[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION'S ANNUAL
BUDGET
---------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERAN'S AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 3, 2005
---------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Serial No. 109-27
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
24-484 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
DEVELOPMENT OF THE VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION'S ANNUAL BUDGET
REQUEST
Thursday, November 3, 2005
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 334,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeffrey Miller [Chairman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Berkley, Udall, and Evans.
Mr. Miller. Good afternoon, everybody. This hearing will come to
order. I do want to open by saying I appreciate everybody reworking
their schedules from the last scheduled time to be here with us.
Today we are meeting to receive testimony on the development of
VBA�s annual budget. The Subcommittee is prepared to explore the
process and the assumptions used by VBA to project the workload and
the workforce trends that are then used to formulate the annual
budget.
Earlier this year, in the context of the VA health care, we
learned that given the limitations of the federal budget process and
the dynamic nature of health care, VA�s budget projection models can
and have failed. When models fail in the context of health care,
Congress must appropriate additional funds or VA may have to reduce
services provided to our veterans.
It is important to note that the benefits provided by VBA in
the form of compensation, pension, and other monetary benefits are
entitlement programs which Congress is obligated to pay.
However, the administrative costs of claims adjudication
are discretionary funds, which are subject to annual
appropriations.
Therefore, the accurate projection of workforce and workload
trends has a direct impact on the claims adjudication process.
These projections are the basis for the discretionary appropriation
request. And if VBA's projections fail, VBA may not have the
resources necessary to timely and accurately adjudicate claims.
The Claims Processing Task Force Report, which Admiral
Cooper chaired, stated in October of 2001 that, quote, VBA's
workload will continue to remain dynamic. To expect the workload
to return to some normalized, predictable level is not reasonable,
end of quote.
Admiral Cooper, we hope to better understand how VBA in
light of this dynamic nature projects its workload and workforce
trends to formulate its budget to ensure that VBA accomplishes the
mission. I intend this to be the first in a series of such hearings.
[The statement of Mr. Miller appears on p. 20]
Mr. Miller. I now recognize our Ranking Member, Ms. Berkley,
for her opening statement.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and thank you all for being here. I appreciate it.
I have a number of questions and I am going to include a
number of them in my testimony in case I get called to the floor.
Unlike the Veterans Health Administration, most of the
Veterans Benefit Administration�s budget is mandatory rather than
discretionary spending. And I appreciate that you have little
control over mandatory spending.
What I would like to do is focus on VBA's projections of
new claims and staffing needs. I am particularly concerned that VBA
does not have the adequate number of staff to do the job that we are
asking them to do.
In fact, the number of new claims involving eight or more
issues has more than doubled in the last five years. These are
the most complex claims to decide, yet increases in staff have not
kept up with the increase in the workload, particularly the
complexity of it.
I am also concerned that the number of appeals has more
than doubled in the past five years. And I fear that we are pushing
overworked staff to quickly decide claims which may result in errors
and more staff and time in order to correct the mistakes.
VA's Inspector General recently reported that most rating
specialists and decision review officers who consider appeals do
not believe that the VA Regional Offices have sufficient rating
staff.
With the increase in claims, especially the more complex
ones, and appeals compared to the current staffing levels, I have
to agree with the Inspector General.
During our recent hearings on PTSD claims, the acting
Inspector General indicated that VBA may only need to look at the
2,100 cases under review rather than the proposed 72,000. He said
that issue is worthy of discussion.
At the same hearing, Mrs. Brown-Waite, who sits on this
Subcommittee, raised concerns about the impact of the proposed
72,000 review on claims currently in the pipeline. I share her
concerns and have questions regarding the process.
How many additional staff would VBA need to proceed on the
proposed additional review of PTSD claims in 2006 without
jeopardizing the accuracy and timeliness of claims currently in the
system and future claims? Has there been any estimate of the cost
of conducting this review? Will additional funds be needed? Are
these costs included in the budget for 2006?
The VBA failed to meet its projected target for pending
claims at the end of fiscal year 2005 and the number of claims
received was substantially higher than projected.
To what extent was the low-balling, and I do not say that
in a derogatory sense, the low-ball projection for claim receipts
and lack of staff responsible for the failure to meet projected
targets for pending claims?
I would like to know what is being done to provide more
accurate projections of workload and staffing needs.
For fiscal year 2005 and 2006, VBA was awarded one-time
money to improve claims processing. I believe that we are likely
to fall even further behind if these funds are not included in the
administration's budget for 2007. What happens if those funds no
longer exist?
I am almost done, Mr. Chairman.
Also the VA is currently working under a continuing
resolution, so I assume the ability to add any additional staff or
make other expenditures is quite limited.
I hope that you can discuss the impact on VBA's budget when
fiscal year funding is delayed by months and months.
In addition, it appears for the past several years VA has
underestimated the amount of pay increase and when a higher amount
is enacted, VA must adjust its spending. For fiscal year 2006, an
increase of 2.3 percent was projected, but 3.1 percent is now
expected.
How does the VA project the annual pay adjustment provided
to its employees? How will the VBA be able to accommodate this
increase? Where does the money come from? Is it from heaven or do
we take it from equipment and travel and everything else?
We all know that this year, Congress had to provide
supplemental funding for the VA due to inadequate budget projections
for discretionary spending. We need to be sure that funding for the
administration of the Compensation and Pension Program and the
staffing of regional offices is adequate to provide veterans with
accurate and timely decisions.
Unfortunately, the prepared testimony that I had an
opportunity to review in a very cursory manner lacks specificity
needed for proper oversight. I truly appreciate your willingness
to provide additional data which I requested concerning claims
receipts over the past five years. I ask that to be included in
the record.
[The information is found on pgs. 25-27.]
And I want to thank you again for being here. I know you do
not have an easy job. And I would like to be as helpful as possible
in making your job easier.
Mr. Miller. Without objection, your request will be added
into the record.
[The statement of Ms. Berkley appears on p. 23]
Mr. Miller. Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Ranking
Member Berkley as well. I forgot to ask her how many veterans are
in her district.
Ms. Berkley. Funny you should ask. Fastest-growing veterans
population in the United States.
Mr. Evans. Okay. They all live in Illinois, I guess.
Ms. Berkley. Two hundred thousand.
Mr. Evans. Well, thank you.
I am concerned that the VA budgets have not matched the need
for care and services for our veterans, that our veterans have.
As Veterans Day approaches, the administration seems more
interested in reducing benefits to seriously disabled veterans than
providing adequate staff to meet VBA�s growing workload.
More veterans are applying for benefits. More veterans are
appealing decisions that they believe are erroneous. Staff who will
process these claims and appeals have not kept up with these
increases.
VA employees perceive that the quantity not quality is
recognized and rewarded. VBA�s budget methodology must assure that
adequate staff based upon real numbers, real needs, real problems,
and real choices for veterans who have served their country.
I want to thank all the witnesses and look forward to your
testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to participate
in this important hearing.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Evans.
I welcome the panel of witnesses today.
Admiral Cooper, I appreciate you being with us. Most of the
members of the Committee are well aware of his distinguished career,
graduating from the Naval Academy in 1957, followed by a 33-year
career in the Navy.
In April of 2001, Secretary Principi asked Admiral Cooper to
head the Claims Processing Task Force to examine the benefits system
at large and make recommendations the department could implement
without Congressional action.
Subsequent to chairing that Task Force, President Bush
nominated Admiral Cooper to serve as Under Secretary of Benefits
and he assumed that post April 2nd of 2002.
Admiral, we all look forward to your testimony. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR BENEFITS, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION;
ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES W. BOHMBACH, CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRA-
TION; RENEE L. SZYBALA, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION
AND PENSION SERVICES, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINI-
STRATION; MICHAEL WALCOFF, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY
UNDER SECRETARY FOR FIELD OPERATIONS, VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. COOPER
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the budget
formulation and the process we use in the Compensation and Pension
Program.
I am pleased to be accompanied by Ms. Renee Szybala, who is
the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service; Mr. James
Bohmbach, our Chief Financial Officer; and Mr. Michael Walcoff, who
is the Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations.
My opening remarks will be brief and I respectfully request
that my full testimony be made a part of the record.
In fiscal year 2005, the total obligations for C&P were
32.5 billion. Of that amount, $1 billion was for discretionary
funding or our general operating expenses, the vast majority of
which is for personnel or FTE.
The 32.5 billion was for mandatory funding to pay the
benefits that we administer to the veterans, their survivors, and
their dependents.
Last fiscal year, VBA produced over two million award
actions, 763,000 of which were disability rating determinations
in connection with claims for disability benefits.
We handled over 6.3 million phone calls. We conducted over
a million interviews. We provided nearly 8,200 briefings for more
than 330,000 service personnel as they returned from OIF, OEF, and
so on. We conducted nearly 70,000 hours of outreach.
As these figures emphasize, VBA�s primary role is serving
veterans. That role is extensive and complex. So our budget
formulation process must take into account a myriad of factors in
order to establish a found basis for projecting our resource needs.
Each factor has its own set of assumptions and several of
the factors have great variance from one fiscal year to the next.
Projecting the incoming workload, that is primarily the
number of new and resubmitted claims we can expect, is the starting
point for developing the FTE requirements in our discretionary
budget.
The number of claims receipts is projected based on
historical trends and anticipated external factors. Interestingly,
despite the unprecedented level of claims that we have seen, the
level of incoming each year still seems to increase.
FTE requirements dominate our discretionary funding needs.
To determine FTE levels, we analyze our current performance. We
try to establish performance goals and targets and we make
assumptions relative to future performance.
Adjustments to the direct labor personnel requirements are
made based upon those performance assumptions and goals as well as
other factors, such as anticipated improvements, planned, process,
and management efficiencies, various initiatives, mandatory training,
and the experience levels of the employees.
There are also external influences which are less
predictable, such as legislative changes, judicial decisions, and
the guardianship and outreach activities that we must do.
We as all effective organizations must ensure that we fully
consider a proper mix of management oversight, workforce training,
and initiatives to improve our effectiveness and efficiencies in
future years.
Over the past ten years, VA�s budget for the C&P mandatory
benefits has increased by 83 percent to the current $32.5 billion.
If we exclude additional annual COLAs, those obligations increase
by 49 percent.
In the past ten years, the number of veterans on the
compensation rolls has increased from 2.2 million to 2.6 million
this year and the average annual payment for veteran has increased
from $5.2 thousand to $9.4 thousand.
VBA has developed a benefits budget forecasting model based
on detailed historical data and recent trends in workload and
accession rate. This model then projects both the number of veterans
expected to receive benefits and the average amount of benefits to be
paid in the next ten years.
We estimate, using a discretionary budget formulation
process, the expected number of both new and reopened claims which
will be completed each year, we estimate the percent of those claims
that will be granted and then use this accession rate to project
additions to the compensation rolls.
To forecast total mandatory obligations, we must also
estimate the average value of payments to be paid to veterans and we
have seen significant increases in veterans� degree of disability,
the number of veterans receiving individual unemployability, and
veterans receiving special monthly compensation.
The most recent ten-year plan projects a $21 billion
increase in the annual veterans� compensation payment total by the
year 2015, thus continuing the trend seen over the past decade.
As I have described, projections of incoming claims workload
are key to the formulation to both our mandatory and our
discretionary budget requests. The number of veterans filing
disability compensation claims has increased every year since 2000,
growing by 36 percent between 2000 and 2005, this last fiscal year.
The ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq are expected
to continue to add to the compensation workload. In 2004, original
claims increased 17 percent. In 2005, we saw an additional eight
percent increase. We believe these increases are directly related
to our aggressive outreach programs for separating service members.
Interestingly, the numbers of claims resubmitted by veterans
who were already service connected and on our rolls are also
increasing each year. Since 2000, the numbers have increased 42
percent and that number makes up about 56 percent of our total
rating claims workload each year.
Since the addition of diabetes mellitus type II to the list
of Agent Orange presumptive conditions in 2001, about 200,000
veterans have been compensated for diabetes.
The increased number of compensation recipients, many of
whom suffer from chronic progressive disabilities, will continue to
drive more claims for increased benefits in the coming years as
veterans age and their conditions worsen.
There has also been a significant change in the processing
procedures since the enactment of �Veterans Claims Assistance Act�
of 2000.
VA's notification and development requirements increased,
adding more steps to the claims process and the time that it takes
to develop and properly adjudicate a claim.
The impact of all these factors and others, which may be
more subtle and difficult to measure, must be considered as we
attempt to formulate our budget.
As I have described, formulation is based on a complex
combination of historical data, current experience, workload,
performance assumptions, and independent variables.
Our budget evolves as these factors are refined, revised,
and revisited. It is mandatory that we estimate and project our
budget needs to the best of our ability.
VBA�s mission is to serve deserving disabled veterans.
That is the best mission we have in government today. We are
dedicated to doing it well.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The statement of Mr. Cooper appears on p. 28]
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Admiral.
In fiscal year 2005, VBA estimated receiving 794,000
rating-related claims, but actually received somewhere around
788,000 and adjudicated 763,000-plus. Given that VBA had
approximately 7,500 direct FTEs to adjudicate those claims, it
works out to about 101 claims per FTE.
At the current staffing levels, are you meeting your
performance goals and is the 2006 production assumption of 109
claims per FTE still realistic in your opinion?
Mr. Cooper. First, no, sir, we are not meeting our goals.
One of the things that happened in 2003, we worked very strongly on
claims, initial claims and resubmitted claims. As we did that, in
fact the appeals went up quite dramatically.
As a result, I have made the decision over the last year or
so that we need to attack across the board because we need to give
service to all the veterans. And as was mentioned, the appeals had
gone up. In fact, we have attacked appeals and we have attacked
remands.
We did not meet our goals in initial claims or resubmitted
claims, but we did do fairly well in appeals and remands in starting
to move those down. So in trying to attack across the board, we did
that.
Secondly, we were not able to hire for a while, as you know,
because of the continuing resolution. We did hire in the middle of
the year about 400 people and toward the end of the year, we hired
about 500 additional. All of those need to be trained and are not
fully productive yet.
So my answer is, we are attempting to attack in several ways
this thing. We are trying to ensure that our training is proper and
that takes time too. So the first answer is no.
You asked me the question, did I think we had properly
estimated for 2006, the answer is, yes, I think we are properly
estimating. I also think that if the budget decided by the Senate
in the SAC is agreed to, if we get that budget, we will be covered
properly.
Mr. Miller. You talk about 400 new people. How long does
it take to actually train a new individual and consider them fully
up to speed?
Mr. Cooper. To be fully up to speed and essentially able
to operate independently, it takes approximately two years. We get
them out and starting to help after about three or four months.
By having this central training, we at least know that we
are training the people in the right way to do things as they then
go back out to their various regional offices. They then come back
and we try to reinforce and then send them back out again.
So essentially they get about three to four weeks of central
training and then the rest of it is done on the site of the regional
offices.
Mr. Miller. Why in the world does it take two years to
train somebody to do this job?
Mr. Cooper. This is a very complicated thing. And part of
it is how you get the records. The records that we use to adjudicate
are all paper records. We are not looking at any electronic records.
And so as you look through each and every page and you want
to make sure, because we have tried to push quality also, and you
try to make sure we are looking to get even those disabilities that
that person may not have claimed. They may have put in for three
issues on their claim.
We are training our people to look very thoroughly to ensure
that, in fact, if there is anything else in there, that we are able
to get it and work with the VSOs and the veteran. We are trying to
do everything as completely as we can.
But it is a complicated process and it is very difficult for
me even after about three -- maybe 25 years -- but actually
three and a half years in this job, it is difficult for me to
understand everything that they are doing. It is a complicated
job. It calls for people who are well-trained and it calls for
people who will concentrate on doing the job properly.
Mr. Miller. Can you tell me what the average length of
service in the position is, how long they stay?
Mr. Cooper. I will first say that we probably have better
retention than the first figures I saw when I came in. I would say
that the average time -- I am talking off the top of my head --
I would say the average time that a person stays in the VA when they
come in is probably six to ten years.
Now, when we hired 400, you will find that even though we
try to look very closely and interrogate them properly and make
them understand what they are going to get into, you will find
sometimes people will say the job is not what I expected. I do not
want to do that and it is too cumbersome.
And even though we try to push the importance of the
mission, they may still decide that claim adjudication is not for
them. And that is fine. If they decide, then they should go on
somewhere else.
My guess is we retain in that first year maybe close to 80
percent, a little bit more.
Mr. Miller. Do you know -- I am sure you do from exit
interviews -- the reasons for most people's departure? Is it
burnout, compensation, moving up in the system?
Mr. Cooper. Part of it is moving up. And I was just
passed a note. When we bring people in as veteran service
representatives, and these are the people who first review the
records, eventually they get promoted within our organization to
what we call rating veterans service representatives or RVSRs.
Burnout, I do not think is necessarily it, but I do think if
it is a degree of burnout to say this is not the job I want to do,
I cannot take the pressure of doing so many claims and I am just
unable to do this job for whatever reason, so the mutual decision
is made by the RO director and the individual. I think there are
several reasons and those are a couple of them.
Mr. Miller. Are there any performance-based measures in
their job?
Mr. Cooper. You bet. After a certain amount of time, we
have a requirement that they do so many ratings per rating period
per day. We look at that very closely, but we also look at quality
too. And we have gotten hit pretty hard that we were not paying
attention to quality while pushing productivity so much.
But I would say to you that in any organization, you have
to ensure the people are doing the work. If somebody does one claim
in a year, it is going to be a perfect claim, but there are going
to be a lot of disgruntled people out there. So, yes, we do require
that.
But we also have procedures set up for people who are not
doing well, to mentor them, to try to help them do well. Some of
them recover and some of them decide this is not what they want to
do. But it is the same in any organization if you are going to be
successful in my mind.
We are trying to look at quality and make sure that the
quality is there. We are doing lots of things in the training arena
too. I think we have made pretty good improvements in overall
training throughout the organization.
Mr. Miller. You stated that VCAA has significantly
increased the length and complexity of claims development. And at
the end of 2005, records show it took VBA on average 168.2 days to
process a claim.
So my question is, how many processing days do you attribute
to VCAA compliance?
Mr. Cooper. Well, the VCAA was a total bill. And let me
first say -- of course, it came before I came into this job --
in my opinion, it was a very important, positive bill because it
made us, the VA, do the job helping the veteran rather than saying,
Mr. Veteran, you did not give us enough information so we are
turning you down.
And so from what I understand historically, it is a good
bill. It took us a while to understand the ins and outs of the bill
because several judicial decisions were made that said, yeah, you
are trying, but you are not quite doing it right. So, therefore,
you have to revisit this and you have to make changes.
I hope by the time I leave this job, whenever that is,
that we will have finally got it just about right.
We even had to make a change last year in the letter that
we send out. One of the first times I came over here to testify,
I got the question of, the letters you send out are so complicated.
And so I went back and I said let us make it less complicated.
But it is a difficult thing to do to make a less complicated
letter that goes to the veteran and still fulfills the notification
requirements. So the letters have presented us a problem. There
are also certain time elements there. One of the major ones is
that, as soon as we receive the claim, we send a letter that
hopefully states exactly what we need from the veteran as well as
what we ourselves are going to do. The veteran is allowed 60 days
to get that information back to us.
Prior to that, it was my understanding that we did it in
about 30 days, but that is not germane. The fact is that there is a
set time. And, in fact, today, it appears that it is taking
somewhere between 50 and 60 days from the time we send our letter
until we get a response. So already you are at the 70-day point.
At that point then, you are trying to send the gentleman or
the lady on to physical exams. As the claims get more complicated,
one physical exam will not do it. You have to send them for a
couple, two or three.
There are just complications that we have to understand.
I think we are slowly getting there. I am not sure that we are
there a hundred percent yet.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Berkley.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you.
One of the areas of concern that I mentioned during my
opening statement was the administration�s projection of the annual
pay adjustment for federal employees and other increases in
personnel services.
For 2006, the VA's budget is based upon an expected increase
of 2.3 percent. The actual increase is now expected to be 3.1.
In previous years, VBA has needed to reduce staffing when annual
pay adjustments exceeded projections.
How are you planning to pay for the increased costs in
2006?
Mr. Cooper. As you rightfully state, 71 percent of our
budget is paying people. And, in fact, that is where most of my
flexibility is. When I take the other percentages, about 15 percent
of the 29 percent I have left, in fact, goes to headquarters or goes
to things I am obligated to do. Half again goes to other things
over which I have nominal control.
So I have about six percent left. Some of that, determines
whether we have IT initiatives or other training or things. I have
to look across the whole board and decide. And, yes, in fact,
sometimes I have to do it by decreasing the number of FTE that we
have.
Ms. Berkley. Wouldn�t you agree that that is
counterproductive given the fact that we do not have enough staffing
as it is?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, ma�am.
Ms. Berkley. In response to one of the Chairman�s questions,
you talked about as soon as the ban was lifted or whatever, you were
able to hire 400 additional FTE.
Is that new hires or is it backfill because I know in
2003 -- you probably know these numbers better than I do -- in
2002, you had over 7,000 FTE. In 2003, it went down to 6,886. In
2004, 6,784. And now 2005, 6,880.
For the regional offices, are you just replacing what has
already been taken or are these truly additions?
Mr. Cooper. Both. You know, I have to make sure I stay
within my budget. We know that we attrite approximately 30 a month
across the full range of employees. So I try to look ahead and find
out where we are and try to keep up with that.
But, in fact, we have had fewer people in the last couple
years than we had in 2003. And I have had to make sure I look
across the board and that we are doing the whole job and not just
stressing only one element.
Ms. Berkley. So you have got more claims, more complicated
claims, but less FTE to do the job?
Mr. Cooper. Basically that is correct, but we are working on
getting more FTE. And, in fact, this year, we are hiring more.
Ms. Berkley. In recent budgets, you have received one-year
money. VBA has received one-year money that is supposed to be used
for increased staffing.
What happens if the temporary funding dries up in 2007? What
do you do then?
Mr. Cooper. We received one-year money, and I thank Congress
for that, to help the Secretary do that. And you are absolutely
correct. That gives me a type of problem wherein, when I present a
budget and you go back to what the base budget was, there is no
allowance for the fact that I was given some extra money to do the
job. It then suddenly appears if I am going to have a large increase
in the total amount of money.
I think in the 2006 budget, I think we have properly
accounted for that. And certainly people have recognized the problem.
And where I needed the money was in my base. It is good to
get one-year money. But as you properly state, that does not help me
in the following years because the base is not where it should be.
And I think that has been properly corrected.
Ms. Berkley. Okay. And for 2007?
Mr. Cooper. If I may, going with the Senate mark, as they
marked up the bill, I think everything has been properly accounted.
Ms. Berkley. So they put the temporary money that you got
in 2005 and 2006 as part of the base for 2007? Did I miss that?
Mr. Cooper. In 2006.
Ms. Berkley. In 2006.
Mr. Cooper. It looks like they have made the proper
adjustments for 2006.
Ms. Berkley. Great. Okay. Great. Let me ask you
something. There were a few things in the last hearing when we
were talking about PTSD that concerned me a lot.
And do you know what the projected cost would be for the
administration's proposal to review 72,000 PTSD claims in 2006?
And let me add some other questions to that so you can give
me an entire answer.
What additional staffing would be needed to complete this
review without compromising the adjudication of current and expected
workloads for 2006 and how are these kinds of contingencies taken
into account in the budget process?
Mr. Cooper. I honestly do not remember the money that we
estimated. I estimate that approximately 150 to 160 people would
be needed for that review.
Ms. Berkley. Where do those people come from and what
happens to the claims they are already working on?
Mr. Cooper. They come from whatever staffing we have
available at the time. Now, in the Senate mark, they take into
account, I believe, 150 or so people that we would be using for that
review. I think that is one of the amounts that is in there.
Ms. Berkley. Additional from what you already have?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Berkley. What happens when they are done reviewing the
72,000 PTSD? Is it like a one-year mark or --
Mr. Cooper. No. No. Quite frankly, I would hope that I
retain those people and do what has to be done. I fought pretty
hard to try to ensure that whatever people are in the budget for
that, if we make changes in how we are going to implement the
review, that I be allowed to keep the money and the people.
Ms. Berkley. Right. Well, I hope you do not have to do
it. I hope you do get the people. But what if you do not get the
Senate mark?
Mr. Cooper. Then I have got problems.
Ms. Berkley. Earlier this year, I had asked VBA to review
the hundred oldest pending claims, many of which involved remanded
claims for PTSD.
How does VBA budget methodology identify staffing needs to
comply with the requirement to expedite handling of remanded claims
so that the veterans are not waiting a decade or more for a decision?
Mr. Cooper. I cannot talk specifically to your question on
the hundred remands. But I will tell you this.
In the last year and a half, we have worked very closely with
BVA as directed by the Deputy Secretary, I might add. We have set
up a special office called the Appeals Management Center in
Washington. We have also told our regional offices how they will
submit the claims to BVA. So at least we are fulfilling most of the
requirements as far as we can tell.
We have then worked with BVA and any remand they send, we
forward to our Appeals Management team and work it. We have set up
a system so that, when the board sends back a remand, the reason is
stated in a much better fashion than it had been in the past. They
specify precisely what it is they want VBA to do. We have set it up
so it is not dictated that we have to do steps one through ten in
order, which has helped us to an extent.
We have also taken a few people from separate regional
offices to work on remands. In fact, we have reduced remands, about
8,000 in the last year or so. That is one of the things we have
tried to push very hard.
When I look at remands, when I look at a figure that I watch
each month, out of every 100 claims decided in 2005, about 3.9
claims are certified to the board. The board decided in about 1.5
cases per 100 to not allow the appeal. About 1.5 are resolved
through the remand process. In the other one percent, the appeal is
allowed by BVA.
All of those are improved figures. Hopefully it means we
are serving the veteran better and faster, but the important thing
is we have worked together to try to make sure that we are doing
this thing properly.
Ms. Berkley. Between the years 2000 and 2005, the number of
claims involving eight or more issues has more than doubled, I think
from 21,000 plus to 43,000 plus.
VA projected increases in claims for 2005 fiscal year was
much lower than actually received.
Was the failure to more accurately predict the number of
claims received and necessary staffing responsible for VBA�s failure
to meet its targeted pending caseload at the end of fiscal year 2005?
Mr. Cooper. It may have been. That is difficult to figure
out exactly. But the fact is, interestingly enough, one of the
things that we have tried to do and we have pushed very hard is to
have two BDD rating sites. BDD is benefits delivery at discharge.
And these are for people coming out of the service. They may be
retiring. They may be coming out for another reason.
We have decided to have the 140 intake sites at various
military sites, then have the adjudication done at two specific
sites. And hopefully that will make us more efficient. Hopefully
that will give us more consistency.
But what I have come to realize is the people who are
retiring, the people who are leaving the service from these sites,
we have found that the number of issues are quite high. The average
number of issues on the claims coming in today is about 2.6, 2.7.
The number of issues we have from people at BDD sites is about eight
and a half to ten issues per claim. And I have physically seen
claims with 40 issues and more.
And when you have those issues, they may not be pertinent.
But the point is you still have to take specific actions to address
each issue.
Ms. Berkley. Well, then here is my question then. How many
claims does VBA expect to be processed per FTE and what factors are
taken into account? Do we take into account the complexity of it?
If you have got a claim with 40 issues, I would imagine that
takes a tremendous amount of time as opposed to a claim with one or
two. So how do you determine how much staffing you need?
Mr. Cooper. Well, I would hope by having the adjudication
done at two sites where you have people that are experienced in how
to process multiple issue claims.
But as the number of issues increase, yes, that increases
the complexity. You hope that through training, through getting
people on board that you take care of that, but it is an ongoing
process. We are working on it.
Ms. Berkley. The last question I have is regarding the
continuing resolution funding. What is the impact on your ability
to hire additional staff or make other expenditures and does the
budget methodology take into account the possibility that the
appropriation bills may not be enacted in a timely fashion? I hope
I am not giving you too bad a headache, Admiral.
Mr. Cooper. The fact is we are hiring right now. We are
trying to hire, but I am still limited in what I can spend under
the continuing resolution.
And so it will eventually impact me. I am trying to hire
right now so I can get the people on board, get them through
training, and get a little bit ahead of the curve.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you very much. It was very helpful.
Thanks.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, good to have you here today with us.
The 150 to 160 people you talked about -- and I am
following up on the PTSD testimony of yours -- are those the
individuals that would be needed to process all 72,000 claims review?
Mr. Cooper. The processing, when we do it, will consist of
first reviewing each one of those cases. The initial review should
take about an hour for each. And then we estimate, predicated upon
the review that the IG did of 2,100 claims, that approximately
one-third of those will require further development. That will take
a longer amount of time.
So we took those figures together and that is how we came up
with approximately 150 FTE. And we expect about one-third of those
cases to require some further development for whatever reason.
Mr. Udall. One-third of the 72,000?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Udall. And what is mandated as part of the further
development? What do you expect to happen there? Is this the
issue of stressors and --
Mr. Cooper. That is correct.
Mr. Udall. -- the documentation for stressors?
Mr. Cooper. Primarily stressors, that is correct. The IG
reported that of the 2,100 that they reviewed that stressors were
not properly stated in 25 percent of the cases.
And I use that term �not properly stated� carefully, by
the way, because I think we have found some areas where we might
disagree with what the IG said and we are looking very closely at
that.
Mr. Udall. So this estimate of 150 to 160 people would be
for reviewing the 72,000 with this one-third additional attention
that they needed.
And what period of time are we talking about for that review?
Mr. Cooper. I think probably the initial review would be
close to a year.
Mr. Udall. So you are saying 150 to 160 people would be
working on those cases for a year?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Udall. Okay. That is obviously a significant amount of
manpower in terms of your operation; is it not?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Udall. Now, you understand this whole issue of PTSD, I
am sure, very well from your service. Do you think it is wise to
head down this course knowing the kinds of cases and reevaluating
stressors that sometimes occurred many years ago?
Mr. Cooper. I think it is a very difficult problem.
Mr. Udall. Would you be in a position to recommend to us
that the House do what the Senate did in terms of putting in
language after the 2,100 to just terminate this review?
Mr. Cooper. No. I am not in a position to --
Mr. Udall. That is above your pay grade?
Mr. Cooper. I am in a position to talk to my boss, the
Secretary, but --
Mr. Udall. Okay. But this issue is being discussed in
the department, I hope?
Mr. Cooper. Absolutely.
Mr. Udall. Let me see here. So your estimate is not that
there is going to be additional staff needed to fully flesh out the
stressor evidence?
Mr. Cooper. One moment. I am getting advice here.
Mr. Udall. Yeah.
Mr. Cooper. Yes. The Senate mark gives me the authority to
hire up to do the review as I understand it.
Mr. Udall. And in the Senate mark, you believe it gives you
enough to do that?
Mr. Cooper. Yes, I do. Yes, today, I do believe so.
Mr. Udall. Great. And just to summarize here, at least
for this member of the Committee, I believe after meeting with
veterans in my home state of New Mexico and hearing testimony before
this Committee that we really should take the action to terminate
further review on these PTSD claims. It is causing a significant
amount of anxiety in the veterans community and many veterans, I
think, are feeling under attack as a result of this.
And I just hope that you continue the analysis and make a
speedy decision on this rather than go forward with this really
protracted review.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and --
Mr. Cooper. Could I make one statement?
Mr. Udall. Please. Please do.
Mr. Cooper. As you know, one of the things that we have
done as the first step before we do anything further is to look at
the 2,100 that the IG used to come up with their recommendation.
And we have reviewed these very carefully, by first bringing all
of those records to Washington. And in general, we agreed that the
stressors had not been properly annotated in about 25 percent.
There are seven regional offices that are concerned with
this right now. I have specifically gone to each one of them with
a personal letter that said I want to make sure we do this in the
most sensitive way possible.
And I want to do everything we can to clear it without even
talking to the veteran. And if we do, in fact, have to do some more
development, then I want them to work very closely with the veteran
and the VSO to make sure we do not do something dumb.
So I am merely pointing out I am trying to carry this out in
the most sensitive way possible. The fact that the IG made this
very strong recommendation at the time, that presents the problem.
But we are discussing it. We are discussing it thoroughly and if
not on a daily basis, certainly on an every third day basis.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Admiral, and we very much appreciate
your sensitivity to the issue. And we hope that all of your
personnel all the way down to the lowest level carry it out with
the same sensitivity that you have just described.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Admiral, are you prepared possibly to disclose
to this Committee how many FTEs you have requested for 2007?
Mr. Cooper. I would rather not.
Mr. Miller. Okay. Thought I would ask. Thank you.
Ms. Berkley, anything else?
Ms. Berkley. Is that in an open hearing or just in
general?
Mr. Cooper. In fact, we are still in the discussion, as
you know, with OMB in the ongoing budget process. But I have to
tell you, I think they are trying to support me to a very great
extent.
I do not know if I am allowed to say that or not, but I
feel that they are quite supportive. And we made pretty strong
representation in talking about some of the same stuff with a lot
of facts behind it.
Ms. Berkley. If I could recommend, and you certainly know
your job better than I, but given the protracted length of the war
and it does not look like it is going to end any time soon, we are
going to have a lot of veterans coming back and they are going to
need a lot of services, so go to the mat. And I can promise you at
least this Congresswoman will be on that mat with you.
Mr. Cooper. I would like to make a statement on that, if I
may. One of the wonderful things in my mind that VA has done is set
up the seamless transition. And we have worked very closely with
the young men and women coming back to Walter Reed, to Bethesda, to
the six or seven other service hospitals, so that we have people as
soon as those young men and women are ready to talk about benefits
to try to explain to them all the benefits that will be available
when they are discharged.
And then, as you know, when they leave, their record is sent
to the VA hospital closest to where we think they are going. And
sometimes that is a problem. They do not go there.
Plus we try to make it so the day they are discharged that
the disability claim that they have put in is either absolutely
decided or very close to decision so they can start accruing the
compensation payment and 30 to 60 days later start getting paid.
So we have set up a process that can adjudicate immediately
and, therefore, I feel very confident that the decisions we see,
the disabilities we adjudicate are rightful decisions and we can
move on.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Admiral.
Mr. Udall, do you have anything else?
Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, just one additional question here.
Last week, the IG seemed to indicate that the 72,000 review
may not be needed. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Cooper. Yes. I have a thought that there was no doubt
in my mind when the IG made that recommendation, it was not up for a
vote. Now, if the IG now feels it might not be necessary, that is
a decision or a statement that he has made.
Right now I will tell you I felt when that recommendation
was made -- you know, the IG, the way the IG law is set up, he
answers to the secretary, but he also answers to Congress. And so
the way it was stated and the way it was stated to me in the meeting,
there was no doubt in my mind that I was going to be required to do
a 72,000 review. But we are talking about it and I think that
eventually we will come to an understanding.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Admiral.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
We all know that each and every year, hundreds of thousands
of veterans and VA beneficiaries ask for new benefits or increased
benefits. And it is important that VBA be prepared to be able to
accurately fulfill that role and responsibility with which you have
been charged.
I would say personally and on behalf of this Committee as
well, we are all counting on you, Admiral, as well as the veterans
community, to keep us and the staff informed of the needs your
organization has so that we can ensure that VBA�s beneficiaries
receive the timely and accurate service that they have earned.
I look forward to working with you, the staff that you
brought with you, and the rest of your staff in the future as you
continue your service to the veterans of our nation.
Without objection, a statement from the Government
Accountability Office will be entered into the record.
With nothing further, this hearing is adjourned.
[The attachment appears on p. 38]
[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]