VA Health Care: Additional Steps Needed to Strengthen Beneficiary Travel Program Management and Oversight
Released: 2013-07-15T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Under authority first provided by Congress in 1940, VA reimburses eligible veterans for travel expenses associated with medical appointments through VHA’s Beneficiary Travel Program.travel expenses eligible for reimbursement include mileage, tolls, meals, and lodging. Through the program, VA may also pay for special mode transportation—such as ambulances and wheelchair vans.

Veterans are eligible for travel reimbursement if they have 30 percent or more service-connected disability ratings; are receiving care related to their service-connected disability if their service-connected disability rating is less than 30 percent; receive VA pension benefits; have an annual income below a set annual rate; present clear evidence that they are unable to defray the cost of travel; or are traveling for compensation and pension exams. Certain caregivers also may be eligible for travel reimbursement. Generally, eligible veterans are only reimbursed for round-trip travel costs associated with scheduled appointments, except in the case of emergency care.

Since the program’s inception, Congress has made several modifications, including adjusting eligibility requirements, types of travel expenses covered, deductible costs, and mileage reimbursement rates. For example, in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, Congress directed VA to increase its mileage reimbursement rate from 11 cents per mile to 28.5 cents per mile and then to 41.5 cents per mile. Committee reports accompanying VA’s fiscal years 2008 and 2009 Medical Services appropriations indicated that the committees identified specific amounts to fund these rate increases.

Program Spending

Spending for the Beneficiary Travel Program increased from about $370 million in fiscal year 2008 to about $860 million in fiscal year 2012, with mileage reimbursement accounting for an increased proportion of the spending in this same period. (See fig. 1.) According to VHA officials, the increase in spending was primarily due to the increased number of veterans claiming mileage reimbursement, a rise in the average number of claims per veteran, and higher mileage reimbursement rates. For example, according to VHA, the number of veterans claiming mileage reimbursement increased from about 450,000 in fiscal year 2008 to about 1,450,000 in fiscal year 2012.

VHA’s Chief Business Office is responsible for establishing policies and providing guidance to medical centers for the Beneficiary Travel Program. These policies describe, for example, the eligibility requirements and the types of travel expenses that are reimbursable. VHA’s Office of Finance is responsible for establishing national policies for the processing of payments for reimbursement and financial quality assurance. Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISN) have no specific oversight responsibilities for the Beneficiary Travel Program beyond the general responsibility of ensuring compliance with VHA’s policies at the medical centers within their region.handled at the local medical center level.

Administration of the program is largely VHA’s policies outline requirements for the Beneficiary Travel Program’s reimbursement process, and can be summarized into the following three broad steps:

Veteran applies for travel reimbursement: VHA policies stipulate that veterans must apply for reimbursement within 30 calendar days of the travel. Veterans must provide information on the travel costs incurred to the medical center responsible for the care.

Medical center reviews eligibility and determines reimbursement amount: After the veteran applies for reimbursement, VHA requires medical centers to assess the veteran’s eligibility for reimbursement,determine distance traveled, and apply appropriate deductibles. For example, VHA policies stipulate that except under certain circumstances, veterans are reimbursed for mileage between their place of residence and the nearest VA facility where the care could be provided.

Medical center reimburses veteran: After eligibility has been verified and reimbursement amounts determined, medical centers reimburse veterans those amounts.

Medical centers also have local procedures for managing the program. (See app. I for examples of procedures used by some of the medical centers included in our review.)

In February 2013, the VA OIG released a report summarizing findings from its audit of VHA’s Beneficiary Travel Program. The audit revealed problems such as inadequate management and oversight, and inaccurate payment amounts. Specifically, the VA OIG reported that it did not have reasonable assurance that Beneficiary Travel Program costs were accurate or were being paid only to eligible veterans. The VA OIG report found that from January 2010 through March 2011 VA paid $89 million more in beneficiary travel reimbursements than facilities approved, including $42.5 million in unexplained payments. On the basis of its findings, the VA OIG recommended that VHA establish and implement procedures to strengthen authorization, payment, and oversight controls for the program. VHA concurred with the OIG’s findings and recommendations and reported that it would, among other things, be implementing several initiatives to address the findings.

Additionally, VHA has identified the Beneficiary Travel Program as being susceptible to significant improper payments. The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA) requires agencies with programs identified as being susceptible to significant improper payments to estimate the annual amount of improper payments for each program and publish these estimates and corresponding corrective actions in an annual report; VA includes this information in its annual Performance and Accountability Report. For VA’s 2012 Performance and Accountability Report, VHA estimated that the Beneficiary Travel Program had $71 million in improper payments. IPERA also requires federal agencies’ inspectors general to annually determine whether their respective agencies are in compliance with IPERA requirements and to report on their determinations. In March 2013, the VA OIG reported limitations in VHA’s methodology for estimating improper payments for the Beneficiary Travel Program and other programs but noted that this was not a matter of noncompliance with IPERA requirements.

VHA Has Developed Efforts to Improve the Beneficiary Travel Program, but Lack of Internal Controls May Impede Their Effectiveness

VHA has developed multiple efforts to improve the management and oversight of its process for reimbursing veterans’ travel expenses for medical appointments. However, lack of internal controls for some efforts may hinder VHA’s ability to improve the process.

VHA Has Developed Efforts That Aim to Improve the Management and Oversight of the Beneficiary Travel Program

VHA has developed multiple efforts to improve the management and oversight of the Beneficiary Travel Program, as well as the timeliness and accuracy of payments. (See table 1.) These efforts—many of which medical centers are or will be required to implement—are expected to increase the consistency of how the program is administered. For example, the Dashboard, a Web-based software, provides a standardized process that medical centers are required to use to determine a veteran’s eligibility for travel reimbursement, the amount of any deductibles, and the number of miles from the veteran’s residence to the closest VA medical facility where care could be provided.

The efforts are in various stages of development and implementation, with some being fully implemented in all medical centers, while others are in earlier stages. For some of the efforts, VHA has utilized a pilot process in a small number of medical centers to help identify and resolve potential problems before releasing the efforts VHA-wide to all medical centers. For example, in the fall of 2012, VHA piloted the Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) effort—a process for transferring travel reimbursement funds electronically into veterans’ bank accounts—in medical centers in 2 of the 21 VISNs. The EFT effort—along with VHA’s Debit Card effort, a VHA-wide card that veterans can use to receive travel reimbursement electronically—implements a Department of the Treasury requirement for federal agencies to convert cash payments to electronic funds payments by March 1, 2013. VHA has requested and received an extension from the Department of the Treasury on the implementation of electronic funds payments to allow VHA to simultaneously implement both the EFT and Debit Card efforts. VHA anticipates VHA-wide implementation of both efforts by December 31, 2013.

Some of VHA’s efforts to improve the Beneficiary Travel Program have been developed in response to OIG and IPERA report findings as corrective actions to improve monitoring and oversight of the program and to decrease improper payments. One such effort is the Facility Audit Tool—a tool used to audit facilities’ past travel reimbursement transactions and operations through a more standardized process. Currently this tool is being used by VHA’s Office of Finance to annually audit programs identified as susceptible to improper payments under IPERA. VHA officials told us that this tool may ultimately be used by VISNs to audit their facilities’ past travel reimbursement transactions and operations, but did not have a time frame for its VHA-wide implementation.

Officials from the six medical centers we interviewed told us the new efforts that have been implemented generally improved or would improve some aspects of the Beneficiary Travel Program. For example, medical center officials reported that the implementation of the Dashboard had increased staff efficiency by decreasing the time needed to determine a veteran’s eligibility, as well as increased the accuracy of payments, in line with VHA’s goals for this program. In addition, officials said EFT would help improve oversight over the payment process. Compared to the process of paying veterans in cash, EFT provides an opportunity for the medical center staff—in this case the fiscal office staff—to review and audit travel payments before a reimbursement is issued to the veteran. Officials said these reviews could help medical centers reduce improper payments, and that EFT also improves security at medical centers because less cash is on hand for reimbursements.

Although medical center officials provided positive feedback on some of the efforts, they also identified implementation challenges. For example, medical center officials reported difficulty tracking EFT reimbursements, and that staff members had received many calls from veterans who were confused by only limited information transmitted with the EFT direct deposits. In addition, when veterans claimed reimbursements for multiple appointments, they did not know which appointment was associated with which electronic reimbursement payment, or which reimbursements were still pending. According to medical center officials, investigating pending reimbursements is time consuming and takes time away from staff members’ reimbursement-processing responsibilities. Medical center officials also said the lack of information transmitted with the payments hinders acceptance of the EFT process in general, as veterans do not have complete confidence that their reimbursements are timely and accurate.

Lack of Internal Controls for Some Efforts May Hinder VHA’s Ability to Improve the Beneficiary Travel Program

In our review of VHA’s efforts to improve the Beneficiary Travel Program, we found that internal controls were lacking for some of the efforts. The implementation of internal controls is important for ensuring efforts achieve intended outcomes and minimizing operational problems. Without these internal controls in place, VHA cannot ensure that the efforts will meet its goals, such as improved management and oversight.

Plan for Evaluating Performance Indicators. VHA has not developed a plan for evaluating VHA-wide performance indicators for at least one of its efforts, the Beneficiary Travel Analytics Tool (Data Mining Tool), as would be consistent with internal control standards. According to established internal control standards, efforts to improve performance and efficiency should include the evaluation of appropriate performance indicators of the effort to gauge progress and inform decision making in resolving any problems. The Web-based Beneficiary Travel Analytics Tool, implemented March 31, 2013, generates travel reimbursement pattern reports—reports identifying questionable veteran reimbursement patterns that may indicate improper payments, such as frequently changing addresses on reimbursement claims, which may be done to inappropriately increase travel reimbursement amounts. According to VHA officials, medical centers are expected to use the reports generated by the tool to diagnose any problems in their own travel reimbursement processes and to implement appropriate corrective actions. VHA expects medical centers to submit documentation to VHA’s Chief Business Office on any resulting corrective actions they have taken. Officials told us that they expect to review the corrective actions; however, as of May 14, 2013, they did not have a documented plan for evaluating travel reimbursement pattern data collected for all medical centers on an aggregated (VHA-wide) basis.

An appropriate evaluation plan consistent with internal controls would include documentation of the frequency of performance indicator evaluations, and an analysis plan for assessing either all, or a portion of, the travel reimbursement pattern data. Officials acknowledged the need to fully develop a plan to ensure that potential weaknesses are identified so that needed program improvements may be made. A plan for evaluating the data on a VHA-wide basis is necessary to ensure that the power of the Beneficiary Travel Analytics Tool is more fully realized.

Timely Guidance. VHA has not provided timely guidance to medical centers on its new EFT effort, as would be consistent with internal control standards. According to these standards, reliable and timely program information should be provided to management and others to ensure that responsibilities are being carried out and VHA goals are being met. Specifically, despite being aware of the March 1, 2013, Department of the Treasury deadline for implementation of EFT in December 2010, VHA did not provide guidance to medical centers on how to implement the effort until February 22, 2013. Had the guidance been provided earlier, it would have provided timely, key information to medical centers on the implementation of EFT, including the process that medical centers should be using to enroll veterans; the procedures for veterans to request a waiver from an electronic payment when they have an immediate need for a cash payment; and VHA’s contingency plan for the travel reimbursement process due to its delay in providing policies for implementing EFT VHA-wide. By delaying the issuance of the guidance, VHA failed to ensure that all medical centers were provided with consistent and timely guidance, which, according to medical center officials we spoke with, led to frustration for medical centers, as well as confusion for veterans. For example, most medical centers in our review already had developed their own local procedures for enrolling veterans into EFT and processing payments before VHA’s EFT pilot began; officials from some of the medical centers in our review expressed frustration that they would have to revise some of these processes when the VHA-wide effort was eventually implemented.

Effective Communication. VHA also did not provide a communication plan for sharing information on EFT with medical centers and veterans in a timely manner, as would have been consistent with internal control standards. Specifically, VHA did not share information on EFT with medical centers to help them inform veterans of the coming changes until February 22, 2013. VHA officials acknowledged they failed to develop a communications plan in a timely manner, and agreed that this is something they should have done to help ensure the success of the conversion to EFT. By not communicating this information in a timely manner, VHA did not ensure that medical centers had consistent and accurate information for informing veterans of the change in payment options, potentially affecting veterans’ enrollment in EFT and their satisfaction with the new reimbursement process. Although officials from some medical centers we spoke with said they have developed their own materials for communicating with veterans about EFT, having communication materials come from VHA headquarters would have carried more weight with veterans and provided more consistency across all medical centers for this VHA-wide effort.

Plan for Monitoring Compliance. VHA has not developed a plan to ensure medical centers’ compliance with the efforts or its existing policies, as would be consistent with internal control standards. For example, medical centers are required to use the Dashboard, and VHA officials told us that VHA-wide procedures for using the Dashboard will be included in the program’s revised Standard Operating Procedures. However, VHA officials told us they do not have a plan in place to ensure that each medical center is using this new software. Without knowing whether all medical centers are using this required software or using it consistently, VHA cannot ensure that the Dashboard’s goals, including standardizing the mileage calculations, will be realized.

Furthermore, because medical centers have the flexibility to develop local procedures for administering the Beneficiary Travel Program, it is important that VHA monitor local procedures to ensure they are consistent with VHA policies. For example, one medical center in our review automatically generates travel reimbursement payments to eligible veterans after each completed appointment. Thus, instead of applying for reimbursement after each medical center appointment, eligible veterans who have a signature on record can simply leave the medical center after their appointment and receive their reimbursement payment by mail or direct deposit. Acknowledging that this automatic payment procedure is different from other medical centers, medical center officials said it has greatly increased the efficiency of their management of the Beneficiary Travel Program and has received positive feedback from veterans and staff. Monitoring compliance with program policies, especially due to differences in local procedures, is an important internal control for ensuring that program goals are being met.

Use Information to Improve Efficiency. VHA does not routinely collect information on medical centers’ local procedures for administering the Beneficiary Travel Program to identify and share best practices. According to federal internal control standards, identifying and sharing best practices is an essential part of ensuring an effective and efficient use of resources. For example, officials at one of the medical centers we interviewed said that installing drop boxes at multiple locations around their facility was a simple and efficient way to make the process more convenient for veterans, shorten lines at the Beneficiary Travel Office, and improve staff productivity. Some medical center officials described sharing best practices on an ad hoc basis with colleagues in other medical centers, and said that learning from others’ experiences is valuable to their administration of the Beneficiary Travel Program. Although VHA officials described one instance of evaluating a software program for national use that was developed and implemented at one medical center, they have not regularly solicited information on best practices; instead, they have relied on medical center and VISN officials to identify and share information. A more systematic identification and sharing of best practices would enhance medical centers’ access to the same information in order to minimize problems and maximize efficiencies within the Beneficiary Travel Program.

Conclusions

For more than 70 years, VHA’s Beneficiary Travel Program has reimbursed eligible veterans for travel expenses associated with medical appointments. In the past 5 years, spending under the program has more than doubled, from about $370 million in fiscal year 2008 to about $860 million in fiscal year 2012. This increase is of particular note, as travel reimbursements come out of the same VA medical center funds used for patient care. At the same time spending is increasing, concerns have been raised about the accuracy of payments and VHA’s management and oversight of the program.

In response to these concerns, VHA has taken steps to improve its process for reimbursing veterans for travel expenses by developing multiple efforts aimed at enhancing management and oversight of the program. However, some of the efforts lack key internal controls that would help VHA better manage and oversee its program. Specifically, VHA has not developed a plan for evaluating VHA-wide performance indicators for the Beneficiary Travel Analytics Tool; provided timely guidance and effective communication tools to medical centers for EFT; ensured compliance with Dashboard and other efforts; and routinely collected information on medical centers’ local procedures to identify and share best practices. Without appropriate management and oversight, VHA is unable to ensure that its Beneficiary Travel Program—which is on track to spend nearly $1 billion dollars annually in the next few years—is operating effectively, including assurances that payments made through the program are appropriate.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To improve the management and oversight of the Beneficiary Travel Program, we recommend that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for Health to ensure appropriate internal controls have been identified and applied in the development and implementation of all of VHA’s efforts aimed at improving the program, including developing and implementing a plan to evaluate performance indicators for the Beneficiary Travel Analytics Tool, providing timely guidance and effective communication tools to medical centers as VHA completes its implementation of EFT, ensuring medical centers’ compliance with Dashboard and other routinely collecting information to identify and share best practices across medical centers.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to VA for comment. VA generally agreed with our conclusions and concurred with our recommendation. VA identified the activities that VHA would undertake to ensure appropriate internal controls have been identified and applied related to the four specific efforts we noted: performance indicators for the Beneficiary Travel Analytics Tool, guidance and communication to medical centers regarding EFT, compliance with Dashboard and other improvement efforts, and identification and sharing of best practices across medical centers. VA did not directly address ensuring that appropriate internal controls are identified and applied in the development and implementation of all efforts aimed at improving the program. We continue to emphasize the importance of internal controls to the success of VHA's efforts. VA’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. VA also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and appropriate congressional committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

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

Appendix I: Examples of VA Medical Center Procedures for Administering the Beneficiary Travel Program

Example of medical center procedure Veteran submits claim for reimbursement at medical center travel office.

Medical center rationale Allows medical center to provide same-day claim review, and in some cases reimbursement.

Veteran puts claim for reimbursement in a designated drop box.

Helps reduce the lines at the medical center’s travel office, is more convenient for veterans, and allows medical center staff more time to review the claim.

Medical center staff check veteran’s name against photo identification for each claim submitted in person.

Helps improve accuracy and reduce improper payments by ensuring the appropriate person is reimbursed.

Medical center staff check veteran’s address and name against information maintained in VA’s data system for claims not submitted in person, such as for a veteran using a drop box.

Helps improve accuracy and reduce improper payments by ensuring correct addresses are used, and VA has consistent information about the veteran in its data system.

Reimbursement provided primarily through cash. Reimbursement provided primarily through a check.

Allows for same-day reimbursement.

Limits cash payments, which may shorten veterans’ time waiting at the medical center’s travel office, and reduces security and other risks associated with having large amounts of cash on- hand at medical centers. Also, helps ensure VHA has valid addresses for veterans for calculating travel reimbursements, because these addresses are where the checks are mailed.

Reimbursement provided primarily through direct deposit or a debit card.

Limits cash payments, which may shorten veterans’ time waiting at the medical center’s travel office, and reduces security and other risks associated with having large amounts of cash on- hand at medical centers. Also, turn-around time for veterans’ receipt of direct deposit or debit card reimbursements is generally shorter than for check reimbursements.

This procedure will change with full implementation of the Electronic Funds Transfer and Debit Card efforts.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Janina Austin, Assistant Director; Jennie Apter; Robin Burke; Kelli Jones; Lisa Motley; and Karin Wallestad made key contributions to this report.