger 

emphasis over the last year and a half on quality. 

50 

My message to everyone is, it is not an either/or decision. It is 

not production over quality but you also cannot spend forever doing 

one claim and not get it done fast enough. 

So, that is why I made a serious investment in challenge training. We have totally redone the way in which we train our personnel and there are great results as a consequence of doing that 

challenge training. 

In the past, basically you got taught somewhere between 1 and 

6 months how to do it. You largely got a little curriculum and your 

buddy next door that taught you how they did their claims. That 

is how you got taught to do your claim. 

Today we do not do that. We have a national curriculum built 

by award-winning people who know how to develop curriculum, 

that are trained to do that. There are pre-tests and post-tests. 

There is actual live claims development in the course. We check 

you at the 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month process to see how you are doing 

and how you are sustaining. 

The results of many of those classes now are the following: if you 

are a new person who has gone through the challenge training, in 

the first 6 months you are capable of doing 150 percent more 

claims than your predecessors who did not go through challenge 

training at a 30 percent increase in accuracy, and I have data to 

support that. 

The second thing I have done is I took 583 people who were 

doing claims off the line and I invested them into checking and improving the quality of those claims. They have been doing that 

under the name QRT, Quality Review Team, for the last year. They 

are inside the ROs. They are trained to the standards of our national quality team and they are managed and monitored at that 

level. 

I believe we had too much of a ‘‘got you’’ in this area so what 

I asked those Quality Reviews Teams to do is take claims that are 

in process out of the place where we nationally have problems. You 

pull those claims. You find them. Where you see an error, you go 

to that person, that employee and they fix it now; it does not count 

against their performance. 

It is a Mulligan, it is a do over. Fix it now. The benefit we get 

out of that is, one, it is not a ‘‘got you.’’ So, employees do not feel 

this overwhelming pressure. 

Two, it is a training moment. They are now learning how to do 

that right before they have gone three or four more months of 

doing it wrong. So, we have data that shows we have caught several areas and reversed those as a result of that. 

The other thing that I will tell you that I have just done, and 

we have just finished all the work to make it so, is look at quality 

by individual medical issue. A veteran comes in to us in the way 

you all see, I think many people see us in the world as processing 

one claim. We do not do one claim. We do all the individual medical 

issues that are each treated as an individual claim. 

Our people who are doing the claims, though, are not rated on 

how well they did all of those individual medical issues, which is 

where the real work is and where the real decisions happen. Instead, they are rated on the overall claim. It is a 100 percent up 

or down vote. 

51 

So, if you have, as we are receiving today, 16-medical issue 

claims and you do 15 of those 16 perfectly, and you miss it on the 

16th, you are not given a 90 percent. You are given a zero. 

But today I have changed the system. I am changing the rules 

to say, your quality as an employee will be rated on how you do 

individual medical issues, and then we will be able to have a better 

conversation. We will be able to look at your quality better according to where the real work happens at the medical issue level. 

I will tell you the results. I know already since October I have 

11 stations right now today that are at 98 percent quality when I 

look at it as a medical issue level quality. 

I have half my stations at 95 percent quality when I look at them 

from the medical issue level. All of my stations but two are above 

90 percent quality when I look at them from the medical issue 

level. 

When I give you credit for the things you do right, but I get you 

to re-do the ones you do not, I grade you on the ones you do not. 

That is what we are doing. That is what I am trying to do to 

really help our employees understand it is an ‘‘and’’ equation. It is 

production and quality, and we are building rules into the VBMS 

that help them with that. We are building calculators that help 

them with that, all to drive their quality higher. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I appreciate that answer, which was excellent. It actually answered some of my follow-up questions. But I 

want to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, ask one more quick question. Or, 

maybe I will submit it for the record. It concerns the transition 

from two separate electronic medical systems to a single one. I 

know there have been questions about it before, and maybe I can 

follow up, Mr. Chairman, with questions submitted in writing. 

Chairman SANDERS. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman SANDERS. Well, this brings our testimony to a close. 

General Hickey and your staff there, this issue I think you have 

heard from everybody up here is the major issue concerning the 

veterans’ organizations and veterans throughout this country and 

this Committee. 

So, we are going to monitor what you do very, very closely. But 

we are not going to do only that. We need your ideas, as I indicated 

earlier, and your advice as to how legislatively and in other ways 

we can be effective in expediting the process and improving accuracy. It is an effort that we are going to have to work together on. 

I look forward to doing that. 

Last, my wife is Irish. Your emotionalism does not make me 

nervous. You have not thrown anything at me yet. So, thank you 

very much for the hard work and the focus you are giving to the 

issue. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HICKEY. Thank you. 

Chairman SANDERS. We will now hear from our next panel. Let 

me thank our panelists for being here. I want to welcome Daniel 

Bertoni, who is the Director of Education, Workforce, and Income 

Security for the Government Accountability Office, the GAO. 

Following Mr. Bertoni is Joseph Thompson. Mr. Thompson formally served as the Under Secretary for Benefits at the DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ACTIVE\031313.TXT PAULIN
52 

ment of Veterans Affairs and currently serves as Project Director 

with the National Academy of Public Administration. 

Following Mr. Thompson we have Bart Stichman—I hope I am 

pronouncing that correctly—who is the Joint Executive Director of 

the National Veterans Legal Services Program. 

And certainly last but not least, we have Joe Violante, who does 

a great job as the National Legislative Director for the DAV, the 

Disabled American Veterans. 

Thank you all very much for being with us. Mr. Bertoni if you 

could begin. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. BERTONI. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, Members of 

the Committee, good morning. 

I am pleased to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation claims process which paid over $39 billion in 

benefits to over 3 million veterans last year. 

For years, VA’s disability process has been the subject of concern 

to many due to long waits for decisions and large numbers of pending claims. Moreover, since 2009, VA’s backlogs of claims has more 

than tripled to nearly 600,000. 

My statement today is based on our December 2012 report and 

discusses factors contributing to the lengthy claims and appeals 

processing and the status of VA’s efforts to improve service delivery. 

In summary, we found that rising workloads along with program 

rules and inefficient processes have contributed to lengthy processing times. As the population of new veterans has swelled in recent years, the number of claims received by VBA increased 29 percent over 2009 levels. 

These claims generally have a high number of disabling conditions and often involving impairments which make their assessment more complex. 

Moreover, due to new regulations establishing benefit eligibility 

for new diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure, VBA diverted substantial staff resources from 2010 to 2012 to adjudicate 

260,000 additional claims, further exasperating workloads and 

challenging its ability to make timely decisions for all claims. 

Issues with design and implementation of the program have also 

contributed to timeliness challenges. For example, the law requires 

VA to assist veterans in obtaining all relevant records from both 

public and private sources. However, delays in obtaining military 

records, especially for Guard and Reserve, and Social Security Administration medical records have impacted the timeliness of 

decisions. 

Program rules require steps to consider all evidence submitted 

even if it is provided very late in the process, possibly delaying a 

decision for several months. 

Further, VBA’s paper-based claims processing system involves 

multiple handoffs which can lead to misplaced and lost documents 

and cause unnecessary delays. As a result, the evidence gathering 

53 

phase alone of VBA’s claims process took an average 157 days last 

year. 

VBA has a number of initiatives under way to improve the timeliness of claims and appeals processing, although prospects for improvement are uncertain. This includes using contractors to assist 

with evidence gathering for nearly 300,000 claims and shifting 

workloads from regional offices with large backlogs to 13 specialized processing centers. 

VBA is also modifying certain procedures to speed decisionmaking. For example, veterans can now receive expedited processing for submitting claims that are certified as having all required evidence. However, to-date very few veterans have elected 

this option. 

To decrease the time it takes to gather medical evidence, VBA 

is also using contractors to obtain medical records from private 

physicians and encouraging the use of standardized forms for submitting information. However, results to date have been mixed. 

The agency has also redesigned its claims process model whereby 

specialized teams triage and process claims based on complexity. 

As of December 2012, VBA had implemented this initiative at 51 

regional offices. 

Finally, the agency is developing a paperless claims processing 

system which will ultimately allow staff electronic access to claims 

and supporting evidence. 

However, at the time of our review, the system was not ready for 

national deployment due to a number of software and performance 

issues. Despite these challenges VBA still intends to fully implement the system by the end of calendar year 2013. 

In conclusion, we have noted that VA’s efforts to improve the disability claims process should be driven by a comprehensive plan. 

However, when we reviewed the documents, we found that they fell 

short of established criteria. 

Specifically VBA could not provide us with a robust plan that 

tied together its many varied initiatives, their interrelationships, 

and the subsequent impact on claims and appeals processing. 

We also noted that absent such a plan to manage and evaluate 

the effectiveness of its efforts, the agency risks spending limited resources on initiatives that may not sufficiently expedite disability 

claims process. 

Subsequent to our report and recommendations, the agency published an ambitious plan to eliminate the compensation claims 

backlog in 2015. While this plan includes additional performance 

metrics and a discussion of implementation of risks, it still falls 

short in the areas of performance measurement, risk mitigation, 

and some key assumptions. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee 

may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni follows:] 

54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE


313psBER1.eps
55 


313psBER2.eps

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the 

Committee: 

I am pleased to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) 

disability benefits program, which provides monetary support to veterans 

with disabling conditions that were incurred or aggravated during military 

service. In fiscal year 2013, VA estimates it will provide $59.6 billion in 

compensation benefits to 3.98 million veterans and their families. ' For 

years, the disability claims process has been the subject of concern and 

attention by VA, Congress, and Veterans Service Organizations (VSO), 

due in part to long waits for decisions and the large number of pending 

claims. For example, the average length of time to complete a claim 

increased from 161 days in fiscal year 2009 to 260 days in fiscal year 

2012.' Moreover, VA's backlog of claims-defined as claims awaiting a 

decision for over 125 days-has more than tripled since September 2009. 

In August 2012, approximately two-thirds of the 568,043 compensation 

rating claims-which include pension and disability rating claims-were 

backlogged3 In addition, timeliness of appeals processing at VA regional 

offices has also slowed by 56 percent over the last several years. 

My remarks are based on a GAO report released on December 21,2012, 

titled Veterans' Disability Benefits: Timely Processing Remains a 

Daunting Challenge, and, also include information updated to reflect the 

status of improvement efforts. My testimony focuses on (1) factors that 

contribute to lengthy disability claims and appeals processing times at VA 

regional offices and (2) status of the Veterans Benefits Administration's 

(VBA) recent improvement efforts. To conduct this work, we reviewed 

relevant federal laws and regulations, court decisions, VBA policy 

manuals, and training materials. We also reviewed past GAO and VA 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) reports and VBA studies, evaluations 

relevant to claims and appeals processing at VBA regional offices, and 

interviewed VBA central office officials and VSO representatives who 

assist veterans with their claims and appeals. We also met with staff from 

benefits 'Include disability benefits as well as other benefits, such as 

clothing allowance, and special allowance for dependents. 

2From the beginning of fiscal year 2012 through August 2012, the average number of 

days it took VA to complete a claim was 260 days. 

3VBA does not report out on disability rating compensation claims separately. 

Page 1 GAO-13-453T 
56 


313psBER3.eps

five VA regional offices-Atlanta, Georgia; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, 

California; New York, New York; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We 

selected offices based on size of metropolitan area, claims workload, and 

timeliness of claims and appeals processing. Our work was performed in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, we found a number of factors-both external and internal to 

VBA-have contributed to the increase in processing times and 

subsequent growth in the backlog of veterans' disability compensation 

claims. For example, the number of claims received by VBA has 

increased as the population of new veterans has swelled in recent years. 

Moreover, due to new regulations that established eligibility for benefits 

for new diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure, VBA 

adjudicated 260,000 previously denied and new claims for related 

impairments. Beyond these external factors, issues with the design and 

implementation of the program have also contributed to timeliness 

challenges. For example, the law requires VA to assist veterans in 

obtaining records that support their claim. However, VBA officials said 

that delays in obtaining military records-particularly for members of the 

National Guard and Reserve-and Social Security Administration (SSA) 

medical records impact VA's duty to assist, possibly delaying a decision 

on a veteran's disability claim. Further, VBA's paper-based claims 

processing system involves multiple hand-offs, which can lead to 

misplaced and lost documents and cause unnecessary delays. 

Concerning timeliness of appeals, VBA regional offices have in recent 

years shifted resources away from appeals and towards claims, which 

has led to lengthy appeals timeframes. 

VBA has a number of initiatives underway to improve the timeliness of 

claims and appeals processing. Such efforts include leveraging VBA staff 

and contractors to manage workload, modifying and streamlining 

procedures, improving records acquisition, and redesigning the claims 

and appeals processes. According to VBA officials, these efforts will help 

VA process all veterans' claims within VA's stated target goal of 125 days 

by 2015. However, the extent to which VA is positioned to meet its 

ambitious processing timeliness goal remains uncertain. VBA provided us 

with several planning documents, but, at the time of our review, could not 

provide us with a plan that met established criteria for sound planning, 

such as articulating performance measures for each initiative, including 

their intended impact on the claims backlog. We have recommended that 

VBA (1) partner with military officials to reduce timeframes to gather 

records from National Guard and Reserve sources, (2) work with SSA to 

reduce timeframes to gather SSA medical records, and (3) develop a 

Page 2 GAO-13-453T 
57 


313psBER4.eps

Background 

robust plan for its improvement initiatives that identifies performance 

goals that include the impact of individual initiatives on processing 

timeliness. VA generally agreed with our conclusions and concurred with 

our recommendations, and identified efforts that it has planned or 

underway to address them. 

VA's disability compensation claims process starts when a veteran 

submits a claim to VA (see fig. 1). A claim folder is created at 1 of VA's 57 

regional offices, and a Veterans Service Representative (VSR) then 

reviews the claim and helps the veteran gather the relevant evidence 

needed to evaluate the claim. Such evidence includes the veteran's 

military service records, medical examinations, and treatment records 

from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical facilities and private 

medical service providers. Also, if necessary to provide support to 

substantiate the claim, VA will provide a medical examination for the 

veteran. Once VBA has gathered the supporting evidence, a Rating 

Veterans Service Representative (RVSR)-who typically has more 

experience at VBA than a VSR-evaluates the claim and determines 

whether the veteran is eligible for benefits. If so, the RVSR assigns a 

percentage rating 4 A veteran may subsequently reopen a claim to 

request an increase in disability compensation from VA if, for example, a 

service-connected disability worsens or a new disability arises. 

If the veteran disagrees with VA's decision regarding a claim, he or she 

can submit a written Notice of Disagreement to the regional office 

handling the claim.' In response to such a notice, VBA reviews the case 

and provides the veteran with a written explanation of the decisionknown as a Statement of the Case-if VBA does not grant all appealed 

4VA's ratings are awarded in 10 percent increments, from 0 to 100 percent. 38 USC. § 

1155. Generally, VA does not pay disability compensation for disabilities rated at 0 

percent. As of December 2012, basic monthly payments ranged from $129 for a veteran 

with 10 percent disability and no dependents to $3,340 for a veteran with 100 percent 

disability and a spouse, two parents, and a child. 

538 U.S.C. § 7105. A Notice of Disagreement is a written communication that a claimant 

uses to express disagreement with a decision. 

Page 3 GAO-13-453T 
58 


313psBER5.eps

issues.' If the veteran further disagrees with the decision, he or she may 

appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) which conducts a 

hearing at the veteran's request, then grants benefits, denies the appeal, 

or returns the case to VBA to obtain additional evidence necessary to 

decide the claim. If the veteran is dissatisfied with the Board's decision, 

he or she may appeal, in succession, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims, to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and 

finally to the Supreme Court of the United States T 

Figure 1: Overview of VA's Disability Claims Process 

Veteran _ Establishing !-----+ submits claim 

claim 'Clalmflle 

to VA created or 

. ~ requested 

I from storage 

-Record 

enlered mlo VAs 

trackmgsystem 

Initiating [-----+ development 

• Service medical 

records requested 

• Medical examination 

requested 

• Private medical 

records requested 

• 30-day VCAA notice 

10 veterans 

Source GAO analys,s ofV8A procedures 

Note· The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) requires VA to notify veterans of the 

Information necessary to evaluate a claim. If the veteran does not respond to this notice within 30 

days, VA may make a decISion on the claim based on the information and evidence in the file al that 

time. 

In recent years, VA compensation claims processing timeframes have 

increased. Specifically, the average days pending increased from 116 

days in fiscal year 2009 to 254 days in fiscal year 20128 During the same 

61f VBA grants some, but not all, of the issues in an appeal or if the grant is less than the 

maximum allowable benefit for the issues under appeal, VBA must send a written 

explanation of the reasons for the decision. VBA is also obligated to send a letter 

explaining the decision in cases where the veteran's appeal includes a request to be rated 

at a specific percentage, but VBA has decided to grant the appeal at less than that 

requested percentage. 

738 U.S.C. §§ 7252 and 7292. 

BVA's average days pending metric is calculated fiscal year-to-date; therefore, it took 254 

days on average to complete a claim once received through the first 11 months of fiscal 

year 2012-0ctober 2011 through August 2012. VBA calculates the average days 

pending for a fiscal year on the last day of the year and for the month on the last day of 

every month. 

Page 4 GAO-13-453T 
59 


313psBER6.eps

time period, the average days to complete increased from 161 to 260 

days.' VBA also collects data on the timeliness of the different phases of 

the claims process, which is used to identify trends and bottlenecks 

throughout the process. In fiscal year 2011, each phase took longer on 

average than its stated agency timeliness target (see fig. 2). In fiscal year 

2011, the national averages for the initiating development, gathering 

evidence, and rating decision phases were 44, 72, and 57 days, 

respectively, over their timeliness targets. 

Figure 2: Timeliness of Phases in VA's Claims Process for Fiscal Year 2011 

Establishing Initiating 

National 

average 

National 

target 

claim development 

50 

Time (m days) 

Rising Workloads, 

along with Program 

Rules, Record 

Gathering, and 

Inefficient Processes, 

Contribute to Lengthy 

Processing Time 

Frames 

100 150 200 2,. 

Source GAO anal)"lts of V8A data 

Rating 

decIsion 

Processing 

award 

JOO 

318 

350 

Note: While VBA's staled goals are to process all claims within 125 days by fiscal year 2015, VBA 

established targets for each phase In the claims process for fiscal year 2011 that collectively add up 

to 132 days 

In recent years, VA's claims processing production has not kept pace with 

the substantial increase in incoming claims. In fiscal year 2011, VA 

completed over 1 million compensation rating claims, a 6 percent 

increase from fiscal year 2009. However, the number of VA compensation 

rating claims received had grown 29 percent-from 1,013,712 in fiscal 

year 2009 to 1,311,091 in fiscal year 2011 (see fig. 3). As a result, the 

number of backlogged claims-defined as those claims awaiting a 

decision for more than 125 days-has increased substantially since 2009. 

As of August 2012, VA had 856,092 pending compensation rating claims, 

of which 568,043 (66 percent) were considered backlogged. 

9The average days to complete metric measures the average processing time for claims 

completed within a given time period. 

Page 5 GAO-13-453T 
60 


313psBER7.eps

Figure 3: VA Compensation Rating Claims Received, Completed, and Backlogged, 

Fiscal Years 2009 to 2011 

Received 

Claims{mmlilions) 

1.4 13 ,-- 12 1.2 ,--

1.0~ 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

2009 2010 2011 

Fiscal year 

Source GAO analySIS of VBA data 

Completed 

11 

2009 2010 2011 

Backlogged 

05 

0211 

IILIdI 

2009 2010 2011 

One factor that contributed to the substantial increase in claims received 

was the commencement in October 2010 of VBA's adjudication of 

260,000 previously denied and new claims when a presumptive service 

Page 6 GAO-13-453T 
61 


313psBER8.eps

connection was established for three additional Agent Orange diseases. 'o 

VBA gave these claims a high priority and assigned experienced claims 

staff to process and track them. VBA officials said that 37 percent of its 

claims processing resources nationally were devoted to adjudicating 

Agent Orange claims from October 2010 to March 2012. VBA officials in 

one regional office we spoke to said that all claims processing staff were 

assigned solely to developing and rating Agent Orange claims for 4 

months in 2011, and that no other new and pending claims in the regional 

office's inventory were processed during that time. Also during this time 

period, special VBA teams-known as brokering centers-which 

previously accepted claims and appeals from regional offices 

experiencing processing delays, were devoted exclusively to processing 

Agent Orange claims. According to VBA, other factors that contributed to 

the growing number of claims include an increase in the number of 

veterans from the military downsizing after 10 years of conflict in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, improved outreach activities and transition services to 

servicemembers and veterans, and difficult financial conditions for 

veterans during the economic downturn. 

Similar to claims processing, VA regional office appeals processing has 

not kept pace with incoming appeals received. For example, in fiscal year 

2012, VA received 121,786 Notices of Disagreement. However, the 

number of Statements of the Case that were processed by VBA was only 

76,685. As a result, the number of Notice of Disagreements awaiting a 

10VBA was required to adjudicate these claims as a result of requirements related to the 

Nehmer litigation. Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, eiv. Action No. 86-

6160 (N.D. Cal.). In the preamble to a proposed rule amending its claim adjudication 

regulations (75 Fed. Reg. 14,391 (March 25, 2010)), VA summarized the Nehmer litigation 

generally as follows: this litigation was initiated In 1986 to challenge a VA regulation, 

which has since been rescinded, that limited the diseases shown to be associated with 

herbicide exposure. In an order issued May 3,1989, the court invalidated the portion of 

the regulation that limits diseases associated with herbicide exposure and vOided all VA 

decisions denying benefit claims under that portion of the regulation. Nehmer v. United 

States Veterans' Administration, 712 F. Supp. 1404 (N. D. Cal. 1989). Pursuant to a 

stipulation agreed to by the parties, VA must provide for readjudication of class members' 

claims and payment of retroactive benefits whenever VA identifies a new disease that IS 

associated with herbicide exposure and adds a new disease to its regulatory list. In 

addition, pursuant to the Agent Orange Act of 1991, VA is required to issue new 

regulations establishing additional presumptions of service connection for diseases that 

the Secretary finds to be associated with exposure to an herbicide agent. 38 U.S.C. 

§ 1116(b). Accordingly, VA amended its adjudication regulations In August 2010 to 

establish presumptive service connection for ischemic heart disease, Parkinson's disease, 

as well as hairy cell leukemia and other chronic B-ceilleukemias. 75 Fed. Reg. 53,202 

(August 31,2010). 

Page 7 GAO-13-453T 
62 


313psBER9.eps

decision grew 76 percent from fiscal years 2009 to 2012 and, during that 

period, the time it took VA to process a Statement of the Case increased 

57 percent-from 293 days to 460 days on average. 

According to VBA officials, staff shortages represent a primary reason 

that appeals timeliness at VA regional offices has worsened. For 

example, VBA officials at each of the five regional offices we met with 

stated that over the last several years appeals staff have also had to train 

and mentor new staff, conduct quality reviews, as well as develop and 

rate disability claims to varying degrees. A 2012 VA OIG report noted that 

VA regional office managers did not assign enough staff to process 

appeals, diverted staff from processing appeals, and did not ensure that 

appeals staff acted on appeals promptly because, in part, they were 

assigned responsibilities to process initial claims, which were given higher 

priority. 11 

According to VA officials, federallaws '2 and court decisions" over the 

past decade have expanded veterans' entitlement to benefits but have 

also added requirements that can negatively affect claims processing 

times. For example, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) 

added a requirement that VA assist a veteran who files a claim in 

obtaining evidence to substantiate the claim before making a decision. '4 

This requirement includes helping veterans obtain all relevant federal and 

l1 The VA OIG made several recommendations regarding appeals resources and 

processing steps to help VBA meet their appeals procesSing goals. VBA agreed with the 

VA OIG's findings and IS conducting a pilot to assess the feasibility of addressing these 

recommendations. VA Office of Inspector General, Veterans Benefits Administration: AudIt 

of VA Regional Office's Appeals Management Processes, (Washington D.C.: 

May 30, 2012). 

12Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-389; Veterans' Benefits 

Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No.108-454; Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 

108-183; and Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475. 

13See, for example, Haas v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 257 (2006); Moody v. Principi, 360 

F.3d 1306 (Fed. Glr. 2004); Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004); and 

Disabled American Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

2003). 

1438 U.S.C. § S103A(a)(1). 

Page 8 GAO-13-453T 
63 


313psBER10.eps

non-federal records.15 VA is required to continue trying to obtain federal 

records, such as VA medical records, military service records, and Social 

Security records, until they are either obtained or the associated federal 

entity indicates the records do not exist. VA may continue to process the 

claim and provide partial benefits to the veteran, but the claim cannot be 

completed until all relevant federal evidence is obtained. 

Because VA must consider all evidence submitted throughout the claims 

and appeals process, if a veteran submits additional evidence or adds a 

condition to a claim late in the process it can require rework and may 

subsequently delay a decision, according to VBA central office officials. 

VBA officials at regional offices we spoke to said that submitting 

additional evidence may add months to the claims process. New 

evidence must first be reviewed to determine what additional action, if 

any, is required. Next, another notification letter must be sent to the 

veteran detailing the new evidence necessary to redevelop the claim. VA 

may also have to obtain additional records or order another medical 

examination before the claim can be rated and a decision made. 

Furthermore, while VA may continue to process the claim and provide 

partial benefits to the veteran, a claim is not considered "complete" until a 

decision is made on all submitted conditions. Moreover, a veteran has up 

to 1 year, from the notification of VA's decision, to submit additional 

evidence in support of the claim before the decision is considered final. 

Similarly, for an appeal, veterans may submit additional evidence at any 

time during the process. If the veteran submits additional evidence late in 

the process after VA completes a Statement of the Case, VA must review 

the new evidence, reconsider the appeal, and provide another written 

explanation of its decision-known as a Supplemental Statement of the 

15VA will make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records that are not in the custody of 

a federal department or agency, which can include records from state or local 

governments, private medical-care providers, current or former employers, and other nonfederal governmental sources. Reasonable efforts generally consist of an initial request for 

the records, and, if the records are not received, at least one follow-up request 15 days 

later. A follow-up request is not required if a response to the initial request indicates that 

the records sought do not eXist or that a follow-up request for the records would be futile. 

38 C.F.R. § 3.159. 

Page 9 GAO-13-453T 
64 


313psBER11.eps

Case.16 Congress recently passed a law allowing VA to waive review of 

additional evidence submitted after the veteran has filed a substantive 

appeal and instead have the new evidence reviewed by the Board to 

expedite VA's process of certifying appeals to the Board'" 

According to VBA officials, delays in obtaining military service and 

medical treatment records, particularly for National Guard and Reserve 

members, have significantly lengthened the evidence gathering phase. 

According to VBA officials, 43 percent of Global War on Terror veterans 

are National Guard and Reserve members. Department of Defense 

(DOD) guidance requires military staff to respond to VA requests for 

National Guard and Reserve records in support of VA disability 

compensation claims. 18 However, VBA area directors and officials at all 

five regional offices we met with acknowledged that delays in obtaining 

these records are system-wide. Military records of National Guard or 

Reserve members can often be difficult to obtain, in particular, because 

these servicemembers typically have multiple, non-consecutive 

deployments with different units and their records may not always be held 

with their reserve units and may exist in multiple places. Moreover, 

according to VBA officials, National Guard and Reserve members may be 

treated by private providers between tours of active duty and VA may 

have to contact multiple military personnel and private medical providers 

16A Supplemental Statement of the Case presents the appellant with changes or additions 

to the Statement of the Case. These changes and additions are usually based on 

additional evidence received after the issuance of the Statement of the Case, before or 

after receipt of a substantive appeal, or after a remand. VBA will issue a Supplemental 

Statement of the Case to the appellant when (1) the Statement of the Case or 

Supplemental Statement of the Case was prepared before receipt of additional eVidence 

unless the eVidence is duplicate or unrelated to the issue under appeal; (2) the new 

evidence does not result in a total grant of the Issue under appeal; (3) the appellant 

appeared for a personal hearing; (4) an amended decision has been made, or (5) a 

material error is discovered In the Statement of the Case. 

17The Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, 

Pub. L. No. 112-154, § 501, 126 Stat. 1165, 1190. A claimant may request in writing that 

the VA regional office initially review the evidence. 

18000 Instruction 6040.45 states "In the case of the Reserve Component member who 

does not separate from Service, but applies or plans to apply for VA benefits, a copy of 

the STR [Service Treatment Record] shall be sent to the VARO [VA regional office] of 

jurisdiction in relation to the member's residence. The original service treatment record 

shall be maintained at their Permanent Duty Station, Reserve, or Guard unit as 

applicable." 

Page 10 GAO-13-453T 
65 


313psBER12.eps

to obtain all relevant records, potentially causing delays in the evidence 

gathering process. 

Difficulties obtaining SSA medical records can also lengthen the evidence 

gathering phase. Although VBA regional office staff have direct access to 

SSA benefits payment histories, they do not have similar access to 

medical records held by SSA. If a veteran submits a disability claim and 

reports receiving SSA disability benefits, VA is required to help the 

veteran obtain relevant federal records, including certain SSA medical 

records, to process the claim. VBA's policy manual instructs claims staff 

to fax a request for medical information to SSA and if no reply is received, 

to wait 60 working days before sending a follow-up request. If a response 

is not received after 30 days, claims staff are instructed to send an email 

request to an SSA liaison. VBA officials at four of the five regional offices 

we reviewed told us that when following this protocol, they have had 

difficulty obtaining SSA medical records in a timely fashion. Moreover, 

they reported having no contact information for SSA, beyond the fax 

number, to help process their requests. In complying with VA's duty to 

assist requirement, VBA staff told us they continue trying to retrieve SSA 

records by sending follow-up fax requests until they receive the records or 

receive a response that the records do not exist. VBA area directors said 

some regional offices have established relationships with local SSA 

offices and have better results, but obtaining necessary SSA information 

has been an ongoing issue nationally. For example, officials at one 

regional office said a response from SSA regarding a medical records 

request can sometimes take more than a year to receive. 

VBA's work processes, stemming mainly from its reliance on a paperbased claims system, can lead to misplaced or lost documents, and 

contribute to lengthy processing times. VBA officials at three of the five 

regional offices we met with noted that errors and delays in handling, 

reviewing, and routing incoming mail to the correct claim folder can delay 

the processing of a claim or cause rework. For example, VBA officials at 

one regional office said that claims may be stalled in the evidence 

gathering phase if mail that contains outstanding evidence is misplaced or 

lost. In addition, claims staff may rate a claim without knowledge of the 

additional evidence submitted and then, once the mail is routed to the 

claim folder, have to rerate the claim in light of the new evidence 

received. Furthermore, VBA officials told us that processing can also be 

delayed if mail staff are slow to record new claims or appeals into IT 

systems. As of August 2012, VBA took 43 days on average to record 

Notices of Disag reement in the appeals system-36 days longer than 

VBA's national target. VBA area directors said that mail processing 

Page 11 GAO-13-453T 
66 


313psBER13.eps

VBA Is Taking Steps 

to Improve Claims 

and Appeals 

Processing, but 

Future Impact Is 

Uncertain 

timeliness varies by regional office and that the more efficient offices in 

general do a better job of associating mail with the correct claims folder. 

VBA officials also said that moving physical claims folders among 

regional offices and medical providers contributes to lengthy processing 

times. According to a 2011 VA OIG report, processing delays occurred 

following medical examinations because staff could not match claimsrelated mail with the appropriate claim folders until the folders were 

returned from the VA Medical Center.19 In addition, processing halts while 

a claim folder is sent to another regional office or brokering center. 

Based on a review of VA documents and interviews with VBA officials, we 

identified 15 efforts with a stated goal of improving claims and appeals 

timeliness. We selected 9 for further review-primarily based on 

interviews with VBA officials and a review of recent VA testimonies-that 

have the purpose of reducing disability claims and appeals processing 

times. 

19VA Office of Inspector General, Systemic Issues Reported During Inspections at VA 

Regional Offices, (Washington D.C.: May 18, 2011). 

Page 12 GAO-13-453T 
67 


313psBER14.eps

Figure 4: Selected VBA Improvement Efforts 

~-~--------~----------------~-----------

Leveraging 

VBA Brokeflng centers: 

Improvement Special teams within VBA 

efforts estabhshedto assist regional 

offices with processmg claims 

Veterans Benefits 

ManagementAssistance 

Program: Contractor assistance 

with claims development 

Modifying program 

requirements~~~_ 

Fully Developed Claims 

Program: E~pedlted proceSSing 

for claims submitted with all 

relevant pnvate medical eVidence 

Appeals Design Pilot: 

Standardized Notice 0/ 

Disagreement/orm 

ORO reViews for all appeals 

and waiver of VBA review 

of additional eVidence submitted 

Insubstan\lveappeals 

Source GAO ;umm,,,y of VBA efforts 

Improving records 

acquisition 

Vendors for Private Medical 

Records: Pilot program to use 

a contractor to acquire veteran 

medical records from pnvate 

phySICians 

Disability Benefits 

Questionnaires: Standardized 

medical form for medical 

prOViders to capture necessary 

medical mformatlon to evaluate 

a disability 

. l 

~. 1 

L~~ 

Claims process 

redesign 

Simplified Notification Letter: 

Standardizes and streamlines 

the decIsIOn notllicahon process 

Claims Organizational Model: 

Reorganization of claims 

processing slaffmto cross· 

functional teams claims assigned 

to teams based on claims 

complexity and Integrated 

mall room and tnagefunctlons 

Velerans Benefits Managemenl 

System: Paperless claims system 

will allow electronIC submisSion 

of claims and suppor1lf1g eVidence 

convert paper-based clalms/olders 

mto electronIC claims folders 

VBA has several ongoing efforts to leverage internal and external 

resources to better manage its workload (see fig. 4)~ For example, VBA 

began the Veterans Benefits Management Assistance Program (VB MAP) 

in late fiscal year 2011 to obtain contractor support for evidence gathering 

for approximately 279,000 disability claims~20 Under VBMAP, the 

contractor gathers evidence in support of a claim and then sends the 

claim file back to the originating regional office, which reviews the claim 

for completeness and quality and then assigns a rating. Contractor staff 

are required to complete their work within 135 days of receiving the file 

and provide VBA with status reports that include several measures of 

timeliness, including the time it took to receive medical evidence from 

providers and to return a claim to VBA for rating~21 As of June 2012, VBA 

20To implement VBMAP, VBA has contracted with ACS Federal Solutions to conduct 

evidence gathering for VBA claims, among other tasks, through a one-time, 12-month 

professional services contract using funds from the fiscal year 2011 VA budget 

21 The contractor is required to complete all claims requesting an increase in existing 

disability benefits within 120 days of receipt. 

Page 13 GAO-13-453T 
68 


313psBER15.eps

regional offices we spoke with were awaiting the first batch of claims that 

were to be sent to the contractors. 

To help speed up the claims and appeals processes, VBA also has 

several efforts that modify program requirements or change procedures 

(see fig. 4). The Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program began as a pilot 

in December 2008 and was implemented nationwide in June 2010. 

Normally, once a veteran submits a claim, VBA will review the claim and 

then send the veteran a letter detailing additional evidence required to 

support it. The FDC program eliminates this step because the required 

notification is provided to the veteran directly on the FDC form, thus 

reducing the time VBA would normally spend gathering evidence for the 

veteran. In exchange for expedited processing, veterans participating in 

the FDC program send VBA any relevant private medical evidence with 

the claim and certify that they have no additional evidence to provide. 

According to VBA officials, in the first 2 years of the program, VBA 

processed 33,001 FDC claims, taking an average of about 98 days to 

complete-8 days longer than the goal of 90 days for these claims. 

However, as of July 2012, veteran participation in the FDC program had 

been low-only 4 percent of all compensation rating claims submitted in 

2012. 

The Claims Organizational Model initiative is aimed at streamlining the 

overall claims process (see fig. 4).22 For this initiative, VBA created 

specialized teams that process claims based on their complexity. 

Specifically, an "express team" processes claims with a limited number of 

conditions or issues; a "special operations" team processes highly 

complex claims, such as former prisoners of war or traumatic brain injury 

cases; and a core team works all other claims. Each of these teams is 

staffed with both development and ratings staff, which VBA believes will 

lead to better coordination and knowledge-sharing. Under this model, 

VBA also redesigned the procedures that mailrooms use to sort and 

process incoming claims. As of December 2012, VBA had implemented 

the initiative at 51 regional offices. 23 According to VA, the remaining 

22We use "the Claims Organization Model" to refer to VBA's organization model which 

reorganizes claims processing staff into cross-functional teams using segmented 

processing lanes. 

23VA first commenced a pilot in three regional offices in March 2012. 

Page 14 GAO-13-453T 
69 


313psBER16.eps

regional offices will be transitioned to the Claims Organizational Model by 

the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. 

In 2010, VBA began to develop the Veterans Benefits Management 

System (VBMS), a paperless claims processing system that is intended to 

help streamline the claims process and reduce processing times (see fig. 

4). According to VBA officials, VBMS is intended to convert existing 

paper-based claims folders into electronic claims folders and allow VBA 

employees electronic access to claims and evidence. Once completed, 

VBMS is also expected to allow veterans, physicians, and other external 

parties to submit claims and supporting evidence electronically. In August 

2012, VA officials told us that VBMS was still not ready for national 

deployment, citing delays in scanning claims folders into VBMS as well as 

other software performance issues. A recent VA OIG report also 

concluded that VBMS has experienced some performance issues and the 

scanning and digitization of claims lacked a detailed plan.24 However, 

according to VA, as of December 2012,18 regional offices were piloting 

VBMS and all regional offices are expected to implement VBMS by the 

end of calendar year 2013. 

We have noted that VA's ongoing efforts should be driven by a robust, 

comprehensive plan; however when we reviewed VBA's plan documents, 

we found that they fell short of established criteria for sound planning. 25 

Specifically, VBA provided us with several documents, including a 

PowerPoint presentation and a matrix that provided a high-level overview 

of over 40 initiatives, but, at the time of our review, could not provide us 

with a robust plan that tied together the group of initiatives, their interrelationships, and subsequent impact on claims and appeals processing 

times. Although there is no established set of requirements for all plans, 

components of sound planning are important because they define what 

24VA Office of Inspector General, Office of Audits and Evaluations, Veterans Benefits 

Administration Review of Transition to a Paperless Claims Processing Environment, 

(Washington D.C.: February 4,2013). 

25Past GAO reports have identified best practices in planning. A results-oriented plan to 

achieve established goals should include (1) purpose, scope, and methodology; 

(2) problem definition and risk assessment; (3) goals, subordinate objectives, activities, 

and performance measures; (4) resources, investments, and risk management; 

(5) organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) integration. See GAO, 

Social Security Oisability: Additional Performance Measures and Better Cost Estimates 

Could Help Improve SSA's Efforts to Eliminate Its Hearings Backlog, GAO-09-398 

(Washington, D.C.: September 9,2009). 

Page 15 GAO-13-453T 
70 


313psBER17.eps

Implementation of 

Recommendations 

Could Help Improve 

Evidence Gathering 

and Ensure Better 

Strategic Management 

of Improvement 

Initiatives 

organizations seek to accomplish, identify specific activities to obtain 

desired results, and provide tools to help ensure accountability and 

mitigate risks. 

In our December 2012 report, we recommended that VBA seek 

improvements for partnering with relevant federal and state military 

officials to reduce the time it takes to gather military service records from 

National Guard and Reserve sources. We also recommended that VBA 

develop improvements for partnering with Social Security Administration 

officials to reduce the time it takes to gather medical records. Lastly, we 

recommended that VBA develop a robust backlog reduction plan for its 

initiatives that, among other best practice elements, identifies 

implementation risks and strategies to address them and performance 

goals that incorporate the impact of individual initiatives on processing 

timeliness. 

VA generally agreed with our conclusions and concurred with our 

recommendations, and summarized efforts that are planned or underway 

to address them. For example, VA stated it has recently initiated several 

interagency efforts to the timeliness of record exchanges between VBA 

and DOD. In addition, VA stated that it is working with SSA to pilot a webbased tool to provide VA staff a secure, direct communication with SSA 

and to automate VA's requests for SSA medical records. VA also agreed 

with our recommendation to develop a robust backlog plan for VBA's 

initiatives and, subsequent to our report, published the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) Strategic Plan to Eliminate the Compensation 

Claims Backlog. This plan includes implementation risks and performance 

metrics used to track the cumulative effect of its initiatives on processing 

times but still lacks individual performance goals and metrics for all 

initiatives. 

In conclusion, for years, VA's disability claims and appeals processes 

have received considerable attention as VA has struggled to process 

disability compensation claims in a timely fashion. Despite this attention, 

VA continues to wrestle with several ongoing challenges-some of which 

VA has little or no control over-that contribute to lengthy processing 

timeframes. For instance, the number and complexity of VA claims 

received has increased. VBA is currently taking steps to improve the 

timeliness of claims and appeals processing; however, prospects for 

improvement remain uncertain because timely processing remains a 

daunting challenge. 

Page 16 GAO-13-453T 
71 


313psBER18.eps

Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131245) 

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I am pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Daniel Bertoni 

at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this testimony. Other key contributors to this testimony include Lucas 

Alvarez, James Bennett, Michelle Bracy, Brett Fallavollita, Dan Meyer, 

James Rebbe, Ryan Siegel, Walter Vance, and Greg Whitney. 

Page 17 GAO-13-453T 
72 


313psBER19.eps

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

United States. The published product 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. 
73 

Chairman SANDERS. Mr. Bertoni, thanks very much. 

Mr. Thompson. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH THOMPSON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND FORMER UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify for the National 

Academy of Public Administration regarding VBA’s efforts to transform its claims process. 


313psBER20.eps
74 

Chartered by Congress, the Academy is an independent, nonprofit, and non-partisan organization dedicated to helping government leaders address today’s most critical and complex challenges. 

The Academy has had the privilege of working with VA over the 

last several years on a number of serious issues. The VBA has embarked on an important effort to automate and improve its claims 

processing, and the Academy believes the agency is taking some 

positive steps to accomplish this. 

However, its ability to get the job done will depend on the successful adoption of change management practices, some of which 

are discussed in my written testimony. 

Deciding veterans disability claims has always been a complex 

and time-consuming task. In the post-9/11 world, VBA has faced 

major workload issues which everyone in this room is familiar 

with. 

VBA’s total claims processing capabilities have grown significantly frankly from the time I was there until today. Unfortunately, the claims work has grown even faster. I would like to try 

to discuss some of the approaches VBA has taken to the backlogs 

and the Academy’s look at that. 

The plan identifies strategies in three major areas: people; process; and technology. Those are, in fact, the key levers of organizational change. The Academy believes this is a fundamentally sound 

approach and offers a number of suggestions in the written testimony of the Committee and for VBA to consider concerning potential implementation issues. 

Strategic plans are important but, as the saying goes, no battle 

plan survives contact with the enemy. It would be surprising if 

there was not some important upcoming development that fundamentally reshapes the veterans’ claims processing environment. 

Because of this, resiliency and adaptability may, in fact, be the 

most important organizational characteristics VBA will need to 

prevail in its change efforts. Let me also say that the breadth and 

scope of the change that is underway is massive and we know the 

agency is moving heaven and earth to implement these changes. 

There are, however, a number of cautionary notes that the Academy would sound that are offered for consideration regarding the 

transformation process. 

One, the agency does not appear to have much, if any, surge capacity, that is, the ability to bring resources to bear if circumstances require it. There is just no slack in the system and we think 

that is a dangerous situation. 

Second, the technological advances are the key, in the Academy’s 

opinion, to VBA’s future. Having digital claims records, using a 

rules-based claims systems, exchanging information electronically, 

these changes will ultimately transform the operation. 

However, technological changes not only have an enormous potential to make claims processing better in the long run, they also 

have an even greater chance of making claims processing more difficult in the short run. 

This is typically what happens in large information technology 

implementation efforts. It goes on throughout the Federal Government. Glitches are the norm and time, serious amounts of time are 

spent fixing them. 

75 

Some of the development difficulties with VBMS we believe are 

evidence of that. The performance targets set for 2015 such as the 

elimination of 700,000 claims and the backlog and making decisions at a 98 percent accuracy rate are indeed stretch goals. 

In order to accomplish them, every initiative will have to have 

worked precisely as planned, but as I noted that is not the norm 

for these types of efforts. 

Managing large-scale change, coupled with high workload, is a 

balancing act; and given the extreme amount of work in the pipeline and the comprehensiveness of the plan changes, it is practically challenging for VBA. 

Good communications with the people implementing these 

changes are critical—I was glad to hear of the Under Secretary’s 

efforts in that area—to understanding its impacts, as is taking the 

time to assess and continually reassess the actual impacts in real 

time. This should lead to making adjustments and accommodations 

to the plans. [Laughter.] 

Just make sure you do not overwhelm your own people with the 

changes. All of this, again, speaks to the need for fragility and 

adaptability. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me state the Academy believes 

VBA has taken important steps to bring about the fundamental 

change everyone seeks. 

However, the volume of work currently sitting in regional offices 

combined with the extent of the changes underway make achieving 

success no sure thing. To be successful, VBA will need to manage 

this change with great care and will need everyone’s support, including Congress, the Administration, the VSOs, in making sure 

that veterans and their families get the help they need in the manner they deserve. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I will be 

pleased to answer any questions you or the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH THOMPSON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Academy of Public 

Administration as to the Academy’s perspective on the efforts of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs to transform its claims process. This is an important topic to our 

Nation, to the veteran community and to me personally. I am a former career employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs who was honored to serve as the Undersecretary for Benefits from 1997 to 2001. As a Vietnam veteran, I was fortunate 

to have the programs our Nation provides to help returning servicemembers available to me. Without hesitation, I can say these programs have served our Nation 

well and transformed the lives of countless veterans and their families. I am one 

of those whose life was made immeasurably better because of the help I received 

from VA. Since retiring, I have had the opportunity to work with leaders in a number of Federal agencies on business process improvements, primarily as a senior advisor at the National Academy. It is in that capacity that I am here today. 

Established in 1967 and chartered by Congress, the Academy is an independent, 

non-profit, and non-partisan organization dedicated to helping leaders address today’s most critical and complex challenges. The Academy has a strong organizational assessment capacity; a thorough grasp of cutting-edge needs and solutions 

across the Federal Government; and unmatched independence, credibility and expertise. Our organization consists of nearly 800 Fellows—including former cabinet 

officers, Members of Congress, Governors, mayors, and state legislators, as well as 

distinguished scholars, business executives, and public administrators. The AcadVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\031313.TXT PAULIN
76 

1http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet—department—veterans 

emy has a proven record of improving the quality, performance, and accountability 

of government at all levels. 

The Academy has had the great privilege of working with VA on a number of critical issues. From 2007 to 2011, the Academy provided advice on how VA can improve its service to veterans and sustain a process of continual improvement; 

strengthen its Fee Care Program; and develop effective national strategies to recruit 

and retain a high-performing, diverse workforce. Specifically, the Academy established independent Panels to help VA in the following areas: 

• Analysis of the Veterans Health Administration Non-VA (FEE) Care Program. 

The Academy conducted an independent study to analyze the current organizational 

model supporting the Non-VA Care (FEE) Program, with the objective of providing 

the Veterans Health Administration with options on the most efficient model for the 

future. This assessment evaluated other Federal and commercial health care programs, compared these programmatic structures with the current structure, and assessed how other models might improve outcomes. The Panel issued a number of 

practical recommendations for how VHA could improve the management of this program. • After Yellow Ribbons: Providing Veteran Centered Services. As part of a broader 

effort to help VA improve its service to the new and preceding generations of veterans, in 2008, Congress asked the Academy to study the management and organizational challenges facing VA. The Academy conducted research and developed extensive knowledge of VA, which was applied to assess the effectiveness of VA’s organizational structure, management, and coordination processes, including seamless 

transition, used by VA to provide health care and benefits to active duty personnel 

and veterans, including returning Iraq and Afghan war veterans. The Academy 

Panel focused on the need to ensure coordinated and effective services for those who 

return to civilian life after having been severely injured while in combat. The Academy Panel’s report recommended actions to improve service to veterans and sustain 

a process of continual improvement. • Recruiting and Retaining a Diverse High-Performing Workforce. In September 2007, VA sought the Academy’s assistance to help address its national and 

local-level diversity disparities, as well as diversity among its Senior Executive 

Service leadership. VA sought an independent and objective analysis of its current 

practices to ensure that the agency is able to acquire and retain the talent vital to 

achieving its current and future core missions. The Academy Panel identified an opportunity for VA to reshape the workforce; improve diversity; and strengthen the 

healthcare, administrative, and leadership pipelines needed to ensure the right competencies are in place for the future. A specific area of emphasis involved identifying 

recruitment and retention challenges that confront VA for its mission-critical occupations as it seeks to improve the diversity profile and strengthen the performance 

of its leaders and workforce. The Panel developed a barrier analysis methodology, 

tools, and strategies to assist VA in identifying structural, personnel availability, 

and attitudinal barriers. 

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) has embarked on an important 

change to automate and improve its claims processing and has identified ambitious 

processing goals to achieve by 2015. The Agency has taken some positive steps in 

designing and implementing a dramatic transformation of its claims processing system, but its ability to deliver will depend on its successful adoption of change management practices, as well as continuing support from veterans service organizations, Congress and the Administration. 

As part of my testimony today, I will examine some the challenges facing VBA’s 

claims processing; discuss key principles of strategic planning and change management, including effective practices elsewhere in the Federal Government; and offer 

advice on how VA, the Administration, and the Congress can best move forward in 

this critical area. The Academy’s Congressional charter precludes the organization 

itself from taking an official position on legislation, and my testimony does not represent an official position of the Academy. 

‘‘TO CARE FOR HIM WHO SHALL HAVE BORNE THE BATTLE * * *’’ 

The Obama Administration has stated, ‘‘[w]e have a sacred trust with those who 

wear the uniform of the United States of America. For their dedicated service defending the United States, veterans receive an array of benefits and services.’’ 1 It 

is important to ensure that we have a claims processing system that honors this 

trust. In essence, VA is charged by the American people with fulfilling the social 

contract that arises when a young enlistee raises his or her hand and swears an 

77 

oath to ‘‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all 

enemies * * *’’ Whether debilitating wounds suffered in combat or injuries suffering in furthering the mission of the United States military, disabled veterans 

have earned their benefits through their service. 

Deciding veterans’ disability claims has always been a complex and time-consuming task. New laws, court cases, and new program requirements each add to the 

difficulty and length of the process. In the post-9/11 world, VBA faces major claims 

processing challenges driven by several factors: a surge in claims both from newly 

separated Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as well as claims from older veterans, including many thousands of dioxin exposure-related claims from Vietnam veterans; 

increasing complexity of claims such as Traumatic Brain Injury, as well as a significant increase in the number of claimed disabilities to be decided in each claim; new 

laws and precedential court cases which have driven claims volume increases and 

processing delays; and difficulties in implementation new technologies. 

These challenges threaten VBA’s ability to meet its obligations to process veterans’ claims in a timely manner. Figure 1 shows the downward trend in the veteran population from 2000 to 2036, a decline which began over three decades ago. 

With a declining slope, the normal expectation would be for a commensurate decline 

in VBA’s workload. The opposite is true. Driven by the increase in claims and the 

growing complexity of the claims processing environment, VBA’s workload is actually increasing, and has been doing so for many years. 

Figure 1. Projected Veteran Population (2000 to 2036) 

VBA’s total claims processing capabilities have grown significantly over the last 

decade. Unfortunately, the claims work has grown even faster. Overcoming this 

daunting complex of challenges facing VBA will require transformation—an integrated set of changes in organization, process, workflow, people/skills, technology, 

and culture. 

VBA’S PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG

In January 2013, VBA released a plan, Department of Veterans Affairs Strategic 

Plan to Eliminate the Compensation Claims Backlog that outlines the efforts to 

eliminate the claims backlog and improving decision accuracy to 98 percent in 2015. 

Those are very ambitious goals and to achieve them, not only is a robust and 

thoroughgoing plan necessary, everything will have to go exactly according to that 

plan or the organization will have to be extremely agile in dealing with the exigencies. 

VBA’s plan identifies strategies in three major areas—people, process, and technology—that are the key levers of organizational change. This is a fundamentally 

sound approach. Not only are these areas essential to any large-scale organizational 

change process, they all have a symbiotic relationship with each other: 

• The ‘‘people’’ approach has four cornerstones: improved training; case management of claims; cross-functional teams to handle the claims work; and triaging 

claims into those which can be done quickly, those that require special handling, 


313psTHgr4.eps
78 

and everything else. Each of these areas has been used successfully in many organizations and I believe can be helpful to VBA in getting its work done: 

– Training is a key lever because of the wholesale change VBA is undergoing. 

Keeping up with process and technology changes alone will be take considerable 

work but is absolutely essential to organizational progress. 

– Case management and cross functional teams are, in my opinion, the best 

way to handle anything as complicated as a veteran’s disability claim. The ability to have ‘‘end-to-end ownership’’ of a claim as well as a having a VA advocate 

to help the veteran through this complicated process are both extremely worthwhile efforts that should fundamentally improve service to veterans and their 

families. 

– Triaging can also be very helpful to increase productivity and reduce cycle 

times. The dangers in its use is that it can lead to ‘‘cherry-picking’’ the easiest 

claims and sometimes results in employees being pigeonholed in single purpose 

jobs over extended periods of time. 

• The ‘‘process’’ approach is concerned with improving fundamental business processes. The initiatives described include: 

– Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs), which are forms that physicians 

complete during an exam that contain explicit medical information needed to 

decide a disability compensation claim. This is a good idea that should improve 

productivity and reduce processing times provided there is widespread utilization. This is a good first step but in order to provide the basis for transformational change, the data on the form could automatically populate VBA’s 

claims processing system and generate a prospective award that a claims processor can approve or amend, as necessary. This would reduce an enormous 

amount of time required to re-key the data when it is received from the physician and significantly shorten the ratings process. 

– Simplified Notification Letters initiative, which automatically generates the 

text for veterans’ claims decision letters, is also on the right track in terms of 

saving time and effort. A suggested metric VBA might want to use to evaluate 

this new process would be to track the percent of veterans receiving the letter 

who have follow-up inquiries or appeal their claims, i.e., are they more or less 

satisfied with the information they receive through this new process as opposed 

to those veterans serviced under the old process? 

– Fully Developed Claims are also a good step to reducing cycle times but the 

volumes are disappointing. VBA’s look to incentivizing the process is a good step 

to take because every claim that comes in under this process is not only a time 

and resource saver for VBA but is also a significant improvement in the service 

provided to veterans. 

– Data exchanges with other Federal entities is absolutely necessary and is 

an area which the Congress and the Administration can play a key role in helping to convince some of these other agencies to cooperate with VBA in building 

these new systems. It has to be extraordinarily frustrating in the year 2013 for 

VBA field staff to have to use fax machines and search for unlisted phone numbers to secure information to help veterans. 

• The ‘‘technology’’ approach centers on the development and implementation of 

the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), which is a web-based, electronic claims processing system. This centerpiece of VBA’s technology approach has 

enormous potential to improve claims processing but is not meeting its initial milestones. This will likely prove to be the single most important change VBA is currently undertaking. 

A second technology effort involves the Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP), 

which is an effort to scan claims folder documents into an electronic environment. 

Having these scanned claims images will provide VBA with flexibility in terms deciding how and where work gets done and should reduce the amount of lost or misplaced documents but it probably will not help improve productivity significantly. 

Looking at a scanned image instead of a piece of paper does not necessarily make 

a claims examiner’s job any faster. The true productivity boost for ‘‘electronic documents’’ will come when their data automatically populates VBA’s claims records. 

KEY STRATEGIC PLANNING AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The transformation of VA claims processing is an important and ambitious undertaking. VA has engaged in large-scale transformations before—most notably, during 

the 1990s when VHA transformed the veteran healthcare system into a high-quality 

healthcare benchmark for the Nation. At that time, both internal and external 

stakeholders realized that the status quo would not get the job done and that fundaVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\031313.TXT PAULIN
79 

2See OMB Circular No. A–11, Part 2 and GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing 

the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD–96–119, June 1996. 

mental change was necessary. While creating new organizational structures, such 

as VISNs, the Undersecretary for Health decentralized power to the field and established robust performance measures to ensure accountability. The external environment, the leadership, and the organizational design were all positive contributors 

to the transformation. 

In order for the promise of the claims processing transformation to be fully realized, VA will need to adopt effective strategic planning and change management 

practices. Both OMB and GAO have produced guidance for the development and 

content of strategic plans.2 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

mandated that every major Federal agency develop a mission statement, set goals, 

measure performance, and report accomplishments. The practice of requiring strategic plans for components within agencies was a natural outgrowth of this requirement since component strategic plans are the key to ensuring the achievement of 

agency-wide objectives. 

In its Executive Guide, GAO cites the following practices as critical to successful 

strategic planning: 

• Stakeholder involvement, including Congress and the Administration, state and 

local governments, third-party providers, interest groups, agency employees, fee-paying customers, and the public; 

• Assessment of the internal and external environment continuously and systematically to anticipate future challenges and make future adjustments so that potential problems do not become crises; and 

• Alignment of activities, core processes, and resources to support mission-related 

outcomes. 

Successful strategic planning practices: 

• Present a comprehensive mission statement. 

• Establish long-term goals for all major functions and operations. 

• Identify approaches and strategies to achieve the goals and objectives and obtain the various resources needed. 

• Document the relationship between long-term goals/objectives and annual performance goals. 

• Identify key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could significantly affect achievement of the strategic goals. 

• Describe how program evaluations have been used to establish or revise strategic goals, and a schedule of future program evaluations. 

Strategic plans are important, but it is necessary for departments and agencies 

to be able to make ongoing adjustments. As a military strategist once noted: ‘‘No 

battle plan survives contact with the enemy.’’ It is important for planning to be fluid 

and flexible enough to respond to an evolving environment and given the history 

of veterans programs, it would be surprising if there wasn’t some important development that fundamentally impacted the veterans claims processing world. 

Leadership plays an even more important role in bringing about fundamental 

change than the strategic plan. There are some well established principles for leading change management including: 

• Ensuring top leadership drives the transformation. Strong and inspirational 

leaders are indispensible in any organization, especially those organizations undergoing large-scale transformations. 

• Establishing a clear vision and integrated strategic transformation goals. Successful transformations depend on developing and continuously communicating the 

overarching vision and strategic goals of the future state organization. 

• Redesigning organizational structures, if necessary, to enable the vision. Wholesale change requires a careful examination of organizational structure and processes 

to determine if these need to be revised to facilitate this transformation. 

• Creating a sense of urgency, implement a timeline, and show progress from Day 

One. Change management thought leaders agree that a primary driver of a successful transformation effort is identifying a high-level of urgency throughout the organization. 

• Charting the course with a clearly-defined timeline and details of the progress 

are essential for supporting the change initiative and instilling buy-in throughout 

the affected stakeholder community. 

• Communicating frequently through multiple channels to multiple stakeholders. 

Successful change initiatives are driven by a comprehensive, consistent communication strategy that strives for both understanding and buy-in. 

80 

• Dedicating a powerful implementation guidance team to manage the transformation process. Large-scale change does not happen without a powerful guiding 

force and a fragmented management team cannot do the job. 

• Engaging employees to seek their improvement ideas, build momentum, and gain 

ownership for the transformation. Successful transformations involve employees 

from the beginning to gain their ownership for the changes occurring in the organization. 

• Sustaining the effort. A successful organizational transformation requires the 

adoption of a new culture and changes will be permanent only if employees are able 

and willing to embrace a new set of values and norms. 

While the Academy has not systematically reviewed VBA’s current change management efforts, a review of the literature produced by the Agency as well as reports 

and studies suggest that the leadership is well-versed in these concepts and is, in 

fact, following many of the principles noted above. It is also apparent that VBA 

leaders both in Headquarters and in the field are working hard to bring about the 

transformation. The breadth and scope of what is underway is massive. There are, 

however, a number of cautionary notes that are offered for consideration regarding 

the transformation process underway: 

• The Agency does not appear to have much, if any, surge capacity—that is, the 

ability to bring additional resources to bear if an exigent circumstance arises that 

impacts workloads. This can be discerned from reviewing GAO and VAOIG studies 

as well as looking at VBA’s published performance reports. It is not clear what will 

happen if there is some ‘‘seismic shock’’ to the workload akin to what happened with 

the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 or the ‘‘Nehmer’’ cases VBA recently 

completed or even small but significant shocks. 

• Technological advances are the key to VBA’s future. It is likely that VBA’s future, in terms of the increasing complexity of claims, is likely to resemble its past. 

In these times of budget austerity, the only way to ensure that you have the capability to deal with growing or changing workload will be to have the electronic tools 

that not only make the work faster and more accurate but also allow for more organizational agility in terms or adapting to the ever-evolving environment. Having 

digital claims records, using rule-based claims development and processing tools and 

communicating and exchanging information with key claims information providers 

will transform the operation. 

• Technological changes being implemented not only have enormous potential to 

make claims processing better in the long run, but also have an even greater chance 

of making claims processing more difficult in the short run. This is practically a truism for large-scale information technology initiatives, and VBA would hardly be the 

first Federal agency to face this situation. Whether due to staff downtime to learn 

new processes, insufficiently tested software, poor interfacing between the new technology and the old processes or any number of other ‘‘glitches,’’ there is always an 

excellent chance that the new systems do not, in the short run, live up to expectations. Some of the development difficulties with VBMS are testimony to that. 

• Implementing large-scale change during periods of high workload volumes is always a careful dance involving moving ahead with planned changes while simultaneously trying to not seriously disrupt workflow. This can be a dilemma for any 

leader but given the extreme amount of work in the pipeline and the comprehensiveness of their planned changes, it is particularly challenging for VBA. It is important during such times to have good communications with the people implementing 

these changes—the field staff in regional offices, both leaders as well as rank and 

file staff. It is also important to take the time to assess and reassess the actual impacts of the changes in real time and to also determine the cumulative impacts of 

the changes. 

• Keeping the focus on the quality of the claims decisionmaking process is critical. 

When workloads remain high and major new processing changes are implemented, 

the emphasis often moves to meeting production goals, sometimes at the sacrifice 

of quality. VBA leaders have high goals set for quality but as workload continues 

to remain high, they will have to be vigilant to make sure this does not lead to declines in quality. 

• The performance targets set for 2015—elimination of the 700,000 claims backlog and making decisions at a 98% accuracy rate—are indeed stretch goals. In order 

to accomplish them, every initiative will have to have worked precisely as planned. 

To make this happen, VBA will have to work extremely hard, avoid any serious 

changes to the claims processing environment and have the support of all the stakeholders in this room today—Congress, the Administration, VSOs, and other elements of VA. 

81 

VBA’s greatest strengths are its people and its mission. The benefits programs 

VBA administers were signed into law by presidents Washington, Madison, Lincoln, 

Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. For over two centuries, these programs have succeeded in transitioning generations of warriors successfully back into civilian society 

and VA leaders should take every opportunity to remind employees of the Agency’s 

rich history. They also need to remind staff that people who come to VBA for help 

are dealing with some of the most significant events in life: disability, illness, death, 

buying a home and going to school. The actions of VBA employees make a critical 

difference in the lives of these veterans and their families. This is no less true today 

than it was 200 years ago. An ongoing and consistent message to reinforce that fact 

can be an important driver for bringing about transformational change. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written statement, and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you or the Committee members may have. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. Stichman. 

STATEMENT OF BART STICHMAN, JOINT EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 

Mr. STICHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Burr and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the National Veterans Legal Services 

Program, a VSO, on the VA’s efforts in addressing the claims required to be adjudicated under the order of the U.S. District Court 

in Nehmer versus U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

As background, Nehmer is a class action lawsuit that was initiated by NVLSP in 1986 on behalf of Vietnam veterans and their 

survivors. 

The lawsuit challenged a VA regulation that provided that 

chloracne, a skin condition, is the only disease that has a positive 

association with exposure to Agent Orange. 

It is important to understand that the requirement in the 

Nehmer consent decree to re-decide past claims denials is only triggered if and when the VA Secretary decides that the scientific evidence now shows that a positive relationship exists between Agent 

Orange exposure and a disease whose positive relationship with 

Agent Orange had not previously been recognized by VA. 

So, it was in 2010 when Secretary Shinseki was simultaneously 

faced with, one, a growing backlog of VA claims and, two, the conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences in its latest report 

under the Agent Orange Act of 1991 to place three new diseases, 

ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and chronic B-cell leukemia in the same category of association with Agent Orange exposure as all of the other diseases that prior VA Secretaries had concluded should be afforded presumptive service-connected status due 

to their association with Agent Orange. 

Secretary Shinseki knew that, if he agreed as a result of the latest NAS report to add these three new diseases to the list of diseases already accorded presumptive service connection, VA adjudicators would be required by the Nehmer consent decree to re-decide more than 150,000 past claims and tens of thousands of new 

claims for these three diseases at the exact same time that the 

same adjudicators were faced with the growing backlog of other 

claims. 

But in a courageous decision that gave appropriate recognition of 

both the scientific evidence and the service and needs of disabled 

Vietnam veterans who risked harm to themselves in serving their 

82 

country in Vietnam, Secretary Shinseki agreed in August 2010 to 

add these three diseases as presumptively service-connected due to 

Agent Orange exposure. 

In the years prior to the administration of Secretary Shinseki, 

VA efforts to implement the Nehmer consent decree were shoddy. 

Things changed under Secretary Shinseki. 

The VA ensured that the 150,000 past claims for these three diseases were decided speedily and accurately. He accomplished this 

through two key management decisions. 

First, he wisely assigned decisionmaking on these 150,000 past 

claims and 60,000 new claims to a large group of VA adjudicators 

whose primary task was devoted to these claims. 

Second, he assembled a competent management team to train 

these adjudicators through use of a 130-page training guide and a 

training video. The end result was speedy and quality decisionmaking. 

On October 30, 2010, 2 months after the decision to add the 

three diseases, VA began to adjudicate these past claims and they 

adjudicated 146,000 of these claims by August 1, 2012, in an accurate and timely fashion I am happy to report. 

I did want to bring one of the veterans who got one of these decisions with me but we were unable to get him to come due to transportation problems. He is confined to a wheelchair but he authorized me to tell you about his re-adjudication by the VA. 

He has coronary artery disease which was first diagnosed when 

he was 39 years old in 1987. He served in the Army from 1966 to 

1968 including a 6-month tour in Vietnam and his original claim 

was denied because coronary artery disease was not recognized at 

that time. 

In a nine-page letter he received and a 19-page rating decision 

which I have here, he not only was given an earlier effective date 

and a grant of service connection for coronary artery disease back 

to 1989 but, while the VA was reviewing his claims file, they found 

a number of past errors that they rectified. 

In the same decision, they gave him an earlier effective date for 

his grant of service connection for diabetes mellitus which is another Agent Orange related disease back to 1991; an earlier effective date for the grant of special monthly compensation based on 

housebound status back to 1991; an earlier effective date for service connection for erectile dysfunction retroactive to 2004; an earlier effective date for special monthly compensation based on loss 

of use of a creative organ back to 2004; and an earlier effective 

date for service connection for an eye disease related to diabetes 

retroactive to 2002. 

Chairman SANDERS. Mr. Stichman, if you could come to a conclusion. 

Mr. STICHMAN. This shows the quality of the decisionmaking that 

the VA made during this period. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stichman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARTON F. STICHMAN, JOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views of the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) on 

VA’s efforts in addressing the claims required to be adjudicated under the order of 

83 

the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California in Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as our assessment of VA’s transformation efforts aimed at improving the timeliness and accuracy of claims decisions. 

SECRETARY SHINSEKI’S APPROPRIATE DECISION IN 2010 UNDER

THE AGENT ORANGE ACT OF 1991

As background, Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is a class action 

lawsuit that was initiated by NVLSP’s attorneys in 1986 on behalf of Vietnam veterans and their survivors. The lawsuit challenged a VA regulation, former 38 CFR 

3.311a, that provided that chloracne, a skin condition, is the only disease that has 

a positive association with exposure to Agent Orange or the other herbicides containing dioxin that was used by the United States in Vietnam. In 1989, the district 

court invalidated this regulation and voided all VA decisions denying benefit claims 

under the regulation. The VA decided to comply, rather than appeal this decision. 

In 1991, NVLSP’s attorneys negotiated a favorable consent decree with the VA 

in Nehmer. The Nehmer consent decree requires VA, whenever it recognizes in the 

future that the scientific evidence shows that a positive relationship exists between 

Agent Orange exposure and a new disease, to (a) identify all claims based on the 

newly recognized disease that were previously denied and then (b) pay disability 

and death benefits to these claimants, retroactive to the initial date of claim. Between 1991 and 2009, VA has recognized that scientific studies show that there is 

a positive association between Agent Orange exposure and diabetes, and more than 

a dozen different types of cancer. 

In assessing VA’s transformation efforts in improving claims processing under the 

tenure of Secretary Shinseki, it is important to understand that the requirement in 

the Nehmer consent decree to redecide past claims denials is only triggered if and 

when the VA Secretary decides that the scientific evidence now shows that a positive relationship exists between Agent Orange exposure and a disease whose positive relationship with Agent Orange had not been previously recognized by VA. 

So it was in 2010, when Secretary Shinseki was simultaneously faced with (a) a 

growing backlog of VA claims, due in part to the increasing number of claims being 

filed by veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and (b) the conclusion of the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in its latest report under the Agent Orange 

Act of 1991 to place three new diseases—ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and chronic B-cell leukemia—in the same category of association with Agent 

Orange exposure as all of the diseases that prior VA Secretaries had concluded 

should be accorded presumptive service-connected status due to their association 

with Agent Orange. 

Secretary Shinseki knew that if he agreed as a result of the latest NAS report 

to add these three new diseases to the list of diseases already accorded presumptive 

service-connected status due to Agent Orange exposure, VA adjudicators would be 

required by the Nehmer consent decree to redecide more than 150,000 past claims 

for these three diseases—at the exact same time that these same adjudicators were 

faced with the growing backlog of other claims. He could have avoided the need to 

redecide these 150,000 past claims by simply refusing to add the three diseases as 

related to Agent Orange exposure. But in a courageous decision that gave appropriate recognition to both the scientific evidence and the service and needs of hundreds of thousands of disabled Vietnam veterans who risked harm to themselves in 

serving their country in Vietnam, Secretary Shinseki agreed on August 31, 2010 to 

add these three diseases as presumptively service-connected due to Agent Orange 

exposure. 

VA’S EFFORTS IN ADDRESSING NEHMER CLAIMS

In the years prior to the administration of Secretary Shinseki, VA’s efforts to implement the Nehmer consent decree were shoddy. On several occasions, NVLSP’s attorneys had to file a motion to enforce the consent decree due to VA failure to comply with the terms of the consent decree. On each of these occasions, the U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the VA. 

VA’s performance was so bad that the U.S. District Court had to issue an order requiring VA to show cause why it should not be held in contempt. 

Things changed under Secretary Shinseki. The Secretary ensured that the 

150,000 past claims for ischemic heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and chronic Bcell leukemia were decided speedily and accurately. He accomplished this result 

through two key management decisions. First, he wisely assigned decisionmaking 

on these 150,000 past claims to a large group of VA adjudicators whose primary 

task was devoted to these claims. Second, he assembled a competent management 

84 

team to train these adjudicators thoroughly through use of a more than 130-page 

training guide and a training video. 

The end result was speedy and quality decisionmaking. On October 30, 2010, two 

months after Secretary Shinseki’s issued the VA rule adding the three diseases as 

Agent Orange-related, VA began to issue decisions on these past claims. The VA adjudicated over 146,000 of these claims by August 1, 2012. 

Not all of these adjudications were correct. As class counsel, NVLSP has a team 

of attorneys and paralegals devoted to ensuring that VA meets its obligations under 

the Nehmer consent decree. VA provides NVLSP with a copy of all of its decisions 

under the Nehmer consent decree. NVLSP’s attorneys work with the Vietnam veterans and survivors on these cases to ensure that the VA assigns them the correct 

effective date for their award of benefits for these three diseases and pays them the 

proper amount of retroactive compensation. NVLSP and VA have developed an effective system for quickly rectifying mistakes in decisionmaking, and thus far nearly 

1,000 mistakes have been corrected. But the mistakes have been relatively rare, and 

a far cry from the low quality of decisionmaking that occurred during prior administrations. 

NVLSP has also identified a group of more than 60,000 past claimants whom VA 

did not previously identify as needing review under the Nehmer consent decree. But 

to VA’s credit, it has agreed that these cases need to be reviewed, and the parties 

are currently working together to ensure that they are reviewed in a timely fashion. 

While VA has been subject to much criticism over the past few years about the 

timeliness and accuracy of its decisionmaking in general, the bottom line is that on 

Nehmer claims, VA deserves a great deal of credit. 

VA’S OTHER TRANSFORMATION EFFORTS FOR IMPROVING TIMELINESS AND ACCURACY

NVLSP has three observations about other VA’s transformation efforts aimed at 

improving the timeliness and accuracy of claims decisions. First, we commend VA 

management’s development of the new Fully Developed Claim (FDC) process. While 

it needs to be clarified and modified for it to produce significant improvement in 

timeliness and accuracy, it is a welcome innovation. 

In its present formulation, it is not applicable to many claims because VA prohibits use of FDC process if the claimant has any other claims pending that are not 

subject to the FDC process. This is unwise. For example, claimants and their representatives are being deterred from using the FDC process because it requires that 

they withhold the filing of other claims—and risk loss of months of benefits—simply 

to obtain a quick decision on one claim filed under the FDC process. 

Second, there has long been an unfortunate obsession by both VA and Congress 

with one statistic: how long it takes VA to decide an initial claim for benefits, regardless of the quality of the decision on that claim. When VA reports to Congress 

that the average time it takes to decide an initial claim is now down to 164 (or 

whatever number of) days, it is not representing to Congress that this is the number 

of days it takes on average to decide an initial claim correctly. Rather, VA is merely 

reporting the average time it takes to reach a correct or incorrect decision. The longstanding obsession with this skewed statistic has long produced a significant deleterious effect: VA regional office adjudicators prematurely decide claims—without taking the time to obtain and assemble the evidence necessary to properly decide a 

claim—in an effort to ensure that the average time for deciding an initial claim that 

is reported to VA managers and Congress is a low number of days. This obsession 

is counter-productive because it produces unjust premature denials, which, in turn, 

result either in the veteran giving up on a potentially valid claim or in appeals filed 

by veterans which create the existing backlog of claims. 

Finally, on cases in which an appeal is filed, there is another longstanding adjudicatory phenomenon which both frustrates the interests of justice and adds to the 

backlog. NVLSP and others have long observed that after a veteran files an appeal 

(i.e., a notice of disagreement) with an initial decision, there is an unfortunate tendency of many VA adjudicators to overdevelop the claim. That is, there is a tendency 

by many VA regional office and Board of Veterans’ Appeals adjudicators to delay 

a decision on a claim where the evidence in the current record supports a grant of 

the claim, in order to obtain additional evidence—typically in the form of another 

VA medical examination—in the apparent hope that evidence will be developed to 

support a denial of the claim. This longstanding phenomenon certainly works to protect the public fisc. But it is contrary to the pro-claimant process embodied in statutes and regulations and is a major contributor to the large VA backlog of claims. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions that Members of the Committee may 

have. 

85 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Violante. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH VIOLANTE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting Disabled American Veterans to testify about 

the Veterans Benefits Administration’s claims processing transformation. 

Congratulations, Chairman Sanders, for being selected to lead 

this Committee, and welcome back Ranking Member Burr. I look 

forward to working with both of you and all the Members of this 

Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, the timely and accurate award of a disability rating does more than provide compensation. It provides an array of 

benefits that support the recovery and transition of veterans and 

families and survivors. 

But when benefits are delayed or denied, the consequences can 

be devastating. Today, the number of claims pending is far too 

high. The time veterans wait is too long, and the accuracy of decisions is too low. 

But while there is a tendency to focus only on reducing the backlog, DAV continues to urge VBA and Congress to concentrate their 

efforts on the underlying problems that created and continue to 

fuel the backlog. 

Three years ago, VBA set out on an ambitious path to completely 

transform its IT systems, business processes, and corporate culture 

while simultaneously continuing to process more than one million 

claims annually. 

In the midst of this transformation, it is hard to get the proper 

perspective to measure whether the final design will ultimately be 

successful. 

For anyone who has lived through a home renovation, that experience would have many parallels. It is hard to judge whether the 

renovation will be successful when you are surrounded by open 

walls, exposed wires and pipes, as unexpected problems pop up 

adding time and cost to the project. 

In a similar way, observations of VBA’s transformation efforts 

logically focus on the exposed errors and unfinished initiatives but 

it is still too soon to judge whether the transformation will be successful. Of course, it would be equally premature to simply trust 

that they will succeed. 

DAV believes that VBA is on the right path with the right goals 

and that they have leadership committed to transforming and institutionalizing a new claims system that will better serve veterans. 

Ultimately, the question of whether they will be successful remains to be determined, but one point we are certain of, there is 

no turning back. VBA is currently rolling out the Veterans Benefits 

Management System, its new IT program for processing claims. 

Although not yet fully developed or deployed, there has been 

some extremely important milestones. One of the most critical was 

the decision and commitment to scan all legacy paper files for new 

or reopened claims requiring rating-related actions. The creation of 

86 

the digital eFolders allows instantaneous transmission and simultaneous review of files, saving both time and resources. 

The most important process achievement is the implementation 

of VBA’s new transformation organizational model which creates 

cross-functional teams working in segmented lanes to more efficiently processing claims. 

Another key reform was the creation of local Quality Review 

Teams that monitor claims processing in real time to catch and correct errors before the decision is finalized. 

Finally, one of the most encouraging aspects has been the open, 

transparent, and collaborative manner in which they work with 

DAV and other VSOs. Under Secretary Hickey has demonstrated 

her commitment to expanding the partnership with VSOs and we 

believe that veterans are better served thanks to her strong and 

principled leadership. 

Mr. Chairman, DAV believes significant progress has been made 

but important work remains. DAV offers numerous recommendations in our testimony, but let me highlight just a few. 

First, while aggressive oversight of VBA claims transformation 

efforts is essential, Congress must support and fully fund the completion of VBMS and all document scanning. We also recommend 

an independent review of VBMS by outside IT experts. 

Second, VBA must develop a new corporate culture based on 

quality, accuracy, and accountability throughout every regional 

office. 

Finally, Congress should enact legislation to mandate that VBA 

shall accept private medical evidence when it is competent, credible, and adequate for rating purposes. 

In addition, private physicians should be allowed access to DBQs 

for medical opinions of service connection and for PTSD diagnosis. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Violante follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE, DIRECTOR, 

DAV NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify about the status of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA’s) claims processing transformation efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, the timely delivery of earned benefits to the millions of men and 

women who have served in our Armed Forces is one of the most sacred obligations 

of the Federal Government. The award of a service-connected disability rating does 

more than provide compensation payments; it is the gateway to an array of benefits 

that support the recovery and transition of veterans, their families and survivors. 

However, when these benefits are delayed or unjustly denied, the consequences to 

veterans and their families can be devastating. For those wounded heroes who file 

claims for disability compensation, the wait to receive an accurate rating decision 

and award can take anywhere from a few months to several years; longer if they 

have to appeal incorrect decisions. For that reason, we are grateful that this Committee’s first regular hearing of the 113th Congress focuses on one of DAV’s highest 

priorities: completing the reform of the veterans benefits claims processing system. 

As the Nation’s leading veterans service organization (VSO) assisting veterans 

seeking disability compensation and other benefits, DAV has tremendous experience 

and expertise relating to the processing of claims. With a corps of 260 full-time professional National Service Officers (NSOs) and 35 Transition Service Officers, DAV 

assists almost a quarter of all veterans who file claims for disability compensation 

each year. Last year, DAV NSOs reviewed more than 326,000 claims files, filed 

234,500 new claims for benefits, and participated in more than 287,000 rating board 

actions. In this capacity, we assist VBA in its work by helping veterans file more 

87 

complete and accurate claims. From our decades of experience working on veterans 

claims, we fully understand both the magnitude and complexity of the challenges 

VBA faces in trying to accurately adjudicate more than a million claims each year 

in a timely manner, and we remain committed to doing all we can to help develop 

and implement solutions. 

Mr. Chairman, there will be much discussion today about the size of the pending 

backlog of claims, nationally as well as in individual states and cities, and understandably so. Today there are about 900,000 claims for compensation and pension 

awaiting decisions at VBA, more than double the number pending four years ago. 

Of those claims, fully 70 percent have been waiting more than 125 days, VBA’s official target for measuring the backlog, which is double the number of just two years 

ago. Moreover, the length of time it takes to process veterans’ claims also continues 

to rise, with the average processing time now almost 280 days, far from VBA’s target of 80 days. Several Regional Offices (ROs) are averaging more than a year to 

process claims. New York takes almost 450 days on average and the Los Angeles 

RO averages over 500 days. Looking at these numbers, it is clear that the challenges facing VBA are enormous. 

But while there can be a tendency in the media to talk only about reducing the 

backlog, we continue to argue that VBA and Congress must instead concentrate 

their efforts on addressing the underlying problems that created and continue to 

fuel the backlog. After all, VBA could eliminate the backlog quite easily by simply 

denying all pending claims, or granting every claim, but neither approach would be 

correct and neither would help to resolve the systemic problems that created the 

backlog in the first place. 

As we have said many times in the past, and it bears repeating today, the backlog 

is a symptom, not the cause of VBA’s claims processing problems. It is similar to 

a person suffering from a cold, virus or flu who may have severe and painful symptoms, such as a high temperature or body aches. Treating those symptoms alone will 

do little to rid the body of the underlying illness or to prevent those same symptoms 

from recurring in the future. Similarly, VBA could direct all existing and new resources to processing claims using old technologies and processes, and perhaps that 

would more quickly reduce the existing backlog in the short term. But such an approach would do little to build the modern, paperless system necessary for timely 

and accurate processing of veterans claims in the future, and as certain as the tide, 

the backlog would roll back in and rise again. 

Mr. Chairman, in many ways, VBA today faces the same core problems that have 

plagued them for decades: too many claims being processed and adjudicated inaccurately without sufficient accountability for the results, rather than a system designed to decide each claim right the first time. The solution to these problems will 

require new technologies and business processes, and most importantly, a cultural 

transformation built upon the foundations of quality, accuracy and accountability. 

From our vantage point as participants in and observers of the VBA claims system, 

as well as active collaborators in the current transformation process, we believe today’s VBA leadership shares our vision. 

In early 2010, Secretary Shinseki laid out an extremely ambitious goal for VBA 

to achieve by 2015: process 100 percent of claims in less than 125 days, and do so 

with 98 percent accuracy. However, if the only information available was the latest 

metrics from VBA’s ASPIRE Dashboard, one would be hard pressed to find any 

signs of progress toward achieving the Secretary’s goals. But numbers alone do not 

tell the whole story. 

As you know, VBA set out on a path three years ago to completely transform their 

IT systems, business processes and corporate culture, while simultaneously continuing to process more than a million claims each year. Today, VBA is actively rolling out new organizational models and practices, and continuing to develop and deploy new technologies almost daily. In the midst of this massive transformation, it 

is hard to get the proper perspective to measure whether their final design will be 

successful. But for anyone who has ever lived through a major home renovation, or 

seen a home makeover show on television, that experience would have many parallels to what VBA is experiencing during its transformation. During the renovation, 

the homeowner would have to live through the mess and chaos of contractors demolishing walls, ripping out pipes and tearing up floors, making living there much more 

difficult during this process. And even though the homeowner knows what the finished renovation is supposed to look like and how it will improve their home, it is 

hard to judge whether the renovation will be successful when they can observe nothing but open walls, exposed wires, and unexpected problems arising that add time 

and cost to the renovation. 

In a similar way, current observations of VBA’s transformation efforts logically 

focus on the openly exposed flaws, problems and unfinished initiatives, but it would 

88 

be premature to conclude that this imperfect and uncompleted transformation process is a precursor to a flawed final outcome. It would be equally premature to sit 

back and simply trust that the final result will be successful based on nothing more 

than plans and promises. Instead we must all remain actively engaged in overseeing 

and supporting VBA to achieve the results we all desire. 

MILESTONES OF PROGRESS

Mr. Chairman, taking all of the above into consideration, DAV believes that VBA 

is on the right path, that they have set the right goals and that they have leadership committed to transforming and institutionalizing a new claims processing system to better serve veterans. How successful the current transformation efforts will 

ultimately be remains an open question to be answered at a later time, and on that 

point there can and will be differing opinions. However, we hope that following today’s hearing there is no disagreement on one point: there can be no turning back. 

VBA must complete this essential transformation from its outdated, paper-based 

claims system to a modern, paperless, automated claims system. The stakes for veterans and the investment by VA are high, so failure is not an option. 

Recognizing that its old system was irretrievably broken, in 2009 VBA launched 

dozens of new ideas, initiatives and pilots grouped in three categories: people, processes and technology. Having thoroughly tested, validated and synthesized the best 

practices culled from all of this experimentation, VBA is currently rolling out many 

of these new programs nationally. The biggest and most important amongst these 

is the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), the new IT infrastructure for 

claims processing. Over the past year, VBMS has been rolled out to 20 Regional Offices, and will be fully deployed to all remaining ROs before the end of the year, 

possibly as soon as June. It is important to remember that VBMS is not yet a finished product; rather it continues to be developed and perfected as it is deployed 

so it is hard to judge whether the final system will deliver all of the functionality 

and efficiency required to meet VBA’s future claims processing needs. However, 

there have been a number of extremely important milestones that are themselves 

significant signs of progress. 

In our view, probably the most crucial milestone was VBA’s decision to scan all 

paper claims files for every new or reopened claim requiring a rating-related action. 

This decision embodied VBA’s total commitment to creating a fully digital, 

paperless, automated claims processing system, which DAV and other VSOs had 

strongly encouraged for years. Although this will require significant upfront investment to cover the costs of scanning tens of millions of paper records, in the long 

run it will pay dividends for both VBA and veterans. 

Another important milestone is the creation of digital e-folders, which serve as the 

cornerstone of the new VBMS system. E-folders facilitate instantaneous transmission and simultaneous reviewing of claims files. Every new or reopened ratingrelated claim made at an RO that has adopted VBMS will now have an e-folder created and all supporting documentation will be scanned and reside in that e-folder. 

For claims that were already in process at the time of conversion to VBMS, those 

claims will be developed using legacy systems, but will be rated inside VBMS with 

an e-folder, but supporting documentation will continue to reside inside a traditional 

paper claims folder. At present, there are an estimated 200,000 e-folders and that 

number will continue to grow as the remaining ROs convert to VBMS this year. In 

addition, the Appeals Management Center (AMC) is now working in VBMS and able 

to review e-folders. The Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) will also begin receiving 

appeals in VBMS on a pilot basis this month. 

DAV has been closely involved in advising the VBMS team throughout its development and has confidence in their strategic plan; however, it would be a mistake 

to simply trust that the finished product will do the job as intended. Similar to a 

home renovation, there is a need to have qualified, independent experts review 

plans and inspect progress at regular intervals. Although a homeowner may know 

where they want electrical outlets located, it is unlikely that they would be qualified 

to judge whether the electrical wiring schematic and supplies are safe or sufficient 

to handle the intended load. In a similar manner, while we believe VBA’s plans for 

VBMS contain the necessary features and functions, we do not have the technical 

expertise to determine whether the enterprise architecture and iterative development process will ultimately result in a successful IT system. For this reason, DAV 

continues to recommend that VBA bring in an independent panel of IT experts to 

review the plans and progress of VBMS. Such a team could be composed of leading 

IT experts from companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon, who would volunteer a day or two to help evaluate whether VBMS is likely to achieve its intended 

89 

purpose, or whether there are significant concerns that merit further scrutiny or 

corrective actions. 

Other key technological developments supporting paperless claims processing include e-Benefits and the Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP), which allow veterans 

and their representatives to file claims, upload supporting evidence and check on 

the status of pending claims. More than 2,000 claims have been initiated via e-Benefits through its VONAPPS Direct Connect (VDC) application and just last month, 

DAV was able to file the first SEP claim on behalf of a veteran for whom we hold 

power-of-attorney (POA), which is now being processed inside VBMS for a truly endto-end digital claim. 

In terms of business processes milestones, VBA has fully rolled out its new transformation organizational model (TOM) to every Regional Office. Based on the best 

practices from their pilots and initiatives, this new organizational model is centered 

on two major changes in how ROs manage their work. The traditional triage function is now done through an Intake Processing Center (IPC) at every RO, which 

places more experienced employees at the front end of the process in order to better 

direct claims along several new segmented processing lanes. The smaller, less complex claims will be processed in the ‘‘express lane,’’ the most complex claims will 

be done in the ‘‘special ops’’ lane, and the bulk of the claims will be done in the 

‘‘core’’ lanes. In each of these segmented lanes, cross-functional teams of Veterans 

Service Representatives (VSRs) and Rating Veterans Service Representatives 

(RVSRs) work together on claims, allowing greater interaction throughout the process, and are expected to yield greater accuracy and timeliness. This new organizational model also allows each RO to better align its workforce according to experience and expertise levels. Other key process improvements that DAV strongly supports include the Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program, which expedites readyto-rate claims, and Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs), which standardize 

and encourage the collection of private medical evidence to aid in rating decisions. 

On the people side of its transformation efforts, VBA has also initiated vitally important changes that should yield positive long-term improvements. DAV was especially pleased that VBA fulfilled one of our longstanding recommendations through 

the creation of local Quality Review Teams (QRTs), whose primary function is to 

monitor claims processing in real time to catch and correct errors before rating decisions are finalized. The QRTs have been trained by the national STAR (Systematic 

Technical Accuracy Review) quality assurance staff to provide consistent application 

of VBA rules and regulations. QRTs are also helping to develop and implement 

training and mentoring programs in many ROs, providing a much-needed emphasis 

on quality and accuracy, rather than just speed and production. The decision to 

move 600 VSRs and RVSRs out of day-to-day production and into QRT positions is 

a powerful sign of VBA’s commitment to creating a culture of quality. 

Finally, one of the most important and encouraging aspects of VBA’s transformation efforts has been the open, transparent and collaborative manner in which 

they have worked with stakeholders, particularly with VSOs. From the outset of 

this transformation, VBA leaders reached out to DAV and other VSOs seeking our 

ideas and support to help fix the broken claims system. Throughout the development of VBMS, SEP, TOM, FDC, DBQs and many other small and large initiatives, 

VSOs have been regularly invited to share our perspectives and ideas. Since being 

confirmed, Under Secretary Allison Hickey has repeatedly demonstrated her passionate commitment to expanding the partnership between VBA and VSOs, and we 

believe that veterans will be better served thanks to her strong and principled leadership. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Chairman, DAV believes that significant progress has been made, but that 

vitally important work remains. In order to support VBA’s transformation efforts 

and further improve the delivery of benefits to veterans, DAV makes the following 

recommendations. 

First, Congress must continue to perform aggressive oversight of VBA’s ongoing 

claims transformation efforts, particularly new IT programs, while actively supporting the completion and full implementation of these vital initiatives. 

In order for VBA’s current transformation plans to have any reasonable chance 

of success, VBA must be allowed to complete and fully implement them. It is imperative that Congress continue to support this goal, even while continuing to perform 

aggressive oversight. In particular, we recommend that Congress encourage an independent, expert review of VBMS. At the same time, Congress must continue to fully 

fund the completion of VBMS, including providing sufficient funding for digital scanning and conversion of legacy paper files, as well as the development of new autoVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:16 Jul 01, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\031313.TXT PAULIN
90 

mation components for VBMS. As stated earlier, it is too late to turn back from 

paperless processing and we urge Congress to both oversee and support full funding 

for this and other vital IT initiatives throughout the final development and implementation phases. 

Second, Congress must encourage and support VBA’s efforts to develop a new corporate culture based on quality, accuracy and accountability, as well as strengthen the transmission and adoption of these values and appropriate supportive 

policies throughout all VBA Regional Offices. 

The long-term success of all of VBA’s transformation efforts will depend on the 

degree to which these changes are institutionalized and disseminated from the national level to the local level. In addition to training, testing and quality control, the 

best means of transforming and transmitting cultural change is to properly align 

measuring and reporting functions with desired goals and outcomes for both VBA 

leadership and employees. For example, as long as the most widely reported metric 

of VBA’s success is the Monday Morning Workload Reports, particularly the weekly 

update on the size of the backlog, there will remain tremendous pressure throughout VBA to place production gains ahead of quality and accuracy. Similarly, if individual employee performance standards set unrealistic production goals, or fail to 

properly credit ancillary activity that contributes to quality but not production, 

those employees will be incentivized to focus on activities that maximize production. 

VBA must develop more and better measures of work performance that focus on 

quality and accuracy, both for the agency as a whole and for individual employees. 

Furthermore, VBA must ensure that employee performance standards are based on 

accurate measures of the time it takes to properly perform their jobs. 

Finally, Congress must ensure that VBA does not change its reporting or metrics 

for the sole purpose of achieving statistical gains, commonly referred to as ‘‘gaming 

the system,’’ in the absence of actual improvements to the system. For example, 

VBA recently changed how processing errors are scored for multi-issue claims. Previously, a claim would be considered to have an error if one mistake on at least one 

issue in the claim was detected during a STAR review. Under the new error policy, 

if there are 10 issues in the claim and a single error is found on one of the issues, 

that would now be scored as only 0.1 error for that claim. While this may be a more 

valid way of measuring technical accuracy, it also has the effect of lowering the 

error rate, thereby implying an improvement in quality, even though the same number of errors was detected. 

Third, Congress and VBA should enact and adopt new legislation and policies that 

maximize the use of private medical evidence to conserve VBA resources and enable quicker, more accurate rating decisions for veterans. 

DAV and other VSOs have long encouraged VBA to make greater use of private 

medical evidence when making claims decisions, which would save veterans time 

and VBA the cost of unnecessary examinations. DBQs, many of which were developed in consultation with DAV and other VSO experts, have been designed to allow 

private physicians to submit medical evidence on behalf of veterans they treat in 

a format that aids rating specialists. However, we continue to receive credible reports from across the country that many VSRs and RVSRs do not accept the adequacy of DBQs submitted by private physicians, resulting in redundant VA medical 

examinations being ordered and valid evidence supporting veterans’ claims being rejected. 

Although there are currently 81 approved DBQs, VBA has only released 71 of 

them to the public for use by private physicians. In particular, VBA should allow 

private treating physicians to complete DBQs for medical opinions about whether 

injuries and disabilities are service-connected, as well as DBQs for PTSD, which 

current VBA rules do not allow; only VA physicians can make PTSD diagnoses for 

compensation claims. Congress should work with VBA to make both of these DBQs 

available to private physicians. 

To further encourage the use of private medical evidence, Congress should amend 

title 38, United States Code, section 5103A(d)(1) to provide that, when a claimant 

submits private medical evidence, including a private medical opinion, that is competent, credible, probative, and otherwise adequate for rating purposes, the Secretary shall not request a VA medical examination. This legislative change would 

require VSRs and RVSRs to first document that private medical evidence was inadequate for rating purposes before ordering examinations, which are often unnecessary. 

In addition, VBA should accelerate the development of software that seamlessly 

translates relevant information from VHA medical examinations performed by treating physicians into appropriate DBQs for VBA rating specialists. This free flow of 

91 

electronic health data would save veterans time and VBA resources by further 

eliminating unnecessary VBA compensation exams. 

Fourth, Congress and VBA should expand and create new authorities to rapidly 

award partial or temporary benefits to disabled veterans when the evidence of 

record clearly supports such awards. 

VBA currently has the authority under 38 CFR 4.28 to issue prestabilization ratings for veterans who are discharged from active duty due to severe injuries or illnesses that are not yet fully stabilized or healed, and which cause significant limitations in their ability to be employed. VBA also has rules to award intermediate rating decisions with deferred issues as discussed in M21–1MR, Part II, Subpart iv, 

Chapter 6, Section A. Intermediate rating decisions for multi-issue claims can be 

made when the record contains sufficient evidence to decide some of the claimed 

issues, including service connection, even though remaining issues require further 

development, and will be deferred. Although VBA has had these authorities for a 

number of years, VBA rarely takes advantage of them to provide at least partial 

or minimum benefits to veterans on an expedited basis. Concerns about ‘‘double 

work’’ and performance standards that fail to properly credit these two ratings actions have discouraged the widespread use of these valuable rating authorities. 

DAV believes that both prestabilization and intermediate ratings should be encouraged and expanded to apply to additional circumstances. Currently, 

prestabilization ratings can only be awarded at two rating levels—50 percent and 

100 percent—thereby limiting the number of veterans who could benefit from this 

authority. DAV recommends that a third level—30 percent—be added in order to 

rapidly award at least some minimum level of benefits to veterans who need support 

in their recoveries. The 30 percent rating would also open the door for veterans to 

receive other important benefits, such as vocational rehabilitation, more quickly to 

support their transition. In addition, we would encourage Congress and VBA to expand the use of intermediate ratings by creating a category of ‘‘interim’’ or ‘‘temporary minimum’’ ratings for claims in which the evidence of record is already sufficient to support at least a minimum service-connected disability rating. Similar to 

intermediate ratings, these ‘‘interim’’ or ‘‘temporary minimum’’ ratings should not 

slow or impede the regular development and processing of the rest of the claim. 

With the adoption of paperless e-folders and smart processing, all of these temporary rating authorities could be more easily accomplished without the risk of 

‘‘double work’’ by VBA. 

Although these temporary rating authorities would not directly reduce VBA’s 

workload or the backlog, providing a rapid award of at least some benefits, based 

on the available records, to disabled veterans would increase overall confidence in 

the claims process, and likely help to reduce the number of appeals filed by claimants. Most importantly, these changes would expedite much-needed assistance into 

the hands of veterans and their families during difficult transitions and recoveries. 

Fifth, Congress should enact new legislation to provide a presumption of service connection for tinnitus and hearing loss for veterans who served in combat or whose 

military occupation specialty (MOS) exposed them to high levels of noise. 

During their military service, many veterans were exposed to significant acoustic 

trauma from very high levels of noise caused by heavy machinery, aircraft, explosive 

devices or numerous other causes. As a result, many of them later in life develop 

hearing loss and tinnitus, but often have a hard time proving it was due to their 

service because of inadequate testing and record keeping while in service. Tinnitus 

is the number one service-connected disability from all periods of service, with more 

than 800,000 veterans receiving disability compensation, and that number has 

steadily grown each year. Over 700,000 veterans have been rated for hearing loss, 

making that the second highest total for service-connected disabilities. By creating 

a reasonable presumption, not only would thousands of veterans receive compensation to which they are entitled, but VBA would be able to redirect resources from 

unnecessary development of these claims to address its other needs. Both the affected veterans and VBA would benefit from this limited and reasonable presumption. 

Sixth, Congress should enact legislation to create a new Veterans Economic Opportunities Administration inside VA, which would be comprised of the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service, Education Service, the Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment and Training Service, and other related offices and 

functions, in order to allow greater focus by VBA on successfully fixing the 

claims processing system. 

DAV and our partners in the Independent Budget recommend the creation of a 

new Veterans Economic Opportunities Administration (VEOA) which would not only 

92 

help to support veterans seeking new employment and economic opportunities, but 

would also indirectly support VBA’s transformation efforts. By removing responsibility for managing both the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) 

and Education Services, this change would allow VBA leadership to concentrate 

more exclusively on claims processing reform. Given the dismal record of the Department of Labor’s Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) over the 

past two decades, this reorganization would also allow greater focus and synergy 

with VA on employment issues, a critical priority for veterans, particularly younger 

veterans. Moving VETS to VA would also help to protect funding for veterans employment programs since all VA funding is currently exempt from sequestration 

cuts, while DOL programs are not. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you or other Committee members may have. 

Chairman SANDERS. Mr. Violante, thank you very much not only 

for the work that the DAV does but for your excellent testimony. 

Every Member of this Committee and all of these service organizations are deeply, deeply concerned about the backlog and we 

want to move that process forward as rapidly as we can. 

I think the testimony that we have heard today from General 

Hickey and others is that, among other things, the VA is now processing more claims than they ever have before. And, they took a 

detour in appropriately dealing with the Agent Orange issue. 

Mr. Stichman, what I heard you say is, in fact, that the VA did 

exactly the right thing in terms of responding to the illnesses suffered by our soldiers who served in Vietnam, and they did so in a 

prompt and accurate way. 

Would you elaborate on that? 

Mr. STICHMAN. Yes. Your statement is accurate. They re-decided 

150,000 past claims and 60,000 new claims in a speedy way using 

good management techniques by giving the cases to a group of adjudicators whose time was focused on that task alone at the same 

time that the agency was dealing with the backlog. 

Chairman SANDERS. So, in the midst of a lot of criticism being 

leveled at the VA, some of that being appropriate, on this issue you 

think they actually did a pretty good job. 

Mr. STICHMAN. Yes, and I know that because as class counsel we 

are given copies of all the decisions the VA makes; and we have 

been spending the last couple of years communicating with the 

class members and we do find some mistakes. People make mistakes on claims adjudications. That will always be true, but the 

percentage of correct decisions is much higher than in prior administrations in implementing the Nehmer consent decree. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Stichman. 

Mr. Violante, you have indicated in your view, DAV’s view, that 

the VA is, ‘‘on the right path.’’ I think we all understand that the 

year 2013 in the 21st century there is no choice but to go forward 

into a paperless system. The paper system can no longer be used. 

Talk a little bit about what you see them doing right and then 

give me some suggestions, which you did make one. If you were sitting up here, what would you do; is it the same question asked 

General Hickey, what legislatively can we do to improve the situation? And say a few words, if you might, on this 60-day requirement, what some of your concerns might be about that. 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I have 

been in DC now for 30 years. I have been involved in veterans 

93 

issues for most of that time and I have never seen such openness 

with the leadership at the VA central office. 

They brought us in. They talked to us. They listen to us when 

we talk. So, that is helping VBA go down the right path. We believe that what they are doing with VBMS is the right thing to do 

to get into a paperless situation. 

I think what we must understand is this is not being done in a 

vacuum. At the same time, they are processing over a million 

claims annually which, in my mind, is something phenomenal. I 

think their Quality Review Teams are what we have asked for for 

a long time. It will help ensure that their accuracy is improved. 

Their training program is better now than it was years ago. So, 

in those areas that is where we are seeing improvements. 

Chairman SANDERS. Let me just interrupt you, Mr. Violante. My 

understanding is the DAV helps more veterans than perhaps any 

other organization in the country move their claims forward, is 

that correct? 

Mr. VIOLANTE. That is correct. 

Chairman SANDERS. So, you have today and have had in the past 

some experience in this whole process. 

Mr. VIOLANTE. That is correct. Yes. We represent roughly about 

300,000 veterans, about a quarter of those veterans filing claims. 

With regard to the 60 days, we would not like to see that shortened only because 50 percent of the veterans are unrepresented. 

We certainly encourage veterans that we work with or claimants 

that we work with, if there is no additional evidence or they can 

get their evidence filed early, to do so. So, we would not like to see 

changes there. 

A couple of things legislatively we would like to see would be 

with regard to the recommendations I made about requiring the 

VA to consider credible, competent medical evidence that is adequate for rating purposes. 

Right now, we hear from the field, from our people, that in some 

cases where the medical evidence is sufficient to be rated, the fact 

that it comes in from a private physician triggers an unnecessary 

examination. 

I think also there should be more emphasis put on partial claims. 

In other words, I walk in the door. VA looks at my records. They 

see I was involved in an IED explosion. They see I have a throughand-through wound from the shrapnel. I have ringing in my ears. 

You know, those can be adjudicated quickly. 

The other claims for PTSD, for Post Traumatic Brain Injury, 

they can continue to develop those but I should walk out of there 

with a check immediately because in the record is evidence establishing, you know, those injuries. 

So, we would like to see more done with regard to intermediate 

or partial claims. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Violante. 

Thanks again for what the DAV does. 

Mr. Thompson, you have a unique perspective on this issue, 

given the fact that you were doing exactly what General Hickey is 

doing today. We look at so many numbers to try to measure the 

VA’s progress. It is kind of difficult to deal with all those numbers. 

94 

VA, Congress, and stakeholders examine mountains of data in an 

attempt to gauge where progress is being made and which efforts 

are producing results. 

What measurements or data do you think are the most vital for 

this Committee, VA leadership, and, most importantly, veterans to 

use to measure VA’s performance as well as the success or failure 

of their transformation efforts? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the single most important 

measure is the quality and accuracy of the decisions made. You can 

do everything else but if you get that wrong it is a major problem. 

I would say the second issue has to do with both the cycle times, 

or, the average days to complete as VA refers to it. This is a measure that is looking at the past. And then, they have the measurement of the age of cases in the inventory, average days pending. 

That is a look at the future. 

So, if those average days pending are in decline, as I understand 

they are now, that is giving you some insight as to where the workload is headed. 

If I might take my hat off as a representative of the National 

Academy and speak as a private citizen who has some familiarity 

with this issue, I think that until transformation is done, until they 

actually have these tools available to them, this still will remain 

overwhelmingly a people process inside regional offices. 

It will require a large number of people handling the work, and 

it is my belief that they need more people than they have today. 

I believe they need thousands more employees considering the volumes, not just pending claims but looking at how much appeals 

work is sitting out there, and all of the things they are trying to 

do simultaneously. 

I commend them for what they are trying to do but that is the 

heaviest lift I can imagine. In my personal perspective, I think they 

need more people. 

Chairman SANDERS. I appreciate that thought. Would you want 

to add any other advice in terms of what this Committee could do 

legislatively based on your years of experience? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I have heard numerous discussions about 

DOD and I would offer this: 15 years ago I sat with my counterpart 

in DOD, the Under Secretary, when we thought we had a deal 

about securing the transmission of records from them to us. The 

fact that it is still an issue suggests to me that they may not fully 

be on board. If I were to spend time in terms of trying to craft legislation, I think I would look down that road. 

Chairman SANDERS. Well, let me thank all of you for your valuable and interesting testimony, and we look forward to working 

with you in the future. Thanks again. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ