DOD and VA offer health care benefits to active duty servicemembers and veterans, among others. Under DOD’s health care system, eligible beneficiaries may receive care from military treatment facilities or from civilian providers. Military treatment facilities are individually managed by each of the military services—the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Under VA, eligible beneficiaries may obtain care through VA’s integrated health care system of hospitals, ambulatory clinics, nursing homes, residential rehabilitation treatment programs, and readjustment counseling centers. VA has organized its health care facilities into a polytrauma system of care that helps address the medical needs of returning servicemembers and veterans, in particular those who have an injury to more than one part of the body or organ system that results in functional disability and physical, cognitive, psychosocial, or psychological impairment. Persons with polytraumatic injuries may have injuries or conditions such as TBI, amputations, fractures, and burns. Over the past 6 years, DOD has designated over 29,000 servicemembers involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom as wounded in action, and almost 70 percent of these servicemembers are from the Army active, reserve, and national guard components. Servicemembers injured in these conflicts are surviving injuries that would have been fatal in past conflicts, due, in part, to advanced protective equipment and medical treatment. The severity of their injuries can result in a lengthy transition from patient back to duty, or to veterans’ status. Initially, most seriously injured servicemembers from these conflicts, including activated National Guard and Reserve members, are evacuated to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany for treatment. From there, they are usually transported to military treatment facilities in the United States, with most of the seriously injured admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center or the National Naval Medical Center. According to DOD officials, once they are stabilized and discharged from the hospital, servicemembers may relocate closer to their homes or military bases and are treated as outpatients by the closest military or VA facility. Returning injured servicemembers must potentially navigate two different disability evaluation systems that generally rely on the same criteria but for different purposes. DOD’s system serves a personnel management purpose by identifying servicemembers who are no longer medically fit for duty. The military’s process starts with identification of a medical condition that could render the servicemember unfit for duty, a process that could take months to complete. The servicemember goes through a medical evaluation board proceeding, where medical evidence is evaluated, and potentially unfit conditions are identified. The member then goes through a physical evaluation board process, where a determination of fitness or unfitness for duty is made and, if found unfit for duty, a combined percentage rating is assigned for all unfit conditions and the servicemember is discharged from duty. The injured servicemember then receives monthly disability retirement payments if he or she meets the minimum rating and years of duty thresholds or, if not, a lump-sum severance payment. VA provides veterans compensation for lost earning capacity due to service-connected disabilities. Although a servicemember may file a VA claim while still in the military, he or she can only obtain disability compensation from VA as a veteran. VA will evaluate all claimed conditions, whether they were evaluated by the military service or not. If the veteran is found to have one or more service-connected disabilities with a combined rating of at least 10 percent, VA will pay monthly compensation. The veteran can claim additional benefits, for example, if a service-connected disability worsens. While the Army took near-term actions to respond to reported deficiencies in care for its returning servicemembers, and the Senior Oversight Committee is undertaking efforts to address more systemic problems, challenges remain to overcome long-standing problems and ensure sustainable progress. In particular, efforts were made to respond to problems in four key areas: (1) case management, (2) disability evaluation systems, (3) TBI and PTSD, and (4) data sharing between DOD and VA. The three review groups identified several problems in these four areas including: a need to develop more comprehensive and coordinated care and services; a need to make the disability systems more efficient; more collaboration of research and establishment of practice guidelines for TBI and PTSD; and more data sharing between DOD and VA. While efforts have been made in all four areas, challenges have emerged including staffing for the case management initiatives and transforming the disability evaluation system. The three review groups reporting earlier this year identified numerous problems with DOD’s and VA’s case management of servicemembers, including a lack of comprehensive and well-coordinated care, treatment, and services. Case management—a process intended to assist returning servicemembers with management of their clinical and nonclinical care throughout recovery, rehabilitation, and community reintegration—is important because servicemembers often receive services from numerous therapists, providers, and specialists, resulting in differing treatment plans as well as receiving prescriptions for multiple medications. One of the review groups reported that the complexity of injuries in some patients requires a coordinated method of case management to keep the care of the returning servicemember focused and goal directed, and that this type of care was not evident at Walter Reed. The Dole-Shalala Commission recommended that recovery coordinators be appointed to craft and manage individualized recovery plans that would be used to guide the servicemembers’ care. The Dole-Shalala Commission further recommended that these recovery coordinators come from outside DOD or VA, possibly from the Public Health Service, and be highly skilled and have considerable authority to be able to access resources necessary to implement the recovery plans. The Army and the Senior Oversight Committee’s workgroup on case management have initiated efforts to develop case management approaches that are intended to improve the management of servicemembers’ recovery process. See table 1 for selected efforts by the Army and Senior Oversight Committee to improve case management services. The Army’s approach includes developing a new organizational structure for providing care to returning active duty and reserve servicemembers who are unable to perform their duties and are in need of health care—this structure is referred to as a Warrior Transition Unit. Within each unit, the servicemember is assigned to a team of three key staff and this team is responsible for overseeing the continuum of care for the servicemember. The Army refers to this team as a “triad,” and it consists of a (1) primary care manager—usually a physician who provides primary oversight and continuity of health care and ensures the quality of the servicemember’s care; (2) nurse case manager—usually a registered nurse who plans, implements, coordinates, monitors, and evaluates options and services to meet the servicemember’s needs; and (3) squad leader—a noncommissioned officer who links the servicemember to the chain of command, builds a relationship with the servicemember, and works along side the other parts of the triad to ensure the needs of the servicemember and his or her family are met. As part of the Army’s Medical Action Plan, the Army established 32 Warrior Transition Units, to provide a unit in every medical treatment facility that has 35 or more eligible servicemembers. The Army’s goal is to fill the triad positions according to the following ratios: 1:200 for primary care managers; 1:18 for nurse case managers; and 1:12 for squad leaders. This approach is a marked departure for the Army. Prior to the creation of the Warrior Transition Units, the Army separated active and reserve component soldiers into different units. One review group reported that this approach contributed to discontent about which group received better treatment. Moreover, the Army did not have formalized staffing structures nor did it routinely track patient-care ratios, which the Independent Review Group reported contributed to the Army’s inability to adequately oversee its program or identify gaps. As the Army has sought to fill its Warrior Transition Units, challenges to staffing key positions are emerging. For example, many locations have significant shortfalls in registered nurse case managers and non- commissioned officer squad leaders. As shown in figure 1, about half of the total required staffing needs of the Warrior Transition Units had been met across the Army by mid-September 2007. However, the Army had filled many of these slots thus far by temporarily borrowing staff from other positions. Permanently assigned (832) Temporarily borrowed (451) Unfilled (1,127) The Warrior Transition Unit staffing shortages are significant at many locations. As of mid-September, 17 of the 32 units had less than 50 percent of staff in place in one or more critical positions. (See table 2.) Consequently, 46 percent of the Army’s returning servicemembers who were eligible to be assigned to a unit had not been assigned, due in part to these staffing shortages. As a result, these servicemembers’ care was not being coordinated through the triad. Army officials reported that their goal is to have all Warrior Transition Units in place and fully staffed by January 2008. The Senior Oversight Committee’s approach for providing a continuum of care includes establishment of recovery coordinators and recovery plans, as recommended by the Dole-Shalala Commission. This approach is intended to complement the military services’ existing case management approaches and place the recovery coordinators at a level above case managers, with emphasis on ensuring a seamless transition between DOD and VA. The recovery coordinator is expected to be the patient’s and family’s single point of contact for making sure each servicemember receives the care outlined in the servicemember’s recovery plan—a plan to guide and support the servicemember through the phases of medical care, rehabilitation, and disability evaluation to community reintegration. The Senior Oversight Committee has indicated that DOD and VA will establish a joint Recovery Coordinator Program no later than October 15, 2007. At the time of our review, the committee was determining the details of the program. For example, the Dole-Shalala Commission recommended this approach for every seriously injured servicemember, and the Senior Oversight Committee workgroup on case management was developing criteria for determining who is “seriously injured.” The workgroup was also determining the role of the recovery coordinators—how they will be assigned to servicemembers and how many are needed, which will ultimately determine what the workload for each will be. The Senior Oversight Committee has, however, indicated that the positions will be filled with VA staff. A representative of the Senior Oversight Committee told us that the recovery coordinators would not be staffed from the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, as recommended by the Dole- Shalala Commission. The official told us that it is appropriate for VA to staff these positions because VA ultimately provides the most care for servicemembers over their lifetime. Moreover, Senior Oversight Committee officials told us that depending on how many recovery coordinators are ultimately needed, VA may face significant human capital challenges in identifying and training individuals for these positions, which are anticipated to be complex and demanding. As we have previously reported, providing timely and consistent disability decisions is a challenge for both DOD and VA. In a March 2006 report about the military disability evaluation system, we found that the services were not meeting DOD timeliness goals for processing disability cases; used different policy, guidance and processes for aspects of the system; and that neither DOD nor the services systematically evaluated the consistency of disability decisions. On multiple occasions, we have also identified long-standing challenges for VA in reducing its backlog of claims and improving the accuracy and consistency of its decisions. The controversy over conditions at Walter Reed and the release of subsequent reports raised the visibility of problems in the military services’ disability evaluation system. In a March 2007 report, the Army Inspector General identified numerous issues with the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System. These findings included a failure to meet timeliness standards for determinations, inadequate training of staff involved in the process, and servicemember confusion about the disability rating system. Similarly, in recently-issued reports, the Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes, the Independent Review Group, and the Dole-Shalala Commission found that DOD’s disability evaluation system often generates long delays in disability determinations and creates confusion among servicemembers and their families. Also, they noted significant disparities in the implementation of the disability evaluation system among the services, and in the purpose and outcome of disability evaluations between DOD and VA. Two reports also noted the adversarial nature of DOD’s disability evaluation system, as servicemembers endeavor to reach a rating threshold that entitles them to lifetime benefits. In addition to these findings about current processes, the Dole-Shalala Commission questioned DOD’s basic role in making disability payments to veterans and recommended that VA assume sole responsibility for disability compensation for veterans. In response to the Army Inspector General’s findings, the Army made near- term operational improvements. For example, the Army developed several initiatives to streamline its disability evaluation system and address bottlenecks. These initiatives include reducing the caseloads of evaluation board liaisons who help servicemembers navigate the disability evaluation system. In addition, the Army developed and conducted the first certification training for evaluation board liaisons. Furthermore, the Army increased outreach to servicemembers to address confusion about the process. For example, it initiated briefings conducted by evaluation board liaisons and soldiers’ counsels to educate servicemembers about the process and their rights. The Army also initiated an online tool that enables servicemembers to check the status of their case during the evaluation process. We were not able to fully assess the implementation and effectiveness of these initiatives because some changes are still in process and complete data are not available. To address more systemic concerns about the timeliness and consistency of DOD’s and VA’s disability evaluation systems, DOD and VA are planning to pilot a joint disability evaluation system. DOD and VA are reviewing multiple options that incorporate variations of the following three elements: (1) a single, comprehensive medical examination to be used by both DOD and VA in their disability evaluations; (2) a single disability rating performed by VA; and (3) incorporating a DOD-level evaluation board for adjudicating servicemembers’ fitness for duty. For example, in one option, the DOD-level evaluation board makes fitness for duty determinations for all of the military services; whereas in another option, the services make fitness for duty determinations, and the DOD-level board adjudicates appeals of these determinations. Another open question is whether DOD or VA would conduct the comprehensive medical examination. Table 3 summarizes four pilot options under consideration by DOD and VA. As recent pilot planning exercises verified, in addition to agreeing on which pilot option to implement, DOD and VA must address several key design issues before the pilot can begin. For example, it has not been decided how DOD will use VA’s disability rating to determine military disability benefits for servicemembers in the pilot. In addition, DOD and VA have not finalized a set of performance metrics to assess the effect of the piloted changes. DOD and VA officials had hoped to begin the pilot on August 1, 2007, but the intended start date slipped as agency officials took steps to further consider alternatives and address other important questions related to recent and expected events that may add further complexity to the pilot development process. For example, the Senior Oversight Committee may either choose or be directed by the Congress to pilot the Dole-Shalala recommendation that only VA and not DOD provide disability payments to veterans. Implementing this recommendation would require a change to current law, and could affect whether or how the agencies implement key pilot elements under consideration. In addition, the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission, which is scheduled to report in October 2007, may recommend changes that could also influence the pilot’s structure. Further, the Congress is considering legislation that may require DOD and VA to conduct multiple, alternative disability evaluation pilots. DOD and VA face other critical challenges in creating a new disability evaluation system. For example, DOD is challenged to overcome servicemembers’ distrust of a disability evaluation process perceived to be adversarial. Implementing a pilot without adequately considering alternatives or addressing critical policy and procedural details may feed that distrust because DOD and VA plan to pilot the new system with actual servicemembers. The agencies also face staffing and training challenges to conduct timely and consistent medical examinations and disability evaluations. Both the Independent Review Group and the Dole-Shalala Commission recommended that only VA establish disability ratings. However, as we noted above, VA is dealing with its own long-standing challenges in providing veterans with timely and consistent decisions. Similarly, if VA becomes responsible for servicemembers’ comprehensive physical examinations, it would face additional staffing and training challenges, at a time when it is already addressing concerns about the timeliness and quality of its examinations. Further, while having a single disability evaluation could ensure more consistent disability ratings, VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities is outdated because it does not adequately reflect changes in factors such as labor market conditions and assistive technologies on disabled veterans’ ability to work. As we have reported, the nature of work has changed in recent decades as the national economy has moved away from manufacturing-based jobs to service- and knowledge-based employment. Yet VA’s disability program remains mired in concepts from the past, particularly the concept that impairment equates to an inability to work. The three independent review groups examining the deficiencies found at Walter Reed identified a range of complex problems associated with DOD and VA’s screening, diagnosis, and treatment of TBI and PTSD, signature injuries of recent conflicts. Both conditions are sometimes referred to as “invisible injuries” because outwardly the individual’s appearance is just as it was before the injury or onset of symptoms. In terms of mild TBI, there may be no observable head injury and symptoms may overlap with those associated with PTSD. With respect to PTSD, there is no objective diagnostic test and its symptoms can sometimes be associated with other psychological conditions (e.g., depression). Recommendations from the review groups examining these areas included better coordination of DOD and VA research and practice guidelines and hiring and retaining qualified health professionals. However, according to Army officials and the Independent Review Group report, obtaining qualified health professionals, such as clinical psychologists, is a challenge, which is due to competition with private sector salaries and difficulty recruiting for certain geographical locations. The Dole-Shalala Commission noted that while VA is considered a leader in PTSD research and treatment, knowledge generated through research and clinical experience is not systematically disseminated to all DOD and VA providers of care. Both the Army and the Senior Oversight Committee are working to address this broad range of issues. (See table 4.) The Army, through its Medical Action Plan, has policies in place requiring all servicemembers sent overseas to a war zone to receive training on recognizing the symptoms of mild TBI and PTSD. The Army is also exploring ways to track events on the battlefield, such as blasts, that may result in TBI or PTSD. In addition, the Army recently developed policies to provide mild TBI and PTSD training to all social workers, nurse case managers, psychiatric nurses, and psychiatric nurse practitioners to better identify these conditions. As of September 13, 2007, 6 of the Army’s 32 Warrior Transition Units had completed training for all of these staff. A Senior Oversight Committee workgroup on TBI and PTSD is working to ensure health care providers have education and training on screening, diagnosing, and treating both mild TBI and PTSD, mainly by developing a national Center of Excellence as recommended by the three review groups. This Center of Excellence is expected to combine experts and resources from all military services and VA to promote research, awareness, and best practices on mild TBI as well as PTSD and other psychological health issues. A representative of the Senior Oversight Committee workgroup on TBI and psychological health told us that the Center of Excellence would include the existing Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center—a collaboration among DOD, VA, and two civilian partners that focuses on TBI treatment, research, and education. DOD and VA have been working for almost 10 years to facilitate the exchange of medical information. However, the three independent review groups identified the need for DOD and VA to further improve and accelerate efforts to share data across the departments. Specifically, the Dole-Shalala Commission indicated that DOD and VA must move quickly to get clinical and benefit data to users, including making patient data immediately viewable by any provider, allied health professional, or program administrator who needs the data. Furthermore, in July 2007, we reported that although DOD and VA have made progress in both their long- term and short-term initiatives to share health information, much work remains to achieve the goal of a seamless transition between the two departments. While pursuing their long-term initiative to develop a common health information system that would allow the two-way exchange of computable health data, the two departments have also been working to share data in their existing systems. See table 5 for selected efforts under way by the Army and Senior Oversight Committee to improve data sharing between DOD and VA. As part of the Army Medical Action Plan, the Army has taken steps to facilitate the exchange of data between its military treatment facilities and VA. For example, the Army Medical Department is developing a memorandum of understanding between the Army and VA that would allow VA access to data on severely injured servicemembers who are being transferred to a VA polytrauma center. The memorandum of understanding would also allow VA’s Veterans Health Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration access to data in a servicemember’s medical record that are related to a disability claim the servicemember has filed with VA. Army officials told us that the Army’s medical records are part paper (hard copy) and part electronic, and this effort would provide the VA access to the paper data until the capability to share the data electronically is available at all sites. Given that DOD and VA already have a number of efforts under way to improve data sharing between the two departments, the Senior Oversight Committee, through its data sharing workgroup, has been looking for opportunities to accelerate the departments’ sharing initiatives that are already planned or in process and to identify additional data sharing requirements that have not been clearly articulated. For example, the Senior Oversight Committee has approved several policy changes in response to the Dole-Shalala Commission, one of which requires DOD and VA to ensure that all essential health and administrative data are made available and viewable to both agencies, and that progress is reported by a scorecard, by October 31, 2008. A representative of the data sharing workgroup told us that the departments are achieving incremental increases to data sharing capabilities and plan to have all essential health data—such as outpatient pharmacy, allergy, laboratory results, radiology reports, and provider notes—viewable by all DOD and VA facilities by the end of December 2007. Although the agencies have recently experienced delays in efforts to exchange data, the representative said that the departments are on track to meet all the timelines established by the Senior Oversight Committee. A Senior Oversight Committee workgroup on data sharing has also been coordinating with other committee workgroups on their information technology needs. Although workgroup officials told us that they have met numerous times with the case management and disability evaluation systems workgroups to discuss their data sharing needs, they have not begun implementing necessary systems because they are dependent on the other workgroups to finalize their information technology needs. For example, the Senior Oversight Committee has required DOD and VA to establish a plan for information technology support of the recovery plan to be used by recovery coordinators, which integrates essential clinical (e.g., medical care) and nonclinical aspects (e.g., education, employment, disability benefits) of recovery, no later than November 1, 2007. However, this cannot be done until the case management workgroup has identified the components and information technology needs of these clinical and nonclinical aspects, and as of early September this had not been done. Data sharing workgroup representatives indicated that the departments’ data sharing initiatives will be ongoing because medications, diagnoses, procedures, standards, business practices, and technology are constantly changing, but the departments expect to meet most of the data sharing needs of patients and providers by end of fiscal year 2008. Our preliminary observations are that fixing the long-standing and complex problems spotlighted in the wake of Walter Reed media accounts as expeditiously as possible is critical to ensuring high-quality care for our returning servicemembers, and success will ultimately depend on sustained attention, systematic oversight by DOD and VA, and sufficient resources. Efforts thus far have been on separate but related tracks, with the Army seeking to address service-specific issues while DOD and VA are working together to address systemic problems. Many challenges remain, and critical questions remain unanswered. Among the challenges is how the efforts of the Army—which has the bulk of the returning servicemembers needing medical care—will be coordinated with the broader efforts being undertaken by DOD and VA. The centerpiece of the Army’s effort is its Medical Action Plan, and the success of the plan hinges on staffing the newly-created Warrior Transition Units. Permanently filling these slots may prove difficult, and borrowing personnel from other units has been a temporary fix but it is not a long- term solution. The Army can look to the private sector for some skills, but it must compete for personnel in a civilian market that is vying for medical professionals with similar skills and training. Perhaps one of the most complex efforts under way is that of redesigning DOD’s disability evaluation system. Delayed decisions, confusing policies, and the perception that DOD and VA disability ratings result in inequitable outcomes have eroded the credibility of the system. Thus, it is imperative that DOD and VA take prompt steps to address fundamental system weaknesses. However, as we have noted, key program design and operational policy questions must be addressed to ensure that any proposed system redesign has the best chance for success and that servicemembers and veterans receive timely, accurate, and consistent decisions. This will require careful study of potential options, a comprehensive assessment of outcome data associated with the pilot, proper metrics to gauge success, and an evaluation mechanism to ensure needed adjustments are made to the process along the way. Failure to properly consider alternatives or address critical policy and procedural details could exacerbate delays and confusion for servicemembers, and potentially jeopardize the system’s successful transformation. Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared remarks. We would be happy to respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this time. For further information about this testimony, please contact John H. Pendleton at (202) 512-7114 or pendletonj@gao.gov or Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or bertonid@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. In the aftermath of deficiencies identified at Walter Reed Medical Center, three separate review groups—the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, commonly referred to as the Dole-Shalala Commission; the Independent Review Group, established by the Secretary of Defense; and the President’s Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes—investigated the factors that may have led to these problems. Selected findings of each report are summarized in table 6. In addition to the contact named above, Bonnie Anderson, Assistant Director; Michele Grgich, Assistant Director; Jennie Apter; Janina Austin; Joel Green; Christopher Langford; Chan My Sondhelm; Barbara Steel- Lowney; and Greg Whitney, made key contributions to this statement. DOD Civilian Personnel: Medical Policies for Deployed DOD Federal Civilians and Associated Compensation for Those Deployed. GAO-07-1235T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2007. Global War on Terrorism: Reported Obligations for the Department of Defense. GAO-07-1056R. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2007. Information Technology: VA and DOD Are Making Progress in Sharing Medical Information, but Remain Far from Having Comprehensive Electronic Medical Records. GAO-07-1108T. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2007. Defense Health Care: Comprehensive Oversight Framework Needed to Help Ensure Effective Implementation of a Deployment Health Quality Assurance Program. GAO-07-831. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2007. DOD’s 21st Century Health Care Spending Challenges, Presentation for the Task Force on the Future of Military Health Care. Statement delivered by David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States. GAO-07-766-CG. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2007. Veterans’ Disability Benefits: Long-Standing Claims Processing Challenges Persist. GAO-07-512T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2007. DOD and VA Health Care: Challenges Encountered by Injured Servicemembers during Their Recovery Process. GAO-07-589T. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2007. VA Health Care: Spending for Mental Health Strategic Plan Initiatives Was Substantially Less Than Planned. GAO-07-66. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2006. VA and DOD Health Care: Efforts to Provide Seamless Transition of Care for OEF and OIF Servicemembers and Veterans. GAO-06-794R. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2006. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: DOD Needs to Identify the Factors Its Providers Use to Make Mental Health Evaluation Referrals for Servicemembers. GAO-06-397. Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2006. Military Disability System: Improved Oversight Needed to Ensure Consistent and Timely Outcomes for Reserve and Active Duty Service Members. GAO-06-362. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006. VA and DOD Health Care: Opportunities to Maximize Resource Sharing Remain. GAO-06-315. Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2006. VA and DOD Health Care: VA Has Policies and Outreach Efforts to Smooth Transition from DOD Health Care, but Sharing of Health Information Remains Limited. GAO-05-1052T. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2005. Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to be Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges. GAO-05-626. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005. Veterans’ Disability Benefits: Claims Processing Problems Persist and Major Performance Improvements May Be Difficult. GAO-05-749T. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2005. DOD and VA: Systematic Data Sharing Would Help Expedite Servicemembers’ Transition to VA Services. GAO-05-722T. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2005. VA Health Care: VA Should Expedite the Implementation of Recommendations Needed to Improve Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Services. GAO-05-287. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2005. VA and Defense Health Care: More Information Needed to Determine If VA Can Meet an Increase in Demand for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Services. GAO-04-1069. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2004. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Summary: In February 2007, a series of Washington Post articles disclosed troublesome deficiencies in the provision of outpatient services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, raising concerns about the care for returning servicemembers. These deficiencies included a confusing disability evaluation system and servicemembers in outpatient status for months and sometimes years without a clear understanding about their plan of care. The reported problems at Walter Reed prompted broader questions about whether the Department of Defense (DOD) as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are fully prepared to meet the needs of returning servicemembers. In response to the deficiencies reported at Walter Reed, the Army took a number of actions and DOD formed a joint DOD-VA Senior Oversight Committee. This statement provides information on the near-term actions being taken by the Army and the broader efforts of the Senior Oversight Committee to address longer-term systemic problems that impact health care and disability evaluations for returning servicemembers. Preliminary observations in this testimony are based largely on documents obtained from and interviews with Army officials, and DOD and VA representatives of the Senior Oversight Committee, as well as on GAO's extensive past work. We discussed the facts contained in this statement with DOD and VA. While efforts are under way to respond to both Army-specific and systemic problems, challenges are emerging such as staffing new initiatives. The Army and the Senior Oversight Committee have efforts under way to improve case management--a process intended to assist returning servicemembers with management of their care from initial injury through recovery. Case management is especially important for returning servicemembers who must often visit numerous therapists, providers, and specialists, resulting in differing treatment plans. The Army's approach for improving case management for its servicemembers includes developing a new organizational structure--a Warrior Transition Unit, in which each servicemember would be assigned to a team of three key staff--a physician care manager, a nurse case manager, and a squad leader. As the Army has sought to staff its Warrior Transition Units, challenges to staffing critical positions are emerging. For example, as of mid-September 2007, over half the U.S. Warrior Transition Units had significant shortfalls in one or more of these critical positions. The Senior Oversight Committee's plan to provide a continuum of care focuses on establishing recovery coordinators, which would be the main contact for a returning servicemember and his or her family. This approach is intended to complement the military services' existing case management approaches and place the recovery coordinators at a level above case managers, with emphasis on ensuring a seamless transition between DOD and VA. At the time of GAO's review, the committee was still determining how many recovery coordinators would be necessary and the population of seriously injured servicemembers they would serve. As GAO and others have previously reported, providing timely and consistent disability decisions is a challenge for both DOD and VA. To address identified concerns, the Army has taken steps to streamline its disability evaluation process and reduce bottlenecks. The Army has also developed and conducted the first certification training for evaluation board liaisons who help servicemembers navigate the system. To address more systemic concerns, the Senior Oversight Committee is planning to pilot a joint disability evaluation system. Pilot options may incorporate variations of three key elements: (1) a single, comprehensive medical examination; (2) a single disability rating done by VA; and (3) a DOD-level evaluation board for adjudicating servicemembers' fitness for duty. DOD and VA officials hoped to begin the pilot in August 2007, but postponed implementation in order to further review options and address open questions, including those related to proposed legislation. Fixing these long-standing and complex problems as expeditiously as possible is critical to ensuring high-quality care for returning servicemembers, and success will ultimately depend on sustained attention, systematic oversight by DOD and VA, and sufficient resources.