VSOs are Veterans Service Organizations. They are not part of the government. Like the VFW or IAVA or the American Legion or any number of groups, they exist to serve the veterans community and to shine a spotlight on veterans issues.
There's confusion about that.
Ava reported on the lack of real hearings by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. She noted:
And they did have a lot of work in front of them possibly since they haven't held a real hearing in DC since July. Shutdown was just a couple of weeks in October. No offense to the VFW, their presentation is often informative but let's stop pretending that's a hearing. In a hearing, witnesses are called, they offer opening statements and they then take questions. When VSOs (Veterans Service Organizations) do the presentations and the only comments are after are 'I just want to thank you for the work you do,' that's not a hearing. You can call it one all you want but it's not a hearing.
She's not referring to yesterday's hearing when she writes, "No offense to the VFW, their presentation . . ." She's referring to the September presentation passing as a hearing.
Several times during the year, VSOs present at a joint-meeting of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
These aren't hearings. Ava's correct.
She's also pissed -- I don't blame her -- about the waste of time these are.
For us, it's a waste of time to attend because all we need to do is read the 'opening statements.' The VFW, or whomever, makes a lengthy presentation that they deliver orally and submit in writing. There's nothing wrong with the presentation.
Our problem is what happens after.
A lot of grand standing and back slapping by Committee members. No questions of the VFW or whomever's presenting.
We're not saying the VFW needs to be grilled.
We're saying they raise many issues in their presentation but none of those issues are addressed by members of Congress who instead use the time (and the press -- there's always more press at these VSO presentations than at hearings) to offer "thanks for your service" and other meaningless statements.
Meaningless?
If VFW, for example, is offering a presentation which includes a series of problems disabled or challenged veterans are facing that the government needs to address, a simple, "Thank you for your service," is meaningless and not a response to the presentation. Asking questions about topics addressed is what they should be doing.
But it's a long presentation and members of Congress just want to get out of the hearing. So you usually have no more than 3 members of the two committees even offer the 'response' of 'thank you for your service.'
In terms of us, we're busy, we have things to do. The VFW (or whomever) will do a great presentation but we can get all that information just reading their written submission. There's no reason to sit through that. Or wait on it. In one infamous instance, everyone was kept waiting over an hour and a half for the session to start.
We don't consider those hearings. Those are presentations. Until Congress starts doing their job and asking questions -- again, that doesn't mean grill the VFW, that does mean have follow up questions -- it's stupid to call those hearings.
Yesterday, there were three panels though material on the hearing pretends there were only two.
The first were various senators. We included Ben Nelson in the snapshot yesterday.
At one point, there was a statement in there noting that I know Ben and like Ben and this usually means he gets ignored because he's one of three or four making a strong point during a hearing and I'll wonder if I'm showing favoritism by noting him so I'll ignore him in most cases. Which really isn't fair. But that we were making a point to note him in the snapshot because of the electronic records issue. We're going to come back to that issue.
There were two other panels: the VA and VSOs.
We're not noting the VA. We're appalled that it's 'okay' with Committee Chair Bernie Sanders that they don't follow the rules. By the rules, VA should not have been allowed to testify if they can't provide written statements. VA is the government. They need to follow the rules more than anyone else.
Two e-mails were confused about the VSO issue of the hearing.
That was a hearing. VSOs were asked questions. They didn't get noted in the snapshot yesterday. That's because I generally focus my first day of coverage on the first panel. If there's time and room for a second day of coverage, I'll go with another panel. Ava was not referring to the VSO testimony yesterday.
She was referring to, for example, September's American Legion presentation that was wrongly called a hearing. The American Legion did a great job with their presentation but House and Senate members really didn't turn the presentation into a hearing.
I noted Bill Nelson in full in yesterday's snapshot. I noted him for the electronic record aspect but realizing that he gets short changed by me constantly, I made a point to include his full comments.
Senator Bill Nelson: The first one is a no brainer. It's naming the Bay Pines Hospital in Pinellas County, Florida after the longest serving Republican member of the House of Representatives who we just lost last week, Bill Young. His record as Appropriations Chairman and as Defense Appropriations Chairman, the way he lived his life where he and his wife who literally adopted a Marine who was back from the war and have raised him as their son, and the way that he has reached out to veterans -- so much so, that the Florida delegation and I conferred last week, before his funeral -- while we were still in recess, the House was in session -- and the House took it up and has already passed it, naming the Bay Pines VA Hospital after Bill Young. That's the first piece and if you all see fit to move that legislation, it would be a timely -- a timely thing for the family. Veterans Conservation Corps. This is for post-911 veterans coming home who are unemployed. They would be employed -- not unlike the old CCC -- for up to one year with a possible one year extension. It obviously has a price tag of about a couple of million dollars. The question is: What is the value to society of employing veterans for worthwhile things in our national parks and schools? And I can go into as much detail as you want but that's the idea. And the third piece of legislation is what this Committee has already pushed: Electronic Health Records coming out of the Dept of Defense active duty as they then go into the VA health care system. And of course you know the difficulty there. And this tries to set a timeline that is achievable and tells the VA and the DoD set your goals, set your milestones, achieve them, and then have the full implementation of the electronic health records that will allow a seamless transfer which is what we all want. Those are my three pieces of legislation
The electronic records is the third bill and we noted it in full:
Official Summary
Servicemember's Electronic Health Records Act of 2013 - Amends the Wounded Warrior Act to require the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs, in implementing electronic health record systems that provide for the full interoperability of personal health care information between the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), to ensure that:(1) a health data authoritative source that can be accessed by multiple providers and that standardizes the input of new medical information is created by the Departments within 180 days,
(2) the ability of patients of both Departments to download their medical records is achieved within 180 days,
(3) full interoperability of personal health care information between the Departments is achieved within one year,
(4) acceleration of the exchange of real-time data between the Departments is achieved within one year,
(5) the upgrade of the graphical user interface to display a joint common graphical user interface is achieved within one year, and
(6) current members of the Armed Forces and their dependents may elect to receive an electronic copy of their health care records beginning not later than June 30, 2015. Requires the Secretaries to assess the feasibility and advisability of establishing a secure, remote, network-accessible computer storage system (commonly referred to as cloud storage) to:
(1) provide members of the Armed Forces and veterans the ability to upload their health care records, and
(2) allow DOD and VA medical providers of the Departments to access such records.
With Nouri's visit to the US, we have limited space and there wasn't room to note other things. A friend who is a veteran, and was at the hearing, heard me dictating the snapshot which include the editing because it was way, way too long. Yochi Dreazen's FP piece again got pulled (for the second time) because there was no room for even a paragraph from it. I noted a "fool" with a bad article. The fool got a link so he should be happy but the criticism of his bad article was all pulled because there wasn't room. There was so much pulled that editing probably took 20 minutes or more.
After I was done with that and got off the phone, my friend asked if I could note testimony on the electronic record this weekend? Again, I'll do it now.
The bill is Bill Nelson's S. 1296, the Servicemember's Electronic Health Records Act of 2013. These are Disabled American Veterans' Adrian Atizado's prepared remarks on that bill:
This
measure would amend Section 1635 “Wounded Warrior” and veterans
provisions in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), to create a specific timeline and deadlines for a joint
electronic health record to be implemented. This timeline would require,
among other things, the Department of Defense (DOD) and VA to agree on
and create standardized forms for data capture within 180 days of
enactment. They would have one year to attain seamless integration and
sharing of information and data downloading using the Blue Button
Initiative.
The
bill also would require the agencies to consider storage of patient
data in a secure, remote, network-accessible computer storage system or a
cloud storage system. This
type of storage system would allow service members and veterans to
upload their own information and allow their providers to have the
ability to see the records at any time. The cloud storage system would
increase interoperability and allow the patient to more easily share
their information with their medical provider.
The development of an integrated DOD-VA electronic health record (EHR) has been beset with problems for years. Efforts to create a joint DOD/VA EHR scheduled to become operational in 2017 came to a halt in February 2013. The new plan includes both Departments to pursue separate systems and gain interoperability using existing commercial software.
The
plan also assumes that in the summer of 2013, both Departments were to
have launched pilot programs on the common interface at seven joint
rehabilitation centers nationwide, initially, and eventually to nine
sites, overall. All of the facilities were scheduled to exchange data that is computable and interoperable by the end of July.
Criticism
of this decision resulted in an amendment to the House passed 2014 NDAA
to increase oversight of the integrated electronic health record
(iEHR). Notably, Section 734 of
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 would require DOD and VA
to give appropriate congressional committees a plan on an iEHR by
January 31, 2014. This plan
would include program objectives, organization, responsibilities of the
departments, technical system requirements, milestones (including a
schedule for industry competitions), system standards the program will
use, metrics to assess the program's effectiveness, and funding levels
needed for fiscal years 2014 to 2017 in order to execute the plan. It
would also limit funding for development of an iEHR until the
Government Accountability Office confirms the proposed system to be
deployed by October 1, 2016, meets stated requirements.
We
note that despite strong and consistent Congressional mandates and
oversight over those years, efforts by both Departments remain
fragmented and have proceeded at a glacial pace. As
part of The Independent Budget, DAV remains firm that the DOD and VA
must complete an electronic medical record process that is fully
computable, interoperable, and that allows for two-way, real-time
electronic exchange of health information and occupational and
environmental exposure data for transitioning veterans. Effective record
exchange could increase health care sharing between agencies and
providers, laboratories, pharmacies, and patients; help patients
transition between health care settings; reduce duplicative and
unnecessary testing; improve patient safety by reducing medical errors;
and increase our understanding of the clinical, safety, quality,
financial, and organizational value of health IT.
DAV
believes the intent of S. 1296 is laudable; however, we ask the
Committee ensure the measure is consistent with the pertinent provisions
in the 2014 NDAA awaiting consideration by the Senate. Moreover,
we urge the Committee to consider the current capabilities of the
Interagency Program Office (IPO), which would likely be responsible for
meeting the requirements contained in S. 1296. The
IPO was established by Congress in Section 1635 of Public Law 110-181,
the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act as the office accountable
for developing and implementing the health information sharing
capabilities for DOD and VA. Staffing
challenges within the IPO have been an issue. As of January 2013, the
IPO was staffed at about 62 percent of the 236 employees assigned by
both departments, according to a February 2013 Government Accountability
Office report, which also noted hiring additional staff is one of the
biggest challenges.
I've done a walk through above. I'm not doing that in the snapshot today but I will make a point to work DVA's opinion on Bill Nelson's bill into the snapshot.
Isaiah has a comic going up whenever I can finish an Iraq entry.
We'll close with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Wednesday, October 30th, 2013 (202) 224-2834
VETERANS: Murray Applauds Passage of Veterans Cost-Of-Living Increase
Bill will result in more money in the pockets of millions of veterans across the country
(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) announced
that a bill she co-sponsored to provide a Cost-of-Living Adjustment
(COLA) for America’s veterans passed the U.S. Senate Monday by unanimous
consent. The COLA for veterans will match the annual increase provided
to Social Security recipients which CBO estimates will be 1.5 percent.
The Veterans COLA affects several important benefits, including
veterans’ disability compensation and dependency and indemnity
compensation for surviving spouses and children. It is projected that
over 4.2 million veterans and survivors will receive compensation
benefits in Fiscal Year 2014.
“Particularly in this difficult economy, our veterans deserve a boost in their benefits to help make ends meet,” Senator Murray said.
“We have an obligation to the men and women who have sacrificed so much
to serve our country and who now deserve nothing less than the full
support of a grateful nation. A COLA increase will help bring us one
step closer to fulfilling our nation’s promise to care for our brave
veterans and their families.”
The COLA is designed to offset inflation and other factors that lead to
the rising cost of living over time. The COLA rate is based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.
###
Kathryn Robertson
Deputy Press Secretary
Deputy Press Secretary
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
202-224-2834
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq bill nelson disabled veterans of america patty murray iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraqiraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq
