VA PERFORMANCE UPDATE 01: Few federal programs have seen the kind of turnaround experienced by the Veterans Affairs Department's health care system in the late 1990s. Formerly a poster child for substandard medical care and incompetent management, VA's health care system now is considered by
many to be the best in the country. Its ratings for quality of care and customer satisfaction have risen even as the patient load has increased. Major media outlets have credited the agency's use of electronic medical records, unprecedented even in the private sector, with improving medical care, and Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have held up VA's system as a model for nationwide health care reform. But the department's success is in jeopardy, according to Dr. Kenneth Kizer, undersecretary for health at Veterans Affairs from 1994 to 1999 and
the man many credit with leading the management reforms that ultimately fixed the broken health care system. Kizer now serves on the independent Commission on the Future of America's Veterans, which is examining demographic and budgetary trends, as well as changes in both warfare and health care, with an eye to providing the most effective programs and services to veterans. "We see a future that is not particularly bright for the VA," said Kizer, speaking at a forum in Washington sponsored by the New America Foundation, a nonprofit public policy institute. Rising medical costs, aging infrastructure and an increase in patients with serious, and expensive, medical needs all are
contributing to growing concern that medical care for veterans will deteriorate under the current system. "Economics are going to be driving some very difficult decision-making down the road," Kizer said. For that reason, the commission is planning to recommend later this year that Congress create a government-chartered entity, structured somewhat like the U.S. Postal Service, to manage
health care for veterans, he said. The entity's charter would detail its mission, funding, governance and assets, as well as requirements that senior managers hold specific skill sets and areas of expertise.
As a federal agency dependent on congressional appropriations, Veterans Affairs is increasingly ill-suited to manage health care for veterans, Kizer said. The annual appropriations process creates program instability and prevents strategic planning. In addition, the agency cannot exercise the kind of management judgment that corporations routinely exercise. For example, VA has found it extraordinarily difficult to close underused or outdated hospitals since no member of Congress wants to lose a medical facility in his or her district. As a result, the agency can't close hospitals in areas where they're not needed or build new ones in areas where they are needed. "The average age of VA hospitals is 50 years old," said William Diefenderfer, former deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and now a commissioner. We haven't built a new hospital in 20 years. A government-chartered entity "would have the authority to buy and sell assets and borrow money against them," Diefenderfer said. It also would be able to create new sources of revenue. For example, it could provide health care to all veterans and their families who have the ability to pay
- something the VA cannot do currently. Arthur Hamerschlag, former chief of staff at the Veterans Health Administration, the health care arm of Veterans Affairs, said he was not necessarily opposed to the creation of a government-chartered health system for veterans, but that a number of issues would first need to be resolved, including how the new entity would negotiate drug prices and whether or not it would accept Medicare - something VHA does not do now. Veterans Affairs has been able to hold down drug costs because federal law allows the agency to negotiate below-market prices from pharmaceutical companies, something private health care systems would likely protest if a
new quasi-private entity were created that could compete for patients, as the commission envisions. "I think VA will find itself in the medical marketplace in a way it does not now," said Hamerschlag. "That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it will require a different skill set." [Source: GOVExec.com Katherine McIntire Peters 16 Jan 08 ++
TRICARE LAP-BAND SURGERY: Tricare beneficiaries whose weight poses a serious health risk now have available a new surgical alternative. For those who medically qualify, Tricare now covers laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, also commonly called Lap-Band surgery. Although the TRICARE policy change has only recently been made, coverage is retroactive to 1 FEB 07. Maj. Gen. Elder
Granger, deputy director of the Tricare Management Activity said, “We at Tricare are careful to only cover procedures that have been proven safe and effective, and are accepted by the medical community. We’ve added this procedure because, for some beneficiaries, it may be the right course of
action to preserve their health.” Granger added that, like gastric bypass, gastric stapling or gastroplasty, Lap-Band surgery is only for those suffering morbid obesity. In medical terms, that means their body weight is 100 pounds over ideal weight for their height and bone structure, and their weight is associated with severe medical conditions known to have higher mortality rates. Body
weight that is more than twice the ideal weight for the person’s height and bone structure may also indicate morbid obesity. In addition, Tricare will cover the surgery if a patient has had an intestinal bypass or other surgery for obesity and, because of complications, requires a second surgery. Details of the coverage are available in the Tricare Policy Manual, which beneficiaries can view
online at http://manuals.tricare.osd.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=TMAManuals.DisplayManualSeriesInfo&ManualSeries=POLICY&TP02=67#TP02.
A search for "morbid obesity" goes directly to the correct section. [Source: TMA News Release 16 Jan 08 ++]
VETERAN CHARITIES UPDATE 06: With scores of U.S. soldiers returning home from Vietnam, California businessman and Army veteran Roger Chapin founded a charity in 1971 dedicated to those troops recuperating in hospitals. Over the next three decades, Help Hospitalized Veterans would distribute
millions of therapeutic craft kits to make moccasins, wooden wind chimes and other trinkets and would win accolades from presidents and Hollywood celebrities alike. Yet, as the nonprofit enterprise has ballooned into one of the country's largest veterans charities, reporting $71.3 million in donations during the past fiscal year, its spending practices have drawn sharp criticism from
charity watchdogs. Between 1997 and 2005, the charity paid $3.8 million in salary and benefits to Chapin and his wife and spent more than $200 million on fundraising and public education campaigns, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal tax filings. The public records also show that the charity awarded at least $19 million in contracts during that period to companies owned by Richard A. Viguerie, a prominent conservative political commentator and advertising consultant based in Virginia.
Help Hospitalized Veterans is one of several military-oriented charities whose spending practices are the subject of a congressional investigation. Chapin evaded U.S. marshals trying to serve him with a subpoena last month, said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Chapin, who has since been served, is expected to testify
today before the committee. Chapin, who has founded more than 20 nonprofit organizations over three decades, also is president and founder of the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes, a smaller charity that provides emergency financial assistance to veterans and their families. That group is also under investigation by Congress, according to committee staff members, and is expected to be a subject of the hearing. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), a committee member, said in an interview the committee wants to find a way to distinguish between charities that truly serve veterans and those "committing fraud against the public."
Chapin, reached at his San Diego home last month, said watchdogs and members of Congress are misrepresenting his charities. No laws at the federal or state level regulate the amount of money charities spend on overhead, fundraising or charitable causes. The American Institute of Philanthropy, a leading charity watchdog, issued a report last month suggesting that Help Hospitalized Veterans and 19 other veterans’ charities manage their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct-mail fundraising fees. Help Hospitalized Veterans spends 31% of its funds on charitable causes according to Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy. The
institute recommends that charities spend at least 60% of their funds on charitable programs. Critics have not contended that all veterans’ charities manage their funds poorly. Some charities, including the Fisher House Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans Charitable Service Trust,
consistently have received high marks from watchdogs.
High overhead costs can be expected for start-up charities, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA) said in an interview. But he said it is important to determine whether some veteran’s charities have been "a serial swindler in terms of taking people's money and not spending it." Help Hospitalized Veterans paid Chapin $426,434 in salary and benefits in the past fiscal year, The Post's review
of a tax filing showed. His wife, Elizabeth, received $113,623 in salary and benefits as "newsletter editor," the filing shows. In the filing, the charity reports that the Chapins each worked 40 hours per week. In a separate tax filing, the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes reported that Roger Chapin worked another 40 hours per week for his job there but did not collect pay. Mike Lynch,
executive director of Help Hospitalized Veterans, said the charity's board considers Chapin's wages "proper compensation." Help Hospitalized Veterans has spent some of its donations in the real estate market. The charity purchased a condominium unit in Fairfax County in May 2006 for $444,600, according to property records reviewed by The Post. Chapin said the charity purchased the Falls Church apartment because of his frequent travel to Washington. The charity also purchased at least nine properties in the past decade in California, where the group has its headquarters, records reviewed by The Post show. The charity has long had ties to Viguerie. Richard Viguerie has been dubbed the "funding father" of modern conservative strategy, having pioneered important tactics in computerized direct mail strategy in the 1970s and 1980s. He is considered the direct mail titan of the right. In the past fiscal year, Viguerie's companies received $3.9 million from the charity, according to its filings with the Internal Revenue Service. Viguerie has been asked to testify at the hearing. Reached at his office in Manassas this week, an assistant said Viguerie would not
answer questions from a Post reporter, citing a policy against commenting on clients. [Source: Washington Post Philip Rucker article17 Jan 08 ++]
VETERAN CHARITIES UPDATE 07: A congressional investigation 16 JAN uncovered new allegations of questionable spending practices at two veterans charities, including one that paid retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks $100,000 to appear in its solicitation letters using money the nonprofit raised to
help soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. At a raucous three-hour hearing House members questioned California entrepreneur Roger Chapin about his management of two charities. One charity, Help Hospitalized Veterans, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations that were to help
wounded soldiers on personal expenses for Chapin, executive director Mike Lynch and Richard A. Viguerie, to whom the charity has awarded millions of dollars in fundraising-consulting contracts, the hearing found. The expenses included at least $340,000 in meals, hotels and entertainment; a $135,000 loan to Lynch for a divorce settlement with his former wife; a $17,000 country club
membership; three airplane tickets to Hawaii; and a $1 million loan to Viguerie for a start-up initiative at his firm, several members of the committee said. Chapin said he later repaid the charity for the flights and said the golf club membership was a “perk” for board members. The second charity, the Coalition to Support America ‘s Heroes, used Franks in its solicitation letters, the House
Committee on Government Oversight and Reform found.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) chairman of the committee said Help Hospitalized Veterans raised more than $168 million from 2004 to 2006. The charity spent a quarter of those donations on the veterans, with the rest going to direct-mail fundraising, salaries and other expenses. Republicans and Democrats voiced outrage over what Waxman called an intolerable fraud. “Most of the millions they receive never reach veterans or their families,” Waxman said. “Instead, the groups waste those contributions on bloated overhead costs and self-enrichment.” There are no laws that regulate how much charities spend on fundraising and overhead costs. There also are no requirements that nonprofit groups disclose such breakdowns in their solicitations. Several lawmakers signaled yesterday that they may introduce legislation aimed at helping donors better understand the finances of nonprofit groups. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT.) asked Chapin what would happen if his charities told donors how their donations were spent. “If we disclose, which I’m more than happy to do, we’d all be out of business,” Chapin said. “Nobody would donate. It would dry up.”
A spokesman for Franks said the retired general made several speeches for the charity in 2004 and 2005, as well as allowing his name to appear on direct mailings for about a year. He ended his support “when he learned that the percentage of money raised that was going to the troops was less than 85%, a figure which was then and remains today, his criteria for supporting charitable
organizations,” said retired Col. Michael Hayes, Frank ’s chief of staff. Lynch told The Post this week that Help Hospitalized Veterans meets the Better Business Bureau’s standards, but bureau President H. Art Taylor said yesterday that both Chapin charities do not. A committee member, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), expressed anger over his colleagues’ harsh scrutiny of Chapin’s charities. “I
am deeply concerned that we’re whacking on groups that are supporting the military,” Cannon said. Chapin’s nonprofit groups are two of several veterans’ charities under scrutiny for their spending practices. The American Institute of Philanthropy, a leading watchdog group, has suggested that Chapin’s groups are among 19 military-oriented charities that manage their resources poorly. Some other veteran’s charities consistently received high marks from the institute and other watchdog groups... [Source: Washington Post Philip Rucker article 18 Jan 08 ++]
OKLAHOMA VET INSURANCE PLAN: Saying one out of eight veterans is uninsured, Sen. Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma city) proposed 15 JAN creating an Oklahoma Veterans Health Insurance program. He said many people think all veterans qualify for free health care through the U.S. Veterans affairs Department. "Sadly, that's not true, and when the Legislature sets our priorities at the beginning of this session, Oklahoma's military veterans deserve to be at or near the top,” said Rice. The proposed insurance program would not be free. Veterans would be required to pay premiums and co-payments based on their household income. According to the latest census information, Oklahoma has 340,000 veterans. Under his proposal, the veterans' health insurance program would be administered by the Oklahoma Veterans Affairs Department. [Source: NewsOK.com 16 Jan 08 ++]
GULF WAR VETERAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE: A U.S. congressman is asking the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a committee that would give Persian Gulf War veterans a better and simpler way to access VA resources. In a 3 JAN letter to VA Secretary James Peake, U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards
(D-TX) requested the formation of a Gulf War Veteran Advisory Committee, writing that the current setup does not adequately address the range of issues facing those who fought in that 1991 war. Edwards also chairs the U.S. House Military Appropriations Subcommittee. Currently, the VA’s Research Advisory Committee (RAC) is the only “Gulf War-focused entity” within the department, Edwards writes, and that committee’s charter is focused on medical research recommendations. Kirt Love, a Gulf War veteran who served with the 1st Armored Division, asked for Edwards’ help in an effort to better communicate the needs of veterans from his war, which he feels are neglected. Love said in
an e-mail that he became “deathly ill” after the war and has struggled for answers. “Currently VA pretends that Gulf War veterans do not exist and is non-responsive to any request made of them,” Love wrote in an e-mail. “Things are worse than ever before and VA doesn’t seem to care about that
fact. So veterans like myself struggle with inferior care and minimal benefits, forgotten by the country we served faithfully in 1991.” VA representatives have not yet responded to requests for comment. But Josh Taylor, an Edwards spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that “In general, Chairman Edwards
felt this was an important issue to bring to the attention of the Secretary.” And as the legislative session gets under way, there will be opportunities to discuss the committee further, Taylor said.
Excerpts from the letter include, “As you know, many of these veterans have felt neglected by the government — both the VA and the Defense Department — and while there are a wide range of issues they would like to raise, there is no common venue within the VA for them to raise their concerns…While these issues are brought to the RAC, simply because its charter deals with Gulf War
Illness, the RAC is not equipped or authorized to address them. A committee focusing on Gulf War veterans would help identify and prioritize unmet needs while consolidating improvements to care and services for those veterans… In May the VA established the Advisory Committee on OIF/OEF Veterans
and Families, which provides support for veterans of those wars. A similar entity should be available for Gulf War veterans …Including veterans of the conflict in the committee would be “critical. I would hope the committee would have some autonomy, its own staff, and some members of the committee from outside the government. I believe this would help the committee build trust with Gulf War veterans and therefore improve the committee’s ability to succeed from the outset.” [Source: Stars and Stripes George Ziezulewicz article 15 Jan 08 ++]
DOD DISABILITY EVALUATION SYSTEM UPDATE 09: The Army’s new Warrior Transition Unit led by Lt. Col. Chip Pierce is a brigade designed specifically to address the administrative needs of injured soldiers. In February, Army Times reported that soldiers languished for months — even years — in
the medical hold system, facing bureaucratic tangles as they worked their way toward the physical evaluation board to determine their disability rating for retirement pay. The stories, as well as reports from the Pentagon Inspector’s General and Government Accountability Office and testimony of injured soldiers before Congress, brought about a series of investigations and planned changes. And the new Warrior Transition Unit meant officials could immediately put some of those changes into effect. Since then, the Army has added staff, improved training for counselors and lawyers, and ensured every soldier has someone overseeing his or her progress through the system. And Building
18, Walter Reed’s dilapidated symbol of the breakdown in the system, no longer houses wounded soldiers.
While the number of soldiers medically retired — meaning they received a disability rating of 30% or higher or had at least 18 years of service when they went through the disability process — declined from 2005 to 2006, it increased by several hundred in 2007, according to figures provide by Col. Carlton Buchanan, deputy commander of the Army’s Physical Disability Agency. Moreover,
Buchanan said, while 270 fewer soldiers were medically retired in 2006 than in 2005, the percentage of those completing the evaluation process that were medically retired went up over that time, and has continued to rise in 2007:
• In 2005, 13,048 soldiers went through the process and 2,232 were medically retired, about 17.1%.
• In 2006, 10,460 soldiers went through the process and 1,956 were medically retired, about 18.7%.
• In 2007, 10,400 soldiers went through the process and 2,397 were medically retired — about 23%.
The 8,003 soldiers who weren’t medically retired in 2007 either were found fit and remained in the
Army, were awarded a lump-sum severance payment based on rank and years of service, or were separated without benefits if their condition was found to be pre-existing and they hadn’t been in the military for at least seven years. About 8,900 soldiers remain in the Warrior Transition Unit waiting for their final disability evaluation board.
Things still aren’t perfect; Pierce said it’s hard to judge how soldiers feel about the improvements because they weren’t in the system a year ago. And there are still cases taking longer than they should to go through the process. But now, rather than justifying a months-long quagmire, as had been done by other officials in the past, Pierce said his office tracks, by name, every soldier whose transition takes longer than 60 days. Prior to the 60-day mark, soldiers’ squad leaders in the Warrior Transition Units are responsible for making sure soldiers move through as quickly as possible. The Marine Corps also stood up a Wounded Warriors regiment last spring to keep track of Marines and sailors going through the disability retirement system. Though the Navy and the
Marine Corps have a better track record for getting service members through the process, there have been worries about the equity of their ratings system. An Army Times investigation last spring found that enlisted Marines lag far behind enlisted sailors and airmen in the size of the average disability payments they are awarded. The 2006 data released by the Defense Department’s Office of the
Actuary show Marines and soldiers continue to lag, even though they have higher injury rates and could be expected to have a greater proportion of serious injuries because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than do sailors or airmen. Their ranks and times in service were also comparable. The
average monthly disability payments for all enlisted members receiving disability pay from the military in 2006:
• Enlisted: • Air Force: $963 • Navy: $845 • Army: $792 • Marine Corps: $774.
• Officers: • Air Force: $2,668 • Navy: $2,392 • Marine Corps: $2,336 • Army: $2,067.
According to the Office of the Actuary, the number of Marines medically retired in 2006 went up by about 200 compared with the previous year — far more than any other service. The Air Force and Navy also saw increases in permanent disability retirements from 2005 to 2006 of 125 airmen and
36 sailors. Buchanan said part of the reason for the Army’s increase of more than 400 disability retirements in 2007 was that combat-related injuries rose to 18% from about 15% the year before. Among soldiers going through the military disability evaluation process, more than half of those with combat-related injuries are retired, Buchanan said. Another reason for the increase, he said,
is “increased training of physicians and adjudicators, coupled with greater precision in describing injuries, such as scars, muscle and nerve injuries, as well as mental disorders. That gives medical boards better information to determine proper disability percentages”. [Source: ArmyTimes
Kelly Kennedy article 15 Jan 0 ++]
TRICARE EOBS UPDATE 03: The Defense Department is limiting the amount of Tricare paper it sends to military retirees age 65 and older and their families by sending explanations of benefits forms only once a month. Others covered under Tricare, including active-duty families, will continue to have the choice of receiving a paper copy of their explanation of benefits (EOB) mailed each time
a claim is processed, even if there are multiple claims in a month. An explanation of benefits provides details of what action Tricare has taken on claims by doctors and other health care providers seeking payment for services to a patient. Officials said the monthly statement will allow easier comparison with the quarterly Medicare Summary Notice. There are exceptions to the monthly policy for these retirees and their family members; statements will be sent if the EOB includes a check to the patient, or if a claim is denied and the patient has appeal rights for those services. As in the past, patients can view an EOB online any time a claim is processed. Those who are not already registered for this service can do so at https://www.tricare4u.com/apps-portal/tricareapps-app/unauth/tricarehome.jsp. Beginning 14 FEB
patients will have the option of receiving an e-mail notification when a claim is processed. They can then log on to the website to view and print their EOBs. Once patients sign up for this option, however, they will not receive a mailed monthly summary of explanations of benefits. Patients will be able to view the EOBs for any claim processed within the last 27 months. Beneficiaries with
questions about the registration process can call (866) 773-0404. [Source: MRGRG Karen Jowers article 15 Jan 08 ++]
MILITARY DEATHS: CRS Report for Congress (Order code: RL32492) American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf is written in response to numerous requests for war casualty statistics and lists of war dead. It provides
tables, compiled by sources at the Department of Defense (DOD), indicating the number of fatalities and numbers of wounded among American military personnel serving in principal wars and combat actions from the Revolutionary War to the current Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) (operations in Afghanistan and related conflicts). A review of the composite data reveals the following.
• During the period between the Revolutionary War and the Persian Gulf War, it was the Civil War that produced the most American fatalities, when Union statistics and Confederate estimates are taken into account.
• World War II was the first war in which there were more battle deaths than deaths from other causes such as accidents, disease, and infections.
• With a total of 382 in-theater deaths, 147 of which were battle deaths, the Persian Gulf War was the least costly in terms of fatalities.
• The ongoing Operation Iraqi Freedom to date has produced more than nine times the number of in-theater deaths than the Persian Gulf War (which lasted seven months).
• During the Clinton presidency total military deaths from all causes were 13,417 whereas during the Bush presidency total military deaths through 2006 from all causes were 9.016.
• The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
>>European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
>>Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
>>Black...................................... 12.3%
>>Asian ...................................... 3.7%
>>Native American ...................... 1.0%
>>Other ...................................... 2.6%
• Fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
>>European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
>>Hispanic ............................. 10.74%
>>Black ................................... 9.67%
>>Asian ................................. . 1.81%
>>Native American .................... 1.09%
>>Other .................................... . 33%
• The casualty statistics for wars long ended are updated periodically, sometimes yearly. This almost always reflects the identification of remains of persons previously listed as missing in action and those persons’ reclassification as dead. Other reasons, much rarer, include the discovery of errors in casualty records for individuals or categories of people. [Source: Honolulu-Eagles Military statistics msg 14 Jan 08 ++]
CALIFORNIA & FEDERAL DISABLED BENEFITS (100% SC): Veterans who are residents of California who are rated 100% totally disabled by the VA as a result of a service connected (SC) determination are entitled to the following state and federal benefits. This list was last updated OCT 06. For residents of other states the federal benefits are the same but the state benefits will be in accordance with that state’s laws. To determine what they are check the VA website associated with the state in question:
1. Eligibility for additional allowance for dependents—spouse, children, dependent parent(s).
2. Eligibility for additional aid and attendance allowance for disabled spouse.
3. Enrollment in VA Healthcare Priority Group 1 (no co-payments required).
4. VA fee basis outpatient medical card (all conditions requiring treatment, whether SC or not).
5. Eligibility for all necessary dental care.
6. Eligibility for sensorineural aids—hearing aids, eyeglasses, contact lenses—without regard to whether the condition producing need for such is service-connected.
7. Eligibility for long-term VA Nursing Home care for any condition.
8. Eligibility for health care coverage under CHAMPVA for spouse and children (unless they are also eligible for TRICARE).
9. Eligibility for Service-Disabled Veterans’ Insurance (RH), including up to $20,000 supplemental insurance beyond regular amount.
10. Waiver of VA life insurance premiums, if under age 65 (but not on additional amounts).
11. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation for loss or loss of use of a creative organ; loss of a female breast; loss or loss of use of one hand, one foot, or one eye; loss of use of both buttocks; complete deafness in both ears; or, complete organic aphonia (loss of ability to communicate by speech).
12. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation for loss or loss of use of both eyes, both hands, or both feet, or one hand and one foot. Includes paired extremities or organs (one SC, the other NSC, 38 CFR § 3.383) and combinations of losses.
13. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation because of being permanently housebound or having one disability rated 100% plus other conditions independently ratable at 60% or more.
14. Possible eligibility for special monthly compensation because of being so helpless as to require the regular aid and attendance of another person.
15. Possible eligibility for payment of annual clothing allowance for specified SC disorders resulting in need for prosthetic appliance or use of a wheelchair, or for certain skin conditions.
16. Possible eligibility for one-time assistance in purchase of specially-adapted automobile.
17. Possible eligibility for Automobile Adaptive Equipment Allowance.
18. Eligibility for education or training under VA Vocational Rehabilitation.
19. Possible eligibility for Special Adapted Housing Assistance.
20. Possible eligibility for Special Home Adaptation Grant.
21. Possible eligibility for Veterans’ Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI).
22. CAL-VET Home Loan Disability Insurance.
23. Eligibility for property tax exemption on principle residence.
24. Home loan guaranty funding fee exemption.
25. Possible eligibility for Home Improvement and Structural Alteration (HISA) home modification grant.
26. Golden Access Passport for U.S. National Parks.
27. California State Park pass (requires SC wartime-incurred disability) ($3.50 one-time fee).
28. Reduced fee for hunting license.
29. Reduced fee for basic sport fishing license.
30. Eligibility for 10-point preference for Federal Civil Service employment. Under certain circumstances, may be employed on a noncompetitive basis. The 10-point preference is also applicable for the spouse and/or natural mother of a permanently totally service-disabled veteran.
31. Eligibility for 15-point preference for State of California employment. The spouse of a 100% disabled veteran is eligible for 10-point preference.
32. Eligibility for Survivors’ and Dependents’ Education Assistance for spouse and/or children under 38 U.S.C., Chapter 35.
33. Eligibility for CAL-VET College Tuition and Fee Waiver for spouse and children (Plan A). Requires wartime service. May not e authorized concurrently with VA education assistance under Chapter 35.
34. Eligibility for CAL-VET College Tuition and Fee Waiver for children (Plan B). May be authorized concurrently with VA education assistance under Chapter 35.
35. Eligibility for son(s) and/or daughter(s) to compete for admission to military academies.
36. Eligibility for military identification card.
37. Possible eligibility for DMV Disabled Veteran license plates.
38. Eligibility for exemption from vehicle license fees.
39. If a 20-year military retiree, possible eligibility for CDRP or CRSC.
40. Withdrawal from SBP program participation (military retirees) after having been rated SC, totally disabled for 10 continuous years, or, if out of service less than 10 years, having been rated SC, totally disabled for at least 5 continuous years from date of last active duty.
41. Possible eligibility for the California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) and the Federal Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB) programs. [Source: CA Dept of VA website Nov 07 ++]
CALIFORNIA & FEDERAL PENSION BENEFITS: Veterans who are residents of California who are disabled as a result of non-service connected (NSC) determinations by the VA are entitled to a number of state and federal benefits. Following is a checklist that can be used to assist in obtaining these benefits. This checklist was last updated OCT 06:
A. Claim Requirements:
1. Minimum of 90 consecutive days of active service or was discharged because of SC disability. If veteran entered service after 1980, the service requirement is 24 continuous months or the full period for which called to active duty, whichever is less, unless discharged sooner because of hardship, reduction-in-force, or SC disability. In any event, at least one day of service must have been during a wartime period.
2. If veteran is under age 65, evidence that veteran is in receipt of any disability benefit administered by the Social Security Administration (either SSA or SSI); or, is a long-term patient in a nursing home because of disability; or, medical evidence showing the veteran is unable to work because of disability.
3. Medical evidence to show that veteran is in need of regular aid and attendance or is housebound (if applicable).
4. Report projected family income—include income from all sources, including farm and/or business. Also list deductions/exclusions—unreimbursed medical expenses, children’s wages, etc.
5. Report net worth.
6. Dependency documents—marriage certificate, birth certificate(s), death certificate(s), divorce decree(s), VA Form(s) 21-674(as applicable). If an adult child is claimed as disabled (helpless), submit appropriate medical evidence in support.
B. Benefits:
1. Possible additional pension payable if housebound or if so helpless as to require the regular aid and attendance of another person (includes nursing home patients).
2. Additional pension payable if veteran served during World War I.
3. VA outpatient medical card if entitled to aid and attendance or housebound benefits, or if a World War I veteran.
4. Enrollment in VA Healthcare Priority Group 4 (no co-payments required) if entitled to aid and attendance or housebound benefits.
Enrollment in Priority Group 5 (no co-payments required) if entitled to basic pension. Enrollment in Priority Group 6 (no co-payments required) if a World War I veteran.
5. Eligibility for sensorineural aids—hearing aids, eyeglasses, contact lenses—if housebound or in need of regular aid and attendance.
6. Waiver of VA insurance premiums, if under age 65 (but not on any supplemental RH insurance).
7. CAL-VET Home Loan Disability Insurance.
8. Golden Access Passport for U.S. National Parks.
9. Possible eligibility for DMV Disabled Person Parking Placard.
10. Eligibility for 10-point preference for Federal Civil Service employment.
[Source: CA Dept of VA website Nov 07 ++]
VETERAN LEGISLATION STATUS 30 JAN 08: The House of Representatives returned to work on JAN 15th and the Senate on January 22nd.for the second session of the 110th Congress. Up for election/re-election in 2008 are 35 Senators and 435 Representatives. All of these will be more receptive to their veteran constituent’s inputs in hope of obtaining their vote so this is the year we should be pushing for the legislation that will benefit us most. Those seeking to remain in the Senate or be elected to it are:
Lamar Alexander, R-TN
Tom Allen, D-ME (1st District); running for Senate
John Barasso, R-WY
Max Baucus, D-MT
Joseph Biden, D-DE
Saxby Chambliss, R-GA (Armed Services)
Thad Cochran, R-MS (Ranking Minority Member-Appropriations, Defense Appropriations)
Norm Coleman, R-MN
Susan Collins, R-ME (Armed Services)
John Cornyn, R-TX (Armed Services)
Elizabeth Dole, R-NC (Armed Services)
Richard Durbin, D-IL (Defense Appropriations, Senate Majority Whip)
Michael Enzi, R-WY
Lindsey Graham, R-SC (Armed Services, Veterans Affairs)
Tom Harkin, D-IA (Defense Appropriations)
Duncan Hunter, R-CA (52nd District); running for President (Ranking Minority Member-Armed
James Inhofe, R-OK (Armed Services)
Tim Johnson, D-SD (Chairman-Military Construction Appropriations)
John Kerry, D-MA
Mary Landrieu, D-LA (Military Construction Appropriations)
Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ
Carl Levin, D-MI (Chairman-Armed Services)
Mitch McConnell, R-KY (Defense Appropriations, Senate Minority Leader)
Steve Pearce, R-NM (2nd District); running for Senate
Mark Pryor, D-AR (Armed Services)
Jack Reed, D-RI (Armed Services, Military Construction Appropriations)
Pat Roberts, R-KS
John Rockefeller, D-WV (Veterans Affairs)
Jeff Sessions, R-AL (Armed Services)
Gordon Smith, R-OR
Ted Stevens, R-AK (Ranking Minority Member-Defense Appropriations)
John Sununu, R-NH
Tom Tancredo, R-CO (6th District); running for President
Mark Udall, D-CO (2nd District); running for Senate (Armed Services)
Tom Udall, D-NM (3rd District); running for Senate
Roger Wicker, R-MS
Heather A. Wilson, R-NM (1st District); running for Senate
For a listing of Congressional bills of interest to the veteran community that have been introduced in the 110th Congress refer to the Bulletin’s House & Senate attachments. By clicking on the bill number indicated you can access the actual legislative language of the bill and see if your representative has signed on as a cosponsor. Support of these bills through cosponsorship by other legislators is critical if they are ever going to move through the legislative process for a floor
vote to become law. A good indication on that likelihood is the number of cosponsors who have signed onto the bill. A cosponsor is a member of Congress who has joined one or more other members in his/her chamber (i.e. House or Senate) to sponsor a bill or amendment. The member who introduces the bill is considered the sponsor. Members subsequently signing on are called cosponsors. Any number of members may cosponsor a bill in the House or Senate. At http://thomas.loc.gov you can also review a copy of each bill’s content, determine its current status, the committee it has been assigned to, and if your legislator is a sponsor or cosponsor of it. To determine what bills,
amendments your representative has sponsored, cosponsored, or dropped sponsorship on refer to http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110/sponlst.html. The key to increasing cosponsorship on veteran related bills and subsequent passage into law is letting our representatives know of veteran’s feelings on issues. At the end of some listed bills is a web link that can be used to do that. Otherwise,
you can locate on http://thomas.loc.gov who your representative is and his/her phone number, mailing address, or email/website to communicate with a message or letter of your own making. [Source: RAO Bulletin Attachment 13 Jan 08 ++]
Lt. James “EMO” Tichacek, USN (Ret)
Director, Retiree Assistance Office, U.S. Embassy Warden & IRS VITA Baguio City RP PSC 517 Box RCB, FPO AP 96517
Tel: (951) 238-1246 when in U.S. & Cell: 0915-361-3503 when in Philippines.
Email: raoemo@sbcglobal.net Web: http://post_119_gulfport_ms.tripod.com/rao1.html
AL/AMVETS/DAV/FRA/NAUS/NCOA/MOAA/USDR/VFW/VVA/CG33/DD890/AD37 member
BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTION NOTES:
== To subscribe first add the above RAO email addees to your address book and/or white list and then provide your full name plus either the post/branch/chapter number of the fraternal military/government organization you are currently affiliated with (if any) “AND/OR” the city and
state/country you reside in so your addee can be properly positioned in the directory for future recovery. Subscription is open to all veterans, dependents, and military/veteran support organizations. This Bulletin sent to 63,292 subscribers.
