Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jan 2016, 1:16 pm

danivon wrote:heaven forbid you looking, they guy who was outraged that someone linked to a report about a poll and not the actual poll...


You're making the assertion and then want me to prove you right . . . old Danivon mind-trick. No thanks.

My bigger point: money alone will not solve this. The VA needs to get dissected, if not destroyed, and reassembled. It's a mess.
Something tells me such a reform would not be possible without some investment.


I'm not against this. Show me the plan.

People should be fired. Their actions led to deaths of many Vets.
Where figures have been falsified that is bad enough to fire the culprits, but that is not actually a cause of deaths. I think a full independent review would be appropriate to find out what has happened, why, and the actual impact.


It was the indirect cause of many deaths. They falsified records to "shorten" actual wait times. In the meantime, Vets died. They "actually" died.

This demonstrates the incompetence:

(CNN)Hundreds of thousands of veterans listed in the Department of Veterans Affairs enrollment system died before their applications for care were processed, according to a report issued Wednesday.

The VA's inspector general found that out of about 800,000 records stalled in the agency's system for managing health care enrollment, there were more than 307,000 records that belonged to veterans who had died months or years in the past. The inspector general said due to limitations in the system's data, the number of records did not necessarily represent veterans actively seeking enrollment in VA health care.

In a response to a request by the House Committee on Veterans Affairs' to investigate a whistleblower's allegations of mismanagement at the VA's Health Eligibility Center, the inspector general also found VA staffers incorrectly marked unprocessed applications and may have deleted 10,000 or more records in the last five years.

In one case, a veteran who applied for VA care in 1998 was placed in "pending" status for 14 years. Another veteran who passed away in 1988 was found to have an unprocessed record lingering in 2014, the investigation found.


Criminality:

A manager at a Veterans Affairs medical center in Georgia is on leave with pay following his indictment on 50 counts of ordering his staff to falsify medical records of veterans waiting for outside medical care.

The case against Cathedral Henderson appears to be the first round of criminal charges stemming from a wait-times scandal that came to light last year and led to the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki.

Henderson, 50, was in charge of revenue and billing and chief of “purchase care” in Augusta, coordinating medical care for veterans that VA could not offer. He was responsible for ensuring that more than 2,700 veterans awaiting approval for care outside the system were properly referred to for doctor’s appointments.

But under pressure from VA headquarters in 2014 to close out all requests for outside care, Cathedral simply ordered his staff to falsify the waiting patients’ medical records to show that the veterans had either completed or refused services, prosecutors allege.


More criminality:

"Deceased" notes on files were removed to make statistics look better, so veterans would not be counted as having died while waiting for care, Pauline DeWenter said.

DeWenter should know. DeWenter is the actual scheduling clerk at the Phoenix VA who said for the better part of a year she was ordered by supervisors to manage and handle the so-called "secret waiting list," where veterans' names of those seeking medical care were often placed, sometimes left for months with no care at all.

For these reasons, DeWenter is among the most important and central people to the Phoenix VA scandal over a secret wait list, veterans' wait times and deaths. Despite being in the center of the storm, DeWenter has never spoken publicly about any of it -- the secret list, the altering of records, the dozens of veterans she believes have died waiting for care -- until now.

It was one of DeWenter's roles to call veterans when appointments became available to schedule them to get a consultation. Sometimes when she made those calls, she'd find that the veteran had died, so she would enter that on their records.

But at least seven times since last October, records that showed that veterans died while waiting for care -- records which DeWenter personally handled and had entered in details of veterans' deaths -- were physically altered, or written over, by someone else, DeWenter said in an exclusive interview with CNN. The changes, or re-writes, listed the veterans as living, not deceased, essentially hiding their deaths.

The alterations had even occurred in recent weeks, she said, in a deliberate attempt to try to hide just how many veterans died while waiting for care, by trying to pretend dead veterans remain alive.

"Because by doing that, that placed (the veterans) back on the wait list," said DeWenter, explaining she believes that the purpose of "bringing them back to life" in the paperwork and putting the veterans back on the electronic waiting list was to hide the fact that veterans died waiting for care.

"I would say (it was done to) hide the fact. Because it is marked a death. And that death needs to be reported. So if you change that to, 'entered in error' or, my personal favorite, 'no longer necessary,' that makes the death go away. So the death would never be reported then."


If Obama cares so much, why not talk about it often? Why not go on every show that will have him and lay out a plan to overhaul the VA?

I know why. You know why.
I don't know why. You forget we don't all share your magic mind-reading abilities... :rolleyes: :wink:


Because it's not a priority for him.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jan 2016, 1:25 pm

From the poll analysis: "Veterans overwhelming feel that health care was a promise made for their service and oppose vouchers that may not cover all costs."

Funny, how most people prefer socialized medicine over decisions about their care being influenced by financial considerations. Medicare of course is very popular. The VA is free; and for all its shortcomings veterans prefer that over a voucher system where private medical providers have a profit motive in deciding care.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jan 2016, 1:37 pm

freeman3 wrote:From the poll analysis: "Veterans overwhelming feel that health care was a promise made for their service and oppose vouchers that may not cover all costs."

Funny, how most people prefer socialized medicine over decisions about their care being influenced by financial considerations. Medicare of course is very popular. The VA is free; and for all its shortcomings veterans prefer that over a voucher system where private medical providers have a profit motive in deciding care.


Sure. People LOVE socialized medicine . . . until it kills them.It's killed a lot of Vets.

Funny, I don't know a single vet who likes the service they get.

If Medicare is so popular, why didn't Il Duce impose it when he had both Houses of Congress? "Medicare for all" fever is sweeping the land!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7389
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Jan 2016, 1:46 pm

freeman3 wrote:From the poll analysis: "Veterans overwhelming feel that health care was a promise made for their service and oppose vouchers that may not cover all costs."

Funny, how most people prefer socialized medicine over decisions about their care being influenced by financial considerations. Medicare of course is very popular. The VA is free; and for all its shortcomings veterans prefer that over a voucher system where private medical providers have a profit motive in deciding care.


Mark me down for paying the 20% co-pay, and getting better treatment with the provider I choose. It caps out at $3000/year. Well worth it to go where I want for treatment, not with the VA.

The VA is 5 minutes from my house... Still not worth it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4965
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 28 Jan 2016, 2:00 pm

bbauska wrote:
freeman3 wrote:From the poll analysis: "Veterans overwhelming feel that health care was a promise made for their service and oppose vouchers that may not cover all costs."

Funny, how most people prefer socialized medicine over decisions about their care being influenced by financial considerations. Medicare of course is very popular. The VA is free; and for all its shortcomings veterans prefer that over a voucher system where private medical providers have a profit motive in deciding care.


Mark me down for paying the 20% co-pay, and getting better treatment with the provider I choose. It caps out at $3000/year. Well worth it to go where I want for treatment, not with the VA.

The VA is 5 minutes from my house... Still not worth it.


How bad is it, and how come it's that bad? (My dad was a 20 year vet and never set foot in a VA.)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Jan 2016, 2:52 pm

Poll says what it says. I suspect that veterans with middle to high incomes and non-serious medical conditions would prefer to go elsewhere. Veterans who have serious medical issues and inadequate health insurance need to go the VA. And they really don't like the idea of that option being taken aware of them. Put another way, in return for their service they obtained a right to free health care. If they can get better health care elsewhere, great. But that option is not available to many vets and they want that floor level of care the VA provides. Which maybe is the next step our health care system should gravitate towards--a basic right of health care provided to everyone and a private insurance market for those who want quicker care, more access to specialists, etc.and are willing to pay for it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7389
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Jan 2016, 3:55 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
bbauska wrote:
freeman3 wrote:From the poll analysis: "Veterans overwhelming feel that health care was a promise made for their service and oppose vouchers that may not cover all costs."

Funny, how most people prefer socialized medicine over decisions about their care being influenced by financial considerations. Medicare of course is very popular. The VA is free; and for all its shortcomings veterans prefer that over a voucher system where private medical providers have a profit motive in deciding care.


Mark me down for paying the 20% co-pay, and getting better treatment with the provider I choose. It caps out at $3000/year. Well worth it to go where I want for treatment, not with the VA.

The VA is 5 minutes from my house... Still not worth it.


How bad is it, and how come it's that bad? (My dad was a 20 year vet and never set foot in a VA.)


I had a herniated disk in my spine from a military injury. They did not want to do the surgery because the protocol was to provide anti-inflammatory meds for a herniation.

However their diagnosis was wrong... the disk had calcified and ruptured, thus paralyzing my lower body. They couldn't even ready the X-ray, let alone get an MRI. I went to the local hospital, got an MRI, and had surgery 2 days later. I am completely healed, no thanks to the VA.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jan 2016, 4:37 pm

freeman3 wrote:Poll says what it says. I suspect that veterans with middle to high incomes and non-serious medical conditions would prefer to go elsewhere. Veterans who have serious medical issues and inadequate health insurance need to go the VA. And they really don't like the idea of that option being taken aware of them. Put another way, in return for their service they obtained a right to free health care. If they can get better health care elsewhere, great. But that option is not available to many vets and they want that floor level of care the VA provides. Which maybe is the next step our health care system should gravitate towards--a basic right of health care provided to everyone and a private insurance market for those who want quicker care, more access to specialists, etc.and are willing to pay for it.


Right. One poll settles it.

Of course, some could not participate in the poll . . because they were dead due to not receiving adequate care. Or, do you suppose the pollsters factored that in?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jan 2016, 10:04 am

To give some additional insight into the trouble at the VA:

By this point I’m sure you’re all familiar with the case of Kimberly Graves and Diana Rubens, the two VA senior officials who were found to have abused their positions for personal gain in plum job assignments and relocation fees. Despite the damning evidence which was revealed, they wound up being demoted rather than cut loose. (Because, as we were assured by the VA, you can’t fire your way to excellence.) We were also told that demotion was all that we should expect because the Justice Department concluded that they would not prosecute the pair for their actions. But hey… at least they were demoted and had their pay reduced, so in an agency where it’s virtually impossible to fire anyone that’s still better than nothing right?

What were we thinking? Of course that wasn’t going to stick.

The Merit Systems Protection Board has overturned the Veterans Affairs Department’s decision to demote Kimberly Graves, a former senior executive accused of using her position for personal gain.

The reversal means that Graves, the former director of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s St. Paul, Minn., regional office, will be reinstated to the Senior Executive Service. An MSPB administrative judge issued the oral decision on Wednesday after a hearing in Chicago; the court transcript of the ruling should be available on MSPB’s website by Friday…

It’s not yet clear what the MSPB judge’s rationale was for reversing the department’s decision.


About now, some of you may be wondering what the heck the Merit Systems Protection Board is.

The Merit Systems Protection Board is an independent, quasi-judicial agency in the Executive branch that serves as the guardian of Federal merit systems…

The Board assumed the employee appeals function of the Civil Service Commission and was given new responsibilities to perform merit systems studies and to review the significant actions of OPM. The CSRA also created the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) which investigates allegations of prohibited personnel practices, prosecutes violators of civil service rules and regulations, and enforces the Hatch Act. Although originally established as an office of the Board, the OSC now functions independently as a prosecutor of cases before the Board.


Clearly there’s nothing wrong with an appeals board being established to provide a review of personnel actions. There are, no doubt, cases of wrongful termination from time to time and potential wrongdoing by government supervisors should be investigated. But what mystery did they solve in this case? Not only did the department make the shocking decision to demote these two women, but the IG had turned over a case indicating that they should be prosecuted for their actions. But now Ms. Graves has had her old pay scale restored and they may do the same for Rubens on Monday.

This is the federal government as it stands today and we seem to have run out of options. Even when abuse is identified, investigated and acted upon, nothing can be done without the willingness of the administration to police themselves. Findings of wrongdoing can be simply ignored if the Justice Department refuses to prosecute anyone, and internal quasi-judicial agencies can reverse any departmental punishment which does manage to be meted out.


Translation: two people enriched themselves and abused the VA system while supposedly working for it. They were demoted rather than imprisoned. Upon appeal, they were restored to their original positions.

They broke the law. They violated the public trust.

They won.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Jan 2016, 10:22 am

Right. So find a poll that contradicts the findings in this poll. And I really don't understand the reference to dead veterans not receiving adequate care--the poll was a statistical sampling of veterans and living veterans who are dissatisfied with the care they got at the VA would be statistically sampled. Dead veterans who were satisfied with the care they got at the VA were not included in it...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jan 2016, 10:45 am

freeman3 wrote:Right. So find a poll that contradicts the findings in this poll. And I really don't understand the reference to dead veterans not receiving adequate care--the poll was a statistical sampling of veterans and living veterans who are dissatisfied with the care they got at the VA woukd be statistically sampled. Dead veterans who were satisfied with the care they got at the VA were not included in it...


1. Yeah, because there are so many surveys like this. (not) However, read this.

These three examples show the range of surveys of various veteran populations and their experience with the VA medical care. So, the veracity Clinton’s statement really depends on the surveys used. The ones that she used were favorable toward the VA — plus, two out of three of them were funded by the VA. And the two VA studies of veteran satisfaction are of patients who actually received care. The crux of the VA scandal is with problems over access to care — over scheduling and manipulation of wait time data.

A campaign spokesman said that Clinton did not intend to “put too much weight on these surveys other than noting their existence.” So we decided to look at other surveys exist, that are conducted by independent sources using methodologies that meet The Washington Post’s standards. These surveys show a spotty picture of veteran attitudes toward VA medical care.

A July 2014 Gallup survey of 1,268 veterans in the broader veteran population found 55 percent of veterans said it is somewhat difficult or very difficult to access care. “The common perception of most veterans about the difficulty of accessing VA care, many of whom have personally used the VA system, confirms that the department is failing to meet the medical needs of many of those it is designed to serve. At the same time, that is not the belief or experience of all veterans, with three in 10 saying it is easy to get access to medical care through the VA,” according to the Gallup report.


Post-care satisfaction surveys do not necessarily reflect the population of veterans at the center of the VA scandal, which dealt particularly with patients’ access to care. A large portion of veterans who received medical care may have had positive experiences, but this overlooks the hundreds of thousands of patients who experienced delays in care, or the dozens who died while waiting for care, as the inspector general found.

While she says numerous surveys show veterans’ satisfaction, the examples her claim is based on are either funded by the VA or a non-scientific survey of veteran attitudes. Independent, scientific surveys show veteran attitudes toward medical care at the VA are mixed. And the Gallup poll that most directly relates to the issues unearthed by the scandal found that 55 percent of veterans found it somewhat difficult or very difficult to access VA care.

It’s misleading to make a sweeping generalization about veterans attitudes on this topic and attribute it to “numerous surveys.”


So, there.