Poison cake kills Iraqi children
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad
The UK government has flown antidote medicine to the Middle East after some Iraqis became seriously ill from eating cakes laced with the poison thallium.
Two of the victims, both children, died after eating cake delivered to a military club in Baghdad.
Others are being treated in hospital in the Jordanian capital, Amman.
It is the first time the deadly toxin has been used since the downfall of Saddam Hussein, whose regime used it to kill its opponents.
At least two of the poison victims, the secretary of the Iraqi air force club and his daughter, are critically ill in Amman.
They and half-a-dozen other patients suffering from thallium poisoning were flown from Baghdad to Amman as the necessary treatments and antidotes were not available in Iraq.
Britain responded to a request for help from the World Health Organization and medication was flown out.
Lethal poison
Thallium is a lethal poison much used by Saddam Hussein's regime against its opponents. It has not surfaced since his overthrow.
It is an ideal assassin's tool, being tasteless and easy to administer, and its effects take some time to appear.
It then causes a lingering and painful death. An antidote known as Prussian Blue can be effective if taken quickly.
An investigation is under way in Baghdad, but the affair remains shrouded in mystery. The manager of the air force club told the BBC he believed it was carried out by conspirators with a grudge against the club's administration.
In what appeared to be a goodwill gesture, a former official delivered two cakes laced with thallium.
They were taken home by two officials and eaten by their families, who all fell ill.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Vets Commission Reccomendation Updates
VFW Wants Dole/Shalala Recommendation Blocked
Creating separate system is an injustice to all disabled veterans
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2008--The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is urging the leadership of four key congressional committees to block attempts to create a separate disability system that would have the Department of Veterans Affairs compensate veterans with similar wounds differently based on their age.
"There is no difference between a 22-year-old shot in the leg on Iwo Jima 63 years ago this month and a 22-year-old shot in the leg in Iraq yesterday," said VFW National Commander George Lisicki, a Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J. "To compensate them differently based solely on age, and using the rational that this new generation is more deserving than older veterans, is an injustice, and violates every fundamental rule of fairness that Americans hold dear."
The recommendation in contention was made by the President's Commission on Care for America's Wounded Warriors, which was co-chaired by retired Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. The Dole/Shalala Commission was chartered in March 2007 as the administration's response to the outpatient housing debacle at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Four months later, the commission published a 149-page report with six broad recommendations.
The VFW wants more attention paid to the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission that Congress chartered in 2004 to study the benefits that compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. After thousands of interviews and almost three years of research – including major studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Center for Naval Analysis – it published a 562-page report in October 2007 that included 113 detailed recommendations.
"The Dole/Shalala Commission's mandate was not to make broad generalizations and sweeping recommendations that would throw out a disability compensation system that has served millions of veterans extremely well over the years," said Lisicki. "Dole/Shalala was good, but it wasn't that good, and it certainly wasn't thorough enough to be touted as the 'cure-all' for all the VA's problems."
The VFW national commander is very concerned that a major change in the way the VA conducts business may be forced upon America's veterans without any opposition.
"The VFW is 100 percent against compensating veterans with the same injuries differently because of their age," said Lisicki, who voiced the VFW's opposition yesterday in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs. [Read letter]
VFW Washington Office Executive Director Bob Wallace is now tasked to ensure the VFW's position is conveyed to and understood by the administration and Congress.
"How our nation properly cares for, and then fairly compensates our disabled veterans or their surviving family members are the only issues on the table, and that's why we are calling on Congress to thoroughly evaluate the recommendations made by both commissions" said Wallace, also a Vietnam veteran.
"Everyone wants to do what's best for our troops and for our veterans – to include all the members of both commissions – but what we absolutely must not do is create conditions that could cause the VA to fail in its primary mission," he said. "The VA is a national resource for disabled veterans. As an institution, it must survive, not just for the next 10 years, but for the next 100 years."
-------------------------
VA Watchdog dot Org
Creating separate system is an injustice to all disabled veterans
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2008--The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is urging the leadership of four key congressional committees to block attempts to create a separate disability system that would have the Department of Veterans Affairs compensate veterans with similar wounds differently based on their age.
"There is no difference between a 22-year-old shot in the leg on Iwo Jima 63 years ago this month and a 22-year-old shot in the leg in Iraq yesterday," said VFW National Commander George Lisicki, a Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J. "To compensate them differently based solely on age, and using the rational that this new generation is more deserving than older veterans, is an injustice, and violates every fundamental rule of fairness that Americans hold dear."
The recommendation in contention was made by the President's Commission on Care for America's Wounded Warriors, which was co-chaired by retired Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala. The Dole/Shalala Commission was chartered in March 2007 as the administration's response to the outpatient housing debacle at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Four months later, the commission published a 149-page report with six broad recommendations.
The VFW wants more attention paid to the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission that Congress chartered in 2004 to study the benefits that compensate and assist veterans and their survivors for disabilities and deaths attributable to military service. After thousands of interviews and almost three years of research – including major studies by the Institute of Medicine and the Center for Naval Analysis – it published a 562-page report in October 2007 that included 113 detailed recommendations.
"The Dole/Shalala Commission's mandate was not to make broad generalizations and sweeping recommendations that would throw out a disability compensation system that has served millions of veterans extremely well over the years," said Lisicki. "Dole/Shalala was good, but it wasn't that good, and it certainly wasn't thorough enough to be touted as the 'cure-all' for all the VA's problems."
The VFW national commander is very concerned that a major change in the way the VA conducts business may be forced upon America's veterans without any opposition.
"The VFW is 100 percent against compensating veterans with the same injuries differently because of their age," said Lisicki, who voiced the VFW's opposition yesterday in a letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs. [Read letter]
VFW Washington Office Executive Director Bob Wallace is now tasked to ensure the VFW's position is conveyed to and understood by the administration and Congress.
"How our nation properly cares for, and then fairly compensates our disabled veterans or their surviving family members are the only issues on the table, and that's why we are calling on Congress to thoroughly evaluate the recommendations made by both commissions" said Wallace, also a Vietnam veteran.
"Everyone wants to do what's best for our troops and for our veterans – to include all the members of both commissions – but what we absolutely must not do is create conditions that could cause the VA to fail in its primary mission," he said. "The VA is a national resource for disabled veterans. As an institution, it must survive, not just for the next 10 years, but for the next 100 years."
-------------------------
VA Watchdog dot Org
American Legion Scammers or Not?
American Legion Trying to Scam Vets?
U.S. Postal Inspectors Investigate Whether American Legion Letter Was a Mistake Or a Scam
By JOSEPH RHEE
U.S. postal inspectors have been asked to investigate whether the American Legion tried to trick veterans into signing up for membership in the Legion.
In a mailing last year to 800,000 former members, the American Legion said their "benefits as a veteran of the United States Armed Forces have lapsed" and that the only way to "reinstate these important benefits" was to pay $20 to reinstate their American Legion membership.
Under U.S. law, veterans benefits do not lapse over time, and the American Legion now acknowledges the letter, signed by Legion National Adjutant Robert Spanogle, was "a serious mistake."
A retired Air Force major, Robert Hanafin, has filed a complaint of mail fraud with postal inspectors after becoming outraged by what he viewed as a deceptive letter designed to scare people into rejoining the American Legion.
According to Hanafin, "Any veterans organization that uses any such low-down scams to increase membership deserves to stay in the 19th century."
With more than three million members, the American Legion is the largest veterans organization in the country.
American Legion spokesperson Joe March told the Blotter on ABCNews.com that the language was the fault of an outside contractor who neglected to make clear that the lapsed benefits in question were actually American Legion membership benefits.
March said an "electronic editing mistake" by the contractor omitted the "American Legion" reference.
March said the Legion apologized for the error and that "we acted promptly and immediately sent out a correction letter."
Maj. Hanafin, however, said he doesn't buy the American Legion's explanation that the first letter was a mistake.
He points to specific language in the letter that states the benefits were given "in accordance with a special act of Congress."
According to Hanafin, "The disservice they are doing to America's veterans...goes far beyond shameful."
-------------------------
posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
U.S. Postal Inspectors Investigate Whether American Legion Letter Was a Mistake Or a Scam
By JOSEPH RHEE
U.S. postal inspectors have been asked to investigate whether the American Legion tried to trick veterans into signing up for membership in the Legion.
In a mailing last year to 800,000 former members, the American Legion said their "benefits as a veteran of the United States Armed Forces have lapsed" and that the only way to "reinstate these important benefits" was to pay $20 to reinstate their American Legion membership.
Under U.S. law, veterans benefits do not lapse over time, and the American Legion now acknowledges the letter, signed by Legion National Adjutant Robert Spanogle, was "a serious mistake."
A retired Air Force major, Robert Hanafin, has filed a complaint of mail fraud with postal inspectors after becoming outraged by what he viewed as a deceptive letter designed to scare people into rejoining the American Legion.
According to Hanafin, "Any veterans organization that uses any such low-down scams to increase membership deserves to stay in the 19th century."
With more than three million members, the American Legion is the largest veterans organization in the country.
American Legion spokesperson Joe March told the Blotter on ABCNews.com that the language was the fault of an outside contractor who neglected to make clear that the lapsed benefits in question were actually American Legion membership benefits.
March said an "electronic editing mistake" by the contractor omitted the "American Legion" reference.
March said the Legion apologized for the error and that "we acted promptly and immediately sent out a correction letter."
Maj. Hanafin, however, said he doesn't buy the American Legion's explanation that the first letter was a mistake.
He points to specific language in the letter that states the benefits were given "in accordance with a special act of Congress."
According to Hanafin, "The disservice they are doing to America's veterans...goes far beyond shameful."
-------------------------
posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
right to Bear Arms
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Congress on Friday urged the Supreme Court to side with gun owners in an upcoming case testing whether an individual has a guaranteed right to bear arms.
Lawmakers want the Supreme Court to end a Washington, D.C., ordinance that prevents legal handgun ownership.
The bipartisan group of senators and representatives signed on to a legal brief supporting a challenge by District of Columbia residents to own a handgun for protection in their home.
The justices hold oral arguments March 18, and could provide a landmark ruling on a legal question that has largely gone answered since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.
In their "amicus" brief, 55 senators and 250 representatives urged the high court to strike down the district's ordinance that prevents citizens from legally owning a handgun.
"We're talking about law-abiding folks -- like you and me -- who cannot exercise their rights simply because of the city they live in," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana. "Our founders didn't intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others. They didn't mean for the laws to apply at some times and not others."
Tester made his remarks in a conservative think-tank speech, along with a co-sponsor, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
Don't Miss
Supreme Court to rule on right to bear arms
Sixty-eight Democrats in the House and nine in the Senate were joined a larger Republican bloc filing the brief.
The case is the most closely watched this Supreme Court term, and legal and political experts say it has already ignited a fierce social debate this election year.
The issue is one that has polarized judges and politicians for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right, or is it a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias -- and therefore subject to strict government regulation?
The amendment states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
District leaders had urged the high court to intervene, saying refusal to do so could prove dire.
A group of 18 Democratic members of the House last month filed their own amicus brief, supporting the district. Led by Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pennsylvania, the lawmakers said the proper venue for deciding gun-control measures is in Congress, not the courts.
"Whether the regulation or prohibition of a particular weapon implicates the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia,' over which Congress has responsibility, is precisely the kind of question best left to the political branches to resolve," they said.
A federal appeals court in March ruled the handgun ban to be unconstitutional, as well as a provision that rifles and shotguns -- which are legal to own in the district -- be kept in the home unloaded, and fitted with trigger locks or disassembled. The rifle regulations are not currently at issue before the Supreme Court.
The district's 31-year-old law has prevented most private citizens from owning and keeping handguns in their homes.
Chicago and and Washington are the only major U.S. cities that have such sweeping handgun bans. Courts have generally upheld bans of semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns in other cities.
Several district residents first challenged the law, some saying they wanted to do something about being constant victims of crime.
Key plaintiff Shelly Parker told CNN recently she wanted the right to have a handgun for peace of mind, and act as a responsible gun owner.
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said "So, I would just like the comfort of knowing at least that I could have a gun if I feel I need one."
Groups that filed supporting briefs include the National Rifle Association and Disabled Veterans for Self-Defense.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Gun Control Bill
House Bill 3095 (provisions governing firearms possession by persons
who have been involuntarily committed)
Substitute offered in the House on February 5, 2008, to properly
identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law governing firearms
possessions by persons who have been involuntarily committed. This act also
mandates that the a court shall notify both the Department of
Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background agency in conjunction
with the Brady handgun violence prevention act for either the loss or
restoration of rights. In addition this act provides procedures for
notification for loss of right to posses firearms for involuntary
commitment.
The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on February 5,
2008, to properly identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law
governing firearms possessions by persons who have been involuntarily
committed. This act also mandates that the a court shall notify both the
Department of Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background
agency in conjunction with the Brady handgun violence prevention act
for either the loss or restoration of rights. In addition this act
provides procedures for notification for loss of right to posses firearms
for involuntary commitment.
http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=57473
who have been involuntarily committed)
Substitute offered in the House on February 5, 2008, to properly
identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law governing firearms
possessions by persons who have been involuntarily committed. This act also
mandates that the a court shall notify both the Department of
Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background agency in conjunction
with the Brady handgun violence prevention act for either the loss or
restoration of rights. In addition this act provides procedures for
notification for loss of right to posses firearms for involuntary
commitment.
The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on February 5,
2008, to properly identify and refer to the appropriate sections of law
governing firearms possessions by persons who have been involuntarily
committed. This act also mandates that the a court shall notify both the
Department of Licensing and the appropriate federal criminal background
agency in conjunction with the Brady handgun violence prevention act
for either the loss or restoration of rights. In addition this act
provides procedures for notification for loss of right to posses firearms
for involuntary commitment.
http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=57473
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
More Legal Escapeism on the Behalf of Feds
This is not what they told us when we enlisted!!!!
Rocky
Links sent by: James starjm50@yahoo. com
All Vet orgs should join the is lawsuit
Lawsuit mentioned in article by: http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/
also see this article
http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/files/ VFCS/Proceedings VAFeb2008. pdf
Veterans not entitled to mental health care, U.S. lawyers argue
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
http://www.sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL&hw=Veterans&sn=001&sc=1000
Veterans have no legal right to specific types of medical care, the Bush administration argues in a lawsuit accusing the government of illegally denying mental health treatment to some troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The arguments, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco, strike at the heart of a lawsuit filed on behalf of veterans that claims the health care system for returning troops provides little recourse when the government rejects their medical claims.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is making progress in increasing its staffing and screening veterans for combat-related stress, Justice Department lawyers said. But their central argument is that Congress left decisions about who should get health care, and what type of care, to the VA and not to veterans or the courts.
A federal law providing five years of care for veterans from the date of their discharge establishes "veterans' eligibility for health care, but it does not create an entitlement to any particular medical service," government lawyers said.
They said the law entitles veterans only to "medical care which the secretary (of Veterans Affairs) determines is needed, and only to the extent funds ... are available."
The argument drew a sharp retort from a lawyer for advocacy groups that sued the government in July. The suit is a proposed class action on behalf of 320,000 to 800,000 veterans or their survivors.
"Veterans need to know in this country that the government thinks all their benefits are mere gratuities," attorney Gordon Erspamer said. "They're saying it's completely discretionary, that even if Congress appropriates money for veterans' health care, we can do anything we want with it."
The issue will be joined March 7 at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, who denied the administration' s request last month to dismiss the suit. While the case is pending, the plaintiffs want Conti to order the government to provide immediate mental health treatment for veterans who say they are thinking of killing themselves and to spend another $60 million on health care.
The suit accuses the VA of arbitrarily denying care and benefits to wounded veterans, of forcing them to wait months for treatment and years for benefits, and of failing to provide fair procedures for appealing decisions against them.
The plaintiffs say that the department has a backlog of more than 600,000 disability claims and that 120 veterans a week commit suicide.
In his Jan. 10 ruling that allowed the suit to proceed, Conti said federal law entitles veterans to health care for a specific period after leaving the service, rejecting the government's argument that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year. A law that President Bush signed last week extended the period from two to five years.
In its latest filing, however, the Justice Department reiterated that Congress had intended "to authorize, but not require, medical care for veterans."
"This court should not interfere with the political branches' design, oversight and modification of VA programs," the government lawyers argued.
They also said the VA "is making great progress in addressing the mental health care needs of combat veterans." Among other things, they cited a law passed in November that required the department to establish a suicide-prevention program that includes making mental health care available around the clock.
The VA has hired nearly 3,800 mental health professionals in the last two years and has at least one specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder at each of its medical centers, the government said.
Since June, government lawyers said, the VA has had a policy that all veterans who seek or are referred for mental health care should be screened within 24 hours, that those found to be at risk of suicide should be treated immediately, and that others should be scheduled for full diagnosis and treatment planning within two weeks. A new suicide-prevention hot line has been responsible for "more than 380 rescues," the lawyers said.
Erspamer, the plaintiffs' lawyer, was unimpressed.
"Nowhere do I see any explanation of what kind of systems they have in place that deal with suicidal veterans," he said. "There's no excuse for not spending the money Congress told them to spend on mental health care and leaving $60 million on the table when people are going out and killing themselves."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle .com.
http://sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL
Rocky
Links sent by: James starjm50@yahoo. com
All Vet orgs should join the is lawsuit
Lawsuit mentioned in article by: http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/
also see this article
http://www.veterans forcommonsense. org/files/ VFCS/Proceedings VAFeb2008. pdf
Veterans not entitled to mental health care, U.S. lawyers argue
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
http://www.sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL&hw=Veterans&sn=001&sc=1000
Veterans have no legal right to specific types of medical care, the Bush administration argues in a lawsuit accusing the government of illegally denying mental health treatment to some troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The arguments, filed Wednesday in federal court in San Francisco, strike at the heart of a lawsuit filed on behalf of veterans that claims the health care system for returning troops provides little recourse when the government rejects their medical claims.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is making progress in increasing its staffing and screening veterans for combat-related stress, Justice Department lawyers said. But their central argument is that Congress left decisions about who should get health care, and what type of care, to the VA and not to veterans or the courts.
A federal law providing five years of care for veterans from the date of their discharge establishes "veterans' eligibility for health care, but it does not create an entitlement to any particular medical service," government lawyers said.
They said the law entitles veterans only to "medical care which the secretary (of Veterans Affairs) determines is needed, and only to the extent funds ... are available."
The argument drew a sharp retort from a lawyer for advocacy groups that sued the government in July. The suit is a proposed class action on behalf of 320,000 to 800,000 veterans or their survivors.
"Veterans need to know in this country that the government thinks all their benefits are mere gratuities," attorney Gordon Erspamer said. "They're saying it's completely discretionary, that even if Congress appropriates money for veterans' health care, we can do anything we want with it."
The issue will be joined March 7 at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, who denied the administration' s request last month to dismiss the suit. While the case is pending, the plaintiffs want Conti to order the government to provide immediate mental health treatment for veterans who say they are thinking of killing themselves and to spend another $60 million on health care.
The suit accuses the VA of arbitrarily denying care and benefits to wounded veterans, of forcing them to wait months for treatment and years for benefits, and of failing to provide fair procedures for appealing decisions against them.
The plaintiffs say that the department has a backlog of more than 600,000 disability claims and that 120 veterans a week commit suicide.
In his Jan. 10 ruling that allowed the suit to proceed, Conti said federal law entitles veterans to health care for a specific period after leaving the service, rejecting the government's argument that it was required to provide only as much care as the VA's budget allowed in a given year. A law that President Bush signed last week extended the period from two to five years.
In its latest filing, however, the Justice Department reiterated that Congress had intended "to authorize, but not require, medical care for veterans."
"This court should not interfere with the political branches' design, oversight and modification of VA programs," the government lawyers argued.
They also said the VA "is making great progress in addressing the mental health care needs of combat veterans." Among other things, they cited a law passed in November that required the department to establish a suicide-prevention program that includes making mental health care available around the clock.
The VA has hired nearly 3,800 mental health professionals in the last two years and has at least one specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder at each of its medical centers, the government said.
Since June, government lawyers said, the VA has had a policy that all veterans who seek or are referred for mental health care should be screened within 24 hours, that those found to be at risk of suicide should be treated immediately, and that others should be scheduled for full diagnosis and treatment planning within two weeks. A new suicide-prevention hot line has been responsible for "more than 380 rescues," the lawyers said.
Erspamer, the plaintiffs' lawyer, was unimpressed.
"Nowhere do I see any explanation of what kind of systems they have in place that deal with suicidal veterans," he said. "There's no excuse for not spending the money Congress told them to spend on mental health care and leaving $60 million on the table when people are going out and killing themselves."
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle .com.
http://sfgate. com/cgi-bin/ article.cgi? f=/c/a/2008/ 02/05/MNQLUQ4IS. DTL
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
VA Budget
VA to boost spending on combat vets by 21%
By Kelly Kennedy - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 4, 2008 21:53:48 EST
After a year of news reports about a stubborn backlog of 400,000 disability benefits claims and combat veterans turned away from immediate mental health care, the Department of Veterans Affairs unveiled a proposed fiscal 2009 budget that would boost spending on programs for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 21 percent and cut the disability claims backlog by 24 percent.
Spending on benefits and programs for the estimated 333,000 VA beneficiaries who are veterans of the current wars would increase by $216 million, to a total of $1.27 billion, over the current year. The 2009 budget also would include $3.9 million for mental health care services, a 9 percent increase over the current fiscal-year budget.
All told, VA is seeking $93.7 billion for fiscal 2009, with most of it going toward health care and disability compensation. Discretionary funding — mostly health care — would make up $47.2 billion of the budget, while $46.4 billion would go toward mandatory funding for compensation, education benefits, home loan guarantees, pensions and other benefits programs.
“If you look at health care, it’s more than double it was seven years ago,” said VA Secretary Dr. James Peake, praising the Bush Administration’s request for funding.
The request totals $3.4 billion more than this year’s budget, which was $6.6 billion more than in fiscal 2007 — after Congress added $3.7 billion to President Bush’s original request.
One of the biggest issues facing VA is overwhelmed case workers who can’t keep up with the thousands of new benefits claims that continue to pour in.
Rita Reese, principal deputy assistant secretary for management, said VA plans to increase the number of fulltime case workers from 14,857 to 15,570. She said the budget plan aims to reduce the disability claims backlog to 298,000 by the end of fiscal 2009, a drop of 24 percent.
She said the average length of time required to rule on an initial benefits claim will drop from the current 180 days to about 145 days, a 21 percent improvement over 2007.
One aspect of the VA budget proposal that is likely to draw controversy is a renewed call for an increase in pharmacy co-payments for veterans in the lowest priority patient groups, Priority 7 and 8 — a proposal that in the past has drawn criticism from veterans’ groups and rejection from Congress.
The co-pay would rise to $15 from the current $8 for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, who are considered “middle class” but may have incomes as low as $28,000. Most have medical conditions that are not service-connected.
One of the largest funding boosts for any single program category in the 2009 budget plan would be for long-term noninstitutional care, mainly home care, which would rise to about $762 million, a 28 percent increase over this fiscal year.
The 2009 VA budget plan also envisions the completion of a pilot program being conducted in collaboration with the Defense Department of a new disability evaluation system for wounded warriors at major medical facilities in the Washington, D.C., area.
That initiative is designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of the current disability process of the two departments. The pilot program features one medical examination according to VA protocols and a single disability rating determined by VA.
By Kelly Kennedy - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Feb 4, 2008 21:53:48 EST
After a year of news reports about a stubborn backlog of 400,000 disability benefits claims and combat veterans turned away from immediate mental health care, the Department of Veterans Affairs unveiled a proposed fiscal 2009 budget that would boost spending on programs for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 21 percent and cut the disability claims backlog by 24 percent.
Spending on benefits and programs for the estimated 333,000 VA beneficiaries who are veterans of the current wars would increase by $216 million, to a total of $1.27 billion, over the current year. The 2009 budget also would include $3.9 million for mental health care services, a 9 percent increase over the current fiscal-year budget.
All told, VA is seeking $93.7 billion for fiscal 2009, with most of it going toward health care and disability compensation. Discretionary funding — mostly health care — would make up $47.2 billion of the budget, while $46.4 billion would go toward mandatory funding for compensation, education benefits, home loan guarantees, pensions and other benefits programs.
“If you look at health care, it’s more than double it was seven years ago,” said VA Secretary Dr. James Peake, praising the Bush Administration’s request for funding.
The request totals $3.4 billion more than this year’s budget, which was $6.6 billion more than in fiscal 2007 — after Congress added $3.7 billion to President Bush’s original request.
One of the biggest issues facing VA is overwhelmed case workers who can’t keep up with the thousands of new benefits claims that continue to pour in.
Rita Reese, principal deputy assistant secretary for management, said VA plans to increase the number of fulltime case workers from 14,857 to 15,570. She said the budget plan aims to reduce the disability claims backlog to 298,000 by the end of fiscal 2009, a drop of 24 percent.
She said the average length of time required to rule on an initial benefits claim will drop from the current 180 days to about 145 days, a 21 percent improvement over 2007.
One aspect of the VA budget proposal that is likely to draw controversy is a renewed call for an increase in pharmacy co-payments for veterans in the lowest priority patient groups, Priority 7 and 8 — a proposal that in the past has drawn criticism from veterans’ groups and rejection from Congress.
The co-pay would rise to $15 from the current $8 for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, who are considered “middle class” but may have incomes as low as $28,000. Most have medical conditions that are not service-connected.
One of the largest funding boosts for any single program category in the 2009 budget plan would be for long-term noninstitutional care, mainly home care, which would rise to about $762 million, a 28 percent increase over this fiscal year.
The 2009 VA budget plan also envisions the completion of a pilot program being conducted in collaboration with the Defense Department of a new disability evaluation system for wounded warriors at major medical facilities in the Washington, D.C., area.
That initiative is designed to eliminate the duplicative and often confusing elements of the current disability process of the two departments. The pilot program features one medical examination according to VA protocols and a single disability rating determined by VA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
