VA under fire for proposed rule change
WASHINGTON — For veterans seeking disability compensation, the application process is supposed to be so easy that a handwritten note on a napkin will initiate a claim or an appeal.
An Obama administration proposal would change that, and veterans groups are sounding the alarm.
The Department of Veterans Affairs said the many ways requests for disability compensation arrive actually hamper its ability to administer benefits, and contribute to a claims backlog that has about 400,000 veterans waiting more than 125 days for a decision.
At times, workers spend so much time trying to figuring out what’s being claimed and trading letters with applicants it’s slowing down decisions for everyone.
The VA’s solution would require veterans to use a standard form when they file for disability compensation or appeal a decision, and the agency would throw in some incentives for those who use a computer.
The response to the proposed rule from the nation’s major veterans groups?
“Draconian” and “heavy-handed,” said the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
“A seismic change” that will “poison” the disability claims process, according to the American Legion.
“The most serious, egregious attack on a veteran-friendly disability claim system in VA history,” contended the law firm of Bergmann & Moore, which specializes in pursuing disability claims.
The critiques recently submitted in response to the proposed regulation point to one of the sharpest policy disagreements veteran groups have had with the administration.
Both camps generally agreed on the need to transform how disability claims are managed; namely, the need to move to a computer system instead of relying on paper records to track a veteran’s injuries, illnesses and service.
So far, the burden has been on the VA to transform. The proposal would place more of the burden on veterans.
“VA believes that using a standard form is a minimal burden to place on claimants,” the proposed rule states.
But for veterans, a major advantage of the current system is once the VA makes its decision, benefits generally accrue back to when a veteran first initiated his claim, usually months and sometimes years earlier.
Submitting what are referred to as “informal claims” has become a standard practice for veterans because it locks in the effective date of their claim even as they gather supporting evidence such as military records and doctor’s exams for the more formal application. Then, if the application is approved, the veteran often ends up getting a sizable lump-sum payment in addition to a monthly award.
Under the proposal, the first communication from a veteran might not trigger anything. Those veterans who put their claims in writing would have to completely fill out a standard form, and the clock that determines how far back the government will pay, won’t begin ticking until the VA receives the successfully completed form.
The veterans groups said it’s perfectly reasonable for the VA to use a standard form to enhance efficiency. But they worry the time it takes to gather records and successfully complete the standard form could lead to substantially less money for veterans. They worry the omission of a single entry could take months to resolve.
“A combat veteran of two tours in Iraq is defeated by a bureaucratic requirement to fill in all the boxes of a claim form,” said the VFW’s William Bradshaw in the organization’s formal response.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.