VA and IHS: Further Action Needed to Collaborate on Providing Health Care to Native American Veterans
Released: 2013-04-26T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Native American Veteran Demographics

While Native American veterans are geographically dispersed throughout the United States, the West and South regions contain the majority of the Native American veteran population, according to Census data. Some Native American veterans are members of the 566 federally recognized tribes that are distinct, independent political communities that possess certain powers of self-government, which we refer to as tribal sovereignty. Specifically, federally recognized tribes have government-to-government relationships with the United States, and are eligible for certain funding and services provided by the United States. In addition, some Native American veterans are members of the more than 400 Indian groups that are not recognized by the federal government (which we refer to in this report as non–federally recognized tribes). Many—but not all—Native American veterans are dually eligible for health care services in VA and IHS. For example, a veteran who is a member of a non–federally recognized tribe may be eligible for VA health care services, but would not be eligible for IHS health care services.

VA and IHS Structure and Benefits

VA is charged with providing health care services to the nation’s veterans, and estimates that it will serve 6.3 million patients in fiscal year 2013. VA’s fiscal year 2012 budget for medical care was approximately $54 billion. The department provides health care services at VA-operated Veterans who facilities and through agreements with non-VA providers.served in the active military, naval or air service and who were discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable are generally eligible for VA health care.

IHS is charged with providing health care to the approximately 2.1 million eligible Native Americans. IHS’s fiscal year 2012 budget for medical care was approximately $3.9 billion. Similarly to VA, IHS provides health care services at IHS-operated facilities through direct care and pays for services from external providers through contract health services. In addition to IHS-operated facilities, some federally recognized tribes choose to operate their own health care facilities, which receive funding from IHS. Like their IHS-operated counterparts, tribally operated facilities provide direct care services and pay for contract health services. IHS also provides funding through grants and contracts to nonprofit urban Native American organizations through the Urban Indian Health program in order to provide health care services to Native Americans living in urban areas.

VA and IHS Collaboration through Memorandums of Understanding

In 2003, VA and IHS signed an MOU to facilitate collaborative efforts in serving Native American veterans eligible for health care in both systems. In 2010, the agencies developed a more detailed MOU to further these efforts. The 2010 MOU contains provisions related to several areas of collaboration, including actions related to the following: Joint contracts and purchasing agreements: Development of standard, preapproved language for inclusion of one agency into contracts and purchasing agreements developed by the other agency; and processes to share information about sharing opportunities in early planning stages.

Sharing staff: Establishment of joint credentialing and privileging, sharing specialty services, and arranging for temporary assignment of IHS Public Health Service commissioned officers to VA.

Electronic Health Record (EHR) access: Establishment of standard mechanisms for VA providers to access records in IHS and tribally operated facilities, and vice versa, for patients receiving care in both systems.

Reimbursement: Development of payment and reimbursement policies and mechanisms to support care delivered to dually eligible Native American veterans.

VA and IHS Tribal Consultation Policies

Executive Order 13175, issued on November 6, 2000, required federal agencies to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian tribe officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications. IHS issued a tribal consultation policy in 2006 to formalize the requirement to seek consultation and participation by Indian tribes in policy development and program activities. According to the policy, IHS will consult with Indian tribes to the extent practicable and permitted by law before any action is taken that will significantly affect Indian tribes. In November 2009, a Presidential Memorandum directed federal agencies to develop plans, after consultation with Indian tribes and tribal officials, for implementing the policies and directives of Executive Order 13175. VA’s plan included development of a tribal consultation policy, which the agency released in February 2011. VA’s tribal consultation policy asserts that VA will establish meaningful consultation to develop, improve, or maintain partnerships with tribal communities. The policy states that consultation should be conducted before actions are taken but acknowledges there may not always be “sufficient time or resources to fully consult” on an issue.

Best Practices and Internal Control Standards for Interagency Collaboration and Performance Monitoring

In past work we have reported on key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration including agreeing on roles and responsibilities; establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries; and developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.

Additionally, our past work has identified a range of mechanisms that the federal government uses to lead and implement interagency collaboration. We found that regardless of the mechanisms used, there are key actions the government can take, including (1) having clear goals; (2) ensuring relevant participants are included in collaboration; and (3) specifying the resources—human, information, technology, physical, and financial—needed to initiate or sustain the collaboration. We have also found in past work on leading public-sector organizations and agency strategic planning that it is important to (1) define clear missions and desired outcomes; (2) use performance measures that are tangible, measurable, and clearly related to goals to gauge progress; and (3) use performance information as a basis for decision making. Finally, internal control standards emphasize the importance of effective external communications that occur with groups that can have a serious effect on programs, projects, operations, and other activities, including budgeting and financing.

VA and IHS Have Developed Mechanisms to Implement and Monitor the MOU, but Metrics to Monitor Performance Do Not Adequately Measure Progress toward MOU Goals

VA and IHS have documented common goals in their MOU, created 12 workgroups that are tasked with developing strategies to address the goals of the MOU, and created a Joint Implementation Task Force to coordinate tasks, develop implementation policy, and develop performance metrics and timelines—actions that are consistent with those we have found enhance and sustain agency collaboration. However, most of the performance metrics developed by VA and IHS to monitor the implementation of the MOU need to be more clearly related to the goals of the MOU in order to allow the agencies to gauge progress toward MOU goals.

VA and IHS Have Defined Common Goals and Created Mechanisms to Implement the MOU

Consistent with our past work on practices that can enhance and sustain collaboration, VA and IHS have defined common goals for implementing the MOU and developed specific strategies the agencies plan to take to achieve them. Table 1 summarizes the five goals in the 2010 MOU and selected strategies for implementing them.

VA and IHS have created two mechanisms to implement the MOU— workgroups and a Joint Implementation Task Force. We have reported that MOUs are most effective when they are regularly updated and monitored, actions that can be achieved by workgroups and task forces.

VA and IHS created 12 workgroups tasked with responsibility for implementing and developing strategies to address the goals of the MOU, such as interoperability of health information technology; developing payment and reimbursement agreements; and sharing of care processes, programs, and services. Each workgroup includes members from VA and IHS, a step that can foster mutual trust across diverse agency cultures and facilitate frequent communication across agencies to enhance shared understanding of collaboration goals, according to our previous work on interagency collaboration. According to VA and IHS officials, most of the workgroup members volunteered to serve on the workgroups and were self-selected, and VA officials told us that they have consulted with tribes on how to increase tribal participation in the workgroups. The agencies also told us that some workgroup members were asked to participate because of their subject-matter expertise.

Goals established by each workgroup appear to be aligned with MOU goals. Specifically, all eight of the workgroups we interviewed described goals that were consistent with the MOU goals. workgroup we interviewed and provides a crosswalk between workgroup goals and the corresponding MOU goal or strategy.

We did not interview 4 workgroups because they did not directly relate to our objectives: (1) Services and Benefits; (2) New Technologies; (3) Cultural Competency and Awareness; and (4) Emergency and Disaster Preparedness.

Joint Implementation Task Force

VA and IHS created the Joint Implementation Task Force to oversee the overall implementation of the MOU. This task force comprises officials from both agencies including from the Office of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the IHS Chief Medical Officer, and the director of VA’s Office of Tribal Government Relations, and is scheduled to meet quarterly. It develops implementation policy and procedures for policy-related issues identified by the workgroups; creates performance metrics and timelines, evaluates progress; and compiles an annual report on progress in MOU implementation. Creating a mechanism, such as a task force, intended not only to address issues arising from potential incompatibility of standards and policies across agencies but also to monitor, evaluate, and report on MOU results, can help to facilitate collaboration, according to our previous work on interagency collaboration.

VA and IHS Performance Metrics Do Not Adequately Measure Progress on the MOU Goals

The process developed by the Joint Implementation Task Force to monitor the implementation of the MOU includes obtaining data on three performance metrics; however, two of the three metrics do not allow the agencies to measure progress toward the MOU’s goals. Our previous work has found that successful performance metrics should be tangible and measureable, clearly aligned with specific goals, and demonstrate the degree to which desired results are achieved. Although all three of the performance metrics are tangible and measurable, only one is also clearly aligned with a specific goal and defined in a manner that would allow the agencies to adequately measure the degree to which desired results are achieved. The other two metrics are inadequate because their connection to a specific goal is not clear and they lack qualitative measures that would allow the agencies to measure the degree to which desired results are achieved. For example, one MOU goal is to increase access to and improve quality of health care services, but none of the metrics mention any targets specifically linked to increased access or improved quality of care. Another goal is to establish effective partnerships and sharing agreements among the agencies and the tribes in support of Native American veterans. Although one of the metrics appears to be related to this goal, in that it is focused on measuring the number of outreach activities that are a result of partnerships, it lacks measures to determine how well the outreach activities are meeting the goal of establishing effective partnerships or other potential goals to which the outreach may contribute, such as facilitating communication among VA, IHS, veterans, and tribally operated facilities. The metrics would therefore not enable VA and IHS to determine how well these specific goals are being achieved. Table 3 describes the performance metrics and performance measures and our evaluation of them.

Using these metrics, the agencies have issued MOU progress reports, but the metrics included in the reports generally are not clearly tied specifically to the goals of the MOU, nor do they allow the agencies to determine how well MOU goals have been achieved. Leading public- sector organizations have found that metrics that are clearly linked to goals and allow determination of how well goals are achieved are key steps to becoming more results-oriented. For example:

According to the agencies’ fiscal year 2011-2012 metrics report,Metric 1 (programs increased or enhanced as a result of the MOU), more than 15 programs were enhanced or increased as the result of the MOU, and 440 events and activities occurred that increased or enhanced the programs. The report then provides examples of programs that have been enhanced, such as a care coordination program in which a registered nurse “works with Indian Health, Tribal Programs, and other agencies and hospitals through direct meetings at various facilities to ensure communication and improved care.” However, the report does not always describe information that would allow the agencies to determine how well each activity contributes to meeting MOU goals. For instance, in the description of an enhanced care coordination program noted above, the report does not indicate how the agencies determined that communication has improved among participants. Absent this information, it is not clear how the agencies could draw conclusions about whether improved communication has actually been facilitated and therefore how well the activity contributed to meeting the MOU goal of promoting patient- centered collaboration and facilitating communication.

According to the metrics report, for Metric 2 (outreach activities increased or enhanced as a result of MOU partnerships), eight types of activities were increased or enhanced. However, the report lists only seven types of outreach and does not include enough information to determine how well the outreach contributes to meeting MOU goals. For example, one outreach activity cited in the report, “Outreach to promote implementation of new technologies,” includes the activity “VA Office of Telehealth Services (OTS) Coordinator participated in Web-ex sessions with IHS on use of technology to improve patient care.” Although not stated in the report, this activity appears to help implement the MOU strategy of enhancing access through the development and implementation of new models of care using new technologies, including telehealth, related to the MOU goals of promoting patient-centered care and increasing access to care. However, while outreach activities are measurable and tangible, and might help to achieve goals of the MOU, the report does not state how the agencies will determine whether the sessions actually were effective in improving patient care or increasing access, information that is necessary to allow the agencies to tell how well the activity helps achieve the MOU goals.

For each metric, the agencies report whether the activities “met the purpose of the MOU,” “met the intent of the MOU,” and whether the “level of VA-IHS-Tribal participation” was poor, fair, good, or excellent. While determining whether the agencies’ activities meet the purpose and intent of the MOU is a critical step, and obtaining tribal participation is consistent with MOU goals, the report does not describe how these determinations were made. Agency officials told us that these determinations were made subjectively by each workgroup while keeping in mind the goals and strategies in the MOU.

The weaknesses we found in these performance metrics could limit the ability of VA and IHS managers to gauge progress and make decisions about whether to expand or modify programs or activities, because the agencies will not have information on how well programs are supporting MOU goals. VA and IHS officials told us that they developed these performance metrics because the initial performance metrics, drafted by the workgroups themselves and other VA and IHS staff, varied in quality. The three metrics and measures were intended to provide some simple, measurable ways for workgroups to report on their progress. However, they also acknowledged that there were weaknesses in the measures and told us that refining these performance metrics is a priority. According to the officials, they plan to revise workgroup metrics by April 2013 and on a continuous basis going forward. In doing so, they plan to consult subject-matter experts and existing VA and IHS performance metrics, for example, prevention of hospital admissions in home-based primary care programs.

VA and IHS Lack Effective Processes to Overcome the Challenges of Consulting with a Large Number of Diverse, Sovereign Tribes

Mainly because of the large number of diverse tribal communities and tribal sovereignty, VA and IHS face unique challenges associated with coordinating and communicating to implement the MOU. VA and IHS have processes in place for consulting with tribes, but these measures fall short in several respects and do not ensure such consultation is effective.

VA and IHS Face Challenges Implementing the MOU Related to the Large Number of Diverse, Sovereign Tribes

VA and IHS officials told us the large number (566) of federally recognized tribes and differing customs and policy-making structures present logistical challenges in widespread implementation of the MOU within tribal communities. For instance, according to some VA officials, in some tribes as a matter of protocol, an agency must be invited on tribal lands or be sponsored by a council member in order to address a tribal council. Such a policy could add administrative processes that might delay implementation and require greater sensitivity from agency officials, adding to the challenge of consulting with tribes. As another example, the title or position of the tribal person designated to make decisions regarding health care may differ from tribe to tribe, complicating the decision-making process among VA, IHS, and tribes. VA officials told us in some tribes, for example, a tribal leader may have several roles, only one of which is making decisions on health care, whereas in other tribes there may be a tribal health director whom the tribal leader has designated to manage health care in the tribal community. Potentially, these differences can affect the speed and degree at which collective decisions can be made.

In addition, VA and IHS officials noted that tribal sovereignty further adds to the logistical complexity of the efforts of the agencies to implement the MOU. Tribal sovereignty includes the inherent right to govern and protect the health, safety, and welfare of tribal members. Indian tribes have a legal and political government-to-government relationship with the federal government, meaning federal agencies interact with tribes as governments, not as special interest groups or individuals. VA and IHS officials told us that because of tribal sovereignty, tribally operated facilities may choose whether or not to participate in a particular opportunity for collaboration related to the MOU, which makes it challenging to achieve some of the goals of the MOU. VA and IHS can inform tribes of an opportunity but cannot require them to participate. For example: In order to meet the MOU goal to establish standard mechanisms for access to electronic health record (EHR) information for shared patients, VA and IHS have coordinated to adapt their information technology systems to allow them both to participate in the eHealth Exchange, a national effort led by the Department of Health and Human Services for sharing EHR information. However, EHR workgroup members told us that some tribally operated facilities have opted to use an off-the-shelf product in place of the IHS system, which the workgroup members do not have the resources to support.

In another instance, as a part of their efforts to meet the MOU goal to establish effective partnerships and sharing agreements, VA and IHS are working to implement VA’s Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP) throughout IHS. Workgroup members assigned to these activities said they plan to implement the program in all IHS- operated facilities by spring 2013 but cannot require tribally operated facilities to participate. Some smaller tribal communities with more limited postal access are not interested in using the CMOP program, according to the workgroup members.

VA and IHS Processes in Place to Overcome the Complexities Associated with Consulting with Tribes Do Not Always Ensure Effective Consultation

VA and IHS communicate MOU-related information with the tribes through written correspondence, in-person meetings, and other steps, as is consistent with internal controls calling for effective external communications with groups that can have a serious effect on programs and other activities; however, according to tribal stakeholders we interviewed, these methods for consultation have not always met the needs of the tribal communities, and the agencies have acknowledged that effective consultation has been challenging.

VA and IHS send written correspondence (known as “Dear Tribal Leader” letters) regarding the MOU to tribal communities. However, the agencies have acknowledged that because of the large and diverse nature of the tribes, they have struggled to reach the tribal member designated to make health care decisions with information about the MOU. Both VA officials and members of tribal communities told us that, because tribal leaders are not always the tribal person designated to make decisions regarding health care, the “Dear Tribal Leader” letters may not always make their way to tribal members designated to take action on health care matters. VA officials told us that their formal consultation is conducted with tribal leaders. However, these officials also noted that, in addition to the letters sent to tribal leaders, they have a network of contacts within each tribe that includes, among others, tribal health directors, and this network receives concurrent notice of communication with tribal leaders via conference calls, listservs, and newsletters. IHS officials said sometimes, in addition to the tribal leader, they may also send letters to, or otherwise communicate directly with, tribal health program directors if they know of them. However, they also noted they do not maintain a specific record— such as a listserv—of tribal health program directors. Without reaching the tribal members responsible for decision-making on healthcare matters, VA and IHS may not always be effectively communicating with tribes about the status of the MOU and its related activities nor be obtaining tribal feedback that is critical with respect to implementation of the MOU.

Likewise, seven tribal stakeholders we spoke with noted similar concerns regarding the “Dear Tribal Leader” letters as VA and IHS. For example, one tribal stakeholder said letters should go to a specific person, such as a tribal health director, to ensure that the information is seen by the right people in a timely manner. It may take the tribes time to pass along letters sent only to tribal leaders to the tribal health director or other appropriate people, by which point any deadlines included in the correspondence could be missed. Once the information has reached the tribal leader, tribes bear the responsibility to ensure it is passed on to the appropriate audience in a timely manner.

Another specific concern tribal stakeholders that we spoke with expressed relating to written correspondence was that the agencies sometimes use the letters to simply inform them of steps the agencies have taken without consulting the tribes, as called for by the agencies’ tribal consultation policies. For example, some tribal stakeholders said VA and IHS did not include them in the original development of the 2010 MOU, even though the goals and activities in the MOU could directly affect them. According to 10 of the tribal stakeholders we spoke with, tribes should have been included in developing the MOU, which addresses proposed plans, policies, and programmatic actions that may affect tribes. For example, the MOU seeks to improve delivery of health care by developing and implementing new models of care using new technologies, including telehealth services such as telepsychiatry. Instead, the agencies solicited tribal comments after the agencies had signed the MOU. According to two tribal stakeholders, the agencies were not responsive to the comments provided on the MOU. One stakeholder said their comments were not acknowledged upon receipt nor did IHS ever follow up on the issues raised by their comments. The stakeholder suggested IHS designate a point person to track feedback and ensure follow-up. VA and IHS officials told us that they did not hold tribal consultation meetings before the signing of the MOU because they viewed the MOU as an agency-to-agency agreement rather than as an agreement between the agencies and the various tribes.

VA and IHS officials said they hold quarterly meetings with tribal communities and also attend events, such as conferences held by Native American interest organizations. Three tribal stakeholders told us that when the agencies have held consultation meetings, the meetings are not interactive enough—stating that agency officials speak for the majority of the time—and that VA does not provide enough information prior to these meetings. These tribal stakeholders said providing information ahead of time could allow tribes to better prepare for meetings, discuss issues as a tribe beforehand, and determine which tribal members should attend. If tribal officials with the authority and desire to work with VA and IHS do not receive needed information on opportunities because of an ineffective consultation process, local facility leadership may not have readily available access to information necessary to examine which collaborative opportunities are present, and thus VA and IHS may be hindered in their efforts to coordinate health care for Native American veterans.

VA and IHS are undertaking other efforts designed to enhance consultation with tribes. These include the following steps: In January 2011, VA established the Office of Tribal Government Relations (OTGR) to serve as the point of contact for tribes. According to VA officials, this office conducted four consultation meetings in 2012 and employed five field staff to help manage communication with tribal communities and to work with IHS on local MOU implementation efforts.

In February 2011, VA released the agency’s tribal consultation policy. VA officials said they are developing a report that will explain the process for evaluating comments from tribes and making decisions based on them. The officials expect the report to be released to the public in the spring of 2013.

The agencies have made more local efforts to communicate with tribes, which have led to some success. For example, agency officials and tribal stakeholders noted that the workgroup assigned to implement MOU activities in Alaska used successful methods for working with tribes. The Alaska workgroup told us they cultivated a relationship with an Alaskan tribal health organization in order to get advice on the appropriate customs for consulting with individual tribes there. In addition, the workgroup said they scheduled consultation meetings in conjunction with other meetings, which would limit the amount of travel tribal community members would need to undertake. VA employees also took cultural awareness training, and VA officials visited Alaska to demonstrate the agency’s dedication to providing care to Native American veterans, which, according to the workgroup, led to buy-in from tribal communities. VA and Alaskan tribes have signed 26 reimbursement agreements.

Some tribal stakeholders that we spoke with have acknowledged the steps taken by the agencies thus far as positive but in some cases expressed concerns regarding tribal consultation. In the case of the tribes working with the Alaska workgroup, one stakeholder praised VA’s efforts to work with tribal health organizations to communicate with tribes. In another example, two tribal stakeholders said they approved of OTGR’s establishment as an office dedicated to Native American veterans’ issues. However, four tribal stakeholders expressed concerns that, despite the creation of OTGR, VA still has not always been effective in its efforts to consult with tribes or be responsive to tribal input provided during consultation. For example, one stakeholder questioned whether consultation was done with every tribe and described VA’s consultation process as sporadic. This stakeholder’s concern implies that VA’s outreach efforts may not be systematically reaching all tribal communities. However, VA officials told us that, in addition to issuing notices in the Federal Register and Dear Tribal Leader letters, they have a systematic process of hosting training summits for tribes and scheduling regular conference calls and presentations to tribal leadership. In another instance, one tribal community member said OTGR lacks—and thus cannot disperse to tribes—the technical knowledge necessary for tribes to partner with VA on activities such as negotiating reimbursement agreements. VA officials noted that OTGR staff may not always be technical experts on a given topic but said they are able to identify those experts and play a key role in linking tribes with them.

Conclusions

Coordination between VA and IHS is essential to ensuring that high- quality health care is provided to dually eligible Native American veterans. While the 2010 MOU includes common goals that should facilitate agency coordination, and the agencies have created workgroups tasked to implement the MOU, we found that a critical mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the MOU, the agreement’s performance metrics, has weaknesses. Specifically, the inadequacies we found in performance metrics could limit the agencies’ ability to measure progress towards MOU goals and ultimately make decisions about programs or activities.

Overcoming the challenges related to working with a large number of diverse, sovereign tribes is also essential to successfully achieving the goals of the MOU. Although steps have been taken to consult with tribes regarding the MOU and related activities, consultation has not always been effective in assuring that the people designated to make health care decisions in each tribe are reached and tribes are included in planning and implementation efforts. Ineffective consultation with tribal communities could delay or limit potential VA, IHS, and tribal community partnerships to achieve the goals of the MOU and could hinder agency efforts to gain support for MOU activities and address the health care needs of Native American veterans.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure the health care needs of Native American veterans are addressed most efficiently and effectively, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of Health and Human Services take the following two actions:

As the agencies move forward with revising the MOU’s performance metrics and measures, ensure that the revised metrics and measures allow decision makers to gauge whether achievement of the metrics and measures supports attainment of MOU goals.

Develop processes to better ensure that consultation with tribes is effective, including the following:

A process to identify the appropriate tribal members with whom to communicate MOU-related information, which should include methods for keeping such identification up-to-date.

A process to clearly outline and communicate to tribal communities the agencies’ response to tribal input, including any changes in policies and programs or other effects that result from incorporating tribal input.

A process to establish timelines for releasing information to tribal communities to ensure they have enough time to review and provide input or, in the case of meetings, determine the appropriate tribal member to attend the event.

Agency Comments

We provided draft copies of this report to VA and the Department of Health and Human Services for review. Both agencies concurred with our recommendations. In addition, VA provided us with comments on the draft report, which we have reprinted in appendix I, as well as general and technical comments, which were incorporated in the draft as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or williamsonr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Gerardine Brennan, Assistant Director; Jennie Apter; Lori Fritz; Hannah Marston Minter; and Lisa Motley made key contributions to this report.