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

40–547 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–328

HEARING ON PENDING LEGISLATIVE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

October 24, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, Ranking 

Member 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

WILLIAM E. BREW, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

OCTOBER 24, 2007

SENATORS 

Page 

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

Burr, Richard K., U.S. Senator from North Carolina ........................................... 3

Murray, Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington ..................................................... 4

Craig, Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho ............................................................. 6

Brown, Sherrod, U.S. Senator from Ohio .............................................................. 6

Isakson, Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia ........................................................ 7

WITNESSES 

Kussman, Michael L., M.D., M.S. MACP, Under Secretary for Health, U.S. 

Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ Accompanied by Walter Hall, Assistant 

General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka .................................................................................. 19

Blake, Carl, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America ...... 29

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Ilem, Joy J., Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans ...................................................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs ................................................................... 38

Murdough, Brenda, MSN, RN–C, Military/Veterans Initiative Coordinator, 

American Pain Foundation .................................................................................. 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka .................................................................................. 44

Smith, Brien J., M.D., Medical Director, Comprehensive Epilepsy Program, 

Henry Ford Hospital ............................................................................................ 45

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Response to written questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka .................................................................................. 48

Hon. Patty Murray ........................................................................................ 49

Walker, Capt. Constance A., USN (Ret.), National Alliance on Mental Illness 

Member, NAMI Veterans Council; President, NAMI Southern Maryland ...... 49

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53

(1)

HEARING ON PENDING LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m., in room 

562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka, Murray, Brown, Burr, Craig, and 

Isakson. 

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

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Chairman AKAKA. Aloha and good morning, everyone. 

Before we begin the formal hearing, I ask for your indulgence for 

a brief ceremony. Kim Lipsky, will you please stand? Kim has no 

idea what is about to happen this morning, so you will excuse her 

for the look of confusion. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman AKAKA. Congratulations, Kim, and mahalo. Thank you 

with warmest aloha for 12 years of outstanding and productive 

service to the U.S. Senate and to the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

I am pleased that the practice of awarding a 12-year service pin 

and certificate gives me and the Committee the opportunity to recognize and thank you for your vital role you play in helping us to 

meet our obligations to our veterans on crucial health services 

issues. 

To cite but a few recent examples, largely as a result of your efforts before and during and after our hearings in Hawaii, we have 

been able to provide the best possible access to quality care to Hawaii veterans as close to home as possible. We did this by improving care, increasing staffing, or both, throughout the Islands, Oahu, 

Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and the Big Island and Kauai. This is an accomplishment much appreciated by veterans who are now spared 

not only the inconveniences of going to another island, but also the 

expenses of traveling and possibly lodging. 

I am especially pleased with the results of our hearings in Hawaii this year, for they lend a great deal of credibility to the Committee and the veterans’ community and the community at large 

when we went to listen, and then acted. 

Kim, I value your expertise and judgment, particularly on health 

issues. The force of your logic based on a deep well of knowledge 

leads to balanced solutions to problems that I find most helpful. I 

2

appreciate your tireless efforts to make this possible and want to 

express my heartfelt mahalo to you. 

Having said that, I also want you to know that I value your 

friendship on a personal level and I think of you as being a part 

of the Akaka Office Ohana, which is family. I always think of you 

as a friend. As we go into this hearing today, I cannot help but observe what a fortuitous coincidence it is that as we recognize your 

wonderful first 12 years of service, the Committee is taking up two 

proposals which you developed to improve VA health care in the 

areas of mental health care and pain management. Thank you for 

your continuing dedication and efforts for our veterans. 

Here is the Senate’s formal recognition of your first 12 years of 

service. Let me just present this to you, Kim. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman AKAKA. Kim, thank you again, and there is a pin and 

also a certificate. 

Again, aloha and good morning, everyone. I want to welcome you 

to this hearing on pending legislation. 

Today, the Committee will hear testimony on five bills from a 

number of witnesses. The bills under consideration are largely in 

response to the needs of the newest generation of veterans, but 

hold promise for all veterans. 

Mental health issues remain an important part of our work in 

the Committee. Based upon the valuable testimony gathered at our 

mental health hearing in April, I introduced S. 2162, the Mental 

Health Improvements Act of 2007. I am pleased that Senator Burr 

has joined me as a cosponsor and, of course, I am repeating when 

I say I am so glad to have him here as our Ranking Member. Now, 

more than ever, VA must make mental health services a priority. 

New approaches and programs aimed at substance use or disorder, 

PTSD, and readjustment services are included in this legislation. 

Also on the agenda is legislation which recognizes the need for 

improvements in VA’s pain care management program. VA’s current pain care efforts are worthwhile, but are unfortunately too inconsistent and are not standardized to adequately meet the needs 

of our veterans. S. 2160 will enhance VA’s pain management program on a national, systemwide level through better clinical practices, research, and professional education. 

Senator Murray and Senator Craig have proposed S. 2004, which 

would require VA to create Epilepsy Centers of Excellence. These 

centers would focus their attention upon research, education, and 

clinical care related to epilepsy. Epilepsy is anticipated to be an increasingly prevalent condition among veterans. We have learned 

that veterans with TBI are at a substantially increased risk to develop Post-Trauma seizures months or even years after their injury. 

We also have before us a bill by Senator Brown to clarify how 

non-VA emergency care needs to work. Senator Brown chaired a 

field hearing earlier this year which highlighted problems with the 

reimbursement problems for veterans and private hospitals when 

emergency care and treatment is needed. Senator Brown’s bill 

would improve the emergency treatment of veterans at non-VA facilities by removing uncertainty through a mandatory reimbursement system and a clarification of transfer procedures. 

3

We will have a Committee mark-up next month. My expectation 

is that we can move some of this legislation forward to the full Senate. 

In closing, I note that the Committee has moved much legislation 

through its process. Several large authorization bills are on the 

Senate calendar presently. As Chairman, I am working with our 

new Ranking Member on time agreements so that we can expedite 

the path to enactment. I am hopeful that we will be able to reach 

agreement and get the pending bills to the floor by next week or 

soon after that. 

I would like to yield to our Ranking Member, Senator Burr. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, RANKING MEMBER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

for holding this hearing on five important bills that we are currently considering in the Committee. I also want to welcome our 

witnesses. It is always good to see them. 

Mr. Chairman, I think the bills before us today are truly deserving of action by this Committee. Certainly the issues addressed by 

these bills, particularly the issues of mental health and mental 

health treatment and Traumatic Brain Injury research, are extremely important to our veterans. 

I want to especially single out your bill, Mr. Chairman, which 

seeks to expand treatment and research for substance abuse and 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Unfortunately, too many veterans 

who suffer from PTSD are turning to drugs and alcohol to help 

them cope with this illness. Thanks to the recent report from the 

Institute of Medicine, we know that certain treatments work to 

help improve the lives of those suffering from PTSD. We also know 

that more research and work needs to be done in the area of treating veterans with co-morbid conditions, such as PTSD and substance abuse. Your bill speaks to the exact issue and I am proud 

to be a cosponsor of it. 

I also want to thank you and your staff for your willingness to 

work with me and the minority staff in making some minor 

changes, I hope improvements, to the bill prior to its introduction. 

You often talk about this Committee’s long record of bipartisan cooperation and you have certainly shown that with this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, recent reports to Congress from the 

Disability Commission and the Institute of Medicine have presented us with a challenge when it comes to the care and treatment of veterans with mental illness, particularly PTSD. Both of 

these distinguished groups have separately come to the same conclusion, that the VBA and the VHA need to approach compensation, treatment, and rehabilitation of veterans with PTSD and 

other mental illnesses differently. I think we owe our veterans our 

best effort to not only compensate them for their injuries and treat 

their illness, but to improve their overall health and well-being. 

I hope that this Committee will take some time to explore these 

new findings and consider new ways we might be able to improve 

the VA system to respond to the challenge presented to us. I look 

forward to working with all of you to do that. 

4

I would also like to compliment the Senator from Ohio, Senator 

Brown, for his bill on emergency care. I think his legislation is a 

fine example of what elected representatives do here in Washington. A flaw in the VA’s reimbursement policy was brought to his 

attention. He worked with the administration to explore the source 

of the problem and now we have legislation that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support to correct that law. 

I would also like to comment for a moment on Senator Domenici’s bill, S. 38, by saying that I think any effort to expand the 

cadre of people who can help our returning war veterans readjust 

to civilian life is worthy of support. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I understand that next month you are 

planning to move forward a few naming provisions at a mark-up 

of pending legislation. I respectfully would ask of you that you include H.R. 2546, a bill to name the VA Medical Center in Ashville, 

North Carolina, after Private First Class Charles George. 

George was a member of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians from North Carolina. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for 

his actions on the night of November 30, 1952, when he pushed a 

fellow soldier out of the way of an exploding grenade. Fully aware 

of the consequences of his action, he absorbed the full blast of the 

explosion himself. Charles George is an American hero and all of 

us in North Carolina are proud to claim him as one of our heroes. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank you for holding 

this hearing. I look forward to working with all the Members as we 

work toward completion of the legislation that we are here to talk 

about today, but also the legislation that we have pending. I yield. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

Senator MURRAY?

STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. 

Veterans’ Day is only a few weeks away and many of us go home 

to our States and celebrate the day with veterans at remembrance 

ceremonies and events. But we have to remember that Veterans’ 

Day is not just a ceremony, a holiday. It is also a time that we 

should be asking if we have done enough for those who have served 

our country, and that is a very timely question today with so many 

veterans coming home from places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and 

with an aging population of veterans who do need more care. When 

these brave men and women signed up to serve our country, we 

agreed to take care of them. They kept their part of the bargain. 

Now it is time for us to keep our part. 

Today’s hearing is, in essence, about this country keeping its 

commitment to our veterans and ensuring that we are giving them 

everything that they need. And importantly, Mr. Chairman, this is 

the third legislative hearing that has been held by this Committee. 

The Veterans’ Affairs Committee has held two previous legislative 

hearings several months ago when we considered other benefits 

and health bills, and many of the bills that were considered during 

those two hearings were eventually included in the health and benVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
5

efits omnibus bills that have passed out of this Committee and, as 

the Chairman indicated, are awaiting floor time. 

The fact that we have had to schedule a third legislative hearing 

is, I think, a real testament to the amount of concern all Members 

of this Committee have about the way the VA is being run, and 

near the top of that list is the VA’s ability to care for veterans with 

mental health problems. 

Last week, USA Today reported that the number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seeking care for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder at the VA increased by almost 70 percent last year. And unfortunately, that number of returning veterans with PTSD and 

other mental health ailments is probably too low. Many of our 

servicemembers and veterans don’t seek care because of the stigma 

surrounding treatment or because they fear that a mental health 

diagnosis may hurt their career. 

Mr. Chairman, as troops are deployed overseas now for the third, 

fourth, and I am even hearing fifth tour of duty, the likelihood of 

PTSD and other mental health conditions increases dramatically. 

We have all heard about the lack of providers across the country 

and the lengthy delays in getting an appointment. The VA is facing 

some real challenges on this front. 

The two mental health bills that are being considered today provide slightly different approaches to dealing with this challenge 

and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about which approach they think is best. 

I am also looking forward, Mr. Chairman, to talking about a bill 

that I introduced earlier this year with Senator Craig which would 

ensure that the VA is prepared and equipped to deal with what 

may be one long-term effect of Traumatic Brain Injury, the occurrence of epilepsy. Our bill would establish six Epilepsy Centers of 

Excellence in the VA system, and it is based on the successful MS 

Centers of Excellence and Parkinson’s Disease Research, Education, and Clinical Centers that are already operated by the VA. 

At a May hearing in this Committee, Dr. John Booss, who is a 

former National Director of Neurology at the VA, testified that VAfunded research done with the Department of Defense found that 

more than half of veterans who suffered a penetrating TBI in Vietnam developed epilepsy within 15 years. For these veterans, the 

relative risk for developing epilepsy more than ten to 15 years after 

their injury was 25 times higher than non-veterans in the same 

age group. Dr. Booss expressed strong concern that the VA lacks 

a national program for epilepsy with clear guidelines on when to 

refer patients for further assessment and treatment of epilepsy. He 

urged this Committee to create a network of Epilepsy Centers of 

Excellence. 

Now, it is too early to determine the impact of TBI-induced epilepsy created by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but we do know 

from past wars that many injuries associated with service take 

years or even decades sometimes to develop. So our bill will ensure 

that the VA is prepared to care for those veterans who need care 

down the road, and I hope to work with my colleagues to make this 

important idea a reality soon. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Murray. 

6

Senator CRAIG?

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

IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. Thank you for the 

hearing and thank, of course, Ranking Member Burr for working 

with you to produce this legislative hearing. 

The reason I will be brief is because both you and Senator Murray have already spoken to S. 2004, a bill that she and I cosponsored to create at least six Epilepsy Centers of Excellence. Now, I 

understand and realize that the VA generally opposes Congressionally directed research. At the same time, the hearings we have held 

determine that we really do need to focus much more on this tragic 

ailment and result of head trauma in a way that attempts to get 

to the bottom of it, and hopefully through our research and effort 

can keep men and women out of epilepsy, as Senator Murray has 

mentioned, as much as 15 years down the road. 

We know that one cause is head trauma, or Traumatic Brain Injury, that certainly is related to many combat injury. So that is 

why we want to focus as we are proposing in this legislation to not 

only improving the medical treatment of many veterans, but at the 

same time hopefully deter the emergence of epilepsy later on in 

life. 

We have every reason to be phenomenally proud of the kind of 

research ongoing at the VA. Across medical science today, VA fingerprints of work done inside its facilities that has gone out into 

the private sector to not only care for the veterans within its facilities, but citizenry outside. I believe these kinds of Centers of Excellence focused on epilepsy can not only help our veterans, but also 

help our civilian population at large, and I think it is the right 

thing to do and I am pleased that we are holding a hearing on it 

today. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Craig. 

Senator BROWN?

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

OHIO 

Senator BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

There are several important pieces of legislation on today’s agenda, but in the interest of time, I would like to focus on S. 2142, the 

Veterans Emergency Care Fairness Act. 

Earlier this year, I received a letter from Terry Carson, the CEO 

of Harrison Community Hospital in rural Southeastern Ohio. Harrison is a 25-bed community hospital in Cadiz. The community of 

Cadiz is the home of Clark Gable and General Custer, I might add. 

Terry alerted me to a reimbursement problem with the VA that 

was taking a financial toll on his hospital. 

In late May, Representative Zack Space and I held a joint field 

hearing on issues facing veterans in rural Appalachia and we invited Terry to be a witness. He spoke of his experience serving veterans coming to the hospital for emergency treatment. Often after 

the veteran has received the initial urgent care, the hospital encounters problems when they attempt to transfer the veteran to an 

appropriate VA facility for further treatment. Mr. Carson testified 

7

that the hospital can wait days for transfer approvals, and in some 

instances, those approvals are withdrawn during the actual transfer of the veteran. Current law does not take this into consideration. 

Under current law, non-VA facilities are reimbursed for the cost 

of stabilizing a veteran who needs emergency care and then they 

are expected to transfer the patient to a veterans’ facility. If no facility is available, no veterans’ facility is available, there is a coverage gap. The veteran still needs care, the hospital still provides 

the care, but the VA is not required to cover any associated costs. 

This anomaly in the law is unfair to veterans and hospitals alike. 

This bill closes the loophole and requires the VA to cover the cost 

of care provided while a transfer is pending as long as the hospital 

documents reasonable attempts to complete that transfer. I want to 

thank Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Burr and the Veterans Administration for working with me on this legislation. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for having to leave early 

today. The farm bill is being marked up, so I appreciate the good 

work you do in this Committee. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Brown. 

Senator ISAKSON?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. Thank you, 

Ranking Member Burr, for the bill that you have introduced focusing on mental health. 

I took the month of August on our break to visit the VA hospitals 

in Georgia for a couple of reasons: One, to see firsthand what was 

going on, and second, to lend moral support, if I could, because I 

understand the tremendous pressure those hospitals are under and 

the VA is under. And while there are problems with that pressure, 

I saw some remarkable things happening in those hospitals. 

At the Uptown Augusta Medical Center, which is near the Eisenhower Medical Center, I saw a seamless transition from DOD to 

Veterans Health Care. I had the privilege of meeting a young lady, 

Sergeant Harris, who on the second day of duty in Iraq was in an 

IED explosion in her Humvee and suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury. The Department of Defense released her from duty because 

of her injury. She went to the Uptown Augusta Medical Center 

where doctors there corrected the damage from the Traumatic 

Brain Injury and she reenlisted in the United States Army, which 

is a testimony to what the VA health care is doing at the Uptown 

Augusta facility in dealing with TBI. 

But we have got a long way to go and I think it is very appropriate that we have this hearing today with the focus on mental 

health, epilepsy, and emergency services. It is very important to 

see to it that we give the VA not only the direction, but the financial support and the moral support to meet the challenges they will 

have not just in the months and years ahead, but in the rest of the 

first half of this century with the results of the injuries coming 

back from the War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and I thank you for 

the time, Mr. Chairman. 

8

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. 

I want to welcome the first panel from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Michael Kussman, Under Secretary for Health at 

VA. This is the first time that you have been before the Committee 

since our field hearings in Hawaii, and again, I want to thank you 

so much for your participation in those hearings. 

Dr. Kussman is accompanied by Walter Hall. Mr. Hall is the Assistant General Counsel at VA. Dr. Kussman, before you begin 

your prepared testimony, will you please tell the Committee about 

the impact the Southern California fires have had on our VA operations. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, M.D., M.S., MACP, 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER HALL, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Aloha, Mr. Chairman, and mahalo nui loa. It is a 

pleasure to be here. If you indulge me for just a second, I would 

like to thank Kim Lipsky for all her support with us and the collegial working relationship we have had with her over the years. I 

particularly wanted to thank her for inviting me for the field trip 

to Hawaii. I know she was responsible for that. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, you asked for a quick update on 

the California wildfires. So far, this tragic event that is unfolding, 

there have been no injuries to employees or veterans in VA facilities, no damage to VA facilities as of the latest report that I have 

gotten. The Loma Linda Health Care System is fully operational, 

but there has been some road access and some other things that 

have been a challenge with the fires. 

The VA San Diego Health Care System is operational and has 

initiated emergency response activities. There have been some 

challenges with limited staffing because a significant number of 

members have been required to evacuate their homes and it has 

been hard for them to get to work, but it hasn’t so far denigrated 

the services that we can provide at the facility. We have housed 

more than 95 people as a shelter in place and 13 patients, all veterans, have been transferred to us from the local community. 

The Greater Los Angeles Health Care System has had no major 

impacts. Some staff have evacuated their homes and are on standby to evacuate. 

If you will bear with me, I will talk a little bit about the VBA 

and the NCA, too, even though their under secretaries are not 

here. The San Diego Regional Office Director reports that all employees have been accounted for and has opened with 12 essential 

personnel. The National Cemetery Administration has continued to 

cancel burials at the Riverside Cemetery and the Rosencrantz National Cemetery is closed due to road closures related to the fire. 

But so far, we have been lucky. 

There haven’t been any, we know of any damage to our facilities 

as well as no veterans, but we are watching it very closely and we 

all pray that the winds will calm down and shift and the brave fire 

9

fighters and all the people working on that will be able to get control of these several fires that are going on. 

Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today to present the administration’s views on five bills that would affect the Department of 

Veterans Affairs’ programs. With me today, as mentioned, as Walter Hall, the Assistant General Counsel. I would like to request 

that my written statement be submitted for the record. 

Chairman AKAKA. Without objection, it will be. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. S. 2142, the Veterans Emergency Care Fairness 

Act of 2007, would make mandatory enhanced VA authorities to 

pay for a veteran’s receipt of emergency treatment in a non-VA facility. The authorities under which VA may currently pay these 

claims are discretionary in nature and use different standards to 

define a medical emergency. 

VA strongly supports S. 2142. It would standardize authorities 

by applying the prudent layperson definition of emergency treatment to all claims and define emergency treatment as continuing 

until the point in time where the veteran is stabilized and is transferred to a VA or other Federal facility, or until such time as a VA 

facility or Federal facility agrees to accept the transfer. I am happy 

to be ‘‘Dr. Yes’’ on that, versus ‘‘Dr. No,’’ or ‘‘Dr. Maybe.’’ 

In regards to S. 38, the Veterans Mental Health Outreach and 

Access Act of 2007, while we strongly support Section 3, we do not 

support Section 2. Section 2 would require VA to establish a program to provide OEF/OIF veterans with peer outreach services, 

peer support services, readjustment counseling services, and mental health services along with related family support services to assist in the veteran’s readjustment to civilian life, the veteran’s recovery, and the readjustment of the family following return of the 

veteran. The bill would require VA to contract with community 

mental health centers and other qualified entities to provide covered services in areas the VA determines are not adequately 

served. 

Mr. Chairman, veterans of OEF/OIF combat operations are already qualified for readjustment counseling services and related 

mental health services under existing authority. VA’s readjustment 

counseling authority provides for mental health services, consultation, professional counseling, and training for combat veterans, immediate family members as needed for the veteran’s effective and 

successful readjustment back to civilian life. Veterans Centers are 

also authorized to contract for readjustment counseling services 

and related mental health services. Veterans Centers routinely rely 

on contracted services to meet the readjustment needs of veterans 

residing in rural areas. Also, veterans centers already provide veteran peer outreach and counseling services. 

In 2004, VA began an aggressive outreach effort which included 

the hiring of OEF/OIF combat theater veterans to provide outreach 

services and peer counseling to their fellow veterans. To date, the 

veterans center program has hired 100 OEF/OIF outreach workers, 

and Al Bottras, who runs the program, is in the process of hiring 

a second 100 OEF/OIF outreach peer counselors. Combat theater 

veterans who enroll in VA’s health care system are also eligible for 

all needed mental health services as part of VA’s medical benefits 

10

package. Family support services are currently available to a veteran’s immediate family members as necessary in connection with 

VA’s treatment of the veteran’s service-connected disability. 

Section 3 of S. 38 would extend from 2 to 5 years combat theater 

veterans’ window of eligibility to enroll without regard to whether 

they have a service-connected disability or their income level. As 

the leading researcher in PTSD medicine, VA has known the onset 

of symptoms or adverse health care effects related to PTSD and 

even mild to moderate brain injury can often be delayed and not 

manifested clinically for more than 2 years. VA strongly supports 

this provision, since it will provide combat theater veterans with an 

additional 3 years within which they can enroll in VA’s health care 

system. 

S. 2004 would require VA to designate at least six VA facilities 

as Epilepsy Centers of Excellence. VA does not support this bill. As 

a clinician as well as the Under Secretary of Health, I am concerned about statutory mandates for disease-specific centers have 

the potential to fragment care in which this otherwise well-designed world class health care integrated system is based. I am increasingly concerned about the proliferation of these disease-specific models and its impact on patient care in VA’s integrated 

health care system. As it relates to a particular disease, I believe 

it is much more important for VA to be sure to demonstrate the 

best evidenced practice across the whole system than to establish 

centers that provide for care of a particular disease. In essence, 

every one of our centers ought to be a Center of Excellence for 

these diseases. 

S. 2160, the Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007, would require VA 

to carry out an initiative on pain care management at each VA 

health care center. We do not support this bill, as well. Pain management is already a subject of systematic and systemic-wide attention in the VA health care system. In 2003, VHA established a 

national Pain Management Strategy to provide a systemwide approach to pain management to reduce pain and suffering for veterans. Under that strategy, VA uses a system-wide standard of 

care for pain management, ensures pain assessment is performed 

in a consistent manner, and ensures pain treatment is prompt and 

appropriate, provides for continual monitoring and improvement in 

outcomes of pain treatment, and ensures VA clinicians are prepared to assess and manage pain effectively. In addition, pain management protocols have been established and implemented in all 

our settings and VA health care facilities have implemented processes for measuring outcomes in the quality of the pain management. 

Title 1 of S. 2162, the Mental Health Improvement Act of 2007, 

includes multiple provisions related to VA treatment programs for 

substance abuse disorders and mental health disorders, particularly PTSD. While VA respects the attention this Committee is giving these critical issues, we do not support Title 1. It attempts to 

mandate the type of treatments to be provided to covered veterans, 

the treatment settings, and the composition of the treatment 

teams. Treatment decisions need to be based on professional medical judgments, and experienced health care providers and manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
11

agers are in the best position to decide how best to deliver needed 

health care services at the local level. 

Title 2 of S. 2162 deals with mental health accessibility enhancements, including the requirements for VA to establish a 3-year 

pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing 

eligible OIF/OEF veterans with peer outreach services, peer support services, and readjustment counseling services, and other 

mental health services. VA would be required to contract these 

services with community mental health services and Indian Health 

Service facilities for veterans residing in rural areas. As we discussed in connection with Section 2 of S. 38, these services are already available to OIF/OEF veterans, including those who served 

in the National Guard or the Reserves. As such, we don’t believe 

these needs to exist for a pilot program with additional authorities 

which are duplicative of current existing authorities. 

Title 3 of S. 2162 would require that the VA carry out a program 

of research into co-morbid PTSD and substance abuse disorders 

and would charge VA’s National Center for PTSD with the responsibility for carrying out and overseeing this program. This is overly 

prescriptive and unnecessary. Therefore, with the exception of the 

extension of the Special Committee on PTSD through 2012, we are 

unable to support the provisions of Title 3. VA is a world recognized leader in the care of both PTSD and substance abuse disorders, particularly when these conditions coexist in an individual. 

The activities required by Title 3 are duplicative of the VHA’s ongoing efforts in this area, particularly in research efforts being carried out by the VA’s National PTSD Center and the VA’s Office of 

Research and Development. We would be happy to meet with the 

Committee staff to provide them information on these ongoing efforts. 

Title 4 of S. 2162 addresses assistance for families of veterans. 

However, it is unclear how these readjustment and transition assistance services the bill would require VA to pilot are intended to 

differ from or interact with the readjustment counseling services 

and related mental health services already made available to veterans and their families through the veterans centers. In our view, 

this provision would conflict with many aspects with the VA’s existing authorities and lend confusion to what is otherwise a highly 

successful program. Client satisfaction with the veterans centers is 

the highest in the VA’s program, at 98 percent. The services they 

provide already include marriage and counseling services to family 

members as necessary to further the veteran’s adjustment. 

Second, we do not agree that there is a need for additional study 

of the merits of using organizations for the provision of these services. Let me again assure you that our veterans centers readily 

contract with appropriate organizations and providers to ensure 

veterans and their families receive covered family services when 

necessary. In sum, we do not believe this provision would enhance 

current authorities and the veterans center activities. Rather, we 

see that it has a serious potential to create confusion and disruption for both VA and our beneficiaries. 

I appreciate the Committee’s continued interest and support in 

meeting the needs of our veterans. I know we share a common interest in providing the best care to veterans and we would welcome 

12

the opportunity to brief the Committee on VA’s ongoing programs 

and activities in these areas as well as the Office of Mental Health 

on overseeing PTSD and substance abuse programs. 

This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to 

answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee 

might have. Mahalo. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kussman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, M.D., MS, MACP, UNDER

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to present the Administration’s views on 

several bills that would affect Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) programs that 

provide veterans benefits and services. With me today is Walter A. Hall, Assistant 

General Counsel. I will address the five bills on today’s agenda and then I would 

be happy to answer any questions you and the Committee Members may have.

S. 2142 ‘‘VETERANS’ EMERGENCY CARE FAIRNESS ACT OF 2007’’

S. 2142 would make mandatory, standardize, and enhance the two existing authorities the Secretary has to pay for expenses incurred in connection with a veteran’s receipt of emergency treatment in a non-VA facility. The two authorities 

under which the Secretary may currently pay these claims are discretionary in nature (‘‘may reimburse’’ as opposed to ‘‘shall reimburse’’) and cover different veteran 

populations and use different standards to define a medical emergency. 

As background, the Secretary is authorized to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by a veteran for non-VA emergency treatment of a service-connected disability, a non-service-connected disability aggravating a service-connected disability, 

any disability of a veteran with a permanent and total disability, or for a covered 

vocational rehabilitation purpose. In these claims, VA medical professionals must 

determine whether a medical emergency existed (i.e., if there was an actual emergency of such nature that delay in obtaining treatment would have been hazardous 

to life or health.) Expenses incurred after the medical emergency has ended, that 

is, after the point in time the veteran could have been transferred safely to VA or 

another Federal facility, may not be reimbursed. 

The Secretary may also reimburse or pay a veteran for expenses incurred for nonVA emergency treatment of a non-service connected disability. In these claims, the 

law requires use of a prudent layperson standard to determine the need for the nonVA emergency treatment. Thus, if it turns out that the veteran’s condition was not 

an actual medical emergency, VA can still pay the expenses if a prudent layperson 

would have thought it reasonable for the veteran to seek immediate medical treatment. This happens, for instance, when a veteran goes to the nearest emergency 

room because of the belief he or she is having a heart attack, but turns out only 

to have a severe case of heartburn. Similar to claims for service-connected conditions, the Secretary is only authorized to pay for the emergency treatment expenses, 

and the emergency ends at the point the veteran can be transferred safely to a VA 

facility or other Federal facility. 

S. 2142 would amend both existing authorities by requiring the Secretary to pay 

the expenses of any veteran who meets eligibility criteria. It would also standardize 

these programs by applying the prudent layperson definition of ‘‘emergency treatment’’ in both situations. And most importantly it would define ‘‘emergency treatment’’ as continuing until (1) the point in time the veteran can be transferred safely 

to a VA or other Federal facility, or (2) such time as a VA facility or other Federal 

facility agrees to accept such transfer if, at the time the veteran could have been 

transferred safely, the non-VA provider makes and documents reasonable attempts 

to transfer the veteran to a VA facility or other Federal facility. 

VA strongly supports S. 2142; effective emergency room reimbursement has been 

an issue of concern to the Department. In fact, VA is in the process of drafting regulations to address these concerns within the authority it has under current law. 

It is VA’s expectation that facilities aggressively work to accept the transfer of a 

veteran in these situations. We are aware, however, that there have been cases 

where VA has been unable to find a facility that had the bed, capability, staff, or 

resources needed to furnish the care required by the veteran. In those cases, which 

we believe are the exception and not the norm, the non-VA providers ultimately 

13

billed the veterans for those expenses. This can impose a serious monetary hardship 

for our beneficiaries. 

S. 2142 would properly put the financial onus on the Department to provide appropriate care either in the VA or Federal system or at the non-VA facility. Enrolled 

veterans are eligible for needed hospital or medical care. Good medical practice demands we furnish such care in a manner that advances a seamless continuum of 

care and reduces fragmentation of such care. Clearly these goals are best achieved 

by bringing the veteran into the VA health care system as soon as possible. In those 

rare cases where VA cannot immediately agree to accept the patient transfer, it 

would be entirely appropriate for VA to be responsible for the expenses related to 

the veteran’s needed continued hospital care in the private facility until the point 

VA can take over. 

When VA initiated drafting regulations for this program choice, it determined 

funds were available within the FY 2008 President’s Budget level for this expanded 

benefit. 

As a final and more technical matter, I would like to clarify that if a veteran currently meets the eligibility criteria on which his or her claim is based, VA invariably 

pays the claim. Thus, changing the Secretary’s authority from ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ for 

purposes of both types of claims would have no practical effect. Nevertheless, we do 

not object to such a change.

S. 38 ‘‘VETERANS’ MENTAL HEALTH OUTREACH AND ACCESS ACT OF 2007’’

SECTION 2 OF S. 38

Section 2 of S. 38 would require the Secretary to establish, not later than 180 

days after enactment of the bill, a program to provide veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) ‘‘peer outreach services, peer 

support services, readjustment counseling services, and mental health services.’’ As 

part of this program, the Secretary would be required to furnish education, support, 

counseling, and mental health services to a veteran’s immediate family members to 

assist: in the veteran’s readjustment to civilian life, the veteran’s recovery, and the 

readjustment of the family following the return of the veteran. 

S. 38 would also require the Secretary to contract with community mental health 

centers and other qualified entities to provide the peer related, readjustment, and 

mental health services in areas the Secretary determines are not adequately served 

by VA health care facilities. Such contracts would require, to the extent practicable, 

that veterans providing peer related services receive training from a national notfor-profit mental health organization, which contracts with VA for this purpose. In 

addition, the contractor’s clinicians would be required to (1) complete mandated 

training to ensure the clinicians can provide services in a manner that recognizes 

factors that are unique to the experience of OEF/OIF veterans and (2) to utilize best 

practices and technologies. 

The centers and entities would have to comply with applicable VA protocols before 

incurring any liability on behalf of the Department; submit specified reports and 

certain clinical information to the Secretary; and meet any other requirements established by the Secretary. 

VA supports many of the initiatives and certainly the stance of aggressive outreach that underlies this provision. VA does not, however, support section 2 as it 

is unnecessary and duplicative of current authorities. Veterans of OEF/OIF combat 

operations already qualify for readjustment counseling services and related mental 

health services under existing authority. (While limited mental health services are 

available in the Vet Center program, Vet Centers refer veterans with complex mental health conditions to VA medical centers.) VA’s readjustment counseling authority 

provides for the furnishing of mental health services, consultation, professional 

counseling, and training to the combat veteran’s immediate family members as 

needed for the veteran’s effective and successful readjustment back to civilian life. 

Vet Centers are also authorized to contract for the provision of readjustment counseling services and related mental health services. Vet Centers routinely rely on 

contracted services to meet the readjustment needs of veterans residing in rural 

areas. Hence, the additional authorities related to the provision of readjustment 

counseling services and related mental health services for OEF/OIF veterans (either 

through the Vet Centers or by contract) are generally duplicative and simply not 

needed. 

Vet Centers are already providing veteran-peer outreach and counseling services. 

In 2004, VA began an aggressive outreach effort, which included the hiring of OEF/

OIF combat-theater veterans to provide outreach services and peer-counseling to 

their fellow veterans. To date, the Vet Center program has hired 100 OEF/OIF outVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
14

reach workers. The Vet Center program is also undergoing the largest expansion in 

its history. This expansion complements the Vet Center peer outreach services initiative. These efforts together enable our Vet Centers to ensure there are sufficient 

staff and resources to provide the professional readjustment services needed by the 

new veterans as they return home. 

OEF/OIF combat-theater veterans are also already eligible to enroll within 2 

years of the date of discharge or release from active duty in VA’s health care system 

and receive VA’s comprehensive medical benefits package. 

As to family support services, VA is already required to provide immediate family 

members of a veteran being treated for a service-connected disability with such 

mental health services, consultation, professional counseling, and training as necessary in connection with that treatment. 

If a veteran is being treated for a non-service connected disability, the law currently authorizes the Secretary to provide family services if: the services are initiated during the veteran’s hospitalization and the continued provision of these services on an outpatient basis is essential to permit the discharge of the veteran from 

the hospital. 

We believe no additional authority is needed as the vast majority of family members of returning OEF/OIF veterans already qualify for these services. However, neither existing authority extends to providing a veteran’s family members with mental 

health services for their individual mental health needs that are separate and apart 

from the veteran’s treatment needs. It is unclear whether S. 38 is intended to authorize individual mental health benefits for family members beyond services needed to assist the veteran’s treatment and readjustment. If that is the case, we could 

not support that provision for the following reasons. 

Mental health conditions often manifest with physical symptoms or sequella. In 

those cases, providing only mental health services to assist in a family member’s 

readjustment could result in fragmented and inadequate treatment. The receipt of 

other medical care could be equally essential for that member’s successful readjustment, and the failure to receive such care could impair the ability of the family as 

a whole to successfully readjust to the veteran’s return. For that reason, we believe 

it would be more reasonable, from a health care perspective, to continue linking 

family support services to those that are essential for the veteran’s readjustment. 

Family members should continue to receive needed mental health services from 

their regular providers who can treat them from a whole-person perspective and 

concurrently address all of their medical needs. 

Also, when VA contracts for services in the community, community health centers 

may compete for those contracts. The provision to require VA to contact specifically 

with that entity may reduce the opportunity for the veteran to be cared for by the 

most highly qualified competent contractor. 

We also note that OEF/OIF veterans who are permanently and totally disabled 

from a service-connected disability are able to sponsor their spouses and children 

in VA’s Civilian Health and Medical Program (commonly referred to as 

‘‘CHAMPVA’’). Once enrolled in that program, their family members will be eligible 

to receive relatively comprehensive VA medical benefits. 

As a final comment on this section, we are uncertain what is meant by the provision requiring centers to comply with VA protocols before incurring any liability on 

behalf of the Department.

SECTION 3 OF S. 38

Section 3 of S. 38 would extend from 2 to 5 years, combat-theater veterans’ window of eligibility to enroll without regard to whether they have a service connected 

disability or their income level. VA strongly supports section 3. As the leading researcher in PTSD medicine, VA has known that the onset of symptoms or adverse 

health effects related to PTSD and even Traumatic Brain Injury can often be delayed and not manifest clinically for more than 2 years after a veteran has left active service. As a result, OEF/OIF may not seek VA health care benefits until after 

their 2-year window of eligibility has already closed. Without that basis of eligibility, 

they may be ineligible to enroll because of the current bar on enrolling new veterans 

in Category 8. 

We are also aware that many of these veterans are not career military and are 

less familiar with veterans benefits and the procedures for obtaining them. For that 

reason they may fail to enroll in a timely fashion. 

Providing combat-theater veterans with an additional 3 years within which to enroll in VA’s health care system will help ensure that none of them is denied the 

care they need and deserve for reasons wholly beyond their control. VA estimates 

the costs associated with enactment of section 3 to be $15.7 million in Fiscal Year 

15

2008, and this expansion can be accommodated within the FY 2008 President’s 

Budget level. This estimate includes both expenditures and lost co-payment revenue.

S. 2004 ‘‘EPILEPSY CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE’’

S. 2004 would require the Secretary, not later than 120 days after enactment of 

this provision, to designate at least six Department health-care facilities as epilepsy 

centers of excellence based on the recommendation of the Under Secretary for 

Health (USH). The mandate to establish and operate these centers, however, would 

be subject to the availability of appropriations for this purpose. 

The bill defines an ‘‘epilepsy center of excellence’’ as a Department health-care facility that has (or in the foreseeable future can develop) the necessary capacity to 

function as a center of excellence in research, education, and clinical care activities 

in the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy. To qualify as a center, the facility would 

need:

• An affiliation with an accredited medical school that provides education and 

training in neurology (or may reasonably be anticipated to develop such an affiliation). 

• The ability to attract scientists of ingenuity and creativity. 

• An advisory committee composed of veterans and appropriate health-care and 

research representatives of the facility and of the affiliate. 

• The capability to effectively evaluate the activities of the centers. 

• The capability to coordinate the centers education, clinical care, and research 

activities. 

• The capability to develop a national consortium of providers with interest in 

treating epilepsy at VA medical centers; the consortium would have to include a designated epilepsy referral clinical in each Veterans Integrated Service Network. 

• The capability to assist in the expansion of VA’s use of information systems and 

databases to improve the quality and delivery of care. 

• The capability to assist in the expansion of VA’s tele-health program to develop, 

transmit, monitor, and review neurological diagnostic tests. 

• The ability to perform epilepsy research, education, and clinical care activities 

in collaboration with VA’s Poly Trauma Centers.

A number of specific requirements governing the competitive selection of the six 

facilities are set forth in the bill, including a requirement that the Secretary consider appropriate geographic distribution when making the selections. 

S. 2004 would further mandate the designation of an individual in VHA to act 

as a national coordinator for VHA’s epilepsy programs. The bill includes a list of 

duties for that position, including that such individual report to the VHA official responsible for neurology. 

The bill would authorize $6 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to 

establish and operate the centers; such sums as may be necessary for operating the 

centers for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2012 would also be authorized. For the 

first 3 years of the centers operation, the bill would require that the centers be designated as a special purpose program in order to avoid funds for the centers being 

allocated through the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system. In addition to 

those amounts, the USH would be required to allocate such amounts as he deems 

appropriate from other funds made available to VHA. The bill includes a separate 

authorization of appropriations to fund the national coordinator position. 

VA does not support S. 2004. As I have discussed in the past, I am concerned that 

statutory mandates for ‘‘disease specific’’ centers have the potential to fragment care 

in what is otherwise a well-designed, world-class integrated health care system. I 

am increasingly concerned about the proliferation of this disease-specific model and 

its impact on patient care and VA’s integrated health care model. As it relates to 

a particular disease, I believe that it is much more important for VA to disseminate 

the best in evidence-based practices across its health care system than to establish 

centers that provide care for a particular disease. 

Treating epilepsy, like every other serious condition, requires an interdisciplinary 

approach. By mandating new ‘‘education, research, and clinical centers’’ that are disease-specific, flexibility to respond to changing combinations of related conditions is 

reduced. The centers’ mandated collaboration with VA’s Poly trauma Centers would 

not cure this short-coming. 

It is also important to note that the ‘‘models’’ on which these Epilepsy Centers 

are based, the successful Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center 

(GRECC) and Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) 

16

programs, are not narrowly focused on a disease process but address a wide gamut 

of issues facing a significant portion of the veteran population.

S. 2160 ‘‘VETERANS PAIN CARE ACT OF 2007’’

S. 2160 would require the Secretary to carry out an initiative on pain care management at each VA health care facility. Under the initiative, each individual receiving treatment in a VA facility would receive: (1) a pain assessment at the time of 

admission or initial treatment and periodically thereafter, using a professionally recognized pain assessment tool or process; and (2) appropriate pain care consistent 

with recognized means for assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and management of 

acute and chronic pain, including, when appropriate, access to specialty pain management services. The initiative would have to be implemented at all VA health care 

facilities by not later than January 1, 2008, in the case of inpatient care and by 

not later than January 1, 2009, in the case of outpatient care. 

The bill would further require the Secretary to carry out a program of research 

and training on acute and chronic pain within VHA’s Medical and Prosthetic Research Service. These programs would be directed to meet the purposes specified in 

the bill. The Secretary would also be required to designate an appropriate number 

of facilities as cooperative centers for research and education on pain. Each such 

center would focus on research and training in one or more of the following areas: 

acute pain; chronic pain, or a research priority identified by VHA. The Secretary 

would also need to designate at least one of those centers as a lead center for research on pain attributable to central and peripheral nervous system damage commonly associated with the battlefield injuries characteristic of modern warfare. Another center would be the lead for coordinating the pain care research activities conducted by the centers and responsible for carrying out a number of other duties 

specified in the bill. 

The measure would permit these centers to compete for funding from amounts appropriated to the Department each year for medical and prosthetics research. It 

would also charge the USH with designating an appropriate official to oversee their 

operation and to evaluate their performance. 

VA health care is delivered in accordance with patient-centered medicine. Fundamental to this is effective pain management. In 2003 VHA established a National 

Pain Management Strategy to provide a system-wide approach to pain management 

to reduce pain and suffering for veterans experiencing acute and chronic pain associated with a wide range of illnesses. The national strategy uses a system-wide 

standard of care for pain management; ensures that pain assessment is performed 

in a consistent manner; ensures that pain treatment is prompt and appropriate; provides for continual monitoring and improvement in outcomes of pain treatment; uses 

an interdisciplinary, multi-modal approach to pain management; and ensures VA 

clinicians are prepared to assess and manage pain effectively. The national strategy 

also called for pain management protocols to be established and implemented in all 

clinical settings and directed all VHA medical facilities to implement processes for 

measuring outcomes and quality of pain management. 

To oversee implementation of the National Pain Management System, VHA established an interdisciplinary committee. Part of the Committee’s charge is to ensure 

that every veteran in every network has access to pain management services. The 

committee is also responsible for making certain that national employee education 

is provided to VHA clinicians so that they have the needed expertise to provide high 

quality pain assessment and treatment and for identifying research opportunities 

and priorities in pain management. It also facilitates collaborative research efforts 

and ensures that VHA pain management standards have been integrated into the 

curricula and clinical learning experiences of medial students, allied health professional students, interns, and resident trainees. 

Because pain management is already a subject of systematic and system-wide attention in the VHA health care system, S. 2160 is superfluous and duplicative of 

what is already happening in VA healthcare. We would be very happy to meet with 

the Committee to discuss VA’s ongoing pain management program and activities.

S. 2162 ‘‘MENTAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2007’’

TITLE I. SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE

Mr. Chairman, title I of this bill focuses on VA treatment programs for substance 

use disorders and mental health disorders, particularly PTSD. Section 102 would require the Secretary to ensure the provision of the following services for substance 

use disorders at every VA medical center:

17

• Short term motivational counseling services. • Intensive outpatient care services. • Relapse prevention services. • Ongoing aftercare and outpatient counseling services. • Opiate substitution therapy services. • Pharmacological treatments aimed at reducing cravings for drugs and alcohol. • Detoxification and stabilization services. • Such other services as the Secretary deems appropriate.

The Secretary could, however, exempt an individual medical center or Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) from providing all of the mandated services. 

Annually the Department would have to report to Congress on the facilities receiving an exemption under this provision, including the reason for the exemption. 

Section 103 would require the Secretary to ensure that VA treatment for a veteran’s substance use disorder and a co-morbid mental health disorder is provided 

concurrently by a team of clinicians with appropriate expertise. 

Section 104 would require the Secretary to carry out a program to enhance VA’s 

treatment of veterans suffering from substance use disorders and PTSD through facilities that compete for funds for this purpose. Funding awarded to a facility would 

be used for the six purposes specified in the bill, in addition to the conduct of peer 

outreach programs through Vet Centers to re-engage OEF/OIF veterans who miss 

multiple appointments for PTSD or a substance use disorder. Another specified purpose for the funds would be to establish collaboration between VA’s urgent care clinicians and substance use disorder and PTSD professionals to ensure expedited referral of veterans who are diagnosed with these disorders. 

Not later than 1 year after the bill’s enactment, the Secretary would need to submit a report to Congress on this program and the facilities receiving funding. S. 2162 would provide for funding by requiring the Secretary to allocate $50 million from appropriated funds available for medical care for each of fiscal years 2008, 

2009, and 2010. The bill would require the total expenditure for PTSD and substance use disorder programs to not be less than $50 million in excess of a specified 

baseline amount. (The bill would define the baseline as the amount of the total expenditures on VA’s treatment programs for PTSD and substance use disorders for 

the most recent fiscal year for which final expenditure amounts are known, as adjusted to reflect any subsequent increase in applicable costs to deliver those programs.) 

Section 105 would require the Secretary to establish not less than six national 

centers of excellence on PTSD and substance use disorders. These centers would 

provide comprehensive inpatient treatment and recovery services to veterans newly 

diagnosed with these disorders. Sites for the centers would be limited to VA medical 

centers that provide inpatient care; that are geographically situated in an area with 

a high number of veterans that have been diagnosed with both PTSD and substance 

use disorder; and that are capable of treating PTSD and substance use disorders. 

This provision would also direct the Secretary to establish a process to refer and 

aid the transition of veterans receiving treatment in these centers to programs that 

provide step down rehabilitation treatment. 

Section 106 would require the Secretary, acting through the Office of the Medical 

Inspector (MI), to review all of VA’s residential mental health care facilities and to 

submit to Congress a detailed report on the MI’s findings. 

Section 107 would provide for title I of this bill to be enacted in tribute to Justin 

Bailey, an OIF veteran who died while under VA treatment for PTSD and a substance use disorder. 

While VA respects the attention this Committee is giving these critical issues, 

Title I is overly prescriptive and attempts to mandate the type of treatments to be 

provided to covered veterans, the treatment settings, and the composition of treatment teams. Treatment decisions should be based on professional medical judgments in light of an individual patient’s needs, and experienced health care managers are in the best position to decide how best to deliver needed health care services at the local level. With regard to the proposed centers of excellence, we reiterate 

our concerns about disease-specific treatment centers and models, although we appreciate the Committee’s efforts thereby to hasten the eradication of those particular diseases. For all of the above reasons, we do not support this title.

TITLE II. MENTAL HEALTH ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENTS

Section 201 would require the Secretary to establish a 3-year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing eligible OEF/OIF veterans with 

peer outreach services, peer support services, and readjustment counseling services, 

and other mental health services. This pilot would begin not later than 180 days 

18

after the bill’s enactment. Eligible veterans would include those who are enrolled 

in VA’s health care system and who, for purposes of the pilot program, receive a 

referral from a VHA health professional to a community mental health center or to 

a facility of the Indian Health Service (IHS). 

In providing readjustment counseling services and other mental health services 

to rural veterans who do not have adequate access to VA services, section 201 would 

require the Secretary, acting through the Office of Rural Health, to contract for 

those services with community mental health centers (as defined in 42 CFR § 410.2) 

and IHS facilities. 

Sites for the pilot would need to include at least two Veterans Integrated Service 

Networks (selected by the Secretary), and at least two of the sites would have to 

be located in rural areas that lack access to comprehensive VA mental health services. 

A center or IHS facility that participates in the pilot program must, to the extent 

practicable, provide readjustment counseling services and other mental health services to eligible veterans through the use of telehealth services. It would also need 

to provide the services using best practices and technologies and meet any other requirements established by the Secretary. A participating center or IHS facility 

would also have to comply with applicable VA protocols before incurring any liability on behalf of the Department and provide clinical information on each veteran 

to whom it furnishes services. 

The Secretary would be required to carry out a national program of training for 

(1) veterans who would provide peer outreach and peer support services under the 

pilot program; and (2) clinicians of participating centers or IHS facilities to ensure 

they can furnish covered services and that such services will be provided in a manner that accounts for factors unique to OEF/OIF veterans. This provision would also 

establish detailed annual reporting requirements for participating centers and facilities. 

As we discussed in connection with section 2 of S. 38, all of these services are 

already available to OEF/OIF veterans, including those who served in the National 

Guard or the Reserves. As such, no demonstrated need exists for the pilot program 

or these additional authorities, which are duplicative of currently existing authorities. And VA is already working with other entities to provide treatment to veterans 

at the local level if VA is not able to provide the needed care; therefore, the requirement to contract specifically with a community health center or IHS facility would 

limit the local VA providers’ flexibility in finding the most appropriate care for our 

veterans.

TITLE III. RESEARCH

Section 301 would require the Secretary to carry out a program of research into 

co-morbid PTSD and substance use disorder. The purpose of this program would be 

to address co-morbid PTSD and substance use disorder; provide systematic integration of treatment for these two disorders; develop protocols to evaluate VA’s care of 

veterans with these disorders; and, facilitate the cumulative clinical progress of 

these veterans. This provision would charge VA’s National Center for PTSD with 

responsibility for carrying out and overseeing this program, developing the protocols 

and goals, and coordinating the research, data collection, and data dissemination. 

Section 301 would also authorize $2 million to be appropriated for each of fiscal 

years 2008 through 2011 to carry out this program and specifically require these 

funds be allocated to the National PTSD Center. The funds made available to the 

Center would be in addition to any other amounts made available to it under any 

other provision of law. 

Section 302 would continue the Special Committee on PTSD (which is established 

within VHA) through 2012; otherwise the Committee’s mandate would terminate 

after 2008. 

While well-intended, this title is overly prescriptive and more importantly altogether unnecessary. Therefore, with the exception of the extension of the Special 

Committee, VA does not support the provisions in title III. VA is a world-recognized 

leader in the care of both PTSD and substance use disorders, particularly when 

these conditions co-exist in an individual. The activities required by title III are essentially duplicative of VHA’s on-going efforts in this area, particularly the research 

efforts being carried out by VA’s National PTSD Center. We would welcome the opportunity to brief the Committee on VA’s achievements and efforts in this area, plus 

the role of the Office of Mental Health in overseeing the PTSD and substance abuse 

programs.

19

TITLE IV. ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES OF VETERANS

In connection with the family support services authorized in chapter 17 of title 

38, United States Code (i.e., mental health services, consultation, professional counseling, and training), section 401 would amend the statutory definition of ‘‘professional counseling’’ to expressly include marriage and family counseling. This provision would also ease eligibility requirements for these family support services by authorizing the provision of these services when considered appropriate (as opposed 

to essential) for the effective treatment and rehabilitation of the veteran. Section 

401 would further clarify that these services are available to family members in Vet 

Centers, VA medical centers, CBOCs, or other VA facilities the Secretary considers 

necessary. 

Section 402 would require the Secretary to carry out, through a non-VA entity, 

a 3-year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing ‘‘readjustment and transition assistance’’ to veterans and their families in cooperation 

with Vet Centers. Readjustment and transition assistance would be defined as readjustment and transition assistance that is preemptive, proactive, and principle-centered. It would also include assistance and training for veterans and their families 

in coping with the challenges associated with making the transition from military 

to civilian life. 

This provision would require services furnished under the pilot program to be furnished by a for-profit or non-profit organization(s) selected by the Secretary (pursuant to an agreement). To participate in the pilot, a participating organization(s) 

must have demonstrated expertise and experience in providing those types of services. 

The pilot program would have to be carried out in cooperation with 10 geographically distributed Vet Centers, which would be responsible for promoting awareness 

of the assistance available to veterans and their families through the Vet Centers, 

the non-VA organization(s) conducting the pilot, and other appropriate mechanisms. 

Section 403 would establish detailed reporting requirements and authorize $1 million to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010 to carry out the 

pilot program. Such amounts would remain available until expended. 

VA does not support title IV. First, it is unclear how these ‘‘readjustment and 

transition assistance’’ services are intended to differ from, or interact with, the readjustment counseling services and related mental health services already made available to veterans and their families through the Vet Centers. In our view, this provision would conflict in many respects with VA’s existing authorities to provide readjustment counseling and related mental health services and lend confusion to what 

is otherwise a highly successful program (particularly with respect to client outreach). Indeed, client satisfaction with the Vet Centers is the highest of VA’s programs (98 percent). The services they provide already include marriage and counseling services to family members as necessary to further the veteran’s readjustment. 

We also do not understand the perceived need for reliance on non-VA organizations for the provision of these services. Let me again assure you that our Vet Centers readily contract with appropriate organizations and providers to ensure veterans and their families receive covered family support services. In sum, we do not 

see how this provision would effectively enhance current authorities or Vet Center 

activities; rather, we see that it has serious potential to create confusion and disruption for both VA and our beneficiaries. 

We are currently developing cost estimates on the provisions of these bills, which 

we will share with the Committee once completed. This concludes my prepared 

statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or any of the Members 

of the Committee may have. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL J. KUSSMAN, M.D., TO

HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Question 1. Please highlight the current VA research programs that are examining how to treat veterans who suffer from both substance use disorder and PTSD. 

Response. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continues to be a leader in 

supporting research related to the mental and physical health consequences of military service, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). VA researchers and 

clinicians are working together to understand how co-occurring disorders like substance abuse and PTSD affect a patient’s treatment, and are striving to develop the 

most effective treatments through rigorous research. VA’s National Center for PTSD 

and several of VA’s mental illness research education and clinical centers 

20

(MIRECCs) are engaged in studies of PTSD and co-occurring substance use disorders.

Examples of some of the current ongoing research programs sponsored by the Office of Research and Development include:

• VA scientists supported by VA and the Department of Defense (DDD), have collected risk factor and health information from military personnel prior to their deployments to Iraq. Compared to the retrospective studies of past conflicts, this landmark study represents the first time scientists will be able to prospectively examine 

differences between pre-deployment and post-deployment performance and health 

outcomes, including PTSD and other health conditions; • VA’s Alcoholism Research Center is recognized as one of the world leaders in 

understanding genetic contributions to substance abuse. Currently, this center is exploring novel treatments for reducing withdrawal symptoms and drinking; • VA scientists are exploring the genetic determination of traits related to ethanol 

withdrawal severity, considered important to reducing relapse events; • VA scientists are examining the effectiveness of opioid substitution therapy to 

reduce substance abuse; • VA’s quality enhancement research initiative (QUERI) is sponsoring an initiative to improve the detection and treatment of misuse of psychoactive substances 

in many co-occurring conditions; and • VA is supporting research to identify risk factors in subgroups of smokers who 

are at risk for both increased smoking and difficulty in smoking cessation that could 

lead to important prevention and intervention efforts.

SOME RECENT ADVANCES BY VA INVESTIGATORS INCLUDE:

• In the largest randomized clinical trial to date involving women veterans with 

PTSD, VA investigators found that prolonged-exposure therapy—a type of cognitive 

behavioral therapy—was effective in reducing PTSD symptoms and that such reductions remained stable over time (JAMA, 2007;297(8):820–830). • Investigators found that prazosin, an inexpensive generic drug already used by 

millions of Americans for high blood pressure and prostate problems, improves sleep 

and reduces trauma nightmares for veterans with PTSD (Biological Psychiatry. 

2007; 61 (8):928–934). A large, multi-site study is underway to confirm the drug’s 

effectiveness. 

• VA researchers found that opioid substitution therapy is as effective at reducing 

substance use in PTSD patients as it is in patients without PTSD, but additional 

services are needed for treatment of psychological problems that are largely unchanged by treatment for addiction (J Stud Alcohol. 2006 Mar;67(2):228–35).

Question 2. The Institute of Medicine’s report ‘‘Treatment of PTSD: An Assessment of the Evidence’’ released on October 18, 2007 makes a number of observations 

and recommendations on the need for more research. Accordingly, is VA prepared 

to assume the leadership role in PTSD research suggested, and does VA have plans 

to collaborate with the full panoply of Federal and private health organizations focused upon this area to define outcome measures and coordinate future research? 

Response. VA, in the continuing role as leader for combat-related PTSD research 

and treatment, has a well-developed plan to collaborate with other organizations to 

define outcome measures and coordinate future research. We are particularly proud 

of the VA scientists who contributed to establishing the evidence supporting the effectiveness of prolonged-exposure therapy which is a psychotherapeutic approach 

highlighted as the treatment with the highest level of evidence in the Institute of 

Medicine’s (IOM) report. We gratefully acknowledge the veterans who willingly participated in this scientific research. 

The IOM report details important research recommendations that will guide future PTSD interventional studies in meeting the highest accepted standards for randomized controlled trials. The recommendations include: (a) standardizing the measures used to determine a modality’s effectiveness; and (b) analysis and design improvements that will lead to more solid conclusions about effectiveness of a treatment modality. These issues are best addressed within the scientific and clinical 

communities. Accordingly, VA has already begun organizing the working group, 

which will be convened by VA with other Federal research funding agencies early 

in 2008. Specific outcomes from the working group will be guidance for the scientists 

developing PTSD interventional studies, as well as for expert peer review panels 

evaluating research proposals.

Question 3. Clearly, VA and the Committee agree upon the important role families play in providing care for veterans. As VA invests more energy and resources 

into caring for veterans in their home it is imperative to respond to the needs of 

21

the family members fulfilling the role of care giver. At this time, what services is 

VHA providing to veterans’ families? Do you believe these services are being provided consistently throughout VA? 

Response. In areas such as mental health and rehabilitation of veterans with multiple wounds from blast injury, for example, support of families can be essential to 

the veteran’s rehabilitation, Many VA psychologists and social workers are trained 

and credentialed family therapists. Innovative supports for family members include 

home health care services and the use of tele-health approaches to make care of 

wounded or otherwise severely disabled veterans easier for caregivers at home. VA 

is continuing to explore ways to make these services more ‘‘family friendly’’ in particular for families of severely wounded veterans who bear a heavy burden of care 

giving. 

Family counseling is available at Vet Centers, as needed, in connection with readjustment counseling services furnished to a combat theatre veteran for his or her 

psychological or social readjustment problems. Providing family counseling services 

at Vet Centers is not time limited and is available as necessary for the veteran’s 

readjustment throughout the life of the veteran. The Vet Center program has an 

extensive cadre of licensed clinical social workers, psychologists and nurse psychiatric clinical specialists that provide family assessments, education, preventive 

health care information, supportive social services, basic counseling and referrals. 

A number of the program’s licensed mental health providers also have the professional expertise to provide marriage and family counseling. The Vet Centers have 

a cadre of other counselors with master degrees who hold a license in marriage and 

family counseling. 

The polytrauma system of care (PSC) has developed consistent and comprehensive 

procedures for patients and their families. Families of injured servicemembers require particular assistance in making the transition from the acute medical setting 

to a rehabilitation setting, including home care. This support encompasses medical 

care, psychosocial support, and logistical support. For psychosocial support, the 

proactive case management system provides ongoing support and problem solving 

in the home community while continually assessing for new and emerging problems. 

Finally, in terms of logistical support, each polytrauma rehabilitation center (PRC) 

team carefully assesses the expected needs at discharge for transportation, equipment, home modifications, and other such needs and makes arrangements to provide the needed services to meet the assessed needs. 

The Veterans Health Administration’s Polytraumal Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) 

system of care is designed to assure lifelong care and support for injured soldiers 

and veterans. As part of this commitment, VA assesses the unique needs of all 

polytraumal TBl patients and, where indicated, engages the expertise of the private 

sector. Depending upon the severity of the injury, the needs of veterans with TB] 

are met either through long-term care for veterans who cannot return home and require institutional care or through extended care support services for veterans who 

can return to their communities, but not live independently. 

The types of non-institutional care that VA currently provides for veterans who 

can return to their communities, but cannot live independently, include: home based 

primary care (HBPC); adult day health care (ADHC); respite cam/purchased skilled 

home health care; homemaker/home health aid (H/HHA); and care coordination/

home tele-health (CC/HT).

Question 4. While I am glad to hear that VA supports S. 2142, I remain concerned 

over VA’s record on emergency treatment. VA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC), in 

a memorandum dated November 16, 2005, concluded that VA may deny reimbursement for care furnished by a non-VA facility when a patient is stabilized, despite 

the fact that a transfer to a VA facility cannot take place due to the lack of an available bed. What assurance can you provide the Committee that, in the future, VA 

will take care of all veterans eligible for this benefit? 

Response. Although VA makes every effort to accept transfer of a stabilized patient as soon as possible, the Department’s current interpretation of regulations, as 

stated in the November 16, 2005 GGC memorandum, does not allow VA to provide 

reimbursement or payment for the non-VA hospital care expenses that are incurred 

while the stabilized patient is awaiting transfer to VA care. 

As VA has testified on the Hill, VA fully supports S. 2142, which, in general, 

would amend VA’s statutory authority to reimburse or pay for emergency treatment 

furnished by a non-VA provider when the veteran is stabilized and awaiting transfer to VA. Prior to this bill’s introduction, VA had independently decided to amend 

current regulations to implement an alternate, valid interpretation of VA’s existing 

statutory authority that would achieve the same overall goal as the pending legislation. Please note, however, that those proposed regulation changes are only in the 

very early stages of drafting and still subject to all the procedures and requirements 

22

of the Administrative Procedures Act. But this beginning effort should make clear 

that VA and the Congress are, indeed, of the same mind in attempting to ensure 

a stabilized veteran in need of continued hospitalization is not penalized (by incurring personal financial liability for the costs of the continued care) due to VA’s inability to immediately effect a transfer of the patient to a Department facility.

Question 5. Your prepared testimony described S. 2160 as ‘‘superfluous and duplicative’’ of VA’s current efforts on pain care. However, other witnesses at the hearing 

raised a number of concerns over the adequacy of VA’s current efforts. I share in 

the concern over the lack of uniformity and the apparent variance in the quality 

of pain care services available at different facilities. Specifically, I question whether 

all veterans, including those in rural areas, are receiving an adequate level of pain 

care services? 

Response. VA has made pain management a national priority and continues to 

work aggressively to assure timely access to the highest quality pain care for all veterans seen at VA healthcare facilities, including access in more remote, rural areas. 

Assuring all veterans (including those returning from Afghanistan and Iraq and 

those who have experienced polytrauma) are provided immediate and appropriate 

access to effective pain care, is a top priority for VA. 

VA implemented a National Pain Management Strategy in 1998 and published a 

directive on pain management in 2003 to promote a system-wide approach to pain 

management. Several publications document the broad successes of this strategy. Of 

particular note, external peer review data document that routine screening for the 

presence and intensity of pain, pain plans of care, and reassessment of the effectiveness of the interventions occur with consistency across all VA settings of care. 

Extensive educational efforts have been ongoing for the past several years to support the development of provider competency in the area of pain management, including national, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), and facility educational conferences, monthly educational teleconferences, a national pain management website, dissemination of evidence-based information letters and toolkits on 

pain assessment and management. Practice guidelines have been developed and disseminated to promote safe and effective chronic opioid therapy, post-operative pain 

care, and management of low back pain. Patient and family educational resources 

have been developed and disseminated. VA’s support for basic science and clinical 

research on pain and pain management has grown by 500 percent over the past 5 

years. 

VA remains committed to ensuring that quality pain care services are available 

to all veterans receiving care through the Department.

Question 6. Regarding S. 2160, does providing a statutory basis for VA’s pain initiative cause a problem for the Department? 

Response. Because pain management is already a subject of system-wide attention 

in VA, statutorily mandating a pain initiative is not necessary. Creating fenced research centers and legislatively mandating specific clinical activities will limit the 

ability of the Department to adjust health care allocations in response to changes 

in health care needs.

Question 7. Is VA prepared for the anticipated increase in veterans suffering from 

chronic pain, especially those who are suffering with polytrauama? 

Response. Yes. VA is already engaged in numerous new initiatives designed to 

build on prior successes and to further improve consistency of pain care for veterans. For example, VA now has a revised computerized pain assessment and reassessment polytrauma template/reminder system, which is currently being implemented in two of the four Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers prior to more widespread dissemination. Also, there are multiple research and clinical programs underway to address pain in patients with PTSD or TBI. Finally, a multi-pronged, 

multi-disciplinary project to enhance the safe and effective use of opioid medications 

for pain has recently begun. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mahalo. Thank you very much, Dr. Kussman. 

Because of time, I am going to try to move this along. I was just 

notified that we expect a number of votes beginning at 11. So as 

a result, I am going to ask you just one question and I will ask the 

other members, as well. 

Dr. Kussman, you testified that you do not support the provisions of S. 2162 but that you do support the goals and intentions 

of this mental health legislation. So to be clear, there is agreement 

that there is a demonstrated need for changes in mental health 

23

services. However, Congress has yet to receive the draft legislation 

from VA regarding improvements to mental health. Do you believe 

that there are no deficiencies in VA mental health services and 

that you have all the legal tools available to reach all veterans in 

need? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question and let 

me try to be very clear with this. I never would suggest that we 

are perfect. I would never suggest that we don’t need to improve. 

That is what we do. That is why we developed our Mental Health 

Strategic Plan. That is why we have all the programs that we do, 

and those are viable growing, building programs. 

What I was saying is that I believe that we do need to continue 

to improve. I do not believe that there are any legislative impediments for us to continue to improve and I don’t think that the legislation is needed and that is why we haven’t put any legislation 

forward. I believe we already have the ability, legally or otherwise, 

to provide good care for our veterans. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Dr. Kussman. I will submit my 

other questions to you and call on Senator Burr for his questions. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, as well. 

Dr. Kussman, specifically the pain care legislation. Advocates believe, and I think with good reason, that there are inconsistencies 

within the VA relative to the pain care and how it varies from location to location. In some cases, it is good. In others, it is not as 

good. Do you agree with the view that the delivery of pain care is 

inconsistent across the system, and if not this approach, what suggestions do you have to bring that consistency? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Thank you, Senator Burr. I would never suggest 

that, whether it is pain care or others, that there isn’t potential for 

inconsistency around our system. We are a large system with 1,400 

sites of care. I believe that if we are not providing what we say we 

are providing and there are inconsistencies or inappropriate or inadequate care, that is my job and the VHA’s job to be sure that 

that is being done, and we would be happy to meet with advocacy 

groups from wherever or Members of the Committee to determine 

what those inconsistencies are. 

Pain management is a very important thing for us, as you know, 

and that is why we set up our standard in 2003. We have a Committee that meets regularly to look at what we are doing. We are 

developing performance standards to ensure that there is consistent delivery of care. 

We are reviewed regularly by this. This is one of the tenets of 

the Joint Commission on Health Care Organizations. They always 

come and look at whether you are in pain. Every time I go to the 

doctor, they ask me, ‘‘Are you in pain at this time?’’ It is part of 

the introductory evaluation. I keep asking, what kind of pain are 

you talking about, physical, mental, or whatever kind of pain, not 

to make light of what we are talking about. 

But I think that if we are not doing the job and we have inconsistencies or inadequacies in what we are doing, it is my job to fix 

it and that we will look aggressively on that and work with the advocacy groups. I don’t think that the legislation itself will solve 

that. 

24

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I am going to hold myself to one 

question, but I also want to make this statement relative to S. 

2162, given the nature of your last answer and you will hold yourself to what is proven. The Institute of Medicine found that the literature that existed as it related to the Veterans Affairs process on 

PTSD and co-morbidity conditions, such as anxiety, substance 

abuse, and depression along with PTSD, that the literature was 

uninformative. 

So I heard your objection to S. 2162. We have an independent 

IOM study that suggested there are deficiencies. I will hold you to 

exactly the answer you gave me on the last one. If that is, in fact, 

an accurate assessment by IOM, then I would hope you would 

make the correct changes. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Senator Burr—can I answer that question? Are 

you asking me something? 

Senator BURR. It was not in the form of a question, so I am going 

to let the Chairman control this. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Can I have the opportunity to respond? 

Chairman AKAKA. If it is brief. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. I will try to be brief, although everybody says I 

talk too much. But we chartered the study. It was done by the 

VHA asking the IOM to look at what we were doing. I believe what 

the IOM said was that the literature—not just the VHA literature, 

only 10 of the 50 studies that they have looked at were VHA studies, they looked at the whole country’s studies on mental health, 

particularly PTSD. And what they said was there are gaps in the 

adequacy and the peer review of these studies, and they didn’t suggest that the treatment we were doing was inadequate. They just 

said that the outcomes of the studies couldn’t prove that it was 

adequate, but they weren’t suggesting what we were doing didn’t 

work. The only one that they said that there was good scientific 

study was a study done by us with the immersion and cognitive 

therapy. But we are doing studies already to get better results, 

particularly with drugs and other therapy, on PTSD and substance 

abuse. So it is already going on. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. Senator Murray? 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Kussman, while you are here, I wanted to ask you, I saw an 

article from the Charlotte Observer that was out recently that was 

really disconcerting about wait times for veterans and it said that 

most VA hospitals showed lags in delivering outpatient care for serious problems. And according to that newspaper’s analysis, 24 percent of appointments nationwide for Traumatic Brain Injury care 

exceeded the 30-day mark last summer. At the Salisbury VA Hospital, 61 percent of appointments for the seriously wounded were 

scheduled more than 30 days out of the summer, one of the worst 

records nationwide. And at the Charleston VA in South Carolina, 

13 of 14 patients slated to be seen for brain injury waited for more 

than a month. 

I was really discouraged to see this and I was even more discouraged to see that the VA’s response to that report was really attacking their own data, saying that the reports can’t be used to judge 

service because they don’t show all appointments. So I am comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
25

pelled to ask you, why is the VA spending money on these reports 

if that is the case? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Senator Murray, thank you for the question. As 

you and I have talked before, waiting times is a very important 

issue to me. I have been concerned for a long time about what the 

information I get and what is perceived and real out there. 

We believe and have responded to the newspaper and had dialogue with them greatly, we believe that their interpretation of the 

data did not reflect what is going on. But it is a very—complex 

issue and I will be happy to——

Senator MURRAY. Why doesn’t it reflect what is going on? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Because we believe that there were snapshots in 

time and did not reflect the way that the data is accurately collected and what it reflected in the true waiting times for people. 

But I will be happy to come and talk to you about that——

Senator MURRAY. Well, let me ask——

Dr. KUSSMAN.—but if I could finish, just for a second, as you 

know, these are very important things, whether waiting times for 

TBI or anything else that we are doing. The issue of the electronic 

wait list, we have pretty much eliminated. Those were things that 

came up early on about the number of people who couldn’t even get 

an appointment to be seen, and I believe that that number now is 

around 200 people systemwide. 

But because of all these issues related to wait times, I have contracted with a group to look at our whole wait times measure to 

find out and tell me whether there are inadequacies or breakdowns 

in how we are collecting the data, because I have no interest, as 

you know—I am a veteran and a retiree myself—to come up and 

tell you that data is not accurate. 

Senator MURRAY. So you can’t tell us right now how long it actually takes veterans to see a doctor, not just schedule an appointment but, actually see a doctor? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Yes, I can, and I don’t believe that the numbers 

that were used by the Charlotte reflect the accurate numbers and 

we will be happy to get that to you. 

Senator MURRAY. What do you think that number is? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. I believe that, as we have reported, 95 percent of 

our patients get their appointment within 30 days of when they 

want it or was clinically appropriate. 

Senator MURRAY. Can you tell this Committee how long wait 

times are for different generations of veterans, for different priority 

groups, for different types of injuries or illnesses? Do you have that 

information? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. We do have a breakout, and I will have to get it 

to you, for OIF/OEF, but I don’t think we have it by age group, but 

I will have to get back to you on that. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. Can you give us today what the wait times 

are? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. For? 

Senator MURRAY. For all veterans. Can you tell us what the wait 

time is? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. As I reported, we believe on the basis of the data 

that we have, 95 percent of the 39 million appointments that we 

see every years are done within the 30-day expectation. These are 

26

not urgent or emergency appointments, but routine appointments 

and things for veterans within 30 days of when they ask for it. 

Senator MURRAY. Can you give me a reason why the Charlotte 

Observer’s information is so different? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. I will have to get back to you on that. I think it 

is a very involved issue of how they interpret the data versus snapshots in time versus continuum, but we have tried to work with the 

Charlotte and other people to get an accurate assessment. 

Senator MURRAY. You can’t give me a couple sentences, any view 

that might make that real for us? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. As I said, they used a snapshot in time, not a continuum, and I believe that is a fundamental problem with that. But 

I will be happy to get the subject matter experts to talk to you 

about what the differences are. 

Senator MURRAY. What I would like you to do is give it to this 

Committee, because I believe that——

Dr. KUSSMAN. I would be happy to do that. 

Senator MURRAY.—We all have a very deep concern about the 

wait times, and it is not just a newspaper article. We continue to 

hear that from our veterans. They don’t care whether they are a 

snapshot or a continuum. They actually care that they are waiting 

a very long time, and it is deeply disconcerting when we——

Dr. KUSSMAN. And as you know——

Senator MURRAY.—continue to hear this and we continue to see 

it. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. It is disconcerting to me, too, and that is why I 

said we have contracted with somebody to come in and do an objective assessment of how we are trying to collect data on wait times 

and identify any glitches in how we do our business. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to ask, as 

well. We have been 3 months without a Secretary or even a nominee for the VA. I am beginning to hear from a lot of veterans who 

are very, very concerned that a lack of a nominee sent to the Senate signals that the administration doesn’t have a priority for veterans, at a time when we are at war and we know we have issues 

with wait times and mental health problems and all the other 

things this Committee has been discussing. Dr. Kussman, do you 

have any idea why we have not had a nominee sent over for the 

Secretary of the VA yet? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. No, Senator, I don’t, but I can assure you that we 

are still doing our job to take care of veterans. 

Senator MURRAY. I know everybody is working their hardest, but 

we need somebody at the top that is accountable, and whoever is 

listening out there, we need an independent, someone who is going 

to stand up for our veterans when we are at a time of war, and 

I hope that we get an administration soon that will take this as 

a priority, Mr. Chairman. 

And just really quickly, on the legislation that we are talking 

about today, I wanted to ask you about Senator Craig’s and my bill 

on the TBI-induced epilepsy. Dr. John Booss, who is a former Director of Neurology at the VA, testified before this Committee in 

May that there would be a dramatic increase in epilepsy due to 

TBI and that the VA has no national plan to cover it. Does the VA 

27

anticipate an increase in the number of veterans that develop epilepsy as a result of TBI? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Senator, I know John Booss very well, obviously, 

and I have not talked to him. I believe that the literature that exists says that 53 percent of people with penetrating wounds of the 

head, severe TBI, as we would call it, have an increased incidence 

of—they will develop epilepsy 53 percent of the time after suffering 

a penetrating wound. 

Senator MURRAY. So more than half the time? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. With a penetrating wound. I think everybody understands that and we are watching those people very closely. As 

you know, these are the ones who transfer from the military health 

system to our polytrauma centers. There have been about 413 of 

them that have been transferred. Everybody acknowledges and 

knows that any time there is a penetrating wound to the head, 

there is an increased incidence of seizure disorder and——

Senator MURRAY. Just so I understand, there are 413 with penetrating wounds? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. With severe TBI. I don’t know the number of penetrating wounds versus severe non-penetrating wounds. 

Senator MURRAY. Do you know how many people have come into 

the VA with Traumatic Brain Injury at this time? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Well, if you want to talk about the full spectrum 

of TBI, because it is not all the same, as you know, the mild to 

moderate TBI is one that is hard to diagnose and we have in place 

a screening mechanism to try to identify those people because that 

is very important to us to develop the registries and follow people 

because it appears with mild to moderate, the incidence of seizure 

disorder or long-term sequelae is much less than it is for the more 

severe, the moderate to severe TBI. But the literature doesn’t help 

us with that very much and so we need to put in place research 

and longitudinal studies, good epidemiologic studies to follow these 

people. 

Senator MURRAY. Is that what you have done? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. We are doing that, yes. 

Senator MURRAY. And do you know how many people that is? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. I would have to—again, we are screening everybody and I don’t have the recent data of how many people screened 

positive. 

Senator MURRAY. For any TBI, severe, mild——

Dr. KUSSMAN. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator MURRAY. When would we be able to get that? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. As soon as I have that data, I will be happy to 

give it to you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Murray. 

Senator ISAKSON?

Senator ISAKSON. I will be very brief. I really have one question. 

You know, in all my experience on this Committee, my travels to 

Iraq, and my visits to veterans’ hospitals, I can’t remember a complaint about the quality of care the physicians render or the facilities do. The complaints generally—not generally, almost always involve accessibility, appointments, and time. 

28

The example I used in my opening remarks about Augusta’s Uptown facility and the Eisenhower Medical Center in Augusta, they 

created a seamless transition which solved a lot of those problems. 

In fact, Sergeant Harris that I mentioned whose TBI was moderate 

to mild, as you put it, was actually corrected and she went back 

into active duty, which is an example of that seamless transition 

and no skip in quality or accessibility of service. 

Now, I know you have veterans all over the country and there 

are not a lot of cities that have two, a veterans’ hospital and a military hospital, but there are a number, San Antonio and others 

around the country. Are you all working on some of those innovations like what took place in Augusta to replicate them around the 

country? 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Sir, this is one of the most important things for 

us, is to be sure that both severe and other injured veterans, 

servicemembers, come to us with a minimum or none, no complications of the bureaucracies. I believe we put in place a very significant infrastructure with VA benefits counselors and social workers 

at the major military treatment facilities, military people at our facilities, and we are—it will never be perfect because things happen, 

but I believe the infrastructure is there to do exactly what you are 

describing in Augusta throughout the country. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson. 

I want to thank our first panel very much for being here. We will 

place in the record further questions that we have for you to respond to. I want to thank you for your service. We are looking forward to working together to try to improve it throughout our country. The signs are beginning to show where there is strain and we 

need to correct these. So we look forward to continuing to work 

with you. Thank you. 

Dr. KUSSMAN. Mahalo, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mahalo. 

I want to introduce our second panel and extend a warm aloha 

and welcome to the second panel. I want you to know that I appreciate each of you being here today and look forward to your testimony. 

First, I welcome Carl Blake. Mr. Blake is the National Legislative Director for Paralyzed Veterans of America. 

I welcome Joy Ilem. Ms. Ilem is the Assistant National Legislative Director for Disabled American Veterans. 

I also welcome Brenda Murdough, who is a registered nurse and 

holds a Masters of Science in Nursing. She is the Coordinator of 

the Military/Veterans Initiative of the American Pain Foundation. 

I also welcome Dr. Brien Smith. Dr. Smith is Director of the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. 

Finally, I welcome Constance Walker. She is a retired Navy Captain and is the President of the Southern Maryland Chapter of the 

National Alliance on Mental Illness. She also serves on the Maryland Governor’s Task Force on Improving State Programs directed 

at Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families. 

Each of your statements will appear in the record of today’s hearing and I ask that you limit your direct testimony to no more than 

5 minutes so that we have time for questions. 

29

Mr. Blake, will you please begin. 

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA 

Mr. BLAKE. Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee. I would like to thank you on behalf of PVA 

for the opportunity to testify today. In the interest of time, I will 

keep my statement as short as possible. 

PVA supports the provisions of S. 38 that direct the Secretary to 

establish a program for peer support and counseling, readjustment 

counseling, and mental health services. We particularly believe in 

the importance of peer counseling in the rehabilitation and readjustment process. This is something that PVA as an organization 

does in all of the Spinal Cord Injury Centers around the country. 

Every PVA chapter designates individual members to pair up with 

the newly injured veterans to help them get through the early 

stages of recovery and beyond. 

PVA principally supports S. 2004, a bill that would create six 

Epilepsy Centers of Excellence within the VA health care system. 

Much like the MS Centers and Parkinson’s Disease Centers of Excellence permanently authorized last year, this proposal recognizes 

the successful strategy of the Veterans Health Administration to 

focus its systemwide service and research expertise on a critical 

care segment of the veteran population. 

PVA generally supports the provisions of S. 2142, the Veterans 

Emergency Care Fairness Act, as the legislation is in accordance 

with the recommendations of the Independent Budget for FY 2008. 

However, we remain concerned about some of the eligibility criteria 

that determine what veterans are eligible for this reimbursement. 

In accordance with the IB for fiscal year 2008, we believe that the 

requirement that a veteran must have received care within the 

past 24 months should be eliminated. Furthermore, we believe that 

the VA should establish a policy allowing all veterans enrolled in 

the health care system to be eligible for emergency services at any 

medical facility, whether the VA or private facility, when they exhibit symptoms that a reasonable person would consider a medical 

emergency. 

First, I would like to say that PVA generally supports S. 2162, 

which improves services provided by the VA to veterans with PTSD 

and substance use problems. However, PVA does remain concerned 

with the pilot program outlined in Title 2 of the bill. While we certainly support the emphasis placed on peer counseling and outreach, as expressed in our written statement earlier, we maintain 

our concerns about contract services with community mental health 

centers. The VA should be able to provide the services described in 

this legislation through judicious application of its already existing 

fee-basis authority. 

We do, however, appreciate the emphasis on ensuring that the 

non-VA facilities are compliant with VA standards, particularly 

through additional training managed specifically by the VA, a requirement that is also included in S. 38. However, we still believe 

that at this time, the energy and money that would be expended 

here could best be used to upgrade the VA system itself. 

30

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, PVA would once 

again like to thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and members of the Committee, on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the proposed health care legislation. The scope of issues 

being considered here today is very broad. We appreciate the Committee taking the 

time to address these important issues, and we hope that out of this process meaningful legislation will be approved to best benefit veterans.

S. 38, THE ‘‘VETERANS MENTAL HEALTH AND OUTREACH ACT’’

PVA supports the provisions of this legislation that directs the Secretary to establish a program for peer support and counseling, readjustment counseling, and mental health services. We particularly believe in the importance of peer counseling in 

the rehabilitation and readjustment process. This is something that PVA as an organization does in all of the Spinal Cord Injury Centers around the country. Every 

PVA chapter designates individual members to pair up with newly injured veterans 

to help them get through the early stages of their recovery. I know first hand that 

being able to talk to someone who has experienced what you have experienced and 

has dealt with the same problems you are dealing with can help you overcome bouts 

of depression, sadness, and anger as you first come to grips with your condition. The 

peer counselor serves as a motivator to get you moving in the right direction. I credit my own peer counselor while I went through spinal cord rehabilitation with driving me to help other veterans. 

PVA opposes the provisions of this legislation which would authorize VA to contract with community mental health centers to meet the needs of veterans dealing 

with mental illnesses. As we testified earlier this year, we oppose any effort to allow 

the VA to contract out care when it can do a better and more cost effective job in 

its own system. Furthermore, by allowing the VA to send these veterans out of the 

system to receive their care, it effectively relieves itself of the obligation it has to 

these men and women. The VA must be appropriated adequate funding and it must 

be provided in a timely manner if it is going to have any chance of meeting these 

veterans’ needs. 

Moreover, Congress must continue to conduct aggressive oversight to ensure that 

funding specifically allocated for mental health initiatives is properly spent. As explained in the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report of November 2006, 

the VA did not allocate all of the funding it planned to commit in fiscal year 2005 

for new mental health initiatives, nor did it spend all of the funds planned for fiscal 

year 2006. VA must be held accountable to ensure that it lives up to the goals established in its National Mental Health Strategic Plan. Until such time as the VA 

meets these goals, the burden for mental health care should not be shifted to the 

community. 

PVA does support the provision of this legislation which would extend the eligibility for hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care from 2 to 5 years 

for a veteran who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations during 

a period of war after the Persian Gulf War or in combat against a hostile force after 

November 11, 1998. This provision has proven especially important to the men and 

women who have recently served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have exited military 

service.

S. 2004, EPILEPSY CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

PVA principally supports S. 2004, a bill that would create six Epilepsy Centers 

of Excellence within the VA health care system. Much like the Multiple Sclerosis 

(MS) and Parkinson’s disease Centers of Excellence permanently authorized last 

year, this proposal recognizes the successful strategy of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to focus its system-wide service and research expertise on a critical 

care segment of the veteran population. The designation of these six Centers of Excellence will provide open access to centers engaged in marshaling VA expertise in 

diagnosis, service delivery, research and education. Furthermore, these programs 

will be available across the country through the ‘‘hub and spokes’’ approach. We also 

31

hope that this legislation will sow the seeds for broader based research and development into Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), as we believe the same concept could be 

crucial for better treatment for veterans in the future.

S. 2142, THE ‘‘VETERANS’ EMERGENCY CARE FAIRNESS ACT’’

PVA generally supports the provisions of S. 2142, the ‘‘Veterans’ Emergency Care 

Fairness Act,’’ as the legislation is in accordance with the recommendations of The 

Independent Budget for FY 2008. However, we remain concerned about some of the 

eligibility criteria that determine what veterans are eligible for this reimbursement. 

In accordance with The Independent Budget for FY 2008, we believe that the requirement that a veteran must have received care within the past 24 months should 

be eliminated. Furthermore, we believe that the VA should establish a policy allowing all veterans enrolled in the health care system to be eligible for emergency services at any medical facility, whether at a VA or private facility, when they exhibit 

symptoms that a reasonable person would consider a medical emergency.

S. 2162, THE ‘‘MENTAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENTS ACT’’

First, I would like to say that PVA generally supports this proposed legislation 

which improves services provided by the VA to veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD) and substance use problems. Current research highlights that Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) combat veterans are at higher risk for PTSD and other mental health problems as a result 

of their military experiences. In fact, the most recent research indicates that 25 percent of OIF/OEF veterans seen at a VA facility have received mental health diagnoses. 

We are pleased with the provisions of Section 102 and 103 of the legislation. In 

fact, The Independent Budget is set to recommend that VA provide a full continuum 

of care for substance use disorders including additional screening in all its health 

care facilities and programs—especially primary care. We also believe outpatient 

counseling and pharmacotherapy should be available at all larger VA communitybased outpatient clinics. Furthermore, short-term outpatient counseling including 

motivational interventions, intensive outpatient treatment, residential care for those 

most severely disabled, detoxification services, ongoing aftercare and relapse prevention, self help groups, opiate substitution therapies and newer drugs to reduce craving, should be included in VA’s overall program for substance abuse and prevention. 

Although we support the creation of PTSD Centers of Excellence outlined in Section 105 of the legislation, we wonder whether this step is necessary. The VA already maintains a broad network of PTSD treatment centers. Furthermore, in 1989, 

the VA established the National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a 

focal point to promote research into the causes and diagnosis of this disorder, to 

train health care and related personnel in diagnosis and treatment, and to serve as 

an information clearinghouse for professionals. The Center offers guidance on the 

effects of PTSD on family and work, and notes treatment modalities and common 

therapies used to treat the condition. This center already functions as a center of 

excellence. At the very least, it should be incorporated into this new network of centers of excellence. 

PVA has some concerns with the pilot program outlined in Title II of the bill. 

While we certainly support the emphasis placed on peer counseling and outreach, 

as expressed in our statement earlier, we maintain our concerns about contract 

services with community health centers. The VA should be able to provide the services described in the legislation through judicious application of its already existing 

fee basis authority. We do, however, appreciate the emphasis on ensuring that the 

non-VA facilities are compliant with VA standards, particularly through additional 

training managed specifically by the VA. 

While we also support Title III of the legislation regarding research into comorbid 

PTSD and substance use disorder, we wonder if this is duplicative with activities 

already taking place at the National Center for PTSD. However, PVA has long supported research initiatives into various types of conditions and the treatments associated with them. 

Finally, we recognize the unique challenge associated with providing mental 

health services to families of veterans. This is an area that the VA has had little 

experience with in the past. Likewise, we see no problem with the VA examining 

the feasibility of providing readjustment and transition assistance to veterans and 

their families. It is certainly an issue that has become more apparent as more men 

and women return from conflicts abroad broken and scarred. The impact that this 

has on the veteran and his or her family cannot be overstated.

32

S. 2160, THE ‘‘VETERANS PAIN CARE ACT’’

PVA supports the draft legislation that would establish a system-wide pain care 

initiative within the VA. We agree with the finding that comprehensive pain care 

in not consistently provided across the entire system. We have seen firsthand the 

benefits of pain care programs as each VA facility that supports a Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) unit also maintains a pain care program. Veterans with Spinal Cord Injury know all to well the impact that pain, including phantom pain, can have on 

their daily life. The pain care programs that SCI veterans have access to have greatly enhanced their rehabilitation and improved their quality of life. 

The one concern we have is the expectation that every facility in the VA should 

have a pain care program. Does this suggest that every community-based outpatient 

clinic (CBOC) should have a similar program? This might be an unreasonable expectation. We do support the idea of cooperative centers for research and education on 

pain. The work done at these locations can only benefit the provision of pain care 

services throughout the system. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, PVA once again thanks you for 

the opportunity to testify. We look forward to working with you to ensure that veterans continue to have access to the best health care services in America.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

William Carl Blake National Legislative Director Paralyzed Veterans of America 

at PVA’s National Office in Washington, D.C. He is responsible for the planning, 

coordination, and implementation of PVA’s relations with the U.S. Congress and 

Federal departments and agencies. He develops and executes PVA’s Washington 

agenda in areas of budget, appropriations, health care, and veterans’ benefits issues. 

He also represents PVA to Federal agencies including the Department of Defense, 

Department of Labor, Small Business Administration, and the Office of Personnel 

Management. 

Carl was raised in Woodford, Virginia. He attended the United States Military 

Academy at West Point, New York. He received a Bachelor of Science Degree from 

the Military Academy in May 1998. 

Upon graduation from the Military Academy, he was commissioned as a Second 

Lieutenant in the Infantry in the United States Army. He was assigned to the 504th 

Parachute Infantry Regiment (1st Brigade) of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort 

Bragg, North Carolina. He graduated from Infantry Officer Basic Course, U.S. Army 

Ranger School, U.S. Army Airborne School, and Air Assault School. His awards include the Army Commendation Medal, Expert Infantryman’s Badge, and German 

Parachutist Badge. Carl retired from the military in October 2000 due to injuries 

suffered during a parachute operation. 

Carl is a member of the Virginia-Mid-Atlantic chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans 

of America. 

Carl lives in Fredericksburg, Virginia with his wife Venus, son Jonathan and 

daughter Brooke.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ILEM?

STATEMENT OF JOY J. ILEM, ASSISTANT, NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

Ms. ILEM. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting the DAV to testify today at this legislative hearing. 

In the interest of brevity, I will focus my oral remarks on two mental health bills being considered by the Committee. 

S. 38, the Veterans Mental Health Outreach and Access Act of 

2007, would require VA to establish a VA-contracted peer outreach, 

peer counseling, and mental health program for veterans who 

served in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom who are not adequately served by VA. The bill would also authorize members of the 

immediate families of such veterans to receive mental health services to assist in the readjustment of the veteran and their family. 

The final provision in the bill would extend eligibility for VA health 

care services from 2 to 5 years for this group. 

33

We appreciate the bill’s intent to better serve veterans in rural 

areas, which has historically been a challenge for VA. Although 

DAV believes that VA contract care is an essential tool in providing 

timely access to medical services, we feel strongly that VA should 

use this authority judiciously. 

Our main concern with this bill is that VA over the past several 

years has received a significant amount of new funding targeted to 

providing better access to mental health services to enrolled veterans. Over the past few years, VA has hired 3,500 new mental 

health providers and established a significant number of new initiatives and programs within the system to address the mental 

health needs of enrolled veterans, including OEF/OIF veterans. Before Congress authorizes a program such as the one envisioned in 

S. 38, we recommend VA determine a degree of unmet need after 

it has done as much as practical to meet that need directly. Additionally, we point out that VA’s Office of Rural Health has already 

been charged with evaluating and presenting solutions to address 

the needs of this population. 

For these reasons, with the exception of the extension of eligibility for health care for combat veterans from 2 to 5 years, we cannot support this measure at this time. 

We have also been asked to comment on S. 2162, the Mental 

Health Care Improvements Act of 2007, a comprehensive bill that 

focuses on programs for treatment of veterans who suffer from both 

PTSD and substance use disorders. This measure would require VA 

to offer a complete package of services for substance use disorders 

at all VA facilities unless specifically exempted. It would also establish six new national Centers of Excellence on PTSD and substance use disorders to provide a comprehensive inpatient treatment and recovery services, as well as a targeted research program 

in co-morbid PTSD and substance use disorders, and a ten-site 

pilot program for providing specialized mental health transition assistance in coordination with veterans centers to veterans and their 

families. 

Title 2, Section 201 of the measure would authorize a pilot program of peer readjustment counseling and other mental health 

services at non-VA community mental health centers for OEF/OIF 

veterans not adequately served by VA. While we support the peer 

counseling concept, we continue to have concerns about contracting 

with non-VA mental health providers for specialized PTSD. While 

we appreciate the Chairman’s efforts to address unmet needs of 

veterans in underserved areas, we have the same concerns about 

this provision that we expressed regarding contract care in S. 38. 

Mr. Chairman, like you, we are concerned that over the past decade, VA has drastically reduced its substance use treatment and 

related rehabilitation services and has made little progress in restoring them, even in the fact of increased demand for such services from veterans returning from current conflicts. There are multiple indications that PTSD and readjustment issues in conjunction 

with the misuse of substances will continue to be a significant 

problem for our newest generation of combat veterans, and therefore we agree VA should adopt new programs and services to meet 

these unique needs. 

34

We are especially pleased about the provisions in the bill expanding mental health services for family members at VA facilities. 

These families of these veterans are suffering, too, and are the core 

support for veterans struggling to rehabilitate and overcome readjustment issues related to their military service. We hope at the 

same time previous generations of veterans and their families can 

also benefit from these expanded programs and services. 

Thus, with the exception of the sections in the bill dealing with 

contracted care, we believe these are very timely provisions and we 

fully support them. 

For the record, we believe the remaining measures being considered by the Committee today would also be beneficial to sick and 

disabled veterans and, therefore, have no objection to their passage, specifically S. 2004, which seeks to establish six Epilepsy 

Centers of Excellence within VA, S. 2142, the Veterans Emergency 

Care Fairness Act of 2007, and S. 2160, the Veterans Pain Care 

Act of 2007. We refer the Committee to our written statement for 

DAV’s complete analysis of these bills. 

Mr. Chairman, again, DAV appreciates the opportunity to appear 

before you today to give our testimony and view on these bills and 

we are pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ilem follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOY J. ILEM, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE, DIRECTOR

OF THE DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr and other Members of the Committee:

Thank you for inviting the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) to testify at this 

important legislative hearing of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. DAV is an organization of 1.3 million service-disabled veterans, and devotes its energies to rebuilding the lives of disabled veterans and their families. 

You have requested testimony today on five bills primarily focused on health care 

services for veterans under the jurisdiction of the Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This statement submitted for the record reviews our positions on all of the proposals before you today. The comments are expressed in numerical sequence of the bills, and we offer them for your consideration.

S. 38—THE VETERANS’ MENTAL HEALTH OUTREACH AND ACCESS ACT OF 2007

S. 38 would require the VA Secretary to establish a VA-contracted peer outreach, 

peer counseling and mental health care program to provide readjustment and certain mental health services to veterans who served in Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF), and are not adequately served by VA. It would also require 

VA to train peer counselors and professional providers to ensure their cultural competency to care for veterans of OIF/OEF, and specifically those who live remotely 

from VA facilities in circumstances in which they have no access to direct VA programs. 

The bill would also authorize, for a 3-year period immediately following combat 

deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, members of the immediate families of such 

veterans to receive VA services, such as orientation and education, support, counseling and mental health services, to assist in the readjustment of veterans and 

their families, especially in the case of a veteran who sustained injury or illness during military deployment. 

We appreciate the intent of the bill in serving veterans in rural areas, which has 

historically been a challenge for VA. On a positive note, this bill would be consistent 

with VA’s principles to use coordinated contract care only when services are unavailable in the VA—a firm position that DAV holds. At the same time, the legislation would address the needs of the veteran’s immediate family as it relates to his 

or her recovery and would build on the tested concept of having peers with similar 

personal military experiences from which they have recovered, to provide outreach 

and support—an approach that probably would increase the likelihood of engaging 

35

1 (1) When VA facilities are incapable of providing necessary care to a veteran. (2) When VA 

facilities are geographically inaccessible to a veteran for necessary care. (3) When medical emergency prevents a veteran from receiving care in a VA facility. (4) To complete an episode of VA 

care. (5) For certain specialty examinations to assist VA in adjudicating disability claims. (6) 

For the services in VA facilities of scarce medical specialists. 

veterans in readjustment and treatment and may provide new vocational rehabilitation options for some veterans who provide this counseling. 

Although DAV believes that VA contract care is an essential tool in providing 

timely access to quality medical care, we feel strongly that VA should use this authority judiciously. Current law limits the use of VA purchased care to specific instances 1 so as not to endanger VA facilities’ ability to maintain a full range of specialized services for enrolled veterans and to promote effective, high quality care for 

veterans, especially those disabled in military service and those with highly sophisticated health problems such as blindness, amputations, spinal cord injury or chronic mental health conditions. 

Unfortunately, in most cases where VA authorizes care to veterans by contract 

providers, VA has not established a systematic approach to monitor that care, consider any alternatives to its high cost, analyze patient care outcomes, or even establish patient satisfaction measures. In fact, VA knows very little about the care for 

which it now contracts. 

Any bill that would authorize contract care by VA without addressing these concerns would essentially shift medical resources and veterans from VA to the private 

sector, to the detriment of the VA health care system and eventually would be deleterious to the interests of sick and disabled veterans themselves. DAV could not 

support this or any similar bill without such protections. It is unclear how the services that would be authorized by this bill would be triggered and controlled by an 

accountable VA health care professional. Typically, a veteran is authorized contract 

care after VA establishes that it cannot provide a particular service or that the veteran is geographically or otherwise hampered from access to VA services. A VA 

health care professional makes this determination. Also, legal eligibility determination is a necessity to ensure an individual veteran is eligible for VA care. 

Our main concern with this bill is that VA, over the past several years, has received significant new funds targeted to providing better mental health services to 

all veterans. VA has been especially concerned about ensuring services to OIF/OEF 

veterans, particularly those who live in rural and remote areas without good access 

to care. VA has developed a national mental health strategic plan, to deploy several 

new programs within all the normal strictures in which the system is required to 

operate. DAV believes VA should rapidly deploy those plans and exhaust those program possibilities, and then determine the degree of unmet need in rural areas—

rather than being required to contract out these services before those programs are 

given a chance to materialize. Before Congress authorizes a program such as the 

one envisioned here for rural veterans, we recommend VA determine the degree of 

unmet need after it has done as much as practicable to meet that need directly. 

Since Congress recently enacted legislation that established VA’s new Office of 

Rural Health, we believe that office should be charged with implementing and managing these matters in conjunction with VA’s Office of Mental Health Services.

S. 2004—A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH NOT LESS

THAN SIX EPILEPSY CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE IN THE VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

These Centers are intended to function as centers of excellence in research, education, and clinical care activities in the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy and 

include training of medical residents and other VA providers to ensure better access 

to state-of-the art treatments throughout the VA health care system. Provisions in 

the bill also include a peer review panel, consisting of experts on epilepsy, complex 

multi-trauma associated with combat injuries, including Post-Traumatic Epilepsy, to 

assess the scientific and clinical merit of research and treatment proposals that are 

submitted to the Centers. 

While DAV has no adopted resolution from our membership on this matter, we 

have been briefed by professional associations concerned about the decline of availability of epilepsy services in the VA. Also, literature is emerging to suggest co-morbid epilepsy in veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury. Therefore, this is timely legislation to fill a real need, and DAV would have no objection to its passage.

36

S. 2142—THE VETERANS EMERGENCY CARE FAIRNESS ACT OF 2007

The intent of S. 2142 is to amend Sections 1725 and 1728 of title 38, U.S.C., to 

require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reimburse veterans receiving emergency 

treatment in non-VA facilities. In addition to applying the prudent layperson definition of ‘‘emergency treatment’’ under both Sections, the bill intends to clarify the 

current VA practice of denying payment for emergency care provided to a veteran 

by a private facility for any period beyond the date on which VA determines the 

veteran can be safely transferred. Specifically, it would amend the definition of reimbursable emergency treatment to include the time when VA or other Federal facility does not agree to accept a stabilized veteran who is ready for transfer from 

a non-VA facility and the non-VA provider has made reasonable attempts (with documentation) to make such transfer. 

The DAV supports the intent of this bill as outlined above in accord with the mandate from our membership and with the recommendations in the Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 to improve the reimbursement policies for non-VA emergency 

health care services for enrolled veterans. Having consulted with the author of this 

important measure and with pertinent parties, it is our understanding that the current language may require additional modification. The DAV thanks those involved 

for their efforts to ensure the improvements to this essential benefit as contemplated by this bill is properly implemented.

S. 2160—THE VETERANS PAIN CARE ACT OF 2007

This measure would amend title 38, U.S.C., to establish a pain care initiative in 

all VA health care facilities. Specifically, it would require the Secretary to ensure 

that all patients receiving treatment be assessed for pain at the time of admission 

or initial treatment and periodically thereafter, and that pain care management and 

treatment, including specialty pain management services, are provided as deemed 

clinically appropriate. Pain care initiatives in this measure would be required to be 

established by January 2008 for inpatient care and January 2009 for outpatient care 

service lines. The bill would also require the establishment of research centers and 

training of healthcare professionals in assessment, diagnosis, treatment and management of acute and chronic pain. 

There is increasing interest by healthcare providers in the specialized field of pain 

management, and a number of advances in medicine and technologies from that interest are benefiting severely wounded service personnel and veterans. A recent 

study of OIF/OEF servicemembers receiving treatment in VA Polytrauma Centers 

found that pain is highly prevalent among this group. It also noted in its clinical 

implications that pain should be consistently assessed, treated, and regularly documented. The report concluded that polytrauma patients are at potential risk for development of chronic pain, and that aggressive and multidisciplinary pain management (including medical and behavioral specialists) is necessary. The report suggested the phenomenon of pain is a new opportunity for VA research in evaluating 

long term outcomes; developing and evaluating valid pain assessment measures for 

the cognitively impaired; and, developing and evaluating education or policy initiatives designed to improve the consistency of assessment and treatment across the 

VA continuum of care. 

VA has been a leader in assessment and treatment of pain management; having 

issued a National Pain Management Strategy in 1998 (its current iteration is VHA 

Directive 2003–021). We understand that the overall objective of VA’s national strategy is to develop a comprehensive, multicultural, integrated, system-wide approach 

to pain management that reduces pain and suffering for veterans experiencing acute 

and chronic pain associated with a wide range of illnesses, including terminal illness. However, we are concerned that implementation of pain management programs has not been consistent throughout VA’s nationwide health care system. 

DAV does not have a specific resolution adopted in support of establishing a legislated system-wide pain initiative at all VA medical facilities, but we believe the 

goals of the bill are in accord with providing high quality, comprehensive health 

care services to sick and disabled veterans and thus, would be strongly supported 

by our membership; therefore; we have no objection to this measure and look forward to its enactment.

S. 2162—THE MENTAL HEALTH IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2007

This measure would establish new program requirements and new emphases on 

programs for treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and substance 

37

use disorder—with special regard for the treatment of veterans who suffer from comorbid associations of these disorders. 

Sections 102–104 of the bill would require VA to offer a complete package of continuous services for substance use disorders, including: counseling; intensive outpatient care; relapse prevention services; aftercare; opiate substitution and other 

pharmaceutical therapies and treatments; detoxification and stabilization services; 

and any other services the Secretary deemed necessary, at all VA medical centers 

and community-based outpatient clinics unless specifically exempted. The measure 

would require that treatment is provided concurrently for such disorders by a team 

of providers with appropriate expertise. This section describes allocation funding to 

facilities for these new programs, as well as how facilities would apply for such 

funding. 

Sections 105 and 106 would require establishment of not less than six new National Centers of Excellence on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Substance Use 

Disorder, that provide comprehensive inpatient treatment and recovery services for 

veterans newly diagnosed with both PTSD and a substance use disorder. The bill 

would require the Secretary to establish a process of referral to step-down rehabilitation programs at other VA locations from a center of excellence, and to conduct 

a review and report on all of VA’s residential mental health care facilities, with 

guidance on required data elements in the report. 

Title II—Section 201 of the measure seeks to make mental health accessibility enhancements. This provision would require the establishment of a pilot program of 

peer outreach, peer support, readjustment counseling and other mental health services for OIF/OEF veterans who reside in rural areas and do not have adequate access through VA. Services would be provided using community mental health centers (grantee organizations of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services), and facilities of the Indian Health Service, through cooperative agreements or contracts. This pilot program would be carried out in a minimum of two Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) for a 3-year period. Provisions would require the Secretary to carry 

out a training program for contracted mental health personnel and peer counselors 

charged to carry out these services for OIF/OEF veterans. All contractors would be 

required to comply with applicable protocols of the Department and provide, on an 

annual basis, specified clinical and demographic information including the number 

of veterans served. 

Title III—Section 301 of the bill would establish a new, targeted research program in co-morbid PTSD and substance use disorders, and would authorize $2 million annually to carry out this program, through VA’s National Center for PTSD. 

Title IV—Sections 401 and 402 of the measure seek to clarify authority for VA 

to provide mental health services to families of veterans coping with readjustment 

issues. The bill would establish a ten-site pilot program for providing specialized 

transition assistance in Vet Centers to veterans and their families, and would authorize $3 million to be used for this purpose. The bill would require a number of 

reports on all these new authorities. 

Current research highlights that OEF/OIF combat veterans are at higher risk for 

PTSD and other mental health problems, including substance use disorder, as a result of their military experiences. Mr. Chairman, like you, we are concerned that 

over the past decade VA has drastically reduced its substance abuse treatment and 

related rehabilitation services, and has made little progress in restoring them—even 

in the face of increased demand from veterans returning from these current conflicts. There are multiple indications that PTSD and readjustment issues, in conjunction with the misuse of substances will continue to be a significant problem for 

our newest generation of combat veterans and therefore; we need to adapt new programs and services to meet their unique needs. We are especially pleased with the 

provisions pertaining to mental health services for family members. The families of 

these veterans are suffering too and are the core support for veterans struggling to 

rehabilitate and overcome readjustment issues related to their military service. We 

hope at the same time previous generations of veterans and their families can also 

benefit from these newly proposed programs and services. 

Although DAV has no approved resolution calling for a joint treatment program 

for PTSD and substance use disorders from our membership, we believe the overall 

goals of the bill are in accord with providing high quality, comprehensive health 

care services to sick and disabled veterans. Thus, with only two exceptions, stated 

below, we believe these are very timely provisions, and we fully support them. 

It is our understanding that the National Center for PTSD is focused primarily 

on research in PTSD, while your intentions for these six new centers would focus 

them on direct clinical care, as regional referral specialty centers in the care of 

these co-morbid conditions. Should this bill be enacted, we hope that the seven faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
38

cilities would work in tandem to advance both the clinical and research fields associated with PTSD and substance use disorders. An additional concern relates to Title 

II Section 201 of the bill—while we support the peer counseling concept we continue 

to have concerns about contracting with non-VA providers for specialized PTSD 

treatment. While we appreciate the Chairman’s efforts to address unmet needs in 

underserved areas we refer you to the comments we provided on S. 38, the Veterans’ 

Mental Health Outreach and Access Act of 2007. We would value the opportunity 

to work with the Committee staff to make further adjustments to the provisions in 

this section of the bill so that we can fully support this well-intended measure. 

Mr. Chairman, again, DAV appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today 

and present our views these bills. I will be pleased to respond to any questions you 

or other Committee Members may have. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY JOY ILEM, ASSISTANT, NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS TO THE COMMITTEE

ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Question. During our hearing DAV expressed concern about section 201 of S. 

2162, related to a proposed pilot program to develop peer support and outreach for 

OEF/OIF veterans living in rural areas and for readjustment counseling at community mental health centers and the Indian Health Service. You indicated in your 

statement that DAV is not opposed to contracting for mental health services when 

such services are not available from VA, and that VA already has sufficient authority to contract for care. You also expressed concern about maintaining the quality 

of care that would be provided by non-VA providers under this new authority. Our 

bill includes a provision to ensure VA would provide training to qualify contractors 

to address this challenge. 

Given these provisions of the bill, why do you believe that quality of care would 

not be protected for these rural veterans?

Response. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position on 

your bill. First and foremost, DAV believes that veterans deserve the highest quality 

health care available to them—whether provided by VA, purchased on a fee basis, 

or through contractors under VA auspices. Because of its long history in providing 

effective readjustment counseling services that are culturally sensitive to veterans 

and their unique military combat experiences, unquestionably VA is the optimum 

source for readjustment services for our newest veterans. However, when VA is not 

able to meet demand for services for legitimate reasons, it is clear that VA must 

use other options. As DAV testified, VA already has ample authority to provide services through fee basis and contract care programs. The question is how VA should 

provide that contract care. 

There have been disturbing reports that some private mental health providers are 

not only insensitive to the veteran culture but have attempted to assign blame to 

veterans for having been a part of the military establishment, and thus are culpable 

for their own mental health problems induced by combat exposure during that service. The Committee bill would require that participating community mental health 

clinics (CMHC) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) receive VA provided culturally 

sensitive, relevant clinical training in order to deliver effective post deployment readjustment counseling and treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); 

thus, we believe the Committee is acknowledging there may be deficits in the private mental health community and the IHS in treating veterans for military-related 

readjustment disorders. 

As stated in our testimony, DAV wants to ensure that all veterans receiving care 

from VA or through its fee basis or contract programs are treated in accordance 

with VA’s standards. In its 2001 report, ‘‘Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New 

Health Care System for the 21st Century,’’ the Institute of Medicine (IOM) put forward six aims that now underpin the standard of care for U.S. providers. The IOM 

aims are that health care will be safe (avoiding errors and injury), effective (based 

on the best scientific knowledge), patient-centered (respectful of, and responsive to 

patient preferences, needs and values), timely (reduced waiting time and harmful 

delay), efficient (avoiding waste), and equitable (unvarying, based on race, ethnicity, 

gender, geography, or socioeconomic status). VA embraces the IOM aims and therefore should manage rural veterans’ health care issues in a way that addresses all 

of the aims collectively. 

DAV believes that while section 201 of S. 2162 would address timeliness and equity of mental health services, two important IOM aims, it would do so to the potential detriment of the others. In fact, without evidence that CMHCs have relevant 

capacity, it is questionable whether even the timeliness or access goals of this legisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
39

lation can be achieved. DAV understands that several years ago VA tried to explore 

a partnership with these clinics, but it appeared that most CMHCs had no excess 

capacity. In addition, it is unclear if these clinics would be able to provide the range 

of post-deployment mental health services that new veterans may require. Specifically, these veterans may need services for depression; stress and anxiety reactions, 

including PTSD; individual or group counseling; specialized intensive outpatient 

treatment for severe PTSD—including cognitive behavioral best practices; services 

for relationship problems (including marital and family counseling); 

psychopharmacology services; and, substance-use disorder interventions and treatment, including initial assessment and referral, brief intervention and/or motivational counseling, traditional outpatient counseling and intensive outpatient substance-use disorder care. DAV is not confident they will be able to rise to such a 

formidable challenge, given the small population that would be assigned to each 

CMHC and the amount of training and other resources that would be required to 

prepare them for this patient care workload. 

VA holds itself out to veterans to be their health care system, a direct provider 

of care. DAV observes, like the Committee, that VA currently lacks an integrated 

approach to address the unique health care challenges of OEF/OIF veterans living 

in rural, remote and frontier areas. To remedy this gap, VA should identify an effective and creative approach to make health care—including mental health care—

available to our newest generation of wartime veterans irrespective of their locations of residence. Many of these veterans have co-morbid physical and mental 

health conditions related to military service therefore; we want VA to address the 

veteran’s needs in a holistic manner. Additionally, VA needs to develop performance 

measures and quality standards to assess the care that is provided through contract 

or fee-basis arrangements. VA should also be held accountable by Congress to provide a continuum of services for these veterans whether provided directly or through 

contracts. 

DAV believes that reform in rural, remote and frontier VA care can be achieved 

with the same overarching principles that have accompanied the transformation of 

the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) over the past decade. Necessary actions 

to achieve this reform would include:

• Issuance of clear VHA policy that local facilities and Networks, through their 

mental health leadership, are responsible for creating a VHA-sponsored system that 

provides a stipulated array of services reasonably accessible to as many OEF/OIF 

veterans as possible who need these services. 

• Provision of direct services wherever VHA has a large enough concentration of 

veterans needing such services, and has an existing VHA site of care. This would 

require VA to upgrade access to marital counseling and develop brief interventions 

for substance abuse—services that VHA does not make easily accessible in even 

some of its largest facilities. 

• Contracting for care where there is not a large enough concentration of veterans 

needing readjustment counseling services, after local and Network leadership assess 

the availability and quality of alternative service providers (e.g. Vet Centers, State 

veterans services), including the availability and quality of services which could be 

purchased in the community, and assuring that a full array of services is made 

readily available. 

• Oversight by Congress of this policy, with evidence that it is coordinated with 

the VHA Office of Mental Health Services and the newly established Office of Rural 

Health.

A critical aspect of health care quality is patient-centered care that is respectful 

of veterans’ preferences, values and culture but is also holistic and provides care coordination. Coordination of the full range of services for every enrolled veteran 

should be a key characteristic of VA care. This will not occur unless VA remains 

integrally involved in the veterans overall health care. 

Additionally, VA should make available to all its health care contractors gateways 

to VA’s computerized patient record system (CPRS) so that they can provide clinical 

information on the care of patients assigned to them and so that they are aware 

of the veterans’ entire medical history, diagnoses, and prescribed medications. VA 

must develop a strategic plan to achieve true continuity of care for its contract care 

patients. 

Any organization that wants to partner or contract with VA in providing health 

services, including mental health services, should be willing to provide performance 

measurement data on each IOM quality aim and other requirements that VA may 

need to validate quality. They would need to develop the ability to collect, track and 

submit data on the technical quality process and outcome measures, patient satisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
40

faction, and wait times, as well as clinical data. This information should be collected 

and reported publicly on a quarterly basis. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the Committee’s efforts in attempting to address this difficult issue, and this opportunity to further expand on our thoughts regarding mental health care options for rural, remote and frontier veterans. During 

your hearing on October 24th one Member suggested by his question that DAV and 

others would prefer veterans to remain unserved rather than having care provided 

by private contractors. To the contrary, DAV members—all service-disabled veterans—are the prime users of VA’s fee-basis and contract health care programs. We 

want for our members, and for our newest generation of combat wounded veterans, 

the very best care VA can provide or obtain whether from another Federal agency 

or grantee, or from private providers through contracts. We believe our policy, and 

our thoughts expressed here, are consistent with that goal. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. MURDOUGH?

STATEMENT OF BRENDA MURDOUGH, MSN, RN–C, MILITARY/

VETERANS INITIATIVE COORDINATOR, AMERICAN PAIN 

FOUNDATION 

Ms. MURDOUGH. Good morning. My name is Brenda Murdough. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, Members of the Committee 

on Veterans Affairs, I am here to provide testimony to support the 

Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007, S. 2160, on behalf of the American 

Pain Foundation and our Military/Veterans Pain Initiative. 

I would like to thank Chairman Daniel Akaka and his dedicated 

staff for their leadership in introducing this important legislation. 

I am the Coordinator of this initiative for the American Pain 

Foundation, and I am a certified nurse specialist in pain management. I am also a member of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing, having worked in the field of pain management 

for the last 71⁄2 years. 

I am also here on behalf of the more than one million families 

who have members currently serving or who have served in the 

Armed Forces on active duty or in the National Guard and Reserve. My husband retired from active duty in the Army after 23 

years of active service. His father is a World War II veteran. We 

have had family members serve in almost every armed conflict in 

the United States back to the Revolution, with the most recent 

being our son, who served 15 months in the Army in Iraq, returning last December. He is still on active duty. 

My sister’s two daughters serve on active duty in the Army, with 

one currently serving in Afghanistan, the other scheduled for deployment to Iraq most likely in February with her husband of 4 

months, who also serves. My oldest brother’s son is also currently 

serving in the Army in Iraq. My brother served for 30 years on active duty and retired last year, after having served in the First 

Gulf War. My younger brother served in the Army in the early 

1980’s, and my husband’s brother is on active duty in the Air 

Force. I could go on, but I think my point is clear. 

Military service has been an important and influential part of my 

life and I care deeply for the members of the Armed Services and 

their families, particularly those who have suffered the horrors of 

battlefield injury. I am proud of their service and I am honored to 

know so many individuals personally. 

But it is for all military personnel, active and retired, and all veterans from all armed conflicts that this important legislation for efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
41

fective pain management must be enacted. The Veterans Pain Care 

Act of 2007 is designed to ensure improvement in pain care services, research, education, and training for the benefit of the veteran 

population. It is the least we can do for those who have given so 

much for the service of their country. 

Founded in 1997, the American Pain Foundation is the Nation’s 

leading independent nonprofit organization serving people with 

pain. Several years ago, with support from the Disabled American 

Veterans Charitable Service Trust, APF began reaching out to veterans with pain. The goal of APF’s Military/Veterans Pain Initiative is to improve the quality of life of military veterans who suffer 

from pain by collaboratively working with other organizations to 

provide resources, information, and support to veterans with pain, 

their loved ones and caregivers, and to advocate for quality acute 

chronic pain care and increased research. 

I know firsthand the importance of early and effective pain management in acute pain care to prevent the development of chronic 

painful conditions. Newsweek recently had an article highlighting 

this. Our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are surviving battlefield injuries that previously would have been fatal, 

thanks to improvements in battlefield medicine and evacuation. 

The most recent complete study of soldiers enrolled in VA 

polytrauma centers show that more than 90 percent have chronic 

pain. Most have pain from more than one part of the body, and 

that pain is the most common symptom in returning soldiers. 

Advances in neuroscience, such as neuroimaging, now demonstrate that unrelieved pain, regardless of its initial cause, can be 

an aggressive disease that damages the nervous system, causing 

permanent pathological changes in sensory neurons and in the tissues of the spinal cord and brain. We need to be sure these painful 

shrapnel wounds, traumatic amputations, closed head traumas, 

and other battlefield injuries are receiving the most immediate and 

effective pain management at the time of acute injury to prevent 

chronic painful conditions from developing, and we need to make 

sure that all veterans that have developed chronic pain are receiving proper comprehensive, multi-modal pain care. 

Perhaps more than any other Federal agency, the VA has been 

a leader in focusing institutional resources on the assessment and 

treatment of pain. The Veterans Health Administration has made 

pain management a national priority. However, although many of 

our military and veterans’ treatment facilities offer the highest 

level of skilled expertise in treating these painful conditions suffered by our wounded Armed Servicemen and women, we need to 

ensure that all of our veterans’ facilities are consistently providing 

the highest level of comprehensive pain management to prevent 

long-term suffering and disability. 

We know the high multi-dimensional costs of untreated or undertreated pain on individuals and on families. Chronic pain conditions, such as those that can come from Traumatic Brain Injury, 

multiple fractures, traumatic amputation, crush injuries, and other 

battlefield injuries can be devastating to individuals and their families as they try to cope with the impact physically, mentally, socially, psychologically, and economically. 

42

Pain can be acute and effectively treated by short-term interventions, or it can be chronic, often without effective cures, and sometimes without consistent and effective means of alleviation. Chronic 

pain symptoms and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder frequently cooccur and may intensify individuals’ experience of both conditions. 

Those who suffer severe chronic pain see their daily lives disrupted, sometimes forever. Their pain and their constant search for 

relief affects their function, their relationships, and those they love, 

their ability to do their work effectively, and often their self-esteem. Chronic pain is often accompanied by or leads to sleep disorders, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and even suicide. 

We need to provide our Armed Servicemen and women with the resources necessary to provide effective pain relief within the Veterans Administration Health Care System. 

The APF has recently developed ‘‘Treatment Options: A Guide for 

Living With Pain’’ for people living with pain, written and reviewed 

by leading pain specialists. Our guide provides credible, comprehensive information about many options for care. Pain is complex and unique to each individual and is usually best managed by 

a combination of treatments, such as medication, psychological assistance, physical rehabilitation, injection infusion therapies, implanted devices, such as spinal cord stimulators, or continuous infusion catheters and complementary alternative medicines. 

I recently had the privilege and honor of meeting and speaking 

with soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center on the regional anesthesia acute pain care team rounds and words cannot do justice to 

the courage and determination I witnessed. All were amputees. All 

were injured in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And all will 

be veterans with painful, lifelong consequences of their battlefield 

injuries. They fought for others. Now it is our time to fight for 

them. They deserve freedom from pain. 

With this in mind, I ask you to pass the Veterans Pain Care Act 

of 2007, S. 2160, so that all——

Chairman AKAKA. Ms. Murdough, will you please summarize 

your statement? 

Ms. MURDOUGH. Thank you. All veterans, all of our men and 

women who have served, past, present, and future, who have suffered wounds of battle deserve consistent, high-quality pain management, deserve freedom from pain, and it is our obligation to provide it to them. It is the least we can do. 

Thank you. I apologize. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Murdough follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRENDA MURDOUGH, MSN RN–C, MILITARY/VETERANS

INITIATIVE COORDINATOR, AMERICAN PAIN FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Veteran’s Affairs, my name is 

Brenda Murdough, MSN RN–C. I am here to provide testimony to support the Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007, on behalf of the American Pain Foundation and our 

Military/Veterans Pain Initiative. I am the Coordinator of this Initiative for the 

American Pain Foundation and I am a certified nurse specialist in pain management. I am also a member of the American Society for Pain Management Nursing, 

having worked in the field of pain management for the last seven and a half years. 

I am also here on behalf of the more than one million families who have members 

currently serving or who have served in the armed forces on active duty or in the 

National Guard and Reserve. My husband retired from active duty in the Army 

after 23 years of service. His father is a WWII veteran. We have had family members serve in almost every armed conflict in the United States back to the RevoluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
43

tion, with the most recent being our son, who served 15 months in the Army in Iraq, 

returning last December. He is still on active duty. My sister’s two daughters serve 

on active duty in the Army with one currently in Afghanistan and the other scheduled for deployment to Iraq most likely in February with her husband of 4 months, 

who also serves. My oldest brother’s son is also currently serving in the Army in 

Iraq. My brother served for 30 years on active duty and retired last year after having served in the first Gulf War. My younger brother served in the Army in the 

early 80’s and my husbands’ brother is on active duty in the Air Force. I could go 

on, but I think my point is clear. Military service has been an important and influential part of my life and I care deeply for the members of our armed services and 

their families, particularly those who have suffered the horrors of battlefield injury. 

I am proud of their service and honored to know so many individuals personally. 

But it is for all military personnel, active and retired, and all veterans from all 

armed conflicts that this important legislation for effective pain management must 

be enacted. The Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007 is designed to ensure improvement 

in pain care services, research, education, and training for the benefit of the veteran 

population. It’s the least we can do for those who have given so much in the service 

of their country. 

Founded in 1997, the American Pain Foundation (APF) is the Nation’s leading 

independent nonprofit organization serving people with pain. Three years ago, with 

support from the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust, APF began 

reaching out to veterans with pain. The goal of APF’s Military/Veterans Pain Initiative is to improve the quality of life of military/veterans who suffer from pain by 

collaboratively working with other organizations to provide resources, information 

and support to veterans with pain, their loved ones and caregivers; and to advocate 

for quality acute and chronic pain care and increased research. 

I know first hand the importance of early and effective pain management in acute 

pain care to prevent the development of chronic pain conditions. Our men and 

women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are surviving battlefield injuries that previously would have been fatal, thanks to improvements in battlefield medicine and 

evacuation. The most recent complete study of soldiers enrolled in VA Polytrauma 

Centers show that more than 90 percent have chronic pain, that most have pain 

from more than one part of the body, and that pain is the most common symptom 

in returning soldiers. Advances in neuroscience, such as neuroimaging, now demonstrate that unrelieved pain, regardless of its initial cause, can be an aggressive 

disease that damages the nervous system, causing permanent pathological changes 

in sensory neurons and in the tissues of the spinal cord and brain. We need to be 

sure that these painful shrapnel wounds, traumatic amputations, closed head traumas and other battlefield injuries are receiving the most immediate and effective 

pain management at the time of acute injury to prevent chronic painful conditions 

from developing. And we need to make sure that all veterans that have developed 

chronic pain are receiving proper, comprehensive, multi-modal pain care. 

Perhaps more than any other Federal agency, the VA has been a leader in focusing institutional resources on the assessment and treatment of pain. The Veterans 

Health Administration has made pain management a national priority. However, although many of our military and veterans treatment facilities offer the highest level 

of skill and expertise in treating these painful conditions suffered by our wounded 

armed service men and women, we need to ensure that all of our veterans’ facilities 

are consistently providing the highest level of effective, comprehensive pain management to prevent long term suffering and disability. 

We also know the high, multidimensional costs of untreated or under treated pain 

on individuals and their families. Chronic pain conditions such as those that can 

come from Traumatic Brain Injury, multiple fractures, traumatic amputation, crush 

injuries and other battlefield injuries can be devastating to individuals and their 

families as they try to cope with the impact physically, mentally, socially, psychologically and economically. Pain can be acute and effectively treated by short term 

interventions, or it can be chronic, often without effective ‘‘cures’’ and sometimes 

without consistent and effective means of alleviation. Chronic pain symptoms and 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder frequently co-occur and may intensify an individual’s experience of both conditions. Those who suffer severe chronic pain see their 

daily lives disrupted—sometimes forever. Their pain and their constant search for 

relief affects their function, their relationships with those they love, their ability to 

do their work effectively, and often their self esteem. Chronic pain is often accompanied by or leads to sleep disorders, emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and 

even suicide. We need to provide our armed service men and women with the resources necessary to provide effective pain relief within the Veterans Administration 

Health Care system. 

44

The APF has recently developed Treatment Options: A Guide for People Living 

with Pain. Written and reviewed by leading pain specialists, our guide provides 

credible, comprehensive information about many options for care. Pain is complex 

and unique to each individual and is usually best managed using a combination of 

treatments such as medication, psychological assistance, physical rehabilitation, injection and infusion therapies, implantable devices such as spinal cord stimulators 

or continuous infusion catheters, and complementary and alternative medicine. 

I recently had the privilege and honor of meeting and speaking with soldiers at 

Walter Reed Medical Center on the Regional Anesthesia Acute Pain Care team 

rounds and words cannot do justice to the courage and determination I witnessed. 

All were amputees, all were injured in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and 

all will be veterans with painful, lifelong consequences of their battlefield injuries. 

They fought for others rights and now it’s our time to fight for theirs. Freedom from 

pain is their right. 

It is with this in mind that I ask you to pass the Veterans Pain Care Act of 2007. 

This bill requires that all facilities within the Department of Veterans Affairs are 

held accountable for the adequacy and consistency of pain treatment across programs and geographic regions; that pain assessment, diagnosis and treatment be 

prompt and integral to veterans health care; and that the VA increase its research 

into the areas of acute and chronic pain. Our veterans, all of our men and women 

who have served, past, present and future, who have suffered the wounds of battle, 

have earned the right to consistent high quality pain management—have earned the 

right to freedom from pain—and it is our obligation to them to provide it. It is the 

least we can do.

Additional information is available at American Pain Foundation, 201 N. Charles 

Street, Suite 710 Baltimore, MD 21201–4111 P: 410–783–7292 

www.painfoundation.org

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

MURDOUGH, MSN, RN–C, MILITARY/VETERANS INITIATIVE COORDINATOR, AMERICAN PAIN FOUNDATION

1. In your testimony, you raised concerns over the implementation of VA’s pain 

management program, in that it has not been consistent across the entire system. 

Can you comment further on this, and discuss the areas most urgently in need of 

improvement? 

There are VA facilities that have excellent pain care programs—an example is the 

Tampa Florida center, which was recently highlighted in the news. Unfortunately, 

this high quality, multidiscipline, comprehensive approach to pain management is 

not available to those who must travel long distances, only to find that the person 

treating them has had no training in Pain Management, is not educated in prescribing the medications necessary to manage pain effectively, or that the resources 

necessary are not available in the area. Consequently, the areas most urgently in 

need of attention are ensuring available, consistent, high quality, multimodal pain 

care treatment and an increase in individuals who are appropriately educated and 

trained in the specialty of Pain Management. We hear from Veterans often about 

the disparity of Pain Management across the VA system.

2. As you have testified, pain is complex and unique to each individual. How can 

VA most effectively prioritize their research to address the array of acute and chronic pain conditions veterans face? How much focus should there be upon treatment 

versus other priorities? 

Research opportunities should focus on two main categories: improved acute pain 

management either in the battlefield or at the time of injury to prevent the possible 

development of chronic pain conditions, and the improvement in treatment options 

for chronic pain conditions, including the pain specific to Traumatic Brain Injury, 

traumatic amputation, shrapnel wounds, and other concussive injuries which may 

have long term pain associated with them. Research should focus on the most effective means of decreasing pain and improving quality of life, including the most effective multi modal approaches for accomplishing these goals. Research should also explore the high co-prevalence of psychiatric disorders (such as PTSD and depression) 

with pain.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

Dr. SMITH?

45

STATEMENT OF BRIEN J. SMITH, M.D., MEDICAL DIRECTOR, 

COMPREHENSIVE EPILEPSY PROGRAM, HENRY FORD HOSPITAL 

Dr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here 

today. My name is Brien Smith and I am the Medical Director of 

the Comprehensive Epilepsy Program at Henry Ford Hospital in 

Detroit, Michigan. I am pleased to speak today in support of S. 

2004, the VA Epilepsy Centers of Excellence Act of 2007. 

Epilepsy is a medical condition that produces seizures affecting 

a variety of mental and physical functions. The seizure happens 

when a brief strong surge of electrical activity affects part or all of 

the brain. When a person has two or more seizures, the condition 

is then considered epilepsy. Epilepsy affects 1 percent of the U.S. 

population, or three million people. 

One of my first experiences with Post-Traumatic Epilepsy as a 

clinician is when I met George Bussell in 1994. Mr. Bussell’s Traumatic Brain Injury occurred in 1944 while he served as a combat 

engineer during World War II and he was taking up a mine field 

between France and Germany. A fragment from a shell struck him 

in the frontal region, blowing off his helmet and leading to hospitalization. He seemed to recover fully, but subsequently developed seizures 16 years later arising from the area of injury. Despite 

multiple attempts to control his seizures, his life was dramatically 

altered by daily seizures until he was presented to my clinic in 

1994, 34 years later, for surgical evaluation. Fortunately, we were 

able to help him with surgery and he gained a new sense of independence for the last 10 years of his life. 

Mr. Bussell is one of many similar stories. We know that trauma 

to the brain, whether mild or severe, is clearly a defined risk factor 

for epilepsy. Studies from the Vietnam War and from the Iran-Iraq 

War show that 32 to 50 percent or more of service-related TBI victims develop epilepsy within 1 to 15 years Post-Trauma. Let me 

clarify that this statistic is for penetrating injuries which occur 

when a foreign object or piece of fractured skull enters the brain. 

Today’s story is a bit different. The common head trauma in Iraq 

is the result of the shockwave effect of high pressure that reverberates through the body and head from an explosion like those from 

an improvised explosive device, or IED. Researchers fear that incidence of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy could increase exponentially 

given this mechanism of injury. 

The 2003 data from Walter Reed Army Medical Center found evidence of brain injury in 61 percent of returning soldiers who had 

been exposed to IED blasts according to the Defense and Veterans 

Brain Injury Center, a partnership between the VA and Department of Defense. It is because of such alarming statistics that the 

Epilepsy Foundation and epileptologists like me believe that S. 

2004 is critically needed. 

We have to make sure that VA is prepared for the influx of PostTraumatic Epilepsy. In essence, that is what S. 2004 is all about. 

The VA currently lacks a national program for epilepsy with clear 

guidelines on when to refer patients for further assessment and 

treatment of epilepsy. What the VA does have is a great model. 

Centers of Excellence have been developed over the years to adVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
46

dress other disabling and chronic diseases in the veteran population such as Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Through 

such Centers of Excellence, the VA has been able to address many 

of the other common consequences of TBI, such as psychological 

changes and vision problems, but not Post-Traumatic Epilepsy. 

The VA did establish epilepsy centers in the 1970’s, but they 

have languished with few staff and no national budget, leaving veterans with Post-Traumatic Epilepsy, like Mr. Bussell, at the mercy 

of an inadequate system. Many veterans are denied services in locations without the necessary epilepsy facilities and the centers are 

not linked together. Sadly, the potential of these centers to be the 

backbone of a national epilepsy program never materialized. 

The new centers created by S. 2004 would be linked with prestigious medical schools and research centers, thus attracting outstanding clinicians and scientists capable of driving innovation in 

the prevention and treatment of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy. A highlight of this legislation is that it contains a telemedicine component 

whereby the review of neurologic diagnostic tests, such as EEGs 

and MRIs, will be able to take place through transmission of the 

tests from the veteran’s local care facility to one of the six centers. 

Thus, the centers would provide a nationwide monitoring program 

to improve the quality of life for veterans who live in rural areas 

that are far from a center. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that we must strike while the 

iron is hot. As a Nation, we became more aware of TBI as a consequence of war when news anchor Bob Woodruff shared his personal story with the Nation. But while we now have people understanding that TBI is occurring at high rates, most people do not 

understand the high probability of epilepsy as a consequence of 

TBI or that epilepsy may manifest many years later. 

Congress has the opportunity right now to make a difference for 

our veterans and for their future. Without proper diagnosis and 

care, their lives and livelihoods are affected forever. By enacting S. 

2004, we will be finally putting into place a national network of 

centers to address the effects of TBI and epilepsy for the war heroes of today who will be citizens living in your towns tomorrow. 

Thank you for this opportunity today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIEN J. SMITH, MD, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, COMPREHENSIVE

EPILEPSY PROGRAM HENRY FORD HOSPITAL

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee:

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Brien 

Smith and I am Medical Director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Program at the 

Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. I am pleased to speak in support of S. 

2004, the VA Epilepsy Centers of Excellence Act of 2007 and to share with you some 

thoughts about why these Centers are critically needed. 

Epilepsy is a medical condition that produces seizures affecting a variety of mental and physical functions. A seizure happens when a brief, strong surge of electrical 

activity affects part or all of the brain. When a person has two or more seizures 

the condition is then considered epilepsy. Epilepsy affects about 1 percent of the 

U.S. population or 3 million people. 

Nearly half a million people are involved in some kind of accidental brain injury 

each year—typically through a car accident or a fall—and 80,000 of them require 

hospitalization due to moderate or severe Traumatic Brain Injury. Mortality and 

morbidity as a consequence of TBI are a major public health problem and PostVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
47

Traumatic Epilepsy is linked to psychosocial disability and is probably a contributing factor to premature death after penetrating head injury. 

One of my first experiences with Post-Traumatic Epilepsy as a clinician is when 

I met George Bussell in 1994. Mr. Bussell’s Traumatic Brain Injury occurred in 

1944 when he served as a combat engineer during World War II and he was taking 

up a mine field between France and Germany. A fragment from a shell struck him 

in the frontal region blowing off his helmet and leading to hospitalization. He 

seemed to recover fully, but subsequently developed seizures 16 years later arising 

from the area of injury. His wife recalls witnessing the first event with him screaming out, becoming confused, strange movements of his arms and legs, clicking of his 

tongue and undressing himself. Despite multiple attempts to control his seizures his 

life was altered by these recurrent, almost daily events until he presented to our 

clinic in 1994 for surgical evaluation. With good fortune, surgical intervention at age 

69 provided him with a new sense of independence for the last 10 years of his life. 

Mr. Bussell is one of many similar stories. We know that the risk for our service 

men and women is very real—even if we cannot predict the exact number of soldiers 

who will be harmed, we know that trauma to the brain, whether mild or severe, 

is a clearly defined risk factor for epilepsy. Past studies from the Vietnam War referenced in my written testimony, show that more than 50 percent of service related 

TBI becomes epilepsy within 1–15 years Post Trauma. This statistic is for penetrating injuries which occur when a foreign object or piece of fractured skull enters 

the brain. Another study conducted between 1980 and 1988 in Iran looking at soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war showed 32 percent of penetrating head injury TBI became 

epilepsy within 6 months to 2 years. 

Today’s story is a bit different. The common head trauma in Iraq is the result 

of a ‘‘shock wave’ effect of high pressure that reverberates through the body and 

head from an explosion like those from the Improvised Explosive Devices or IEDs. 

Researchers fear that incidence of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy could increase exponentially given the shock wave effect from IEDs. 

2003 data from Walter Reed Army Medical Center found evidence of brain injury 

in 61 percent of returning soldiers who had been exposed to blasts according to the 

Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC), a partnership between the VA 

and Department of Defense. It is because of such alarming statistics that the Epilepsy Foundation and epileptologists like me believe that S. 2004 is critically needed.

The legislation has three major goals:

1. (re)Establish 6 Centers to specialize in Post Traumatic Epilepsy and make 

them part of a national network of Centers that can serve veterans; 

2. Conduct research that will lead to an ability to prevent epilepsy as an outcome 

of TBI as well as research for better seizure control and an eventual cure for all 

epilepsy; 

3. Allow veterans living in rural communities or far from VA hospitals access to 

the care they need.

Given the high rate of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy that veterans with TBI are likely 

to endure, the Epilepsy Foundation and the American Academy of Neurology believes that Congress should take a strong role in veterans’ health care by authorizing this bill that would direct the VA to establish a strong national epilepsy program with research, education, and clinical centers that will provide state-of-the-art 

care for our brave soldiers. 

As this Committee heard in May from Dr. John Booss, a former national director 

of neurology for the VA, the VA lacks a national program for epilepsy with clear 

guidelines on when to refer patients for further assessment and treatment of epilepsy. VA Centers of Excellence have been the model of innovation in the delivery 

of highly specialized health care and research for other disabling and chronic diseases in the veteran population such as Parkinson’s disease and Multiple Sclerosis. 

The VA has the infrastructure to address many of the other common consequences 

of TBI such as psychosocial changes and vision problems but not Post-Traumatic 

Epilepsy. 

The VA established Epilepsy Centers as early as 1972, but these Centers have 

languished over the years with few staff and no national budget. The net result of 

allowing these Centers to fall by the wayside is that veterans with post TBI epilepsy 

are at the variable mercy of a system with markedly uneven distribution of epilepsy 

services. This often results in denial of services in locations without the necessary 

epilepsy facilities and in which administrators are hard pressed to meet their budget. Sadly, the potential of these Centers to be the backbone of a national epilepsy 

program never materialized. 

48

Under this bill, the VA would designate six new Centers that would be linked 

with prestigious medical schools and research centers thus attracting outstanding 

clinicians and scientists capable of driving innovation in the prevention and treatment of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy. State-of-the-art care is what our veterans deserve. 

Research is the key to discovering ways to better predict when TBI victims will develop epilepsy. 

To date, research has been focused primarily on the seizures themselves and what 

drugs might control or eliminate them. My colleague Marc Dichter, M.D., Ph.D. professor of neurology and pharmacology at the University of Pennsylvania says, ‘‘We 

basically wait for epilepsy to happen and then see if we can treat it, which is in 

stark contrast to how we tackle other public health problems such as cancer or 

heart disease where we identify risk factors and try to prevent disease from occurring.’’

Another grave concern we have is that many returning veterans live in rural 

areas or far from a VA Center. S. 2004 contains a component on telemedicine whereby the review of neurological diagnostic tests such as EEG’s and MRI’s will be able 

to take place through transmission of such tests from the veteran’s local care facility 

to one of the 6 ECoEs. Thus, the ECoEs would provide a nationwide monitoring program to improve the quality of life for veterans with Post-Traumatic Epilepsy who 

live in rural areas. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that we must strike while the iron is hot. As 

a Nation we became more aware of TBI as a consequence of war when news anchor 

Bob Woodruff shared his story of experiencing TBI with the Nation. But while we 

now have people understanding that TBI is occurring at high rates, most people do 

not understand the high probability of epilepsy as a consequence of the TBI or that 

the epilepsy may manifest many years later. Congress has the opportunity right 

now to make a difference for our veterans and for their future. Without proper diagnosis and care, their lives and livelihoods are affected forever. By enacting the VA 

Epilepsy Centers of Excellence Act of 2007, we will be putting into place a national 

network of Centers to address the affects of TBI and epilepsy for the war heroes 

of today who will be the citizens living in your towns tomorrow.

Thank you for this opportunity today. 

STUDIES REFERENCED: 

Epilepsy after penetrating head injury. I. Clinical correlates: A report of the Vietnam Head Injury Study. Andres M. Salazar, Bahman Jabbari, Stephen C. Vance, 

Jordan Grafman, Dina Amin, and J.D. Dillon. Neurology 1985; 35;1406 Prognostic 

Factors in the Occurrence of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy after Penetration Head Injury 

Suffered During Military Service. Bizhan Aarabi, M.D., Musa Taghipour, M.D., Ali 

Haghnegahdar, M.D., Majidreza Farokhi, M.D., Lloyd Mobley, M.D., Division of 

Neurosurgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska; Division 

of Neurosurgery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, Neurosurg 

Focus 8(1), 2000. Copywrite 2000 American Association of Neurological Surgeons 

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

BRIEN SMITH, M.D., MEDICAL DIRECTOR, COMPREHENSIVE EPILEPSY PROGRAM, 

HENRY FORD HOSPITAL

1. Your prepared testimony noted that epilepsy is unlike most other medical conditions, in that despite known risk factors, a wait-and-see approach is used in lieu 

of aggressive preventive care. Recognizing that there is a large population of veterans who may be at risk for developing epilepsy, what types of preventive practices 

can be implemented? 

Presently, there are no preventive practices from a medical perspective available. 

Aggressive preventative care would be ideal, if there was any data to suggest what 

that is. Completing controlled trials on acute Traumatic Brain Injury is very difficult and costly in the civilian population. Unfortunately, combat arenas, like Iraq, 

is one of the few scenarios where research trials could be performed to identify potentially profitable treatments. 

A number of compounds have been tested either in animal models and a few in 

human civilian studies which were hoped to demonstrate neuroprotective or 

antiepileptogenic properties without disturbing the normal features of the healing 

process. No agents have been identified thus far which demonstrate positive results. 

In fact, a recently published study on the use of magnesium in humans with head 

trauma appeared to actually have a negative effect versus placebo, after animal 

studies had suggested potential neuroprotective properties. 

49

Attempts are being made to optimize the care in the acute Post-Traumatic Period 

(first 2 weeks), but there has been no data to suggest that this has had any significant impact in reducing the subsequent development of epilepsy.

2. What role would the creation of epilepsy centers of excellence play in the development of preventative medicine and the early diagnosis of epilepsy? 

Epilepsy Centers of Excellence would serve as a model to develop patient care 

practices designed to assist in recognizing the development of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy and rapidly initiate evaluation and treatment. All soldiers with a history of 

head trauma, and at risk for the development of epilepsy, would undergo baseline 

testing including EEG, MRI, and Neuropsychological testing. Vigilant outpatient 

monitoring followed by scheduled testing with a prolonged follow-up period would 

provide significant data to identify soldiers at highest risk to develop the condition 

and enable reduction of secondary morbidity from unrecognized seizures. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO DR. BRIEN

SMITH, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, COMPREHENSIVE EPILEPSY PROGRAM, HENRY FORD

HOSPITAL

Dr. Smith, in your testimony you spoke about a former patient, Mr. Bussell. He 

was injured in WWII, and began having seizures 16 years later, and yet he didn’t 

enter your clinic and get proper care to treat his seizures until 1994. 

Can you please share with us where he was in the interim and whether he sought 

medical care from the VA?

Mr. Bussell did seek care from the VA shortly after the onset of his seizures in 

1960. He was informed that the seizures were unrelated to his previous head trauma, and that his problem was a separate issue. Due to the limited options offered 

to him, Mrs. Bussell felt she was running into a ‘‘dead end’’ with the VA and therefore pursued evaluations at outside centers. Mr. Bussell was evaluated at the University of Michigan for epilepsy surgery, but since he was considered a complicated 

extratemporal case, the surgical option was not offered, and he was entered into a 

number of experimental drug trials. After those attempts failed, he was subsequently seen in my clinic at Henry Ford Hospital where the surgical treatment option was offered.

Do you think veterans of this generation will meet the same fate as Mr. Bussell 

if we fail to develop a national program for epilepsy care? 

Yes. The VA system is presently ill-prepared to handle the numbers of returning 

soldiers who are at risk of developing Post-Traumatic Epilepsy. Not only do they 

have only a limited number of centers that have the equipment to manage these 

patients, the specialty personnel to complete these evaluations, and provide cutting 

edge treatment is lacking. The VA has a very limited perspective on the problem 

of Post-Traumatic Epilepsy. When you review their 180 page Traumatic Brain Injury manual, there is only one-half of a page that addresses epilepsy, and none of 

the listed authors are considered epilepsy specialists.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Captain WALKER?

STATEMENT OF CAPT. CONSTANCE A. WALKER, USN (RET.), 

NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS MEMBER, NAMI 

VETERANS COUNCIL; PRESIDENT, NAMI SOUTHERN MARYLAND 

Capt. WALKER. Good morning, Chairman Akaka and Members of 

the Committee. My name is Connie Walker. Thank you for your invitation to provide testimony as you consider this very important 

legislation related to mental health programs in the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

This is a particularly important session for me, not only as a veteran and as a member of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 

but as the parent of an Operation Iraqi Freedom 100 percent disabled veteran. Having said that, sir, I would ask the Committee’s 

indulgence for two additional minutes, if I may. 

50

My son asked if he could come today, but I said no. Mike is sixfoot-seven and very handsome and I was afraid that people would 

pay more attention to him than to what I have to say. 

He enlisted in the Army as a motor transport operator in June 

2001, Associate’s Degree in hand, basketball trophies and varsity 

letters in the attic, and more impressed by a chance to see the 

world and a very large enlistment bonus than by the idea of two 

more years of college. He had a good service in the Army and particularly enjoyed his deployment to Germany. 

In January 2003, his unit deployed to Northern Kuwait in support of the first phase of the war and our advance into Baghdad. 

They returned about 7 months later. I was deeply concerned with 

what I saw on that homecoming weekend. He would wake up 

screaming and was very subdued. The Army assured me he would 

be seen by a counselor at Fort Eustis, but in the coming months, 

his physical and mental decline became even more apparent. 

In December 2003, at my insistence, after an aborted attempt by 

the Army to administratively separate him, my son received a full 

physical and mental evaluation. In January 2004, Michael was diagnosed with PTSD, major depression, and schizophrenia. He was 

hospitalized, and later that year medically retired. Today, he lives 

with my husband and I in rural Southern Maryland. After using 

every resource available to us where we live and coordinating with 

the VA whenever we can, we are encouraging him to accept residential mental health care at the VA Medical Center in Perry 

Point, Maryland. The issue is not that my son cannot be helped. 

The issue is one of availability and quality of care where we live. 

I have been and remain my son’s primary advocate and have 

worked with military, VA, and civilian mental health care, insurance, and disability benefits systems. Navigating these waters is 

always a difficult job. At times, it is debilitating, even to someone 

with my skill sets: a 20-year career in recruitment, accession, retention, and retiree policy and program management; strong supporters within the VA, TRICARE, and other Federal and State 

agencies; and access to a local resource network that spans three 

Maryland counties. My experiences, my advocacy on behalf of OIF 

and OEF veterans and families in St. Mary’s County and other 

parts of Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, and California’s rural 

areas, and connections to veteran advocates across the country 

have led me to this conclusion. 

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to overstate the stressors that 

rural and frontier family caregivers are bearing on a daily basis as 

they search for limited treatment and rehabilitative services, and 

work to support a loved one whose cognitive abilities have been severely and sometimes permanently impaired by the invisible injuries of PTSD, other mental health issues, or the aftermath of Traumatic Brain Injury. 

From a mental health care perspective, a single bottom line 

looms over everything in mental health treatment and rehabilitation for our veterans in rural areas. The likelihood of obtaining effective services is slim to none for those who live beyond a reasonable commute from a VA medical center or do not have access to 

an appropriately and consistently staffed VA Community-Based 

Outpatient Clinic. 

51

This is a painful realization for families of these veterans, especially in light of this truth about recovery: Early intervention and 

regular access to treatment and rehabilitation services are as vital 

to a disabled veteran’s recovery from serious mental illness as they 

are to a physically injured veteran’s recovery from serious physical 

injury. 

Mr. Chairman, you asked me to limit my remarks to your mental 

health bill, S. 2162, the Mental Health Care Improvements Act. My 

formal statement submitted earlier this week also discusses the 

other legislation under your consideration. Your proposed mental 

health bill would establish new requirements in the VA for the 

treatment of PTSD and substance use disorder, with special procedures to address the treatment of veterans who suffer from co-occurring disorders. VA emphasis on concurrent treatment for veterans who have PTSD or other mental illness and are self-medicating with alcohol or drugs would be a welcome step forward in 

these veterans’ journey to recovery. 

That said, for OIF and OEF veterans who need these services in 

rural areas, I think the only practical avenue for VA care for this 

core of veterans would be through the CBOCs. The Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that 

rural substance abuse is a large and growing problem in America 

with insufficient resources in place to meet that challenge. So to 

reach rural veterans, rural CBOCs would need to be fully and consistently staffed, not staffed by rotating mental health professionals among multiple sites, in order to offer consistent treatment 

capabilities when these veterans need them—not on the day of the 

week that the physician happens to be there. I am afraid that even 

under these circumstances, veterans in need of mental health 

treatment who are self-medicating in our frontier areas are likely 

to be beyond reach. 

To continue, the legislation would require a VA review of its residential mental health care facilities, including the domiciliaries. 

The deliverable would be a report on availability and quality of 

care at these sites for this Committee and the House Committee 

on Veterans Affairs. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important 

assessment of VA residential and long-term mental health care facilities and it cannot wait. 

I was an Inspector General in my last Navy assignment. A legislative mandate is not necessary to initiate a fact-finding review of 

this nature. There are inspection and audit agencies that can be 

tasked to take this for action right now, for example, the VA’s Office of Inspector General or the GAO. 

Mr. Chairman, your legislation would require the VA to establish 

a pilot program in two VA networks for peer outreach and support, 

readjustment counseling, and other mental health services for OIF 

and OEF veterans in partnership with community mental health 

services and the Indian Health Service. Sir, this aspect of your legislation discusses a vital need for families like mine in rural America: increased access to mental health care programs and rehabilitation services for veterans who are coming home to places where 

VA resources are very limited or do not exist. 

There are several issues of concern, not with your legislation’s 

correct and critically important intent, but with the assumption of 

52

a capability of existing rural resources to achieve that goal, VA 

training notwithstanding. The overarching challenge is a national 

issue. There are too few mental health care specialists, programs, 

and services in rural areas to meet the needs of the existing population. Sixty percent of rural Americans live in federally designated 

mental health professional shortage areas. Sixty-five percent get 

their mental health care from their primary care doctor. In Southern Maryland, where I live, individuals seeking psychiatric care 

can wait up to 4 months for their first appointment. 

Related concerns go to community mental health centers, where 

programs are funded primarily through grants from the Department of Health and Human Services. There are very few centers 

in rural areas, and sustained mental health workforce shortages 

have reached crisis levels in many areas of this country. Clinics 

most often operate at capacity, and many of their clients have lived 

with chronic mental illness for years. 

My son received services through our county’s only communitybased residential treatment program after his return to Southern 

Maryland. Mike has had an independent full life and although he 

wanted to come home, certainly, after his medical retirement—coming home to live with Mom was not something he was excited about 

doing...would it be for any young man or woman? We arranged for 

residential treatment at the only agency available and found the 

gap between slick marketing and reality to be more than disillusioning. 

We know that 56% of OIF and OEF veterans utilizing VA health 

care are under 29 years old, just like my son. This demographic, 

these veterans’ distinct psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation 

needs, and what they want and we all hope for, for their futures—

will make the requirement for VA training of community mental 

health center clinicians, at a minimum, even more important. 

Mr. Chairman, if this legislation will increase mental health 

staffing and resources in rural areas, then it can ensure access to 

care for OIF and OEF veterans who need it and it must be supported. My fear is that the current state of our country’s rural mental health infrastructure will keep it from achieving its intent and 

more precious time will be lost, and that clock is ticking. 

Mr. Chairman, Senior Ranking Member Burr, like you, I believe 

the solution is achievable and that a collaboration of care is what 

it will take. Local mental and physical health care providers must 

receive some VA training in mental and physical health issues for 

this generation of combat veterans so they know what to look for. 

A continuum of partnered care that keeps an assigned VA case 

manager informed on a regular basis, an approach that will take 

input from family caregivers into account and give them some 

training——

Chairman AKAKA. Captain Walker, will you please summarize 

your statement? 

Capt. WALKER. Sure. VA and Health and Human Services must 

actively partner and perhaps even combine resources for a treatment venue in rural areas that works for this population of veterans and their families. It cannot be business as usual, and in 

rural areas, right now, it is definitely business as usual. 

Thank you for considering my views on this legislation, sir. 

53

[The prepared statement of Capt. Walker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONSTANCE A. WALKER, CAPT, USN (RET.) NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS MEMBER, VETERANS’ COUNCIL, PRESIDENT, NAMI 

SOUTHERN MARYLAND

Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee—

As a member of the Veterans Council of the National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), I appreciate your invitation to provide testimony for your consideration of 

several legislative proposals related to mental health programs in the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA). On behalf of NAMI’s Executive Director, Mr. Michael 

Fitzpatrick, and our Veterans Council Chairman, Ms. Sally Miller, of Bozeman, 

Montana, please accept our thanks for this opportunity to speak with you today. 

NAMI is the Nation’s largest non-profit organization representing and advocating 

on behalf of persons living with chronic mental health challenges. Through our 

1,200 chapters and affiliates in all 50 states, NAMI supports education, outreach, 

advocacy and biomedical research on behalf of persons with schizophrenia, bipolar 

disorder, major depression, severe anxiety disorders, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 

(PTSD), and other chronic mental illnesses that affect children and adults. 

NAMI and its Veteran Members established the Veterans Council in 2004 to assure close attention is paid to mental health issues in the VA and within each Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN). We advocate for an improved VA continuum of care for veterans with severe mental illness. The council includes members from each of VA’s 21 VISNs. These members serve as NAMI liaisons with their 

VISNs; provide outreach to national Veterans Service Organizations; increase Congressional awareness of the special circumstances and challenges of serious mental 

illness in the veteran population; and work closely with NAMI State and affiliate 

offices on issues affecting veterans and their families. Council membership includes 

veterans who live with serious mental illness, family members of this population of 

veterans, and NAMI supporters with an involvement and interest in the issues that 

affect veterans living with mental illness. The Council’s monthly meetings are conducted via teleconference and often feature guest speakers who provide updates on 

developments in treatment, research, program initiatives, and service delivery for 

veterans, active duty servicemembers, and family members with serious mental illness. We also use these opportunities to stay current on developments in Congress 

and the Executive Branch that have the potential to affect mental healthcare for 

veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, as you indicated in my introduction, my name is Constance 

‘‘Connie’’ Walker. I am a retired Navy Captain with over 22 years of active duty 

service; a member of NAMI’s Veterans Council; and, the President of a regional, 

rural NAMI affiliate in southern Maryland. My son, Michael, is a disabled veteran 

of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). He enlisted in the Army as a Motor Transport 

Operator in June 2001, associate’s degree in hand, but Mike was more impressed 

by an enlistment bonus and a chance to see the world than the idea of two more 

years of college. 

In January 2003, Mike’s unit deployed to northern Kuwait in support of the first 

phase of OIF and our advance into Baghdad. That deployment ended in July. In December of that year—at my insistence, after a season of observable physical and 

mental decline in him, and an aborted effort by the Army to administratively separate him—my son received a full mental and physical evaluation. In January 2004, 

Mike was diagnosed with PTSD, major depression, and schizophrenia; he was hospitalized, and medically retired later that year. Today my son lives with my husband and me in southern Maryland. 

Throughout that period and since my son’s medical retirement, I have been his 

primary advocate in working with military, VA, and civilian mental healthcare, insurance, and disability benefit systems. Navigating these waters is always challenging and sometimes debilitating—even to someone like me, with over 20 years 

of experience in recruitment, accession, retention, and retiree policy and program 

management; having strong supporters within the VA, TRICARE, and other Federal 

and State agencies; and professional involvement in a local resource network that 

spans three Maryland counties. My family’s experiences; my advocacy work on behalf of OIF and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans and families in rural 

areas of Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, and California; and, connections to veteran advocates across the country, have led me to this conclusion:

It is impossible to overstate the stressors that rural and frontier family caregivers 

are bearing on a daily basis as they search for limited treatment and rehabilitative 

services, and work to support a loved one whose cognitive abilities have been seVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Mar 25, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ET41451\DOCS\40547.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
54

verely and sometimes permanently impaired by the invisible injuries of PTSD or 

other serious mental illness.

There is a looming reality over all discussions about recovery-based treatment and 

rehabilitation services for rural OIF and OEF veterans living with PTSD or other 

serious mental illness. The likelihood of obtaining those specialized services on a 

consistent basis is very small for veterans living in rural and frontier areas beyond 

a reasonable commute to a VA Medical Center (VAMC) or without access to an appropriately and consistently staffed VA Community Based Outpatient Clinic 

(CBOC). 

This is a sobering fact, Mr. Chairman. Early intervention and regular access to 

appropriate treatment, rehabilitation, and support services are as vital to a disabled 

veteran’s prospects for recovery from serious mental illness as they are for recovery 

from serious physical injury. 

Mr. Chairman, with that background, I offer the following comments on the legislation before the Committee today, as requested in your invitation letter:

S. 2162 MENTAL HEALTH BILL

Title I—PTSD and Substance Use Disorder

This bill would establish new VA requirements and re-emphasize existing VA programs for the treatment of PTSD and substance use disorder (SUD), with special 

procedures for VA to address the treatment of veterans who suffer from co-morbid 

association of these disorders. It would require VA to expand its offering of services 

for SUD, including counseling, outpatient care, prevention, aftercare, opiate substitution and other pharmaceutical treatments, detoxification and stabilization services, and other services the Secretary deems necessary, at every VAMC and CBOC. 

It would create a joint program of care for veterans with PTSD and a SUD, and 

authorize VA to spend $50 million a year in FY08, FY09, and FY10 on this program. 

VA would also designate six ‘‘National Centers of Excellence on Post-Traumatic 

Stress Disorder and Substance Use Disorder.’’

Following orthopedic problems, mental health is the second largest area of illness 

for which OIF and OEF veterans are seeking treatment at VA medical centers and 

clinics, and the demand for mental health services is increasing at a faster rate than 

orthopedic care. If this trend continues, we can expect to see mental health care at 

the top of the VA’s treatment list in the future. Within the range of mental health 

issues that OIF and OEF veterans are experiencing, PTSD tops the list. PTSD is 

a special emphasis area for NAMI in its work to support veterans in the VA health 

care system. 

The requirement in this legislation to emphasize concurrent treatment for veterans who have PTSD or other mental illness and a SUD is an important step forward in the treatment and recovery of veterans with PTSD or other mental illness 

who self-medicate with alcohol and/or drugs. Expanded VA efforts to treat co-occurring disorders would be welcome, and is long overdue. That said, for OIF and OEF 

veterans who need these services in rural and frontier areas, the only practical avenue to VA care for co-occurring disorders would be through VA’s CBOCs. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) reports that 

substance abuse is a large and growing problem in rural America. There would need 

to be a sense of urgency in ensuring CBOCs in rural areas have a fully staffed and 

consistent treatment capability for this population of veterans. Even under those circumstances, veterans who need mental health treatment and are self-medicating in 

America’s frontier areas are likely to be beyond reach. 

This legislation would also require a review of all VA residential mental health 

care facilities, including domiciliary facilities. The results of the review would 

produce a report to Senate and House Committees on Veterans’ Affairs that addresses the availability of care and provides, for each one, an assessment of supervision and support; staff-to-patient ratio, assessment of rules and procedures for 

medication management; description of protocols for handling missed appointments, 

and recommendations for improvements to residents’ care and the facilities themselves. 

This is an issue of extreme significance but I am personally puzzled by the need 

for legislation to conduct this review. Unless there are legal constraints to doing so, 

it should be possible to avoid delays inherent to the legislative process by requesting 

GAO or any of the audit or inspection agencies available for tasking by Congress 

(to include the VA’s Inspector General) to conduct this review and deliver the report.

55

TITLE II—MENTAL HEALTH ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENTS

This legislation would require the establishment of a 3-year pilot program in two 

VA networks to provide peer outreach, peer support, readjustment counseling and 

other mental health services to OIF and OEF veterans, particularly National Guard 

and Reserve veterans, who live in rural areas and are unable to routinely access 

comprehensive mental health services through the VA. These services would instead 

be provided through community mental health centers or facilities of the Indian 

Health Service participating in the pilot as VA’s partners. Clinicians at these facilities would receive VA training to help them address mental health concerns unique 

to the experiences of OIF and OEF veterans. These facilities would be required to 

annually report the following information to the VA: number of veterans served; 

courses of treatment provided; and demographic information for services, diagnoses, 

and courses of that treatment. 

Mr. Chairman, the goal of this legislation is vitally important: increasing access 

to mental healthcare programs and rehabilitation services for veterans returning to 

rural and frontier areas where VA resources are limited or do not exist. It is similar 

in its proposals to S.38, but downsized. In an effort to address this need using inhouse resources, the VA recently launched a program at selected test sites to provide Mental Health Intensive Case Management (MHICM) services in some rural 

areas, but this program is in its infancy. 

If legislation can increase mental health resources for veterans and families who 

live in rural areas, it should be supported. However, there are concerns that cause 

NAMI to question whether legislation alone can achieve this goal. 

The lack of availability of mental healthcare specialists, programs and services in 

rural areas is a national issue. Most rural areas do not have the mental health resources in place to meet the needs of the existing population. More than 60% of 

rural Americans live in mental health professional shortage areas. 65% percent get 

their mental health care from their primary care physicians. St. Mary’s County, 

Maryland received its federal designation as a psychiatric services shortage area in 

2005. Individuals seeking psychiatric care often wait 3 or 4 months for their first 

appointment. 

Community Mental Health Center programs are funded primarily through grants 

from the Department of Health and Human Services. There are very few centers 

in rural areas. Those there are tend to operate at capacity, and many of their clients 

have lived with chronic mental illness for years. These centers would be attempting 

to assimilate a very different client population in terms of OIF and OEF veterans’ 

average age, psychiatric treatment, and rehabilitative needs. Given these considerations, the legislation’s requirement for VA training of clinical staff takes on even 

more significance. 

These considerations raise a question as to whether legislation alone will be able 

to create an acceptable solution for OIF and OEF veterans in rural areas, who need 

timely and regular access to recovery-based mental healthcare treatment and rehabilitative services.

S. 38

This legislation would establish a 3-year program of services for members of the 

immediate families of new veterans diagnosed with PTSD or other serious mental 

illness. Services would include education, support, counseling and other programs 

for families to increase their understanding of their veteran’s illness, enabling them 

to more effectively support their veteran’s journey to recovery. These programs 

would also improve the family’s coping skills and ability to more effectively manage 

the stressors that family caregivers deal with every day. VA would have to develop 

a program based on these requirements—but these families are in desperate need 

of help. There is an equally important subject this bill does not address: compensation for family caregivers. Their role, in advocating for a seriously disabled veterans’ 

physical and mental healthcare and supporting their recoveries, is a fulltime job. 

My circumstances are unusual. I draw retired O–6 pay from the United States Navy 

and have a supportive spouse who is willing and able to work past retirement eligibility age. We can support my son. The vast majority of family caregivers supporting 

a seriously disabled veteran’s recovery do not enjoy these luxuries. In many cases, 

family caregivers have had to quit their jobs to take on fulltime caregiving responsibilities—placing the family under even more stress as it struggles to deal with the 

loss of income.

56

S. 2142

This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reimburse veterans 

with service-connected disabilities for costs incurred as a result of emergency treatment in civilian hospitals, for the period of inpatient care needed before they can 

be transported to VA facilities. 

It is a fact that a percentage of OIF and OEF veterans with PTSD or other mental 

illness, TBI, and other injuries not visible to the eye, go undiagnosed until symptoms become obvious. A VA facility is not always within commuting distance when 

the veteran with a service connected disability needs emergency inpatient care. 

NAMI supports legislation that broadens the entitlement of service-disabled veterans to emergency inpatient care covered by the VA, certainly until the veteran 

can be safely transported to a VA facility. Therefore, since this bill clarifies that VA 

responsibility, NAMI supports it.

S. 2004 AND S. 2160

Mr. Chairman, these two bills do not deal with mental illness, so NAMI takes no 

position on them.

CONCLUSION

The National Alliance on Mental Illness is committed to supporting VA efforts to 

improve and expand mental healthcare programs and services for veterans living 

with serious mental illness. Our members directly see the effects of what the national Veterans Service Organizations have reported through the Independent Budget for years: chronic under-funding of veterans’ health care has eroded the VA’s ability to quickly and effectively respond to present-day and projected requirements, 

even with the infusion of new funds it now is receiving. Forward motion has been 

stalled for 3 years on VA’s ‘‘National Mental Health Strategic Plan,’’ to reform its 

mental health programs—a plan that NAMI helped develop and fully endorses. A 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in September 2006 noted 

that the VA had failed to spend all of a promised $300 million in 2005 that was 

allocated towards improved awareness of mental illness treatment services in the 

VA; improved access to mental health services for Veterans returning from Iraq and 

Afghanistan, as well as others diagnosed with serious mental illness—all important 

initiatives within the VA strategic plan. NAMI hopes the Committee will agree that 

oversight of VA’s implementation of its National Mental Health Strategic Plan 

would be beneficial to ensuring its progress toward full implementation, to provide 

help to OIF–OEF veterans and all veterans who live with mental illness. 

Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation 

for NAMI to offer testimony as you consider this legislation. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you may have.

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Captain. I really appreciate that. 

Let me just ask one question and then I will pass it on to other 

Members. Ms. Ilem, in your testimony, you raised concerns about 

increasing contract care at VA. What safeguards do you feel are 

necessary to ensure that veterans get the best care available when 

they are treated for mental health issues or other conditions by 

outside care providers? 

Ms. ILEM. Well, I think the provisions in the bill, in your bill, try 

to—attempt to make sure that there is cultural competence. If VA 

has to provide that care outside VA, I think that is critical. When 

they have to use contracted care, we hope that it would be more 

consistent with VA’s care that those folks have access to, evidencebased treatments that VA had found effective in treating these 

very unique PTSD and readjustment issue problems, substance 

abuse issues, and that veterans are going to have the full benefit 

of good quality care. I mean, that is, I guess, our main issue with 

that. 

We would like to see VA provide as much of that care as possible 

in-house, and hopefully through the Office of Rural Care that is 

57

just newly stood up that they have been charged to address these 

issues, and we are hoping that they can really get a handle on 

what the unmet need is out there and how VA can really help provide that care and not just contract it out with not having a good 

handle on who those veterans are and that they have access to VA 

evidence-based programs for the treatment. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Blake, you indicated that PVA remains 

concerned about the eligibility criteria that determines which veterans are eligible for reimbursements for certain emergency care. 

Can you please expand upon your concerns? 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that my statement kind 

of speaks for itself. There are a couple of—I guess the 24-month requirement is something that we didn’t see as being addressed by 

the legislation that we feel is a critical component to addressing 

the emergent care requirement. And again, our bottom-line point 

about allowing for emergent care for any veteran who is currently 

eligible for VA health care within the system to be reimbursed if 

they get that care outside of the VA or within the VA. 

I mean, I don’t know that I could expand on any more than that. 

I would certainly refer you to our section in the Independent Budget for fiscal year 2008, but most of that is also addressed by my 

statement, as well. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. I will yield now to Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Captain Walker, thank you for that very personal testimony that 

I think sheds a lot of light on the challenge that Senator Akaka 

and I and VA deal with, and that is that, and I quote your numbers and they were very consistent with the numbers I found, that 

60% of rural Americans live in an area where mental health professionals don’t exist. So it implores me to turn to you, Mr. Blake, and 

you, Ms. Ilem, because I went back to read your testimony, Mr. 

Blake. Let me just read it. PVA opposes the provisions of this legislation that would authorize VA to contract with community mental 

health centers to meet the needs of veterans dealing with mental 

health. 

I represent North Carolina. Sixty percent of North Carolina is 

rural. I think today in the private health care system, finding the 

specialists that we need to provide services to the entire population, much less the challenges it presents within the VA system 

to find how to reach some of the rural markets. 

Let me give you an opportunity. Are you opposed to contracting 

under any condition, or are you opposed to contracting under some 

conditions? 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, Senator Burr, I think our statement speaks for 

itself in that we believe that the authority exists within the VA to 

contract care, particularly in the rural setting, already. As we have 

testified on the broader rural health care issue, which we feel is 

probably maybe one of the leading issues that VHA is facing, our 

concern has always been that maybe the VA has not applied its fee 

basis authority in the appropriate manner anyway and it would 

also affect these individuals. 

To qualify my statement that you read from a little bit further, 

our sense has always been that the VA can provide better care and 

more cost-effective care within its own system. That is why we 

58

voice our concerns about broader contract care with this in mind, 

being particularly the mental health aspect. 

I think the point that Captain Walker made can’t be lost, that 

it is not just a problem for the VA, it is a problem nationally. I 

mean, if the access and the professionals are not there, I can certainly see where this legislation gets the VA in the door, and we 

appreciate the provisions about training——

Senator BURR. All this simply does is create some options where 

there are no options today, options that the VA in charge of delivering health care to veterans—if, in fact, a veteran lives in an area 

that there is no VA services because, quite frankly, there are no 

mental health professionals, we are challenged. That may mean 

the only option for that veteran outside of driving an hour and a 

half, hoping that they are on their scheduled appointment, and we 

know the consistency of their visits and the access at difficult times 

is absolutely crucial, maybe they turn to some company that is specifically designed to cover rural areas. Would you object to that? 

Mr. BLAKE. Absolutely not, Senator. In fact, I would suggest that 

the Spinal Cord Injury Service uses a similar method for individuals that we have, particularly PVA members who live in extremely rural areas, because they make those choices, as well. And 

they have fee basis as an availability. 

Senator BURR. My attempt here is to find out exactly, when you 

say we oppose any effort, I mean, that is a pretty strong thing. 

Ms. Ilem, let me turn to you. In your testimony, you said the VA 

should be given time to fully implement and deploy new programs 

and strategies that are not yet fully deployed, then we should reassess the situation and see about the possibility of contracting opportunities. How do I look at Captain Walker and her son and suggest that she wait until they complete an assessment of the deployment of new programs and strategies? Is that fair? 

Ms. ILEM. Well, I think my point I was trying to make is that 

all of this money and effort has been put into, from Congress, making sure that VA has the opportunity to provide this care and the 

new law——

Senator BURR. Should this Committee be focused on process or 

outcome? 

Ms. ILEM. Well, certainly outcome, but it does take time for VA 

to get those services in place. But if VA doesn’t have it right now 

when that veteran needs it, obviously they have the authority to 

provide that care on a contracted basis. But do you want them to 

provide that care or authorize that care through somebody who 

may not fully understand or have the cultural competence to provide PTSD or readjustment issue care? I mean, we want that veteran to have, you know, if they have to drive in to get it because 

that is the best care available, you know, what is in the best interest of that veteran? 

Obviously, getting it close to their home is important, especially 

if it is a situation where they don’t have good transportation to and 

from the medical center. But at the same time, we want to make 

sure there is the cultural competence out there on behalf of that 

provider providing that care. And if VA can’t do it, and we would 

expect them to do it, if they do not have their services up and running for that veteran, that should be made available to them. 

59

Senator BURR. How many veterans are you willing to let fall 

through the crack while VA completes their assessment of new programs——

Ms. ILEM. We don’t want any veterans to fall through the cracks. 

Senator BURR. But they are. They are today. We wouldn’t be 

doing this legislation. Captain Walker wouldn’t be here testifying. 

And this is no reflection on the position of both of your groups or 

a reflection on the VA. 

Dr. Smith, let me just turn to you because the vote has started 

and I know the Chairman has been very gracious, but I didn’t see 

any other Members, so I thought I would take the opportunity. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURR. You clearly drew a distinction between 

Shockwaves and Direct Blows, not penetrations but blows. Can you 

sort it out for me? Is epilepsy, Post-Traumatic Epilepsy, more likely 

in Shockwave Injuries versus Direct Blow Injuries, or do we know? 

Dr. SMITH. Senator, we don’t know exactly the answer to that 

question right now. Most of the data that we have from in the past, 

for example, in Vietnam, you have missile injuries that penetrate 

the brain and create blood. Blood is something that is very irritative to the brain. But remember that a lot of head injuries that we 

see are closed head injuries where you have acceleration-deceleration injuries and it is a diffuse process where there can be the development of partial epilepsy which has nothing to do with penetration. 

This is a whole new world we are looking at with these IEDs and 

the type of injury. In talking to a couple neurologists who have actually been there, when they talk about the type of injuries they 

are seeing, a bullet injury is directly in and can be directly out 

where these IEDs are smashing areas and there is debris in a 

number of areas that is creating a completely different picture that 

we are not used to seeing. 

Senator BURR. Thank you for that, and there is a reason I went 

in the order that I did. You are dealing with it today, Captain. I 

know you guys have to take the position that you do. You bring a 

new element that we don’t talk about enough. It is the servicemen 

and women today who are coming back with injuries that we 

haven’t experienced, that if we are not focused on the technological 

progressions in prosthetics, if we are not focused on how we treat 

the mental health issues that arise from this current operation, if, 

in fact, we don’t transition Traumatic Brain Injury from one of penetration to one of shockwaves and possibly some direct blows, then 

we have done an injustice to the personnel that we have asked to 

serve. 

Part of our ability to address these is that we have to act quickly, 

and it doesn’t mean that we always have all the information. It 

doesn’t mean that we have all the programs out. Clearly, I think 

we could all find consensus that there are areas of the country that 

even in the private sector, it is very difficult to find the services 

that cover the scope that are needed and that it shouldn’t be unusual for VA to have a problem there like the private sector does, 

and when we hit those, that we ought not wait for programs to be 

fully vetted, that we ought to contract with somebody if, in fact, 

there is somebody that is qualified to deliver that service. 

60

Right now, the single most important thing we have to do is to 

drop the concerns we have with process. We will sort out process 

and focus on outcome, and that is how many of these men and 

women that go into the system for whatever need come out as 

quickly as they can, but with a life in front of them that is as productive as we can possibly make it and they can possibly enjoy. 

I thank you for letting me ask you some very pointed questions. 

Again, I thank all of you for your testimony, and Mr. Chairman, 

I thank you for your indulgence. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

A vote has been called. I want to thank our panelists here. We 

have questions that we will submit for your responses. 

I also want to thank Dr. Kussman, who has remained here to listen to the testimony of our second panel. I want you to know I appreciate that, Dr. Kussman. 

Again, I appreciate all of you and your testimonies as well as 

your responses. The reason I am going to adjourn is that we have 

a series of votes, and instead of keeping you here waiting until we 

are done, I want you to know that we appreciate your coming. We 

have heard from you and this will, without question, help us in 

dealing with these issues in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

This is all for the sake of trying to find the best ways of helping 

our veterans, and I thank you for contributing to that. 

Captain Blake, I had questions about families and your family, 

as well, but we will hear from you on that in your responses. 

I want to thank all of you again for appearing here and wish you 

well in all that you do. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ