VA seeks to re­di­rect bil­lions of dol­lars into pri­vate care


The Depart­ment of Veter­ans Af­fairs is pre­par­ing to shift bil­lions of dol­lars from gov­ern­ment-run veter­ans’ hos­pi­tals to pri­vate health care providers, set­ting the stage for the big­gest trans­for­ma­tion of the veter­ans’ med­i­cal sys­tem in a gen­er­a­tion.

Un­der pro­posed guide­lines, it would be eas­ier for veter­ans to re­ceive care in pri­vately run hos­pi­tals and have the gov­ern­ment pay for it. Veter­ans would also be al­lowed ac­cess to a sys­tem of pro­posed walkin clin­ics, which would re­quire co­pays for treat­ment.

Veter­ans’ hos­pi­tals, which treat 7 mil­lion pa­tients an­nu­ally, have strug­gled to see pa­tients on time in re­cent years, hit by a dou­ble crush of re­turn­ing Iraq and Afghanistan veter­ans and ag­ing Viet­nam veter­ans. A scan­dal over hid­den wait­ing lists in 2014 sent Con­gress search­ing for fixes, and in the years since, Repub­li­cans have pushed to send veter­ans to the pri­vate sec­tor, while Democrats have fa­vored in­creas­ing the num­ber of doc­tors in the VA.

If put into ef­fect, the pro­posed rules – many of whose de­tails re­main un­clear as they are ne­go­ti­ated within the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion – would be a win for the once-ob­scure Con­cerned Veter­ans for Amer­ica, an ad­vo­cacy group funded by the net­work founded by bil­lion­aire in­dus­tri­al­ists Charles and David Koch, which has long cham­pi­oned in­creas­ing the use of pri­vate sec­tor health care for veter­ans.

For in­di­vid­ual veter­ans, pri­vate care could mean shorter waits, more choices and fewer re­quire­ments for co­pays – and could prove pop­u­lar. But some health care ex­perts and veter­ans’ groups say the change, which has no sep­a­rate source of fund­ing, would re­di­rect money that the cur­rent veter­ans’ health care sys­tem – the largest in the na­tion – uses to pro­vide spe­cialty care.

Crit­ics have also warned that switch­ing vast num­bers of veter­ans to pri­vate hos­pi­tals would strain care in the pri­vate sec­tor and that costs for tax­pay­ers could sky­rocket. In ad­di­tion, they say it could threaten the fu­ture of tra­di­tional veter­ans’ hos­pi­tals, some of which are al­ready un­der re­view for pos­si­ble con­sol­i­da­tion or clos­ing.

Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, who made re­form­ing veter­ans’ health care a ma­jor point of his cam­paign, may re­veal de­tails of the plan in his State of the Union ad­dress later this month, ac­cord­ing to sev­eral peo­ple in the ad­min­is­tra­tion and oth­ers out­side it who have been briefed on the plan.

The pro­posed changes have grown out of health care leg­is­la­tion, known as the Mis­sion Act, that was passed by the last Con­gress. Sup­port­ers, who have been in­flu­en­tial in ad­min­is­tra­tion pol­icy, ar­gue that the new rules would stream­line care avail­able to veter­ans, whose health prob­lems are many but whose num­bers are shrink­ing, and also prod the veter­ans’ hos­pi­tal sys­tem to com­pete for pa­tients, mak­ing it more ef­fi­cient.

“Most veter­ans chose to serve their coun­try, so they should have the choice to ac­cess care in the com­mu­nity with their VA ben­e­fits – es­pe­cially if the VA can’t serve them in a timely and con­ve­nient man­ner,” said Dan Cald­well, ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of Con­cerned Veter­ans for Amer­ica.

One of the group’s for­mer se­nior ad­vis­ers, Darin Sel­nick, played a key role in draft­ing the Mis­sion Act as a veter­ans’ af­fairs ad­viser at the White House’s Do­mes­tic Pol­icy Coun­cil, and is now a se­nior ad­viser to the sec­re­tary of Veter­ans Af­fairs in charge of draft­ing the new rules. Sel­nick clashed with David Shulkin, who was the head of the VA for a year un­der Trump, and is widely viewed as be­ing in­stru­men­tal in end­ing Shulkin’s ten­ure.

Sel­nick de­clined to com­ment.

Crit­ics, which in­clude nearly all of the ma­jor veter­ans’ or­ga­ni­za­tions, say that pay­ing for care in the pri­vate sec­tor would starve the 153-year-old veter­ans’ health care sys­tem, caus­ing many hos­pi­tals to close.

“We don’t like it,” said Rick Wei­d­man, ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of Viet­nam Veter­ans of Amer­ica. “This thing was ini­tially sold as to sup­ple­ment the VA, and some peo­ple want to try and use it to sup­plant.”

Mem­bers of Con­gress from both par­ties have been crit­i­cal of the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s in­con­sis­tency and lack of de­tails in brief­ings. At a hear­ing last month, Sen. John Booz­man, R-Ark., told Robert Wilkie, the cur­rent sec­re­tary of Veter­ans Af­fairs, that his staff had some­times come to Capi­tol Hill “with­out their act to­gether.”


At a con­gres­sional hear­ing Dec. 19, Veter­ans Af­fairs Sec­re­tary Robert Wilkie faced ques­tions about the pos­si­ble pri­va­ti­za­tion of med­i­cal care for mil­i­tary veter­ans. Wilkie has re­peat­edly said his goal is not to pri­va­tize veter­ans’ health care. “My ex­pe­ri­ence is veter­ans are happy with the ser­vice they get at the Depart­ment of Veter­ans Af­fairs,” he said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.