[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
1988 TO 2016: VETSNET TO VBMS; BILLIONS SPENT, BACKLOG GRINDS ON
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-015 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Member
Chairman MARK TAKANO, California
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana KATHLEEN RICE, New York
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LEE ZELDIN, New York JERRY McNERNEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American
Samoa
MIKE BOST, Illinois
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Page
1988 to 2016: VETSNET to VBMS; Billions Spent, Backlog Grinds On. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Jeff Miller, Chairman.................................. 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 31
Honorable Corrine Brown, Ranking Member.......................... 3
WITNESSES
Ms. Beth McCoy, Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs................................. 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 32
Accompanied by:
Ms. Dawn Bontempo, Director, Veterans Benefits Management
System Program Management Office, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Steven Schliesman, Assistant Deputy Chief Information
Officer, Project Management, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director, Compensation Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Mr. Brent Arronte, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits
and Evaluations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 35
Accompanied by:
Mr. Michael Bowman, Director, Information Technology and
Security Audits Division, Office of Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Ms. Valerie C. Melvin, Director, Information Technology, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 39
STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
The American Legion.............................................. 52
Brentwood Village Business Improvement District.................. 54
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD
Department of Veterans Affairs Pre-Hearing Questions............. 55
Chairman Miller to Steven Schliesman............................. 59
1988 TO 2016: VETSNET TO VBMS; BILLIONS SPENT, BACKLOG GRINDS ON
----------
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Lamborn, Bilirakis, Roe,
Huelskamp, Coffman, Wenstrup, Zeldin, Costello, Bost, Brown,
Takano, Brownley, Titus, Ruiz, Kuster, and Rice.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JEFF MILLER, CHAIRMAN
The Chairman. Good morning, everybody. This hearing will
come to order. Happy New Year. We are here to discuss yet
another VA project that is over budget and under achieving.
Unfortunately, this is becoming a similar theme in hearings at
this Committee.
Today we are going to address the mismanagement of the
Veterans Benefits Management System, called VBMS, which is VA's
electronic claims processing system. VBMS is supposed to help
expedite benefit claims decisions, eliminate rating
inconsistencies and errors, and enable a more efficient claims
processing work flow. Unfortunately, it is not working as it
was intended.
VA promised to eliminate the backlog in 2015. It is now
2016 and while VA has made progress, the backlog does still
exist. And similarly, VBMS is not yet completed, and VA has
been unable to provide this Committee with a timeline as to
when it will be completed.
As of the first of this year, there were over 360,000
disability claims pending, over 75,000 of which were pending
more than 125 days which is what VA defines, as we all know, a
backlog in the system. And I am going to address that
definition in just a minute. This is despite Congress devoting
substantial resources, including significantly increasing VBA's
workforce by approximately 7,300 full-time employees between
2007 and 2014, to help VA meet its goal of eliminating the
claims backlog by the end of last year. Additionally, Congress
has allocated more than $1 billion to VBMS even though VA's
estimate in September of 2009 priced VBMS at $580 million.
Since then, the projected cost of the program has jumped to
$1.3 billion and there is no guarantee that VA will not need
more money for the system in the future. So it looks like
history may in fact be repeating itself again.
The cost overruns for VBMS would be bad enough. But after
six years in development it is still not able to fully support
disability claims and pension applications. It only acts as a
document repository for appeals. And that brings me to VA's
definition of what constitutes a backlog.
As of April 1st, 2013, VA had an appeals inventory of
almost 250,000. But as of January the 1st of this year that
number had ballooned to about 433,000 appeals, which are not
counted by VA as apart of the backlog. With the large increase
in the number of appeals, it makes no sense that VA has not
ensured VBMS' ability to actually process appeals, as it did
for initial claims work. In fact, I recently learned that the
VA is projecting that it will certify almost 360,000 new
appeals in fiscal year 2017. That is in comparison to almost
70,000 certified appeals in fiscal year 2015.
I am also alarmed that according to a GAO report between
January of 2013 and May of 2015, VBMS suffered from multiple
system crashes, and was offline for a total of 117 hours, which
is almost three full work weeks. I expect VA to argue that any
temporary disruptions caused by the implementation of the
system have been outweighed by the program's benefits.
Based on recent OIG and GAO investigations, I am not sure
that I agree because of the many other factors in reducing VA's
definition of the backlog. Moreover, both the OIG and GAO
reports of September of 2015 criticized the department for not
setting clear benchmarks for developing and implementing VBMS.
Of course, without concrete deadlines for the VBMS roll
out, it is impossible to hold VA management accountable, a word
that we hear a lot here, for meeting deadlines and
demonstrating progress. But even if the Veterans Benefits
Management System was performing perfectly, there are still
management issues that add to processing times. In a report
issued just last week, the OIG found that the St. Petersburg
Regional Office had a significant backlog of unprocessed
veteran claims information at a scanning contractor facility.
I, and I am sure the Ranking Member, are appalled that Florida
veterans may have waited longer than any other veterans due to
this delay in scanning.
I would like to draw your attention to the image above,
which demonstrates the extent of improperly stored and co-
mingled veteran information at the contractor site. And there
is a photograph of it in your packet if you cannot see the
screen. Everybody see it? Understandably, I am troubled that in
addition to the scanning delays based on how this information
was insecurely stored at the scanning facility, veterans'
information was potentially vulnerable to loss, theft, and
misuse. I am going to further explore this and other issues
outlined in my statement during the course of this hearing.
With that cheerful report, I yield to the Ranking Member
for her opening statement. And again, wish her a Happy New Year
as well.
[The prepared statement of Jeff Miller appears in the
Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF CORRINE BROWN, RANKING MEMBER
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I find the title of this hearing
interesting. We have spent trillions of dollars on wars since
1988. And as you would expect, with these wars has come an
increase in veterans claims and backlogs. We need to remember
taking care of the veteran is a cost of war. Let me repeat
that. We need to remember taking care of veterans needs to be
figured in as a cost of war.
Since our engagement in Operation Iraqi Freedom, which I
voted against, we have seen VA continue to be inundated with
work. As Vietnam veterans grow older and become ill, and our
newest servicemembers return home injured, VA's workload has
risen to record highs year after year.
At the height of the VA backlog the decision was made, and
encouraged and funded by Congress, to eliminate the backlog by
2015 by implementing a paperless transformation.
The VA backlog has been significantly reduced from 611,073
claims to 75,395 claims. In less than three years. VA has
reduced the backlog by nearly 90%. While it is not mission
complete, and the change has been significant, we need to
continue to work to reduce the backlog.
For our Florida veterans the average days pending at the
height of the backlog was 248 days to 92 days.
We look forward to hearing how much of this reduction is
due to the investments that we have made in moving from an
antiquated paper processing system and into an electronic one.
What more is needs to be done to provide timely outcomes for
our veterans that deserve decisions today, and not tomorrow?
Like the Joint Strike Force or the Iraqi War, or the Select
Committee on Benghazi, surely the Veterans Benefits Management
System could and should cost less than it has.
I hope to hear how VA plans to improve their costing,
budgeting and execution of IT projects. We need accurate
numbers in terms of the investment and sustainment of the
Veterans Benefits Management System.
I am also concerned about the IG's findings regarding
Florida's backlog of veterans evidence in 2014. I hope to hear
from the VA on their efforts to address both the GAO and the
VAOIG recommendations. I hope to hear that in the report.
Fighting for our veterans is a team effort and a cost of
war. While VA has had remarkable progress on reducing the
backlog, more needs to be done. So let us all get to work.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown. I would ask
that all Members would waive their opening statement as is
customary with this Committee.
Joining us on our first and only panel this morning are Ms.
Beth McCoy, the Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations at
the Veterans Benefit Administration. She is accompanied by Ms.
Dawn Bontempo, the Director of the Veterans Benefit Management
System Program Office; Mr. Steven Schliesman, the Assistant
Deputy Chief Information Officer for Program Management; and
Mr. Thomas Murphy, the Director of Compensation Service. Also
testifying for us today, Mr. Brent Arronte, the Deputy
Assistant Inspector General for Audits and Evaluations with the
Office of the IG. Mr. Arronte is accompanied by Mr. Michael
Bowman, the Director of Information Technology and Security
Audits Division of the Office of the Inspector General; and
finally Valerie Melvin, the Director of Information Technology
at the United States Government Accountability Office. Thank
you all for being with us this morning. Your complete written
statements will be entered into the record. Ms. McCoy, you are
recognized for five minutes to present your opening testimony.
STATEMENT OF BETH MCCOY
Ms. McCoy. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Chairman
Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the recent Department
of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General and the
Government Accountability Office reports dated September 14th
and September 15th, 2015, respectively. Also, Chairman, thank
you for recognizing those who have accompanied me today.
The Veterans Benefits Management System, or VBMS, is a web-
based application primarily used by Veterans Benefits
Administration employees to process disability claims. VBMS has
supported more than 30,000 unique users, including those from
the Veterans Health Administration and our veterans service
organization partners. VBMS has a customized view of the
electronic folder to support appeals processing at the Board of
the Veterans Appeals also. VBMS enables us to receive service
treatment records electronically from the Department of
Defense, which is something that we could not do before VBMS.
Historically, VBA claims processors used a paper intensive
process to deliver disability benefits to America's veterans.
At the end of fiscal year 2012 VBMS was at only five regional
offices with a limited number of users and about 1,000 claims
completed in it. By June, 2013, VBMS was rolled out to all 56
regional offices and it was done six months ahead of schedule.
In November, 2014 we had processed 1 million veterans claims in
VBMS. And just ten months later in September 2015, we reached
that milestone of 2 million veterans claims processed end to
end in VBMS.
The OIG and GAO reports both provided recommendations
related to the scope and cost of VBMS. Scope and cost increases
were planned, essential, and approved to move beyond just that
initial electronic claims folder repository functionality to a
point of an automation enhanced claims processing platform.
VBMS has delivered 17 major software releases and 56 minor
releases in just four years and has implemented thousands of
business requirements. VBMS currently houses over 1.9 billion
images.
Through modern tools and improved processes for employees,
VBMS enables VA to provide better service for veterans. One key
element is that multiple users can view a veteran's electronic
folder at the same time so that various claims actions can be
done in parallel at the same time rather sequentially and
eliminating delays waiting for that one paper claims folder.
Additionally, there are broader telework opportunities
available for our VBA employees in a paperless processing
world. More veterans are receiving faster decisions because of
the increase in both production and productivity that VBMS has
enabled.
As VBA's Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, from
my perspective, VBMS was delivered to the field quickly, six
months early; it worked; and functionality has been added every
three months with each new release. When I go to regional
offices to talk to employees and veterans service officers,
they tell me they would not go back to a paper-based process.
And they are constantly bringing up ideas and recommendations
for more things to do in VBMS. We are working with our labor
partners to make sure that we get all of those recommendations
implemented as quickly as possible.
I am incredibly proud of our VBA employees, 53 percent of
whom are veterans themselves, for all of the changes they have
adopted and all of the work they have completed for veterans
and their families through VBA transformation efforts.
So what have they accomplished? This past fiscal year, VA
reached an historic milestone in delivery of benefits and
services to America's veterans, their families, and survivors.
VBA reduced the backlog of disability claims pending to a low
of just over 71,000 claims at the end of fiscal year 2015,
nearly a 90 percent reduction in the backlog as Ranking Member
Brown pointed out, from its peak of more than 611,000 pending
in March of 2013, and lowest in our history. In fiscal year
2015, we provided disability rating claim decisions to nearly
1.4 million veterans. That is a new record as well. And we did
not sacrifice quality. In fact, we improved national accuracy
scores from 83 percent in June of 2011 to nearly 91 percent in
fiscal year 2015. And that is at the claim level. If you drill
down to the individual contention, the individual issue level,
we are at over 96 percent on our quality. At the same time, we
reduced the veterans pension backlog by 93 percent from a peak
of 15,000 claims to less than 1,000 currently. Also the number
of appeals actions taken by VBA increased by 30 percent from
2011 to 2015.
These milestones were achieved through implementation of an
aggressive and comprehensive information plan that included
people, process, technology initiatives, and VBMS has been the
cornerstone of our technology strategy. Our veterans deserve
the best possible customer service and VBMS is the right tool
to support that. While there is more work to be done, our
efforts are generating positive and significant results. VBMS
is poised to drive continued improvements to claims processing,
accuracy, timeliness, and transparency.
We want to thank the Chairman and the Members of the
Committee for their support and resources. Mr. Chairman, this
concludes my statement. We would be happy to answer questions.
And thank you for allowing us to appear.
[The prepared statement of Beth McCoy appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. McCoy. Mr. Arronte?
STATEMENT OF BRENT ARRONTE
Mr. Arronte. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Inspector General's recent reports on the
implementation of VBMS. As indicated earlier, I am accompanied
today by Mr. Michael Bowman, Director of the IG's IT and
Security Audits Division.
VA continues to face challenges in developing the IT
systems it needs to support its current goals and overall
mission. Since 2007, we have identified IT as a major
management challenge for VA. Our audits in recent years have
shown that IT system development and management at VA is a
longstanding high risk challenge. Despite some advances, our
reports indicate that VA IT programs are still often
susceptible to cost overruns, schedule slippages, performance
problems, and in some cases complete failure.
In February 2013, we issued a report evaluating whether VA
had performed sufficient testing of VBMS. This work assessed
whether VA was positioned to meet its goal of eliminating the
disability claims backlog and attaining a 98 percent accuracy
rate for claims. However, we did note that the system had not
been fully developed to process claims from the initial
application to benefits delivery and as of today, in some
instances, that is still the case.
In our September 2015 follow-up report on VBMS, we focused
on whether VA had improved its schedule, cost, and performance
to support VBMS development. We reported that VA remained only
partially effective in managing VBMS development. We noted that
VA had stayed on schedule in deploying VBMS functionality to
all of its regional offices in 2013. However, since September
2009, total estimated program costs have increased
significantly from $579 million to approximately $1.3 billion
as of January 2015. This increase was due to inadequate cost
controls, unplanned changes in system and business
requirements, and inefficient contracting practices. At this
point VA cannot ensure an effective return on its investment
and the total actual system development costs still remain
unknown.
As recently as our January 2016 report, ``Review of Alleged
Problems with VBMS and Claims Processing'', we substantiated an
allegation regarding a significant backlog of unprocessed mail
waiting to be scanned into VBMS. Specifically according to VBA
personnel and our own observations, the St. Petersburg VA
Regional Office had more than 41,000 mail packages and over
1,600 boxes of evidence waiting to be scanned into VBMS at the
scanning facility, and that was the picture that the Chairman
alluded to.
Visits to the scanning facility showed numerous pallets of
boxes containing significant amounts of paper documents that
had been waiting more than 30 days to be scanned into VBMS.
This is contrary to VA's contract requiring the contractor to
scan all evidence into VBMS within 5 days.
Although VBA reports it has made progress in reducing the
backlog and reported significant improvement in claims
processing accuracy, we cannot attribute that improvement
specifically to VBMS. VBMS was one of more than 40 initiatives
VA has undertaken as part of its transformation plan. We have
observed and attribute several factors leading to reducing the
backlog. For example, VBA spent over $130 million in mandatory
overtime in fiscal year 2015, and $125 million in fiscal year
2014. VA also reallocated staff to process only those claims
that affect the backlog while sacrificing other types of claims
such as those on appeal and non-rating claims issues. And VBA
has implemented the fully developed claims process which
shortens claims processing times. As for VBA's improved claims
processing accuracy rate, this could be related to a change in
how they are calculating error rates overall and not
specifically to the accuracy of those claims processed in VBMS.
In conclusion, our recent work demonstrates that VA
continues to face challenges in developing and managing its IT
projects. We acknowledge that VA has taken some actions to
address our outstanding report recommendations for enhanced
discipline, oversight, and resource management in support of IT
programs. However, it remains to be seen whether such actions
will improve VA's ability to meet established cost, schedule,
and performance goals. Given the changing business
requirements, our observations indicate that VBMS costs will
continue to spiral upward and final end-state costs still
remain unknown.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and we would be
happy to answer any of your questions or those of the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Brent Arronte appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Ms. Melvin, you are
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF VALERIE MELVIN
Ms. Melvin. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Brown, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
to discuss VA's efforts to develop and implement its veterans
benefits management system, VBMS.
In September, 2015 we issued a report to your Committee
documenting our study of the system and my remarks today
highlight key findings from that study which, one, assessed
VA's progress toward completing VBMS, and two, determined the
extent that users reported satisfaction with the system.
VA began developing VBMS in 2009 with the intent of
providing automated capabilities to support disability and
pension claims processing and appeals. As of September, 2015
the department reported having spent about $1 billion on its
efforts. In this regard, an initial version of VBMS was
deployed to all VBA regional offices by June, 2013, and since
then, as has been noted, the department has continued
developing and implementing additional system functionality and
enhancements to support electronic claims processing.
Nevertheless, several aspects of the ongoing efforts to
develop and implement the system could be strengthened.
Specifically, VBMS is not yet able to fully support disability
and pension claims or appeals processing, as has been noted.
While the Under Secretary for Benefits stated in March, 2013
that the system was expected to be completed in 2015,
implementation of functionality to fully support electronic
claims processing has been delayed and the department has yet
to produce a plan that identifies when VBMS will be completed.
Thus the department lacks an effective means to hold management
accountable for meeting a timeframe and demonstrating progress
on completing the system.
Further, as VA continues developing and implementing VBMS,
three additional areas could benefit from increased management
attention. First, the program lacks a reliable estimate of the
costs for completing the system. Without such an estimate,
management and stakeholders have a limited view of the system's
future resource needs and the program risks not having
sufficient funding to complete the system.
Second, while VA has improved the system's availability to
users, it has not established system response time goals.
Without such goals, users do not have an expectation of the
system response times they can anticipate and management does
not have an indication of how well the system is performing
relative to desired performance levels.
Third, while the program was taking steps to manage system
defects, a recent system release included unresolved defects
that impacted system performance and users' experiences.
Continuing to deploy releases with large numbers of defects
that reduce system functionality could adversely affect users'
ability to process disability claims in an efficient manner.
Beyond these concerns, the department has not conducted a
customer satisfaction survey to compile data on how users view
the system's performance and, ultimately, to develop goals for
improving the system. Our own survey of VBMS users found more
than half of them were satisfied with the system, although
decision review officers were considerably less satisfied.
However, while our survey results provided important data about
the use of VBMS, the absence of user satisfaction goals limits
their utility. Specifically, without having established goals
to define user satisfaction, VBA lacks a basis for gauging its
success in promoting user acceptance of the system and for
identifying areas where its efforts to complete development and
implementation of the system might need attention.
Our report recommended five actions for improving VA's
efforts and the department concurred with all of our
recommendations. We now look forward to following the
department's actions to address them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement and I would
be pleased to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Valerie Melvin appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much for everybody being here
and testifying. Real quickly Ms. McCoy, I want to go back to
your testimony and specifically your written testimony where
you said you closed fiscal year 2015 having provided claims
decisions to nearly 1.4 million veterans, exceeding 1 million
claims for the sixth year in a row. And first of all, I do not
want my comments to be perceived in any way of bashing the good
people that have been out there that have made a difference and
made a dent. But we are trying to find out why the ball keeps
moving, why the definition for a backlog claim keeps changing.
And you know, while the focus has been on eliminating the
backlog, we think that is great, there have been a tremendous
amount of resources that have been given to VA in order to do
that and we are going to discuss that in just a minute. But I
think you said something about you set a record of delivering
benefits to veterans. My question is, if a veterans has
appealed the decision, is that veteran getting benefits or are
they still waiting?
Ms. McCoy. So Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question.
The definition of our backlog has been disability rating claims
pending more than 125 days. So that definition has not changed.
And from that standpoint we did set a record of 1.4 million
disability rating claims--
The Chairman. But my question is, if the veteran appeals
your claim and your rating, is that veteran getting their
benefits? Or are they still waiting in a backlog position?
Ms. McCoy. Mr. Chairman, we do have a number of appeals
that need to be addressed and we are working on those every
day. A--
The Chairman. Over 200,000 more appeals. And that is the
point. I mean, yes there has been progress made. But I think by
saying that you have reduced the backlog the inference to the
American public is that the veterans are receiving the
benefits. And they are not receiving the benefit yet if they
are in an appeals position.
Ms. McCoy. I appreciate your question and your statement,
sir. I would point out that 73 percent of those who have an
appeal pending are receiving benefits and 56 percent of them
are receiving 50 percent or more. And as--
The Chairman. They are not receiving their entire benefit
claim.
Ms. McCoy [continued]. And it is important to us that we
address those appeals and get them anything more that they are
entitled to. And as we make incremental decisions along the way
there are multiple decisions that are made in the appeals
process. If we find that someone is entitled to a benefit, an
increased benefit, an additional benefit, we do pay that along
the way. I wanted to point that out.
The Chairman. Mr. Schliesman, both the Inspector General
and GAO found that one of the major reasons for the cost
overruns associated with VBMS has been due to VBA expanding
functionality requirements. And I understand some need to do
that. But since 2009, how many times has VBA changed functional
requirements?
Mr. Schliesman. I apologize. I was working the mute button
over here. Sir, I specifically do not have that answer in
regards to the specific number. I think what is important to
highlight though--
The Chairman. Well, but I would like to have the number. So
if you would take that for the record, and in addition to that,
if you would, how much of the more than $1 billion that has
been spent can be attributed to the programmatic changes?
Mr. Schliesman. Absolutely. That sir is $610 million has
been invested in the enhancements. I want to clarify--
The Chairman. Because of the, excuse me, sir, sir--
Mr. Schliesman. I am sorry?
The Chairman [continued]. Because of the changes that were
required it was a $610 million add?
Mr. Schliesman. No, sir. Over the life cycle, the eight-
year development life cycle--
The Chairman. I understand that.
Mr. Schliesman. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What I want to know is, what changes were
requested and how much of that $600 million was as a result of
those changes? And if you do not have the answer today if you
would for the record please provide it.
Ms. Bontempo, in their September reports both the IG and
the GAO criticized VA for rolling out new software updates
without training employees on the new VBMS features. My
question is did the department develop an integrated plan that
included employee training with each software upgrade? And if
not, why not?
Ms. Bontempo. Absolutely. Thank you very much for the
question, sir. We absolutely have a training plan. In advance
of every release, and as Ms. McCoy pointed out we have software
releases every three months, we employ a train the trainer
model. And the trainers that we talk to in advance of that
release are called super users.
The Chairman. Okay, thank you very much for that. And I
would like to ask the GAO and the IG to respond to that.
Because in your reports you said there was not adequate
training for the new software updates.
Ms. Melvin. I am going to defer to the IG on that. I
believe their report was more specific to that particular
issue.
The Chairman. Okay, thank you. Mr. Bowman?
Mr. Bowman. During our field work in 2013 and 2014, we
interviewed over 90 users of VBMS and we heard quite a few
complaints about new releases, with an emphasis on pushing out
functionality without the end users knowing how to use that
functionality. There were a lot of complaints that there was
inadequate training for the VAROs to be able to leverage that
functionality to help process claims.
The Chairman. Ms. Bontempo, my last question is the cost
has risen from $580 million to $1.3 billion. Substantial
investment has been made, and this Congress has provided those
dollars. But it is still not functionally operational after six
years. I am sure that can be argued, but there is going to be
more money required. So my question is, what is the current
life cycle cost estimate for VBMS?
Ms. Bontempo. And I very much appreciate that question--
The Chairman. And for the record, whether you appreciate
the questions or not, you do not have to take the time to say
that. We appreciate you answering the questions.
Ms. Bontempo. Well I do appreciate that your staffers came
over about a month ago. I think it was a very good
conversation. And as part of that--
The Chairman. If you would just answer the question.
Ms. Bontempo [continued]. So as we submitted in our pre-
hearing questions, we will never stop looking for ways to
improve our service to veterans. However--
The Chairman. You will never start or stop?
Ms. Bontempo [continued]. We will never stop.
The Chairman. Okay. It sounded like you said start.
Ms. Bontempo. Maybe it is that little bit of a southern
accent, sir. I am sorry.
The Chairman. I am from the South, too. I understand
Southern dialect.
Ms. Bontempo. So we will--
The Chairman. The cost is? The life cycle cost is?
Ms. Bontempo [continued]. So we will be turning our
attention to new innovations as part of the fiscal year 2018
budget.
The Chairman. So it will cost more than $1.3 billion. Ms.
Brown?
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCoy, both of
these reports are over a year. Can you tell me what you have
done to address and how VA has implemented the recommendations
that both agencies made?
Ms. McCoy. I would be happy to share that, ma'am. There
have been a number of different things that we have done. As
far as training, back in 2013 and even early in 2014 when these
reports were generated, when you get a new something, a new
piece of technology, a new smart phone, I think there is that
big learning curve that comes up front with that. It is brand
new. You are getting used to it. And there is some change
management that goes with that. So we did work with our
employees to get through that change management and we had many
different mechanisms to get feedback from our employees and the
users about how that was going. Chat rooms, change management
agents in every regional office, we had user, we always have
users that are involved with testing and with requirements
building. So there are many mechanisms. We also have minute
videos that we put out for our employees over the past couple
of years. I have done one myself. And there are videos that
help people on their desktops see functionality. If there is
something new they can see somebody using it. As far--yes,
ma'am?
Ms. Brown. Yes, ma'am. Let me get right to the question. We
have a serious backlog--many veterans are not recieving health
care. And of course once they get in the system it is one of
two things. You give them a certain percentage or once you have
cleared it you make it retroactive. But there are some cases
that is more complicated and so can you give us, quickly give
us a review of the overall process? Just like in 30 seconds?
Ms. McCoy. Yes. Absolutely, ma'am. So as far as the
backlog, you noted we were at 611,000 in March of 2013. We have
reduced that 90 percent. Currently about 75,000, 80,000 claims.
As far as time limits, we have improved it from over almost 300
days, 280-some days, down to 92 days, 94 days. So those time
limits and delivery improvements have been there. We also
have--
Ms. Brown. These are the backlogs.
Ms. McCoy [continued]. We have also granted more benefits.
Since 2009 and for decades before that, the average
compensation paid to a veteran for disability claims was about
30 percent. Just in the past few years it has risen to an
average of 47 percent. So we are paying more veterans, we are
paying a higher percentage of veterans claims. Some of this
started when we added three new presumptive conditions back in
2010 for Agent Orange exposed veterans. So that big extra work,
those additional veterans, we were able to serve and pay
benefits to. That was a fantastic thing and we were glad to do
that. But it also bogged down the system, if you will, and we
had to work through that work. And VBMS and other
transformation initiatives have enabled us to do that from a
people, process, and technology standpoint.
Ms. Brown. One of the things, there are some, and the
veterans come to me because once they put their application in,
you are processing it. Some of these claims are simple and then
some can be difficult because so many veterans have several
different claims in the system, making it difficult to just go
in and do a checklist. Can you explain that?
Ms. McCoy. Absolutely. So there are, it is our goal to
process every claim disability rating in 125 days. But we will
not do that just for the sake of hitting a number. We want to
make sure that every veteran gets everything they are entitled
to. And there are sometimes, there are some cases that are more
complex. Veterans living in foreign counties, veterans with
radiation exposure, veterans who move around the country and
are not able to appear for a VA examination, getting some
treatment records, particularly National Guard and Reserve
records from DoD. There are some things that are harder to do
and we cannot do it within 125 days. Another big reason is, if
you have filed a claim for a few conditions and midway you add
another condition, we do not stop our clock. We continue to
process and make sure you get everything you are entitled to.
But it may take us longer than 125 days. And ma'am, those are
the reasons that there are still about 70,000 claims pending in
our backlog.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. And I yield back the balance.
The Chairman. Real quick, I think you said your claims, the
number of claims that you processed appropriately was, what was
the percentage? Ninety--
Ms. McCoy. At the issue by issue level, 96 percent, over 96
percent.
The Chairman. Ninety-six percent? So for the 200,000-plus
people who are now in appeals, how does that factor into that
rating?
Ms. McCoy. So we have not found a correlation between
quality of the initial rating decision and the appeal. People
are entitled to appeal anything that they choose. There are
some folks who appeal things that they are not entitled to. But
they are entitled to that due process. We go through every
appeal very seriously and look for anything that they--
The Chairman. So basically they are disagreeing with your
four percent and they--
Ms. McCoy [continued]. No, I would not say that, sir. They
are disagreeing with the decision they got for whatever reason.
It may be--
The Chairman. But you are still saying that it was 96
percent correct?
Ms. McCoy [continued]. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Okay. Very good. Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And I thank the panel for their testimony as well.
Ms. McCoy, when claims are processed in the absence of
supporting evidence, what could potentially happen to a
veteran's disability claim?
Ms. McCoy. We do an exhaustive development process to get
all of the evidence that is relevant to a claim. We do that up
front. And we work with a veteran, their representative, and
other service providers, other Federal records. We do an
exhaustive search to get everything front.
Mr. Bilirakis. But what could possibly happen--
Ms. McCoy. If something--
Mr. Bilirakis. --to veterans' claims if evidence is not
submitted?
Ms. McCoy [continued]. If evidence is not submitted we do
not have to consider and we make a decision and weigh the
evidence that we have. If subsequently we find that we missed
something, a veteran submits something late, a doctor finds
something late in a drawer and that is medical evidence to
consider, we will revisit that claim.
Mr. Bilirakis. How long would that take? And how long would
a veteran have to wait for their claims--
Ms. McCoy. It would be--
Mr. Bilirakis [continued]. --because the evidence is not
submitted due to the fault of the VA?
Ms. McCoy. There might be many reasons for the reason that
we do not have that evidence and that would be a case by case
basis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Next question for Mr. Arronte.
Based on your office's investigation, do you agree with the
VBA's insistence that the St. Petersburg RO's mail backlog was
not due to poor preparation of handling the documents?
Mr. Arronte. I am sorry, could you repeat that?
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Let me, based on your office's
investigation, do you agree with VBA's insistence that the St.
Petersburg RO, I am also from Florida, that the St. Petersburg
RO's mail backlog was not due to poor preparation of handling
of documents?
Mr. Arronte. Sir, we think that it was due to poor
management. And it did affect the timeliness of claims
processing. I think it added, you cannot say just that alone,
but from July or June 2014 to the end of December, their
average time to process claims jumped about 29 points. So to
say 18,000 documents did not affect claims processing
timeliness, I do not think anybody could say that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Are there any plans for the VBA to ensure
that the claims in this RO backlog were not negatively affected
resulting in denials or claims receiving lower ratings due to
missing and unprocessed evidence of a claimant?
Ms. McCoy. Congressman, we process all of our claims in the
electronic system and we now have that centralized mail system,
which was what we went into in July of 2015, in--
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Mr. Arronte, please, can you
respond to that question?
Mr. Arronte. I am sorry, could you repeat that?
Mr. Bilirakis. Again, are there any plans for the VBA to
ensure the claims in this RO backlog were not negatively
affected resulting in denials or claims receiving lower ratings
due to missing and unprocessed of a claimant? Do you have any
information with regard to that?
Mr. Arronte. I have no information.
Mr. Bilirakis. This affects my constituents.
Mr. Arronte. Right. I have no information. They are going
to process the mail. Are they going to go back and make it
right? That is a question for VBA. But I have no knowledge that
they are or they are not.
Mr. Bilirakis. Ms. McCoy?
Ms. McCoy. Congressman, we make sure that to the extent
possible we have all the evidence when we make a decision. The
amount of mail that was in the mail portal at the time in July
of 2014 was, this was a new process for us. We were learning
from it and St. Petersburg was one of our earliest adopters.
There were pieces of mail in the regional office that were what
we call drop mail. They were not active mail, but they needed
to be put with the folder. An example would be a copy of a
letter we sent out. So it is not a piece of evidence, but it
needs to be with the folder. So we had a clean up effort in St.
Petersburg and other places where we had to get that drop mail
associated. We--
Mr. Bilirakis. How many of our heroes were negatively
affected by this?
Ms. McCoy. I would say that there was some time delay in
the processing, but there was not a delay in making sure that
the right decision was made for the veteran.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Mr. Arronte, in the CACI scanning
facility, would you say that the VA staff followed VBA's
shipping standard operating procedure on veteran's intake
program regulations?
Mr. Arronte. Sir, no. I do not think that was followed. I
do not know how, I guess if I found 100 pieces of mail I could
say maybe that was a mistake or somebody did not manage that
properly. But 18,000 pieces of mail? I do not know if there
were any procedures being followed. I just do not know how that
amount of mail accumulates.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. McCoy, one quick question before I
recognize Ms. Brownley. Out of all the mail that was in St.
Petersburg that was just shown in that photograph, has
everything now been scanned and processed?
Ms. McCoy. Everything has been scanned and--
The Chairman. Okay. And what happened with that? Once it
gets scanned, what happens with that material?
Ms. McCoy [continued]. So the drop mail that we had
scanned, it was associated with the folder. If there is no
action that needs to be taken, it goes in there.
The Chairman. No, no, no. No, no. The boxes that we saw?
Ms. McCoy. Yes.
The Chairman. Okay? You scanned it. Where are those boxes?
Ms. McCoy. I do not believe all of those boxes that we saw
on the page were St. Petersburg. That is not my understanding.
Once they are scanned they go into the VBMS electronic claims
folder. Currently in St. Petersburg--
The Chairman. Okay. What were the boxes that we showed the
picture of?
Ms. McCoy. There was, it was my understanding there was a
storeroom at that facility where they had training materials
and other materials that were already scanned and ready to be
sent.
The Chairman. There were shipping, I think there were
shipping labels on those as if they were shipped to be scanned.
And so I guess my question is that information, where is it
now?
Ms. McCoy. The information that needed to be associated
with a veteran's folder has been scanned and put in the folder.
The Chairman. And where is, all those boxes, where are
those boxes today?
Ms. McCoy. So you are asking about the physical boxes
themselves?
The Chairman. And the material in the boxes.
Ms. McCoy. That material would have been processed and sent
to a long term storage facility that--
The Chairman. So you still have the boxes of information
that was scanned somewhere?
Ms. McCoy. They exist somewhere. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Okay. Could you find them for us?
Ms. McCoy. We--
The Chairman. I am going to make an official request,
because you are making out as if this is just junk mail.
Ms. McCoy. No, sir.
The Chairman. Okay. Yes, you are. And it is not junk mail.
So this Committee would like to see what was in those boxes. I
know it is going to be difficult and I know the Secretary is
going to raise Cain. And I would rather not do it with a
subpoena. I would rather do it because this Committee is asking
in a good faith effort. You have got to hold some people
accountable. I have yet to hear you say that because these
people did not meet their contractual requirements that they
are going to be held accountable.
Ms. McCoy. We have had additional oversight at that
facility.
The Chairman. Accountability.
Ms. McCoy. We have worked with the contractor and we have
worked with that contractor to make sure that they understand
what our expectations--
The Chairman. And how were they held accountable for not
meeting the terms of their contract?
Ms. McCoy. I do not have that information. I would have to
ask that and take it for the record.
The Chairman. Will you take that for the record?
Ms. McCoy. I will, sir.
The Chairman. When can we expect an answer?
Ms. McCoy. I will go back and work with the individuals in
VBA that manage that contract and I will get an answer as soon
as possible.
The Chairman. In other words, I do not want to hear any of
that stuff was shredded.
Ms. McCoy. That was not shredded, sir.
The Chairman. Okay. Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
having this hearing. It certainly in my opinion we have to
continue to have these hearings until we get it absolutely
right for our veterans.
I will say, though, that I, back in November, I visited the
Los Angeles Regional Office and met with VBA employees there,
saw the process, and met with VBA employees without their
managers there, met with them privately to get their feedback
on how the transition was going. And I will say that they
acknowledged that the process was rather rocky but they feel as
though the processing now in a paperless fashion is much more
efficient and more accurate. And they describe it as, you know,
a night and day difference. So I do think that it is important
that we acknowledge the progress that we have made. I do think
that there is still more that needs to be done to make sure
that we are processing these claims on a timely basis, you
know, across the country. And that we get a better handle on
the appeals process as well. So it is a, you know, a fail safe
service that we can provide to our veterans. And obviously
these benefits are very important to them and they have earned
and deserved them.
So in following up on Ms. Brown's questioning, just to ask
a few more specific questions, I know on the implementation
timeline, this question is to Ms. McCoy, one of the GAO's chief
concerns was about the, is about the timeline for reaching 100
percent implementation. Has the VA addressed that concern?
Ms. McCoy. I will start that answer and I would turn to Ms.
Bontempo to supplement my answer. From the original intended
goal of VBMS, the idea was to create an electronic repository,
an electronic file room if you will. And we have accomplished
that. We rolled it out at the end of 2012 to the first five
stations and by June of 2013 to all 56 regional offices so they
had that functionality that was the original intent.
We did not stop there. We went on to add in automation,
because that made sense and that was the right thing to do for
veterans and for our employees. And if Ms. Bontempo could add
to that?
Ms. Bontempo. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be
able to talk about why is VBMS different. VBMS is different
because we use what we refer to agile methodology, and that
means that we can release software every three months and bring
high value functionality to the field as quickly as possible to
serve our veterans. That is a little different than maybe you
have seen before. And as a result, once we were able to deliver
that electronic folder, a lot of folks were able to look around
and say, wow, you could do so much more. So we turned our
attention to what is the so much more that we could do?
So let me give you an example of that. One of those is
being able to receive the electronic service treatment records
from DoD. Another one is the evaluation builders. The
evaluation builders, they take over several hundred pages of
documents that look at the nearly 800 diagnostic codes that are
part of the rating schedule and they assist with that
standardization and consistency across VBA to make sure that
our veterans are served.
Ms. Brownley. So what about those, and I appreciate your
responses and those are important elements. But in terms of the
timeline and reaching 100 percent implementation, when do you
expect that to happen?
Ms. Bontempo. So we have reached 100 percent of our
original goal, and our original goal was the electronic folder.
Ms. Brownley. Okay, so of your new goals? When is, you
know, how are you monitoring your new goals now?
Ms. Bontempo. Correct. And so as we submitted in our pre-
hearing questions, we do understand that there needs to be an
end time. So we are looking at what a new investment would be
and what that new innovation would be as part of the fiscal
year 2018 budget process.
Ms. Brownley. So you are working on a timeframe for new
goals, new goals being important to full implementation and
better operational procedures. You are working on that timeline
and will have it by 2018?
Ms. Bontempo. 2018 is when we would intend to start a new
investment.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Also Members, for the record, there are two
instances, and staff has just clarified with me. One is the
installation in Georgia that we showed the picture of that had
what we considered insecure information on veterans. That was
the stacks of boxes, not the 45,000 claims I believe that were
for St. Petersburg. Am I correct in that, Ms. McCoy?
Ms. McCoy. That is--
The Chairman. Okay. Very good.
Ms. McCoy [continued]. Sorry, that is my understanding.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. I still want those boxes. We
want to see them. We do not want you to bring them here. We
will go wherever they are. Mr. Costello?
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question
for Mr. Arronte. In fiscal year 2015 your office substantiated
at least six allegations of data manipulation in VBA regional
offices, two in Houston, one in Los Angeles, one in
Philadelphia, one in Honolulu, one in Little Rock. Given these
findings, how can we trust VA statistics indicating that the
department has substantially reduced the disability claims
backlog? Can you share with us what methodology you went
through so that we can feel confident that the claims backlog
has been reduced by the amount that in fact is indicated?
Mr. Arronte. Yes, sir. The methodology that we used was--
let me back up. First of all in the two Houston situations, VBA
actually reached out to us. They were aware of the data
manipulation before we were. And we went out and then we
obtained the data that was manipulated and we took a
statistical sample and we tested those samples. And that was
the case in all regional offices. And we determined that data
manipulation did occur. And at three of the facilities the
employees resigned. Our concern is when you manipulate data
that is in a set. As long as that corrupt data stays in the
system, you do not go back and fix that and fix the data,
claims, or correct whatever manipulation happened, that data is
corrupt. And it is going to remain corrupt until those claims
are out of the system. So do we believe that this had an effect
on the backlog to some degree? It did. We do not believe all
the numbers are reliable.
Mr. Costello. Okay. You do not believe all the numbers are
reliable in relation to how much the claims backlog has been
reduced?
Mr. Arronte. Yes. And not just from the data manipulation.
I mean, if you manipulate data--
Mr. Costello. Right.
Mr. Arronte [continued]. --and you do not clear the system
of that corrupt data, that system stays corrupt. So if you
manipulated 3,000 claims to show that they were either done
early or not done at all, then that number reduces from the
backlog, that is an incorrect number because the data was
manipulated. And we also wrote a report on VBA's claims
processing initiative to process claims over 2 years. And what
we found was they were touting that they reduced or cleared all
these claims, but in fact they just shifted. They shifted from
the backlog to an end product that they used to track claims
and that end product was not part of the backlog.
Mr. Costello. So, and I appreciate your candor, two
questions, two points. One, could it be then that the claims
backlog is actually higher than is now indicated? Number two,
moving forward, will the focus be on ensuring that new claims
do not become part of the backlog while simultaneously
conceding that those that have already been manipulated, it is
very difficult to go back in and deal with data that has been
manipulated because those claims, to your point a little while
ago, those claims, it is impossible to sort of sift through
some of that because the data has already been corrupted?
Mr. Arronte. Okay. So for the second question, I think that
is probably better asked of VBA, and how they are going to
process these types of claims. And when they find instances
where employees have manipulated data what are they going to do
to ensure the data is correct. I can tell you we are going to
start two reviews here shortly. One of those reviews is to look
at the mail process and the scanning process, which is the
front end of VBMS, and we are also going to look at data
integrity of VBA's reporting mechanisms and how they capture
information for their metrics. And we want to see how they
count their numbers.
Mr. Costello. Okay. So talking about the issue of data
integrity, and you say you want to look at that, does that mean
that there could be issues there?
Mr. Arronte. Yes. We believe based on the six instances
that we corroborated during fiscal year 2015, that there may be
a systemic issue across the Nation. So we are going to test
their data reliability.
Mr. Costello. Again, I do appreciate your candor. And it
seems that based on that testimony, you know, we are not out of
the woods yet by any stretch of the measure.
Mr. Arronte. I would say right now it would be safe to say
we are not out of the woods.
Mr. Costello. And I probably should not use metaphors,
but--
Mr. Arronte. Right. I am with you.
Mr. Costello [continued]. --I appreciate it. Thank you. I
yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Takano?
Mr. Takano. Hi. Ms. McCoy, does any of your colleagues--you
or any of your colleagues want to respond to some rather
serious statements just made by Mr. Arronte?
Ms. McCoy. Thank you very much for the chance to do that.
So, a couple of points I would make, we have more robust and
transparent data and reporting systems now with VBMS than we
have ever had before. We have ways--every action that is taken
in our systems, there is, I would call it an electronic
fingerprint that is left, so we can go back and see who did
what. We did not have that in a paper-based world, number one.
Number two, I do not agree with Mr. Arronte's statement
that all of those regional office that he mentioned had a data
manipulation substantiated. One example I would give is Little
Rock. So, very quickly, there was a Fast Letter that was
released; it was Fast Letter 13-10 and it was instructing
regional offices--it was a national policy to, if you found an
old claim, to use a current date of claim to process it because
we did not want to dissuade a claims processor who opened up a
filed and said, oh, my goodness, there is a claim in here that
somebody missed from 17 years ago.
We did not--we wanted to encourage everybody to make sure
veterans got everything that they were deserving, so we said we
won't count that. You know, bring it forward. We want to make
sure we capture that and we will use a current date of claim.
It was a very minuscule number of claims that we did that, but
it was intended to make sure veterans' missed claims were
captured.
At the Little Rock Regional Office, IG found that they
changed some of these date of claims using the national policy,
but they kept a very extensive log to go back and--they knew
which ones they did. So I struggle because IG says they
substantiated that these dates of claim were changed, but, yet,
it was in line with the national policy. So that is a rock and
a hard spot; did they not follow national policy or--so I
disagree that there was data manipulation there. They were
following the national policy.
We can agree or disagree about whether or not the national
policy was correct. It has since been rescinded. We do not do
that anymore, but that is not a data manipulation situation.
Mr. Takano. Ms. McCoy, an important takeaway I am getting
from your testimony is the new capacity of an electronic system
versus the previous paper system which existed in the previous
administration, throughout the duration of that administration.
My understanding is we initiated, under this administration,
the electronic system, and the initial cost estimates were
lower. It cost--it has cost us a lot more to implement this
system and to develop the system, but you might want to--can I
ask you to comment on the advantages of moving forward with
electronic system with all its flaws.
Are we better off today than we were under the previous
seven to eight years as we saw our veterans' claims rising for
obvious reasons?
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, sir.
We are much better off and veterans are much better off
because of the electronic system that we have built. We were
behind the eight ball. We were outdated in our paper-based
system. We should have done this years ago, so the cross of
kind of catching up and doing that now has been that there has
been a lot of change that our employees have had to go through.
There has been a cost to do that catch-up.
Mr. Takano. You mean to tell me for the entire duration of
the previous administration, the seven to eight years when we
started our conflicts, the intervening conflicts around the
world, there was no attempt to establish an electronic claims
system?
Ms. McCoy. We had little bits and pieces of our claims that
were paperless, but there was not a wholesale effort until the
last few years--
Mr. Takano. So the effort to automate and to bring in a
complete electronic claim testimony into operation started in
2009?
Ms. McCoy. Foundationally, yes.
Mr. Takano. Foundationally, okay.
And we are far better off than under a paper-based system
with all the flaws and hiccups and one would say,
underestimated costs. Can you tell us--well, my time is running
out. I hope my Members--my colleagues will ask what we can do
to help further this along.
Ms. McCoy. Well--okay.
Mr. Takano. Sorry, my time is up, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Yeah, no, you are welcome to answer the
question.
Ms. McCoy. Oh, thank you, sir.
I would very quickly say that there are a number of things
that we can do now with an electronic system that we never
could before. We electronically receive service treatment
records from DoD. We do not have to go hunting and waiting for
those. We can move, work fluidly around our entire country,
around the entire system and get the full capacity out of our
employees. We could not do that before, except very inartfully
with boxing up paper records and shipping them around.
We are able to use automation to speed up and standardize
the decisions that we make. We are--we bring over disability
benefit questionnaire information electronically from VHA that
pre-populates the system. There are key strokes that are saved.
Our employees do not have to type every single key stroke that
they used to have to. There are--
The Chairman. Ms. McCoy, I gave you some extra time, but--
Ms. McCoy [continued]. Okay.
The Chairman [continued]. --I think the question is: What
can we do to help?
Ms. McCoy. I'm sorry, sir. I was so excited telling you
about what we were getting from the system.
The Chairman. Well, we are used to VA coming in--for the
Committee, so thank you.
Ms. McCoy. I would--I would say that the support we have
received already has been phenomenal, and that we would ask for
your continued support and the interaction that we have had
with this Committee and your staffs for ideas and ways that we
can improve the system.
The Chairman. So following with Mr. Takano's tact, since I
have been Chairman of this Committee, you have received great
support; is that correct? Just like under the Obama
Administration, you were talking about how the electronic
medical record has gone on in the last few years, correct?
Mr. Takano. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to point out that
we had a paper-based system--
The Chairman. Under the previous administration.
Mr. Takano [continued]. --under the previous
administration. The electronic system we are trying to move to
with VBMS has obviously had its share of problems, but my
contention is that we are probably better off, even with all
the problems we had and I would say unexpected costs, than we
were, had we not attempted to do this.
The Chairman. I concur. We are moving in the--
Mr. Takano. And I am glad you are interested in talking
about what can Congress do to continue the process of getting
the system to work as it should.
The Chairman. But it cannot be please pour more and more
and more money with no cost controls, and I think that is what
the Committee needs to focus on, is the fact that while Ms.
Bontempo says, we cannot tell you how much it is going to cost,
because we are going to continue to keep it changing.
Well, you know, it has been 147 percent increase and become
a huge increase in costs--and your time is expired--so, the one
question I would ask Ms. McCoy is: Why was the Fast Letter
rescinded?
Ms. McCoy. There were a number of policy and procedural
discussions and we thought it was best to rescind it.
The Chairman. And why was that?
Ms. McCoy. I was not involved in all of the discussions.
The Chairman. Could it have been that there was some
manipulation taking place because of the way the Fast Letter
was designed?
Ms. McCoy. I think it was the fact that we had a chance to
see how it was utilized when we put it out. We learned from
that and we made a decision to stop using it.
The Chairman. Mr. Arronte, could you comment?
Mr. Arronte. I agree with Ms. McCoy, that at Little Rock
they found this information and they corrected the information.
But the fact is that they followed the Fast Letter. It was the
same Fast Letter that we had problems with in Philadelphia.
And data manipulation, I am not sure if that is the right
or wrong term. If you go in and change data, and regardless if
your policy is good or bad, you still changed data and the data
is now corrupt, and that is what that Fast Letter did. And I
would suspect that the Fast Letter was rescinded--and I was
part of this discussion related to the incidents that happened
in the Philadelphia Regional Office when they were manipulating
data there--because it was bad policy because data was being
manipulated.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Huelskamp?
Mr. Huelskamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the topic and the discussion and the reports
here. I will remind the Committee, I think it was approximately
two years ago we sat here and heard glowing reports of other
parts of the VA right before a lot of data manipulation
scandals did break, and I hope we are not going there.
But I want to establish the facts here, as you understand
them, Ms. McCoy. So, the backlog data, there is no question,
you believe it is improved and the backlog is down to--how many
veterans are awaiting claims?
Ms. McCoy. The backlog has been greatly reduced and
currently, we are about 88 percent reduced from what we were
in--
Mr. Huelskamp. And how many veterans are still waiting?
Ms. McCoy. In the backlog, this morning it was just about
80,000.
Mr. Huelskamp. And they all have an electronic file
attached to them; is that correct?
Ms. McCoy. Ninety-nine point eight percent of our
disability claims work is paperless.
Mr. Huelskamp. So you should be able to generate a list of
my constituents that are still waiting in the backlog, then?
Ms. McCoy. We could provide that.
Mr. Huelskamp. Would you do that?
Thank you. The second thing is, if I understand correctly,
we do not know what the cost is going to be. All we know is it
has been overrun by $720 million, but we still do not know what
the final cost will be for implementation; is that correct?
Ms. McCoy. I would say that--I will turn to my colleagues
to supplement--but I would say that from the beginning of where
we started with electronic repository, check, and moving
forward, continuing to build up the automation, the
functionality, that is something we probably will never finish
because we always want to make sure we are doing a better job
and--
Mr. Huelskamp. Is that what you told Congress when you
requested the money, that you had no idea what it was going to
cost?
Ms. McCoy [continued]. The request--
Mr. Huelskamp. No, you did not. So what I want to establish
here and try to figure out is, you do not know what the final
cost is going to be--
Ms. McCoy. I will ask Ms. Bontempo to address that.
Mr. Huelskamp [continued]. --and you are going to go to the
appropriations process this year and say, we want more money,
but we do not know when this will end and what the final cost
will be for a very specific project; is that correct?
Ms. Bontempo. So, let me take that in two parts. The first
is in a traditional IT project that we would call a waterfall
which is, essentially, we gather all those requirements
upfront, then we turn them over to IT, then they build the
system, and years later you have something delivered that may
not be meeting your user needs; that is a traditional IT
project. We did not go down that path.
We used something called Agile, which allowed us to take
and build requirements as we were going along. VBMS was not
intended to be 100 percent complete on day one. We deliver
every three months, that high-value functionality. As we are
going through the process, the budgeting process that you are
referencing, we will be looking at a new investment to look at
new innovations as part of the fiscal year 2018 process.
Mr. Huelskamp. So, what will the--how much are you going to
ask for, on top of the 580 million that is now at 1.3 billion?
And you need how much more--or you are just trying to tell us,
we are going to tell you--we will let you know how much we will
need.
Ms. Bontempo. So the fiscal year 2017 budget has been--is
working through the department, and as soon as it is released
to Congress, we will be happy to talk to that more.
Mr. Huelskamp. So--but 2018, is that when this particular
project will be completed? You keep talking about 2018.
Ms. Bontempo. 2018 is when we are looking at a new
investment and a new investment will allow us to take advantage
of what we have done so far and what other things could we
bring into that.
Mr. Huelskamp. And how do you hold your contractors
accountable, particularly like the folks in the scanning
facility in Georgia, and, by the way, were they held--did they
lose any money over that? Did you punish them financially for
all those records that were sitting there and presumably--and I
am guessing some of them might have been lost.
Ms. McCoy. I mentioned earlier that I would check on that
to make sure we deliver that, anything that was done. But there
were no records lost and there was not a wrongdoing.
There was a cleanup effort that needed to be done and we
have completed that.
Mr. Huelskamp. The contractor was held accountable for--I
mean this is from a year ago. That picture is from a year ago.
Ms. McCoy. And it does not look like that any longer, sir.
Mr. Huelskamp. Who was--what did the contractor--I mean,
what, did you go to them and say, hey, sorry, let's fix this
up. I don't understand.
Can you describe how you held the contractor accountable?
If I were you, I would be very embarrassed. This is the first
time I have seen that picture. I mean, I assume this is going
to show up in a lot of places across this country, and your
explanation is we held them accountable how?
Ms. McCoy. I do not have that information with me, sir. I
am going to take that for the record and provide it.
As far as--
Mr. Huelskamp. And I appreciate that. I am about out of
time.
Mr. Chairman, again, this picture is a year old. You knew
about this a year ago. Your staff knew about that from the
folks right here at this table. We should have heard about it
in the Committee a year ago. I am very disappointed that a year
later, you cannot say, hey, this has been taken care of and
this is why.
You assured us it has been taken care of, but you cannot
tell us what you did with the contractor that failed, and that
is what I worry about when you say you have a never-ending
project with a never-ending price tag that has moving goals and
you tell us at the beginning it is only going to be 580
million, but, magically, it is at 1.3 billion with no end in
sight, no timeframe in sight; just, we will let you know in
2018, which, by the way, will be under another administration.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for
the topic at this hearing.
The Chairman. Dr. Ruiz, you are recognized.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today. Thank you for all your
efforts. I know your intentions are to serve our veterans with
the utmost quality, and there are wins and there are losses and
there is a lot of interrogation here from this Committee, I am
sure.
I think we need to take a step back and look at the big
picture. This hearing is about backlog; backlog is a
description of a metric definition saying that we do not have
resolution on a veteran's application for their benefits after
125 days. And we are even going even more specific away from
the big picture when we focus on VBMS, as that is only one of
several tools that we have to help reduce the backlog.
However, after, you know, many conversations with our
veterans, after many attempts and advocacy fighting the system
and helping our veterans back home, and after visiting the LA
Regional Office with Representative Brownley to hear from staff
and many others, we must ask ourselves the simple question:
What does backlog mean for our veterans, especially when we try
to become a veteran-centered institution of excellence for
them?
So what does it mean for our veterans when we throw out
these terms ``backlog''? One, is that the claims that they
believe they have earned are not being answered. What does that
do to a veteran? That means that they are waiting anxiously.
There is more stress; stress affects their health. That means
that they are not getting the resources or the services that
they need.
Two, that they are not getting the benefits that they
believe that they deserve. Now, granted, some claims that they
are applying for, they are not going to get because they do not
qualify under the current requirements; however, the worst-case
scenario is that we have a veteran who actually deserves the
benefits and they have been waiting so long and they are
suffering from morbidity or from whatever economic hardships
that they are undergoing because they are not getting what they
should, and it is a systematic problem that they are not
getting that benefit that they should. And even worse, that
they should get the benefit, but they have been denied and now
they are in the appeals process. So what does it mean to a
veteran? It means that their quality of life is not where it
should be, and that is why all of this is important.
Three, the appeals is part of a continuum of that process.
So we talk about backlog, and we are focusing on backlog, and
so we are looking at it one backlog metrics of the claims
application, but then once they get an answer, we say, we
reduced the backlog because we gave them an answer. Well, the
answer is just a half of what the veteran is really looking
for. So then they want to appeal and the actual outcome of this
is that they want their benefit. So the appeals process should
not be seen as a completely entirely separate set of metrics.
If we are going to look at the veteran's experience, the
appeals process should be seen as a continuum of that.
The other thing I need to note is often times we are
looking at cost and we would definitely love to reduce cost and
make it efficient. Because cost is a part of efficiency that we
want to produce the best outcome for the least amount of
resources as possible, but cost is not stagnant; cost is
dynamic. And the reason why we cannot predict what the cost is
going to be next year or five years or ten years from now is
because the veteran's needs change. Veterans' needs are
dynamic. Our ability to improve our efficiencies are dynamic.
Those are metrics that are out of our control.
So when we have an influx of veterans coming back from the
Middle East, when we have an increase in our efficiencies,
therefore, we are able to reach out to more veterans and
process their needs quicker--for example, in 2006, since then,
we have had 191 percent increase in output, then we are moving
the pieces so that we can get the veterans the answer and what
they need.
So having said that, looking at the big picture, how can we
reform the metric system so that we can take the veteran's
experience and look at, are the veterans getting resolutions to
their answers and, two, are they getting the benefits that they
earn and they deserve from day one when they fill their
application to whatever end point it may be, whether it is the
appeals process, as well.
The Chairman. You have two seconds. Just kidding. Please
answer the question.
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, sir.
I would like to make just a couple quick points. To your
point, sir, that the number of cases that we resolved, I just
want to share a couple of metrics and then I will move on. In
fiscal year 2006, which is as far back as we can drill down to
the issue, by issue level with our data, while we completed
774,000 rating claims, in that, there were almost 2.2 million
different issues. It was an average of 2.8 issues per claim.
This last year in fiscal year 2015, while we really hit
that big number, it was almost 1.4 rating claims completed, but
within that, it was 6.3 million issues. So that, as you
mentioned, has been 191 increase in the amount of work we have
had to do to deliver those benefits; an average of 4.6 issues
per claim. So, a claim is not a claim. We are doing more work
per claim than we were in the past.
As far as the appeals and the metrics, I agree with you
that from the veteran's experience, those who appeal, see it as
a continuum. I--we are--I struggle with how to make it one long
continuum, because only 10 to 11 percent of veterans who
receive a decision actually file an appeal, and only about 4 to
5 percent go all the way through to file a formal appeal. So,
it is the majority of those who get decisions do not appeal.
So within the appeal process, we have more work--we have
much more work than we can tackle. It is a broken appeal system
and we have talked to stakeholders, our veterans service
officer partners, Congress. We have--we are looking for
solutions and we welcome any ideas and solutions. We have put
forth--we need significant legislative reform for the appeals
issue, including closing the record. The only other alternative
that I can see is more people and that is not an efficient
answer.
Mr. Ruiz. How about using resolution as a metric;
resolution, from day one to the final, final answer for our
veterans and looking at that in the whole continuum?
The Chairman. Did I hear--did I hear you say that the VA
wants legislative approval to close a veteran's appeals
process?
Ms. McCoy. We have had that as a legislative proposal to
close the record, yes, sir--
The Chairman. And how far--
Ms. McCoy [continued]. --on appeal.
The Chairman [continued]. --did that go, legislatively?
Ms. McCoy. We are still--we have introduced it several
times was my understanding, and we are still working on that.
The Chairman. Yeah, I don't know that you will get this
Committee to allow the VA to close a veteran's appeal, just
because you want to clean your books up.
Ms. McCoy. That is not the intention.
The Chairman. Mr. Coffman, you are recognized.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCoy, I have heard from a lot of my constituents about
the backlog problems in the Denver VA office, particularly on
non-rating adjustment claims. VA's own Denver office numbers
from last week peg the average days pending on non-rating
claims at 384 days over a year, and that assumes that this data
is reliable, something the IG is skeptical of, based on reviews
in the Denver office and elsewhere, related to reports of data
manipulation.
One constituent was told the wait time may be two years
simply to add dependents to her award, which means in the
meantime, her children are not eligible for dependent education
benefits.
Can you explain why some of these simple non-rating
adjustments can take so long? It seems more of a management
issue, than an IT issue, given the simplicity of many of them.
Ms. McCoy. Congressman, I will speak on the non-rating
element to the dependency issue you mentioned. So, we have many
different solutions for dependency, and it is our agency
priority goal for fiscal year 2016 and 2017. So, we are putting
in a more concentrated effort on resolving dependency claims.
There is the Rules-Based Processing System called RBPS and
veterans can file online and about 60--60--65 percent of those
go through and are automatically processed within just a day or
two, so that is one solution.
Mr. Coffman. So where would this two-year wait come--that
this individual was told--where would that come from?
Ms. McCoy. So, there are some situations where we have
tried to put those through the RBPS system multiple times. As
we have added functionality, there are some instances where we
are still looking for evidence or information. We are
prioritizing--
Mr. Coffman. Excuse me. I would like to go to the IG, if I
could.
Mr. Arronte, I wondered if you could comment on this issue?
Mr. Arronte. Yes, sir.
I would--I would suspect that this is a goal for VBA in
fiscal year 2016 and 2017, because during the push to reduce
the backlog, a lot of resources were moved to rate and process
those claims. In my written statement--in my opening statement,
we have seen, because of the shift in the reallocation of staff
to work claims associated with the backlog, it created backlogs
in other areas.
Mr. Coffman. So this is more of a management issue than IT?
Mr. Arronte. I absolutely believe so.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. Thank you.
According--Ms. McCoy, according to the September 14th, 2015
OIG report, costs for the development of VBMS increased from
nearly 579 million in September of 2009 to almost 1.3 billion
in January of 2015, and the IG attributed the cost increases
to, ``Inadequate cost controls, unplanned changes in system and
business requirements, and inefficient contracting practices.''
Those details sound an awful lot like the construction
debacle we had in my district with the building of the hospital
and the incredible cost overruns on that. Can you give us any
specifics in terms of VA employees--first of all, who was in
charge of the day-to-day oversight of the VBMS system, the
development of the system?
Ms. McCoy. So, I would ask Mr. Schliesman or Ms. Bontempo
to speak to that since they are--
Mr. Coffman. Who--who was in charge of it? That is why I
just want the name of the individual who was in charge of it.
Ms. Bontempo. So, I am the director--
Mr. Coffman. Okay.
Ms. Bontempo [continued]. --of the Veterans Benefits
Management System Program Management Office. I work within the
VBA chain of command.
Mr. Coffman. Are you in charge--that is my question--are
you in charge--
Ms. Bontempo. In--in addition, I am--
Mr. Coffman [continued]. --of the day-to-day--just tell me
whether or not you are in charge of the day-to-day management
of this--development of this system; that is all I want to
know.
Ms. Bontempo. On the business side.
On the IT side, there are folks who are in charge of the
day-to-day operations and I will defer to Mr. Schliesman to
talk about the IT.
Mr. Schliesman. Yes, sir.
Sir, the scope changes we talk about, it is important to
understand those are the deliberate decisions of the agency in
support of the agency's priority goals. Those are determined by
the secretary--
Mr. Coffman. Okay--
Mr. Schliesman [continued]. --on the needs of supporting
the veteran.
Mr. Coffman [continued]. --I am not going to get a clear
answer here.
Because has anybody been disciplined--let me put it this
way: Can you tell me, has anybody been disciplined for what the
IG has identified, in terms of this incredible cost overrun,
and the mismanagement in the development of this system?
Mr. Schliesman. So, again, sir, you know, the cost overruns
alluded to here, again, were deliberate decisions--
Mr. Coffman. Can you tell me, has anybody been disciplined?
And I guess the answer is no; is that correct?
The fact that we have got these incredible cost overruns,
mismanagement has been identified by the IG, and what you are
telling me is that nobody has been disciplined, which is--which
is really reflective of VA's culture of, I think, in terms of
just the bureaucratic incompetence.
Let me--Ms. McCoy, as you know, there are--there are not
only a claims backlog--
Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Sorry.
The Chairman. Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Chairman.
Just to clarify what Mr. Takano was saying, is that this
progression to electronic records occurred in medicine; in
about 2008 or 2009, about 30 to 40 percent of doctors' offices
had EMRs. So this was a progression of all businesses. The
private sector was just way ahead of the public sector in doing
that; that is all. The public sector was actually behind the
private sector. I wish you were here to clarify that.
First of all, I have been here seven years, a little less
than the Chairman has, and the claims backlog is better. There
is no question that in 2009, we had a half million or maybe a
million--it was a huge number of claims that needed to be
looked at. So I think the VA is moving in the right direction
and I thank you for that.
Also, Mr. Arronte brought up some very interesting comments
about bad data just creates bad decisions. I mean if you have
corrupt data in your system, you cannot tell--that is the
problem the VA has had with us now on the Committee is we have
lost trust. We cannot believe the information we--we will hear
one thing and then when we do an investigation, we will find
that it was not exactly like it. Maybe there was no intent
involved; it could just be bad information. I mean nobody
intentionally did that, but it just happened because you gave
us the corrupt data.
So I know that what Mr. Coffman pointed out about the 500
million to 1.3 billion, this does seem symptomatic and, I mean,
when we look at--it is embarrassing to go home, back to East
Tennessee where people do not make a lot of money, where the
average incomes in some of my counties are less than $25,000
for families of four. They are working just to get by, and then
I hear we have a billion-dollar overrun at the hospital in
Denver and we have a $700 million miscalculation here and
really no explanation why.
It is hard for me to go home, as their representative, and
explain that to them when you have a veteran who is waiting on
an answer for a claim that has been submitted. I have no answer
for them. I just tell them, I cannot answer your question, I
cannot. And they want to know why.
And I think that is what we are asking, and I think what he
was trying to get to was, who was the person responsible? You
know, I knew every time I walked in the operating room who was
responsible: me. It wasn't the anesthesiologist. It was not the
scrub nurse. It was not the circulating nurse. It wasn't
anybody in there, but me. It was not the assistant surgeon; it
was me. I could answer it.
And that is the problem. I think the Chairman has done
this--done a very good job of this, of trying to pinpoint just
who is responsible so we can have some accountability. I think
that is all we are asking.
Mr. Chairman, I think--and I appreciate you having this
hearing because probably the things you hear and I hear when we
go home are claims that people cannot--their claims are out
there. These people are really--Dr. Ruiz was talking about it a
minute ago--these folks are just waiting by the phone to hear
this, because if they get this benefit, it changes how they
live. And these are elderly veterans, widows, people who have
lost their husbands.
I have a friend of mine--one of my best friends in this
world died less than a year ago and his wife is waiting now,
still, to see if she has any benefits. So I think that is the
thing we are--these are real people at the end of this
electronic record and so forth.
And I don't know where this happened, but this actually is
a picture right here that looks worse than my garage. It is
hard to believe that anything could, but that actually does,
and that is embarrassing to actually--if veterans saw that at
home, to think that their record was somewhere in that, they
would be livid.
And I think we can do better than we are, and with that, I
yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Roe.
Actually, that is your garage. I was over there last week
and took a picture.
Mr. Roe. I can still park my car in there, though.
The Chairman. I know that the folks at the department do
not relish the opportunity to come testify before this
Committee, but I think Dr. Roe said it well. I mean the idea
is, if you are going to say something, do it. If you are going
to do it, do it right. And if you screw up, admit that you made
a mistake--and not necessarily today; I am just talking about
VA in general.
I believe that Bob McDonald and Sloan Gibson are
outstanding leaders trying to move the department into the 21st
Century. It is not going to be cheap. It is not going to be
easy. The new buzzword is flexibility, and the problem is there
has been so much misspending of dollars, inappropriately
appropriated dollars, that this Congress is going to be very
hard to move in a direction that allows the department
flexibility because of mistakes that have been made, budgeting
that has been done, lack of accountability.
Again, we are asking one simple question on the contractor:
Has anybody been held accountable? I mean a contract is written
down and signed for specific reason, and that reason is to hold
somebody accountable.
The same thing with the employees at the department. And,
yes, we may want to see a little more movement in some
instances, but any movement is better than no movement.
Yes, Mr. Takano was absolutely correct, and I appreciate
Dr. Roe bringing it to our attention that health and medical
records and electronic records have been a thing of the more
recent future, and we are trying to get there, but it is very
difficult when we have a finite amount of money that we are
allowed to budget and provide to the agency. And I don't
believe anybody at the Department of Veterans Affairs can
quarrel with the money that has been given to the department
over the last decade, a tremendous amount of money; I mean in
the 70 percentile increases. Huge dollars.
I appreciate you coming and testifying. I appreciate your
knowledge in the areas in which you are working in and I
appreciate right down to the person that may be a line clerical
worker making the difference, but I hope you understand that as
we sit here and we argue on what the backlog is--I think Dr.
Ruiz said it right--the end outcome is the most important thing
to the veteran. And while the media may focus on the backlog
dropping, if that veteran hasn't gotten their benefits that
they think that they have earned, they are still backlogged.
And so, to watch this process evolve, we are going to
continue the oversight responsibility. We want to be a partner,
but when we ask a question, we would like a direct answer. And
sometimes that is difficult to get--not necessarily out of the
witnesses here today. We talked about the six areas this
morning that the IG had found where there was data
manipulation, and you immediately went directly to Little Rock.
So you were ready for the answer to that question.
Well, interestingly enough, Little Rock can be blamed on
the Fast Letter which, in fact, did allow data manipulation
within the system, but we did not talk about the other four or
five issues that were raised. And interestingly enough, I had
staff go check and the department concurred with what the IG
had said as it related to the data manipulation in those areas.
And so I say all that to say this Committee desires very
much to work with the department, but we are going to continue
the oversight responsibility that the constitution requires of
us. And as Mr. Takano has asked before, tell us what you need.
Sometimes the answer from us is going to be no, but sometimes
it is going to be yes.
And with that, I would ask that all Members would have five
legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks
or add any extraneous material.
Without objection, so ordered.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Jeff Miller, Chairman
Good morning, this hearing will come to order.
We are here to discuss yet another VA project that is over budget
and underachieving. Unfortunately, this is a familiar subject for the
Committee.
Today, we will address the mismanagement of the Veterans Benefits
Management System, called VBMS, which is VA's electronic claims
processing system.
VBMS is supposed to help expedite benefit claims decisions,
eliminate rating inconsistencies and errors, and enable a more
efficient claims process workflow.
Unfortunately, it isn't working as intended.
VA promised to eliminate the backlog in 2015. It's now 2016 and
while VA has made progress, the backlog still exists. Similarly, VBMS
is not yet completed, and VA has been unable to provide this Committee
with a timeline for when it will be done.
As of January 1, 2016, there were over 360,000 disability claims
pending, over 75,000 of which were pending more than 125 days, which is
what VA defines as the "backlog," and I will address that definition in
a moment. This is despite Congress devoting substantial taxpayer
resources-including significantly increasing VBA's workforce by
approximately 7,300 full-time employees between 2007 and 2014-to help
VA meet its goal of eliminating the claims backlog by the end of 2015
Additionally, Congress has allocated more than $1 billion to VBMS -
even though VA's estimate in September 2009 priced VBMS at $580
million. Since then, the projected cost of the program has jumped to
$1.3 billion-and there is no guarantee that VA will not need more money
for VBMS in the future.
History seems to be repeating itself here. The cost overruns for
VBMS would be bad enough but, after six years in development, VBMS is
still not able to fully support disability claims and pension
applications-and only acts as a document repository for appeals. That
brings me to VA's definition of what constitutes a backlog.
As of April 1, 2013, VA had an appeals inventory of almost 250,000;
but, as of January 1, 2016, that number had ballooned to about 433,000
appeals, which are not counted by VA as part of the backlog. With the
large increase in the number of appeals, it makes no sense that VA has
not ensured VBMS' ability to actually process appeals, as it did for
initial claims.
In fact, I recently learned that the VA is projecting that it will
certify almost 360,000 new appeals in FY 17 - that's in comparison to
almost 70,000 certified appeals in FY 15.
I am also alarmed that according to a GAO report, between January
2013 and May 2015, VBMS suffered from multiple system crashes, and was
offline for a total of 117 hours-or almost three full work weeks.
I expect VA to argue that any temporary disruptions caused by the
implementation of VBMS have been outweighed by the program's benefits.
Based on recent OIG and GAO investigations, I'm not sure that I
agree because of the many other factors in reducing VA's definition of
the backlog.
Moreover, both the OIG and GAO reports of September 2015 criticize
VA for not setting clear benchmarks for developing and implementing
VBMS.
Of course, without concrete deadlines for the VBMS rollout, it is
impossible to hold VA management accountable for meeting deadlines and
demonstrating progress. But even if VBMS was performing perfectly,
there are still management issues that add to processing times.
In a report issued just last week, the OIG found that the St.
Petersburg Regional Office had a significant backlog of unprocessed
veterans' claims information at a scanning contractor facility. I am
appalled that Florida veterans may have waited longer than other
veterans due to this scanning delay.
Members, I'd like to draw your attention to the image above which
demonstrates the extent of improperly stored and commingled veteran
information at the contractor site.
Understandably, I am troubled that, in addition to the scanning
delays, based on how this information was insecurely stored at the
scanning facility; veterans' information was potentially vulnerable to
loss, theft, and misuse.
I will further explore this and other issues outline in my
statement during the course of this hearing.
I now yield to the Ranking Member.
Prepared Statement of Beth McCoy
Introduction
Good Morning Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the recent
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG)
and Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, dated September 14,
2015, and September 15, 2015, respectively.
Transforming to Meet the Needs of Our Veterans
VA reached an historic milestone in its efforts to improve the
delivery of benefits and services to America's Veterans, their
families, and Survivors - reducing the backlog of disability claims
(claims pending more than 125 days) to 75,444 - an 88 percent reduction
from its peak of 611,000 claims in March 2013 and the lowest in our
history. We closed fiscal year (FY) 2015 having provided claim
decisions to nearly 1.4 million Veterans - exceeding one million claims
for the sixth year in a row and setting a new record for claims
production. These milestones were achieved through implementation of an
aggressive and comprehensive transformation plan that included
initiatives to retrain and reorganize our people, streamline our
business processes, and build and implement new secure technology
solutions. VBMS is and has been the cornerstone of our transformation
strategy.
VBMS and the Electronic Folder
Prior to 2011, claims processors used an extraordinarily
inefficient, paper-intensive process to deliver disability benefits to
America's Veterans. When VA received a Veteran's application, the paper
folder had to be retrieved from storage, and it could take days or even
weeks to arrive. Claims processors would route the paper claims folders
through various processing points in the regional office (RO) a minimum
of five times for each claim, and they diligently reviewed files that
were often over 18 inches deep. When a Veteran needed a medical
examination, the paper claims folder had to be shipped to the medical
center so it could be available to the examining physician.
All of this took time - and while the paper claims folder was in
one location, subsequent actions were delayed until the paper folder
was returned and again available. The opportunity was great to misplace
files and documents - or to not have the file in the right place at the
right time in order to deliver a timely decision.
As Kelli from the Lincoln RO describes, "It was very cumbersome. We
were limited by the physical paper file in that we had to have the
paper file before we could take any further action. When the paper file
was off station, the claim sat idle until the paper file was returned.
The paper files in themselves were difficult to manage. Even the
smallest files ran a high risk of lost documents due to the mechanics
of the paper file setup. Additionally, the larger the files became, the
heavier the files became, putting strain on employees lifting and
carrying files."
It was obvious that our benefits delivery processes were in need of
major overhaul if VA was to provide Veterans with high quality
decisions on their claims within 125 days. While the VBMS initiative
initially focused on building an electronic claims folder to attack the
inefficiencies of the paper folders and the problems of misplaced files
and records, it was of necessity expanded to include streamlining and
automating steps in the decision process.
VBMS has delivered on the electronic claims folder - and currently
houses over 260 million documents and 1.7 billion images. This has made
a major difference for our employees, for Veterans, and for their
representatives. Natalie from Indianapolis said, "With VBMS, VA
employees now have a unified system of record, which allows for a more
efficient and transparent claims process when assisting Veterans and
beneficiaries with their claims. For example, if I receive a phone call
from a Service Officer regarding a Veteran's claim, I can look inside
the Veteran's electronic folder to review evidence and no longer would
need to refer the question to the employee with the physical claims
folder on their desk. This saves time and provides a superior level of
customer service."
VBMS provides a web-based application where multiple,
geographically separated users can view the electronic folder
simultaneously, minimizing the need for sequential processing and
eliminating the delays our employees endured waiting for paper folders.
Additionally, paperless claims processing technology enables telework
opportunities for our employees. VBMS has an impressive list of
accomplishments. At the end of FY 2012, VBMS was operational at five
ROs with a limited number of users and fewer than 1,000 claims
completed. By June 2013, VBMS was operational at all 56 ROs - six
months ahead of schedule. Since then, VBMS has supported more than
30,000 unique users at all VBA facilities, 148 Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) facilities, Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs),
and many other sites. VBMS also delivered a customized "Board of
Veterans' Appeals (Board) View" of the electronic folder to support
appeals processing at the Board. By February 2015, VBMS had completed 1
million awards in VBMS. Demonstrating the growing momentum of the
system, the 2 millionth award was completed just 6 months later. The
most recent milestone, processing 2 million claims end-to-end in VBMS,
was reached in September.
VBMS and the Employee Experience of Helping Veterans
Veterans have benefited substantially from VBMS as a result of new
capabilities at every step of the claims process. More Veterans are
receiving faster decisions because of the increase in both production
and productivity that VBMS has enabled. VBMS is removing
administrative-type duties from users by automatically recording
receipt of evidence, moving claims to the next decision status, and
submitting service treatment record (STR) requests as soon as we
receive Veterans' claims. In every step of the process from intake
processing, to evidence gathering, to the rating decision, to awarding
the benefit, VBMS continues to transform the way our claims processors
work.
For example, VBMS provides evidence-gathering capabilities that
include a correspondence engine to automatically generate commonly used
letters to Veterans and claimants using standard templates. It also
integrates business-rules to route claims to specific users and
provides secure connections with other internal and external
applications and systems (including VHA, DoD, and VSO systems). Receipt
of evidence, movement of claims to the next stage, and updates to the
claims status are automated. In addition, embedded calculators provide
decision-support tools that improve accuracy through standardization
and consistency among all ROs. These improvements enable raters to
spend their time applying their expertise to decisions for Veterans.
The rules-based system in VBMS takes into consideration all factors to
grant the Veteran the maximum benefits with improved quality, thus
making the rating process more seamless. We have now completed over 3.7
million rating decisions in VBMS.
The VBMS Awards functionality saves up to ten minutes per claim
when compared to the manual paper process, and enables a consistent and
streamlined decision notification. Prior to VBMS, award notifications
could vary greatly depending on who prepared them, creating the
impression of variance in decision processes and inconsistency from RO
to RO.
Agile Methodology and User Feedback
VA's success with VBMS is attributed to using an iterative
development methodology, known as Agile, to deliver functionality in
three-month increments, along with an intense focus on collaboration
between those that use the system, business representatives, and OI&T
software development teams. Agile methodology has enabled VBMS to
mitigate many of the challenges typical of complex, transformational
software development efforts by rapidly delivering high-value
functionality in short increments and involving users throughout the
software design and development process.VBMS was never intended to
deliver full end-to-end processing on "day one." Such an approach would
have been high-risk and, due to the continuously evolving nature of the
requirements, would have resulted in the system failing to meet real
user requirements when finally delivered - a classic failure of large
system development. Therefore, VA purposely chose to develop VBMS using
Agile methodology in order to accelerate its implementation and ensure
flexibility to changing business requirements. This decision enabled
employees to begin using VBMS while the solution was still under
construction, and has provided a mechanism for software development
teams to continuously respond to user feedback and needs as the
software product is being built. The Agile process for VBMS was
tailored, but the foundational goals remained of faster delivery with
more business value and user involvement throughout the process.
A critical element of success is an intense focus on soliciting
input from users at every step and providing many avenues for
continuous feedback. VBA users from across the country frequently
attend software design and testing sessions with system developers to
provide essential input on the direction of VBMS development. This
user-in-the-middle approach has resulted in a collaborative effort
unprecedented in a project of this magnitude in federal government.
Training and Change Management
Not only was user feedback critical to our progress, we took a very
measured approach to change management that complemented the Agile
methodology. Our employees are the key to success, and VBA made the
investment of appointing Change Management Agents (CMAs) at every RO.
VBMS was rolled out to ROs and stakeholders in a carefully planned
sequence, allowing technology to be introduced as employees were
trained to use the system.
VBMS used a "Train-the-Trainer" model, ensuring availability of
resources to support users at ROs. These local points of contact,
called Superusers, provide local training and prepare employees to
successfully use VBMS. Approximately 800 Superusers receive live
virtual training every three months in advance of each VBMS major
release. The training materials are made available to the Superusers to
facilitate consistent and standardized training at the local level.
OI&T Collaboration
VBMS has been transformational not only because of the software
capabilities delivered, but also because of the collaborative
relationship between VBA and OI&T that is a large part of the VBMS
success story. One of the keys to VBMS success is understanding
business responsibilities in an IT project.
In the early stages of VBMS development, the system experienced
issues with latency, but great strides have been made to address and
resolve VBMS application performance issues. VBMS system availability
(i.e., the percentage of time that VBMS is available to users during
work hours) was 99.2 percent in FY 2014 and 99.8 percent in FY 2015).
From October 2013 to August 2015, the VBMS response times improved 36
percent, while the number of daily system users increased 60 percent.
OI&T has scrutinized every step of VBMS architecture, from desktop to
database, to identify, analyze, and remediate the root causes of system
"latency". For example, in 2013 OI&T conducted a series of on-site
performance tests at ROs to observe VBMS performance as users worked in
system. These tests identified opportunities for configuration and
software modifications that have since been incorporated into major
software releases and resulted in moderate-to-significant performance
improvements in the user experience.
As a result of performance testing and improvement efforts, and to
mitigate the risks of downtime, OI&T monitors application performance
through redundant end-to-end system monitoring software (Foglight,
Introscope) and continuous monitoring of application servers by a
production operations team. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week,
there are monitoring tools that test system availability and end-to-end
response times from every RO to ensure the best possible up-time and
user experience.
OI&T is supported by project management and engineering competency
services provided through an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) with the
Department of the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center
(SPAWAR). Since 2011, SPAWAR has served as the lead for engineering and
developing the core VBMS application. When the VBMS program was
launched, SPAWAR was supporting VA on the Chapter 33 Long Term Solution
project and had established itself as an industry leader in information
assurance, information management, and program management. At the time,
SPAWAR was the only organization VA identified that could
simultaneously provide technology services related to the development,
implementation, operations, and maintenance of VBMS, thereby filling an
engineering competency that VA lacked. The SPAWAR IAA has played a
crucial role on this project, and continues to serve as the single
integrator for implementing the VBMS solution. The SPAWAR team has
served as both a major contributor to the success of VBMS and a
champion for VA's efforts to improve overall benefits delivery to
Veterans and their beneficiaries. SPAWAR's collaboration with VA is an
outstanding example of how federal agencies can work together and
leverage shared resources to better serve taxpayers.
The Vision for VBMS
In FY 2016, VBA is implementing a national workload strategy
through a phased rollout of the National Work Queue (NWQ). This
initiative improves visibility and provides greater flexibility in
management of our workload and performance by enabling automated
distribution across VBA. NWQ prioritizes and distributes our claims
inventory at a national level and further standardizes claims
processing. This will give Veterans in every state in the country the
same access to benefits and timely decisions.
In FY 2016, VBMS will continue to reduce reliance on legacy
systems. As part of planned improvements to the electronic folder for
this fiscal year, Veterans will start to see a unique identifier (like
a QR code or a barcode) on the letters they receive from us. When
Veterans return the information we request along with that code, we
will be able to automatically add the information to the electronic
folder and quickly move the claim to the next step. Additionally, VBMS
will implement functionality necessary to establish one authoritative
source for Veteran contact information in FY 2016. The possibilities
are great to further improve accuracy, timeliness, and standardization
of claims processing, and to ultimately improve service to our
Veterans.
Conclusion
While we know there is more work to be done, our efforts are
continually generating positive and significant results. VBMS is poised
to capitalize on our achievements to date and drive continued
improvements in claim processing timeliness, accuracy, and
transparency. Realization of the long-term vision requires continued
support and resources.
The OIG and GAO reports both provide recommendations related to the
scope and cost of VBMS. VBMS scope and cost increases were planned,
essential, and approved to move beyond the initial electronic folder
functionality to automated processing capabilities. VBMS has delivered
17 major software releases and 56 minor releases in just four years,
and has implemented thousands of business requirements.
Through the momentum of each release, VBMS has enabled a successful
transformation from a paper-based system to a streamlined digital
system. That momentum has resulted in confidence in the system and the
progression of the structure in place to successfully deliver modern
technology.
We have assembled the right team comprised of a multi-disciplinary
group of individuals who understand the complex business requirements.
They have the technical expertise to translate stakeholder needs into
desired functionality. VBMS enables us to provide the best possible
customer service to our Veterans. Since the electronic folder now
provides simultaneous and searchable access to Veterans' records, VA
continues to enhance VBMS' capabilities to further improve accuracy and
timeliness throughout the claims lifecycle. We will continue to
coordinate and integrate with strategic partners, such as the Board,
VSOs, and DoD to to achieve the goals of interoperability.
I look forward to your continued support and commitment on behalf
of Veterans, their families, and Survivors. Thank you for allowing me
to address the Committee today. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my
statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other
Members of the Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Brent Arronte
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) recent
reports on the implementation of the Veterans Benefits Management
System (VBMS), Follow-up Review of the Veterans Benefits Management
System, and Review of Alleged Problems with Veterans Management System
and Claims Processing. \1\ Our statement today focuses on our review of
how effectively VA managed cost, performance, and schedule in VBMS
development to meet its claims processing accuracy and backlog
elimination goals. We will also discuss the results of work conducted
at one regional office with regards to scanning the information
supporting claims processing. We draw our conclusions from past and
ongoing audits of the Department's information security program,
oversight of information technology (IT) systems development
activities, and benefits inspections of VA Regional Offices (VAROs). I
am accompanied by Mr. Michael Bowman, Director, OIG's Information
Technology and Security Audits Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Published on September 14, 2015, and January 6, 2016,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
IT systems and networks are critical to VA in carrying out its
mission of providing medical care and a range of benefits and services
to veterans. Our audits in recent years also show that IT systems
development at VA is a long standing high-risk challenge, susceptible
to cost overruns, schedule slippages, performance problems, and in some
cases, complete project failures. For fiscal year (FY) 2016, VA
requested a total IT investment of about $4.1 billion to fund
information system security, system development initiatives, and system
operations and maintenance. To the extent that VA does not properly
plan and manage these IT investments, they can become costly, risky,
and do not consistently align with user requirements. Although IT
investments may be managed by the Office of Information and Technology
(OI&T), it is imperative to include input from VA business owners and
other stakeholders throughout the incremental system development
process. Project Management Accountability System (PMAS) is VA's
principal means of holding IT project managers accountable for meeting
cost, schedule, and performance targets. PMAS is designed to reduce
project implementation risks, institute monitoring and controls,
establish accountability, and create a reporting discipline. Despite
PMAS objectives, we continue to identify deficiencies with VA's IT
investment oversight processes that are discussed in our statement
below.Effective January 1, 2016, OIT began transitioning from PMAS to a
new capital planning investment model called the Veteran-focused
Integration Process (VIP). VIP plans to further embrace the
Department's Agile system development methodology into a single,
unified, and streamlined release process that will focuses on
delivering high-quality and secure IT capabilities to the veteran.
Until system development projects have successfully transitioned to
VIP, project managers will continue to follow PMAS guidelines. VA plans
to complete the transition to VIP by the end of FY 2016. In the coming
years, we plan to evaluate VIP to determine whether the framework
successfully addresses the shortcomings associated with VA's IT
investment oversight process.As early as 2000, the OIG has identified
Information Management as a major management challenge because VA has a
long standing history of not properly planning and managing its
critical IT investments. Also, IT security remains a repeat material
weakness in VA's Consolidated Financial Statement audit for FY 2015.
During our financial statement audit, we noted a number of high risk
security vulnerabilities affecting databases supporting VBMS to
include:
Users with the ability to access certain procedures
allowing unauthorized escalation of database privileges
Accounts that could escalate system privileges through
well-known security vulnerabilities
Missing security patches that could result in unresolved
security vulnerabilities
Inadequate passwords controls providing attackers with
well-known security vulnerabilities that could result in unauthorized
access.
Claims Backlog
Although the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) reports it has
made progress in reducing the backlog and reported significant
improvement in claims processing accuracy, we cannot attribute that
improvement specifically to VBMS, which was is one of the more than 40
initiatives VA undertook as part of its transformation plan. Several
factors have contributed to reducing the backlog:
Using over $130 million in mandatory overtime
Reallocating staff to process only claims that affect the
backlog while sacrificing other types of claims such as those on appeal
Implementing the Fully Developed Claim
Using disability benefit questionnaires.
Further, VBA's improved claims processing accuracy rate is related
to a change in methodology regarding how they calculate error rates for
claims processing accuracy and not specifically an aspect of VBMS.
Also, in FY 2015, the OIG conducted 13 reviews at 11 VAROs related to
data manipulation in response to allegations we received and requests
from VBA leadership to review areas of particular concern. \2\ Based on
the results of those reviews, we believe the data used to determine the
claims backlog inventory and the number of claims completed is not
consistently reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ VA Regional Offices: Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Denver, CO;
Honolulu, HI; Houston, TX*; Little Rock, AR; Los Angeles, CA*; New
York, NY; Oakland, CA; San Diego, CA; St. Paul, MN (*denotes two
separate reviews).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT LIFECYCLE
VA continues to face challenges in developing the IT systems it
needs to support VA's mission goals. Recent OIG reports disclose that
some progress has been made in timely deploying system functionality
because of the Agile system development methodology. The Agile
methodology allows subject matter experts to validate requirements and
functionality in increments of 6 months or fewer, while technology is
developed and updated to meet user needs. Despite these advances, VA
continues to struggle with cost overruns and performance shortfalls in
its efforts to develop several major mission-critical systems. VA's
procedures for overseeing IT program management has improved but has
not been fully effective in controlling these IT investments.
Veterans Benefits Management System
In February 2013, we issued a report, Review of Transition to a
Paperless Claims Processing Environment, that evaluated whether VA had
performed sufficient testing of VBMS and assessed whether VA was
positioned to meet its goal of eliminating the disability claims
backlog and increasing the accuracy rate of processing claims to 98
percent by 2015. \3\ At that time, VBMS was still in the early stages
of development. We also noted that, due to the use of VA's Agile
incremental development approach, the system had not been fully
developed to the extent that its capability to process claims from the
initial application through benefits delivery could be sufficiently
tested. We concluded VA would continue to face challenges in meeting
its goal of eliminating the backlog of disability claims processing by
2015. However, because the system was in an early stage of development
and deployment, the number of claims processed using VBMS was
considered too small to adequately examine whether VBMS was improving
VBA's ability to process claims with 98 percent accuracy. We
recommended that VA establish a plan with milestones for resolving
system issues and develop a detailed approach to scanning and
digitizing claims so that transformation efforts did not adversely
affect claims processing and add to the existing backlog. VA concurred
with our recommendations and provided plans that addressed the findings
and recommendations for this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Review of Transition to a Paperless Claims Processing
Environment, February 4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our September 2015 report, Follow-up Review of the Veterans
Benefits Management System, we focused on whether VA had improved its
schedule, cost, and performance supporting VBMS development to meet its
claims processing accuracy and backlog elimination goals. \4\ We noted
that VA remained partially effective in managing VBMS development to
help meet claims processing accuracy and backlog elimination goals. We
also found that VA stayed on schedule in deploying planned VBMS
functionality to all VAROs in 2013. However, since September 2009,
total estimated VBMS costs increased significantly from about $579.2
million to approximately $1.3 billion in January 2015. The increases
were due to inadequate cost control, unplanned changes in system and
business requirements, and inefficient contracting practices. As a
result, VA cannot ensure an effective return on its investment and
total actual VBMS system development costs remained unknown. Further,
VBA did not design performance metrics to assess the actual time saved
by processing claims using the new system. We also noted that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Follow-up Review of the Veterans Benefits Management System,
September 14, 2015.
VBMS did not fully provide the capability to process
claims from initial application to benefits delivery.
Users lacked training needed to leverage the enhanced
functionality provided.
System response-time issues resulted from rapid software
enhancements while system disruptions were due to inadequate service
continuity practices.
Until these issues are addressed, VA will continue to lack
reasonable assurance of meeting its claims processing accuracy and
backlog elimination goals.We recommended the Executive in Charge for
OI&T, in conjunction with the Under Secretary for Benefits, define and
stabilize system and business requirements, address system performance
problems, deploy required functionality to process claims end-to-end,
and institute metrics needed to identify and ensure progress toward
meeting stated goals. The Executive in Charge for OI&T, in conjunction
with VBA, generally agreed with most of our findings and
recommendations. \5\ As such, we will monitor implementation of
corrective action plans to ensure that our findings and recommendations
are fully addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See the OIG response to Management's comments in the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are currently reviewing allegations related to VBMS' security
controls. We are examining whether VA failed to integrate VBMS security
edits to prevent stations from inappropriately processing veteran
employee claims at their assigned stations and if VA has not integrated
exception logs into VBMS, which allows information security specialists
to review, audit, and intervene in potential security violations. Our
work in this area is ongoing and we plan to issue a final report in
March 2016.
In our January 2016 report, Review of Alleged Problems with
Veterans Benefits Management System and Claims Processing, we
substantiated the allegation regarding a significant backlog of
unprocessed mail in December 2014 waiting to be scanned into VBMS. This
resulted from inefficient preparation and handling of veteran provided
documentation at a contractor operated facility. Specifically, at the
time of the review, according to VBA personnel and VBA portal metrics,
the St. Petersburg VARO had more than 41,900 mail packages of veterans'
claims material that were backlogged and over 1,600 boxes awaiting
processing at the scanning facility. Furthermore, while on site at the
contractor facility in early 2015, we observed numerous pallets of
boxes containing significant amounts of hard copy veterans' claims
material that required processing and were more than 30 days old,
according to pallet tracking labels. From a sample of this
documentation, we determined that it took an average of 30 days to scan
the material from these claims into VBMS after arriving at the scanning
facility. VA's contract requires the contractor to scan hard copy
veterans' claims evidence into VBMS within 5 calendar days of receipt.
VBA personnel stated they were aware of this scanning delay but we did
not find evidence of VBA prioritizing this issue and taking effective
corrective action.
Program Management Accountability System
In June 2009, VA launched PMAS to improve its IT development
success rate. At the request of VA's Chief Information Officer, we
conducted an audit to evaluate the effectiveness of PMAS planning and
implementation. In August 2011, we reported that OI&T did not establish
key management controls to ensure PMAS data reliability, verify project
compliance, and track project costs. \6\ Additionally, we noted that
OI&T did not put in place detailed guidance on how such controls will
be used within the framework of PMAS to manage and oversee IT projects.
Consequently, the PMAS framework was not providing a sound basis for
future success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Audit of the Project Management Accountability System
Implementation, August 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We performed a follow-up audit to determine whether OI&T had
addressed our previous PMAS recommendations. In January 2015, we
reported that OI&T had taken some steps to improve PMAS performance.
\7\ Although improvements were made, OI&T had not fully infused PMAS
with the discipline and accountability necessary for effective
oversight of IT development projects. The PMAS Business Office still
had Federal employee vacancies and the PMAS Dashboard lacked a complete
audit trail of baseline data. Project managers continued to struggle
with capturing increment costs and project teams were not reporting
costs related to enhancements on the PMAS Dashboard. Until these
deficiencies are addressed, VA's portfolio of IT development projects
will remain susceptible to cost overruns, schedule slippages, and poor
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Follow-Up Audit of the Information Technology Project
Management Accountability System, January 22, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
Our recent work demonstrated that VA continues to face challenges
in managing its IT development projects. However, these challenges are
affecting IT system development across Federal agencies. VA has taken
some actions to address our outstanding report recommendations for
enhanced discipline, oversight, and resources management to support IT
development. However, it remains to be seen as to whether such actions
will improve VA's ability to meet established cost, schedule, and
performance goals in its mission critical system initiatives. Moreover,
these IT shortfalls constitute poor financial stewardship and are
counterproductive investments of taxpayer dollars. VA's use of Agile
methodology is commended for adding value by allowing for iterative
refinement of VBMS development amid frequent changing business
requirements. However, the use of Agile does not preclude the need to
work towards stabilizing functionality requirements that are aligned
with meeting project cost and scheduling goals. Given the changing
business requirements and competing priorities, VBMS costs continue to
spiral upward and final end-state costs remain unknown.
Although VBA has made strides in reducing the backlog of disability
claims, we cannot state that VBMS significantly contributed to this
reduction. As we have provided oversight of VBMS's development over the
past several years, VBA did not put adequate performance metrics in
place that could support the efficiencies gained from using the new
system, such as the actual time it takes to process certain types of
claims. Thus, when the costs of system development exceed a billion
dollars or have high financial development costs, this type of
information is important to ensure economies and efficiencies are being
realized over time.
Further, because of the 13 reviews we completed in FY 2015 related
to data manipulation at 11 VAROs, we have concerns that the total
number of claims processed and/or those counted in the inventory are
not accurately reported.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We would be happy to
answer any questions you or members of the Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Valerie C. Melvin
Ongoing Efforts Can Be Improved; Goals Are Needed To Promote Increased
User Satisfaction
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the
Committee:
I am pleased to be here to testify at today's hearing on the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) efforts to develop and implement
its Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). As you know, VA's
disability claims process has been a subject of attention for many
years, due in part to long waits for decisions and the large number of
claims pending a decision. In February 2010, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs committed the department to eliminating the disability claims
backlog and directed the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to
process all incoming claims within 125 days of their receipt and with
at least 98 percent accuracy. This was to be accomplished by the end of
fiscal year 2015. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VA defines a backlogged claim as one that has been awaiting a
decision for more than 125 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help reduce the backlog and meet these claims processing goals,
VBA engaged in efforts to replace its paper-based claims process with
VBMS-a system intended to streamline the disability claims process by
providing claims processors with an electronic, paperless environment
in which to maintain, review, and make rating decisions for veterans'
claims. The agency took an incremental approach to developing and
implementing VBMS and, as of June 2013, claims processors had begun
using an initial version of the system at all 56 regional offices.
Since that time, the agency has continued its efforts toward completing
the system and, through fiscal year 2015, had received approximately $1
billion in funding for the initiative.
In September 2015, we issued a report documenting the results of a
study of VBMS that we undertook at this committee's request. \2\ My
remarks today summarize key findings from that study, which (1)
assessed VA's progress toward completing the development and
implementation of VBMS and (2) determined to what extent users reported
satisfaction with the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Veterans Benefits Management System: Ongoing Development
and Implementation Can Be Improved; Goals Are Needed to Promote
Increased User Satisfaction, GAO 15 582 (Washington, D.C.: September
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the September 2015 report, we reviewed relevant program
documentation and interviewed appropriate VA officials. We also
administered a Web-based survey to a nationally representative
stratified random sample of VBMS users. \3\ More detailed information
on our objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in the issued
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These users (claims processors) included claims assistants,
veteran service representatives, supervisory veteran service
representatives, rating veterans service representatives, decision
review officers, and others. We randomly sampled 3,475 VBA-eligible
claims processors to create estimates about the population of all
claims processors. Confidence intervals for estimates we reported from
this survey were based on a confidence level of 95 percent and were
calculated using methods appropriate for a stratified random sample.
They were never wider than plus or minus 5 percentage points. At a 95
percent confidence level, this means that, in about 95 out of 100
instances, the sampling procedures we used would be expected to produce
a confidence interval containing the true population value we estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work on which this statement is based was conducted in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
Throughout the disability compensation claims process, VBA staff
have various roles and responsibilities.
Claims assistants are primarily responsible for
establishing the electronic claims folders to determine whether the
dispositions of the claims and control actions have been appropriately
identified.
Veteran service representatives are responsible for
providing veterans with explanations regarding the disability
compensation benefits programs and entitlement criteria. They also are
to conduct interviews, gather relevant evidence, adjudicate claims,
authorize payments, and input the data necessary to generate the awards
and notification letters to veterans describing the decisions and the
reasons for them.
Rating veterans service representatives are to make
claims rating decisions and analyze claims by applying VBA's schedule
for rating disabilities (rating schedule) against claims submissions;
they also are to prepare rating decisions and the supporting
justifications. Further, they are to inform the veteran service
representative, who then notifies the claimant of the decision and the
reasons for the decision.
Supervisory veteran service representatives are to ensure
that the quality and timeliness of service provided by VBA meets
performance indicator goals. They are also responsible for the cost-
effective use of resources to accomplish assigned outcomes.
Decision review officers are to examine claims decisions
and perform an array of duties to resolve issues raised by veterans and
their representatives. They may conduct a new review or complete a
review of a claim without deference to the original decision; they also
can revise that decision without new evidence or clear and obvious
evidence of errors in the original evaluation.
The disability compensation claims process starts when a veteran
(or other designated individual) submits a claim to VA in paper or
electronic form. \4\ If submitted electronically, a claim folder is
created automatically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Veterans and their beneficiaries can submit claims
electronically through the eBenefits portal, a Web-based system that
combines data from the VBA and Department of Defense to provide
veterans, active duty military, and their dependents with an alternate
method to obtain assistance with a wide range of online benefits-
related tools and information. Additionally, they can apply for
benefits electronically using the Veterans Online Application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a paper claim is submitted, a claims assistant creates the
electronic folder. Specifically, when a regional office receives a new
paper claim, the receipt date is recorded electronically and the paper
files (e.g., medical records and other supporting documents) are
shipped to one of four document conversion locations so that the
supporting documents can be scanned and converted into a digital image.
n the processing of both electronic and paper claims, a veteran
service representative reviews the information supporting the claim and
helps identify any additional evidence that is needed to evaluate the
claim, such as the veteran's military service records, medical
examinations, and treatment records from medical facilities and private
medical service providers. Also, if necessary to provide support to
substantiate the claim, the department performs a medical examination
on the veteran.
Once all of the supporting evidence has been gathered, a rating
veterans service representative evaluates the claim and determines
whether the veteran is eligible for benefits. If so, the rating
veterans service representative assigns a disability rating (expressed
as a percentage). A veteran who submits a claim with multiple
disabilities receives a single composite rating. If the veteran is due
to receive compensation, an award is prepared and the veteran is
notified of the decision.
A veteran can reopen a claim for additional disability benefits if,
for example, he or she experiences a new or worsening service-connected
disability. If the veteran disagrees with the regional office's
decision on the additional claim, a written notice of disagreement may
be submitted to the regional office to appeal the decision, and the
veteran may request to have the appeal processed at the regional office
by a decision review officer or through the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
\5\ Figure 1 presents a simplified view of VA's disability compensation
claims process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Board of Veterans' Appeals makes final decisions on behalf
of the VA Secretary on appeals from decisions of local VA offices.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5015.001
VBA began the transformation of its paper-intensive claims process
to a paperless environment in March 2009, and the effort became
formally established as the Veterans Benefits Management System program
in May 2010. VBA's initial plans for VBMS emphasized the development of
a paperless claims platform to fully support the processing of
disability compensation and pension benefits, as well as appeals.
The program's primary focus was to convert existing paper-based
claims folders into electronic claims folders (eFolders) \6\ to allow
VBA staff to access claims information and evidence in an electronic
format. Beyond the establishment of eFolders, VBMS is intended to
streamline the entire disability claims process, from establishment
through award, by automating rating decision recommendations, award and
notification processes, and communications between VBA and the veteran
throughout the claims life cycle. The system is also intended to assist
in eliminating the claims backlog and serve as the enabling technology
for quicker, more accurate, and integrated claims processing in the
future. Moreover, it is to replace many of the key outdated legacy
systems-which are still in use today-for managing the claims process,
including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The eFolder is the electronic equivalent of a VBA paper claims
folder. It contains all of the documents associated with a particular
veteran and his or her claims.
Share-used to establish claims; it records and updates
basic information about veterans and dependents.
Modern Award Processing-Development-used to manage the
claims development process, including the collection of data to support
the claims and tracking of them.
Rating Board Automation 2000-provides information about
laws and regulations pertaining to disabilities, which are used by
rating specialists in evaluating and rating disability claims.
Award-used to prepare and calculate the benefit award
based on the rating specialist's determination of the claimant's
percentage of disability. It is also used to authorize the claim for
payment.
VBMS is to consist of three modules:
VBMS-Core is intended to provide the foundation for
document processing and storage during the claims development process,
including establishing claims; viewing and storing electronic documents
in the eFolder; and tracking evidence requested from beneficiaries. The
eFolder serves as a digital repository for all documents related to a
claim, such as the veteran's military service records, medical
examinations, and treatment records from VA and Department of Defense
medical facilities, and from private medical service providers. Unlike
with paper files, this evidence can be reviewed simultaneously by
multiple VBA claims processors at any location.
VBMS-Rating is to provide raters with Web-accessible
tools, including rules-based rating calculators and the capability for
automated decision recommendations. For example, the hearing loss
calculator is to automate decisions using objective audiology data and
rules-based functionality to provide the rater with a suggested rating
decision. In addition, the module is expected to include stand-alone
evaluation builders-essentially interactive disability rating
schedules-for all parts of the human body. With this tool, the rater
uses a series of check boxes to identify the veteran's symptoms and the
evaluation builder identifies the proper diagnostic code and the level
of compensation based on those symptoms.
VBMS-Awards is to provide an automated award and
notification process to improve award accuracy and reduce rework
associated with manual development of awards. This module is intended
to automate and standardize communications between VBA and the veteran
at the final stages of the claims process.
VBA is using an agile software development methodology to develop,
test, and deliver the system's functionality to its users. An agile
approach allows subject matter experts to validate requirements,
processes, and system functionality in increments, and to deliver the
functionality to users in shorter cycles. Accordingly, the strategic
road map that the VBMS Program Management Office is using to guide the
system development effort indicated that releases of system
functionality were to occur every 6 months. \7\ In a March 2013 Senate
Veterans Affairs Committee hearing, VA's Under Secretary for Benefits
stated that VBMS development was expected to be completed in 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ To help guide its system development efforts, the VBMS Program
Management Office developed a strategic road map that identified the
program's high-level objectives.
Development and Implementation of VBMS Is Ongoing; Activities Can
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefit from Increased Management Attention
Our September 2015 report noted that, since completing rollout of
the initial version of VBMS at all regional offices in June 2013, VBA
has continued developing and implementing additional system
functionality and enhancements that support the electronic processing
of disability compensation claims. As a result, 95 percent of records
related to veterans' disability claims are electronic and reside in the
system. However, while the Under Secretary for Benefits stated in March
2013 that the development of the system was expected to be completed in
2015, implementation of functionality to fully support electronic
claims processing was delayed until beyond 2015.
Specifically, even with the progress VBA has made toward developing
and implementing the system, the timeline for initial deployment of a
national workload management capability was delayed beyond the
originally planned date of September 2014 to October 2015, with
additional deployment to occur throughout fiscal year 2016. Efforts
undertaken thus far have addressed the strategic road map's objective
to deliver a national workload management capability and have entailed
developing the technology and business processes needed to support the
National Work Queue, which is intended to handle new disability claims
in a centralized queue and assign claims to the next regional office
with available capacity. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Traditionally, veterans have submitted disability claims-
typically via mail-to their local regional office, where the claims are
usually processed. Under the previous paper-based model, claims folders
were physically stored and processed at the regional office and
material was often mailed between the veteran, the regional office, and
the closest VA medical facility. This paper-based business process is
no longer necessary, now that 95 percent of all disability claims are
digital and all regional offices use VBMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program Management Office began work for the National Work
Queue in June 2014, and had intended to deploy the first phase of
functionality to users in September 2014. However, in late May 2015,
the Director of the office informed us that VBA had delayed the initial
rollout of the National Work Queue until October 2015 so that the
department could fully focus on meeting its goal to eliminate the
claims backlog by the end of September 2015. Following the initial
rollout, the Program Management Office intends to implement the
National Work Queue at all regional offices through fiscal year 2016.
Beyond this effort, VBMS program documentation identified
additional work to be performed after fiscal year 2015 to fully
automate disability claims processing. \9\ Specifically, the Program
Management Office identified the need to automate steps associated with
a veteran's request for an increase in disability benefits, such as
when an existing medical condition worsens. In addition, the Director
stated that the Program Management Office intends to develop a
capability to automatically associate veterans' correspondence when a
new piece of evidence to support a claim is received electronically or
scanned into VBMS. The office also plans to integrate VBMS with VA's
Integrated Disability Evaluation System, which contains the results of
veterans' disability medical examinations, \10\ as well as with
external systems that contain military service treatment records for
veterans, including those at the National Personnel Records Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ As of June 2015, claims processors are directed to establish
all initial and supplemental compensation claims in VBMS, with several
exclusions including pension claims, dual compensation and pension
claims, sensitive cases, and claims where the claimant is not the
veteran.
\10\ Managed by both VA and the Department of Defense, the
Integrated Disability Evaluation System provides a single set of
disability medical examinations designed for determining a service
member's (1) fitness and ability to return to duty and (2) disability
if the service member is inhibited from performing his or her assigned
duties as a result of a service-connected injury or illness. The
department's assessment of fitness for duty occurs concurrently with
the VA disability determination process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, while VBMS was planned to support the processing of
disability compensation and pension benefits, VBA has not yet developed
and implemented end-to-end pension processing capabilities in the
system. Without such capabilities, the agency must continue to rely on
three legacy systems to process pension claims. Specifically, program
officials stated that both the Modern Award Processing-Development and
Award legacy systems contain functionality related to processing
pensions and will need to remain operational until VBMS can process
pension claims. In addition, the Share legacy system contains
functionality that is still needed throughout the claims process. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ These statements regarding the use of legacy systems are
consistent with the results of our survey of VBMS claims processors. In
addition to VBMS, an estimated 52 percent of users depend on Share, an
estimated 37 percent depend on Modern Award Processing-Development, and
an estimated 13 percent depend on Award Processing "a great deal" in
order to process claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program documentation indicates that the first phase of pension-
related functionality is expected to be introduced in December 2015.
However, VBA has not yet developed plans and schedules for retiring the
legacy systems and for fully developing and implementing their
functionality in VBMS.
VBA's progress toward developing and implementing appeals
processing capabilities in VBMS also has been limited. Specifically,
although the information in a veteran's eFolder is available to appeals
staff for review, the appeals process for disability claims is not
managed using the new system. According to VA's fiscal year 2016 budget
submission, the department is pursuing a separate effort to manage end-
to-end appeals modernization, and has requested $19.1 million in fiscal
year 2016 funds to develop a system that will provide functionality not
available in VBMS or other VA systems. The Director of the Program
Management Office stated that VBA is currently analyzing commercial IT
solutions that can meet the business requirements for appeals, such as
providing document navigation capabilities. According to the Director,
VBMS, nevertheless, is expected to be part of the appeals modernization
solution because components of the system, such as the eFolder and
certain workload management functionality, are planned to continue
supporting appeals management.
In the Director's view, the fact that VBMS requires additional
development beyond 2015 does not reflect a delay in completing the
system's development. Instead, the additional time is a consequence of
decisions to enlarge the program's scope over time. The Director stated
that the system's original purpose had been to serve primarily as an
electronic document repository, and that the program has met this goal.
In addition, the Director said that, as the program's mission has
expanded to support the department's efforts to eliminate the
disability claims backlog, the office has had to re-prioritize, add,
and defer system requirements to accommodate broader departmental
decisions and, in some cases, regulatory changes. For example, the
office was tasked with developing functionality in VBMS to meet
regulatory requirements for processing disability claims using
mandatory forms. \12\ Officials in the office said they were made aware
of this requirement well after system planning for the March 2015
release had been completed, which had introduced significant complexity
to their development work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Department of Veterans Affairs, Standard Claims and Appeals
Forms, Final Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014).The effective
date for the Final Rule is March 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, VBA included in its strategic road map a number of
objectives related to VBMS that are planned to be addressed in fiscal
year 2016. Officials in the Program Management Office stated that they
intend to develop tactical plans that identify expected capabilities to
be provided in future releases.
Nevertheless, due to the department's incremental approach to
developing and implementing VBMS, VBA has not yet produced a plan that
identifies when VBMS will be completed and can be expected to fully
support disability and pension claims processing and appeals. Thus, it
will be difficult for the department to hold its managers accountable
for meeting the time frame and for demonstrating progress. Accordingly,
we recommended that the department develop an updated plan for VBMS
that includes a schedule for when VBA intends to complete development
and implementation of the system, including capabilities that fully
support disability claims, pension claims, and appeals processing. VA
agreed with our recommendation.
VBMS Development and Implementation Have Been Hindered by Lack of a
Reliable Cost Estimate
Consistent with our guidance on estimating program costs, an
important aspect of planning for IT projects, such as VBMS, involves
developing a reliable cost estimate to help managers evaluate a
program's affordability and performance against its plans, and provide
estimates of the funding required to efficiently execute a program.
\13\ In 2011, VBA submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
life-cycle cost estimate for VBMS of $934.8 million. This estimate was
intended to capture costs for the system's development, deployment,
sustainment, and general operating expenses through the end of fiscal
year 2018. However, as of July 2015, the program's actual costs had
exceeded the 2011 life-cycle cost estimate. Specifically, VBMS received
approximately $1 billion in funding through the end of fiscal year 2015
and the department has requested an additional $290 million for the
program in fiscal year 2016. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices
for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO 09 3SP
(Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
\14\ The $1 billion figure represents funding for VBMS IT
development, sustainment, and general operating expenses for fiscal
years 2009 through 2015. For fiscal year 2016, VA has requested $76
million for IT development, $177 million for sustainment, and $37
million for general operating expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A significant concern is that the Program Management Office has not
reliably updated the VBMS life-cycle cost estimate to reflect the
program's expanded scope and timelines for completion of the system.
This is largely attributable to the fact that the office has developed
cost estimates for 2-year project cycles that are used for VBMS
milestone reviews under the Office of Information and Technology's
Project Management Accountability System.
When asked how the Program Management Office arrived at the cost
estimates reported in the milestone reviews, program officials stated
that they developed rough order of magnitude estimates for each
business need based on expert knowledge of the system, past development
and engineering experience, and lessons learned. However, while this
approach may have provided adequate information for VBA to prioritize
VBMS system requirements to be addressed in the next release, it has
not produced estimates that could serve as a basis for identifying the
system's funding needs. Because it is typically derived from limited
data and in a short time, a rough order of magnitude analysis is not
equivalent to a budget-quality cost estimate and may limit an agency's
ability to identify the funding necessary to efficiently execute a
program.
In addition, the Program Management Office's annual operating plan,
which is generally limited to high-level information about the
program's organization, priorities, staffing, milestones, and
performance measures for fiscal year 2015, also shows estimated costs
totaling $512 million for VBMS development from fiscal years 2017
through 2020. However, according to the Director of the Program
Management Office, this estimate was also developed using rough order
of magnitude analysis. Further, the estimate does not provide reliable
information on life-cycle costs because it does not include estimated
IT sustainment and general operating expenses.
Thus, even though the Program Management Office developed rough
order of magnitude cost estimates for VBMS, these estimates have not
been sufficiently reliable to effectively identify the program's
funding needs. Instead, during the last 3 fiscal years, the Director
has had to request an additional $118 million in IT development funds
to meet program demands and to ensure support for ongoing development
contracts. \15\ Specifically, in May 2013, VA requested $13.3 million
to support additional work on VBMS. Then, during fiscal year 2014, VA
reprogrammed $73 million of unobligated IT sustainment funds to develop
functionality to transfer service treatment records from the Department
of Defense to VA, and to support development of VBMS-Core
functionality. In December 2014, the Program Management Office
identified the need for additional fiscal year 2015 funds for ongoing
system development contracts for VBMS-Core and VBMS-Awards, and, in
late April 2015, department leadership submitted a letter to Congress
requesting permission to reprogram $31.7 million to support work on
these contracts, the National Work Queue, and other VBMS efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In fiscal years 2013, 2014, and 2015, VA requested permission
from Congress to reprogram Office of Information and Technology funds
that had not been used in the prior year or had been identified for IT
sustainment to support IT development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Program Management Office Director, the need to
request additional funding does not represent additional risk to the
program, but is the result of VBMS's success. The Director further
noted that, as the Program Management Office has identified
opportunities to increase functionality to improve the electronic
claims process, their funding needs have also increased. Nevertheless,
evolution of the VBMS program illustrates the importance of continuous
planning, including cost estimating, so that trade-offs between cost,
schedule, and scope can be effectively managed. Further, without a
reliable estimate of the total costs associated with completing work on
VBMS, stakeholders will have a limited view of VBMS's future resource
needs and the program is at risk of not being able to secure
appropriate funding to fully develop and implement the system.
Therefore, we recommended that VA develop an updated plan for VBMS that
includes the estimated cost to complete development and implementation
of the system. VA agreed with our recommendation.
VBA Has Made Progress toward Improving VBMS Operation, but Does Not
Have Key System Performance Goals
Our and other federal IT guidance recognize the importance of
defining program goals and related performance targets, and using such
targets to assess progress in achieving the goals. \16\ System
performance and response times have a large impact on whether staff
successfully complete work tasks. If systems are not responding at
agreed-upon levels for availability and performance, it can be
difficult to ensure that staff will complete tasks in a timely manner.
This is especially important in the VBA claims processing environment,
where staff are evaluated on their ability to process claims in a
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, GAO 04 394G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004) and Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Evaluating Information Technology Investments, A
Practical Guide (November 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VBA reported that, since its initial rollout in January 2013, VBMS
has exceeded its 95 percent goal for availability. Specifically, the
system was available at a rate of 98.9 percent in fiscal year 2013 and
99.3 percent in fiscal year 2014. Through May of fiscal year 2015, it
was available for 99.98 percent of the time.
Nevertheless, while VBA has reported exceeding its availability
goals for VBMS, the system has also experienced periods of
unavailability, many times at a critical level affecting all users.
Specifically, since January 2013, VBA reported 57 VBMS outages that
totaled about 117 hours of system unavailability. The system
experienced about 18 hours of outages in January 2014, which were
almost entirely at the critical level and affected all users. It
reported experiencing only 2 system outages since July 2014-a 30-minute
critical outage in December 2014 and a 23-minute critical outage in May
2015.
In addition to system availability, VBA monitors system response
times for each of the VBMS modules using an application that measures
the amount of time taken for each transaction. From September 2013
through April 2015, VBA reported a decrease in average response times
for VBMS-Core and VBMS-Rating. It attributed the decrease in response
times to continuous engineering improvements to system performance.
Program officials also explained that the difference in response times
between modules was due to the type of information that is being pulled
into each module from various other VBA systems. For example, both
VBMS-Core and VBMS-Rating require information from the VBA corporate
database, but VBMS-Core is populated with data from multiple VBA
systems in addition to the corporate database.
Program officials told us that specific goals for mean transaction
response times have not been established because they feel that
adequate tools are in place to monitor system performance and provide
alerts if there are response time issues. For example, VBMS performance
is monitored in real time by dedicated staff at a contractor's
facility, users have access to a live chat feature where they can
provide feedback on any issues they are experiencing with the system,
and the VBMS help desk offers another avenue for users to provide
feedback on the system's performance. The officials also noted that,
because transaction response times have decreased, which can be
indicative of an improvement to system performance, they are focusing
their resources on adding additional functionality instead of trying to
get the system to achieve a specific average transaction response time.
While VBA's monitoring of VBMS's performance is commendable and the
system's performance and response times have improved over time, the
system is still in development and there is no guarantee that
performance will remain at current levels as the system evolves.
Performance targets and goals for VBMS response times would provide
users with an expectation of the system response times they should
anticipate, and management with an indication of how well the system is
performing relative to performance goals. To address this situation, we
recommended that the department establish goals for system response
time and use the goals as a basis for periodically reporting actual
system performance. VA agreed with this recommendation.
A Recent VBMS Release Included Unresolved Defects that Adversely
Impacted System Implementation
A key element of successful system testing is appropriately
identifying and handling defects that are discovered during testing.
Outstanding defects can delay the release of functionality to end
users, denying them the benefit of features. Key aspects of a sound
defect management process include the planning, identification and
classification, tracking, and resolution of defects. Leading industry
and government organizations consider defect management and resolution
to be among the primary goals of testing. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The Project Management Institute, Inc., A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOKr Guide), Fifth Edition, (Newtown
Square, Pa.: 2013); Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
Software and systems engineering - Software testing, ISO/TEC/IEEE Std
29119 (New York, N.Y.: Sept. 1, 2013); Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard for Software and System Test
Documentation, IEEE Std 829-2008 (New York, N.Y.: July 10, 2008);
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard
Classification for Software Anomalies, IEEE Std 1044-2009 (New York,
N.Y.: Jan. 7, 2010); Software Engineering Institute, CMMIr for
Acquisition, Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: November 2010); Software
Engineering Institute, CMMIr for Development, Version 1.3 (Pittsburgh,
Pa.: November 2010); GAO, Year 2000 Computing Crisis: A Testing Guide,
GAO/AIMD 10.1.21 (Washington, D.C.: November 1998); GAO Cost Estimating
and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing
Capital Program Costs, GAO 09 3SP (Washington, D.C.: March 2009); and
GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Project Schedules-
Exposure Draft, GAO 12 120G (Washington, D.C.: May 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VBMS program has defect management policies in place and is
actively performing defect management activities. Specifically, in
October 2012, the department developed the VBMS Program Management and
Technical Support Defect Management Plan, which describes the program's
defect management process. The plan was updated in March 2015 and
describes, among other things, the process for identifying,
classifying, tracking, and resolving VBMS defects. For example, it
provides criteria for assigning four different levels of severity for
defects-critical, high, medium, and low. \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In addition to the defect severity level, these four defect
priority-level assignments are used to designate the immediacy of
repair: (1) resolve immediately, (2) give high attention, (3) normal
queue, and (4) low priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the plan, critical severity defects are characterized
by complete system or subsystem failure, complete loss of
functionality, and compromised security or confidentiality. Critical
defects also have extensive user impact and do not have workarounds.
High severity defects can have major user impact, leading to
significant loss of system functionality. Medium severity defects can
have moderate user impact and lead to moderate loss of functionality.
For high and medium severity defects, workarounds could exist. Low
severity defects lead to minor loss of functionality with no workaround
necessary. According to the Program Management Office, high, medium,
and low severity defects do not need to be resolved prior to a system
release.
The Program Management Office uses an automated tool to monitor and
track defects in the VBMS defect repository. It is used to produce a
daily defect management report that is shared with VBMS leadership, and
to provide the current status of all open defects identified in testing
of a forthcoming VBMS release or identified during production of a
previous release. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The daily defect management report consists of the following
data: (1) total critical and high, priority one defects for resolution;
(2) total number of critical defects; (3) total number of high,
priority one defects; and (4) total defects for resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the defect management plan, defects can be resolved in
a number of different ways, and, once a defect has been fixed, tested,
and has passed testing, it is considered done or resolved. Defects that
cannot be attributed to an existing requirement are reclassified as a
system enhancement and considered resolved, as they do not affect a
current system release requirement. A defect is also considered
resolved if it is determined to work as designed, duplicate another
defect, or if it is no longer evident in the system.
From March 2014 through March 2015, the total number of VBMS
defects declined as release dates approached for four releases (7.0,
7.1, 8.0, and 8.1). Additionally, to the department's credit, no
critical defects remained at the time of each of these releases.
However, even with the department's efforts to resolve defects
prior to a VBMS release, defects that affected system functionality
remained open at the time of the releases. Specifically, of the 254
open defects at the time of VBMS release 8.1, 76 were high severity, 99
were medium severity, and 79 were low severity. Examples of medium and
high level defects that remained open at the time of VBMS release 8.1
included:
E-mail addresses for dependents only occasionally allowed
special characters (medium).
The intent to file for compensation/pension had an active
status for a deceased veteran (medium).
Creating a claim in legacy or VBMS would remove the
Homeless, POW, and/or Gulf War Registry Flash (high).
Disability name appeared incorrectly in Issue and
Decision text for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) (high).
VBMS-Core did not recognize updated rating decisions from
VBMS-Rating (high).
According to the Program Management Office, these defects were
communicated to users and an appropriate workaround for each was
established. Nevertheless, even with the workarounds, high and medium
severity open defects, which by definition impact system functionality,
degraded users' experiences with the system. Continuing to deploy
system releases with defects that impact system functionality increases
the risk that these defects will diminish users' ability to process
disability claims in an efficient manner. Accordingly, we recommended
that VA reduce the incidence of high and medium severity level defects
that are present at the time of future VBMS releases. The department
agreed with this recommendation.
VBA Had Not Conducted a Survey to Obtain Users' Feedback or Established
Related Goals; GAO Found that Satisfaction with the System Varied
Our September 2015 report noted that, in addition to having defined
program goals and related performance targets, leading practices
identify continuous customer feedback as a crucial element of IT
project success. \20\ Particularly for projects like VBMS, where
development activities are iterative, customer and end user
perspectives and insights can be solicited through various methods-user
acceptance testing, interviews, complaint programs, and satisfaction
surveys-to validate or raise questions about the project's
implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, GAO 04 394G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004); and Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Evaluating Information Technology Investments, A
Practical Guide (November 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, leading practices emphasize that periodic customer
satisfaction data should be proactively used to improve performance and
demonstrate the level of satisfaction the project is delivering. The
Office of Management and Budget has developed standards and guidelines
in survey research that are generally consistent with best practices
\21\ and call for statistically valid data collection efforts to be
used in fulfilling agencies' customer service data collection. \22\
These leading practices also stress the importance of centrally
integrating all customer feedback data in order to have more complete
diagnostic information to guide improvement efforts. \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ For example, the American Association of Public Opinion
Research (AAPOR) best practices (http://www.aapor.org/best--
practices1.htm), describe the manner in which to produce a quality
survey when a need for information arises for which existing data
appear to be insufficient. AAPOR describes features such as random
selection that should be used when selecting samples in order to allow
the results to be projectable to the population being studied.
\22\ OMB, Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys
(September 2006). In part, this guidance directs that agency survey
designs use generally accepted statistical methods, such as
probabilistic methods that can provide estimates of sampling error. Any
use of nonprobability sampling methods must be justified statistically
and be able to measure estimation error. According to the OMB
standards, the size and design of the sample must reflect the level of
detail needed in tabulations and other data products, and the precision
required of key estimates.
\23\ GAO, Information Technology Investment Management: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Process Maturity, GAO 04 394G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004); Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute,
Capability Maturity Modelr Integration (CMMI) for Development, Version
1.3 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: November 2010); M.S. Garver and R.L. Cook, "Best
Practice Customer Value and Satisfaction Cultures," Mid-American
Journal of Business, vol. 16, no. 1 (2001); M.S. Garver, "Modeling Best
Practices for Government Agencies: Implementing Customer Satisfaction
Programs" (Jan. 28, 2002); Best Practices, LLC, "Achieving World-Class
Customer Service: An Integrated Approach" (copyright 1998-2001);
Federal Benchmarking Consortium, "Serving the American Public: Best
Practices in Customer-Driven Strategic Planning" (February 1997); and
OMB, Evaluating Information Technology Investments, A Practical Guide
(November 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA has used a variety of methods for obtaining customer and end
user feedback on the performance of VBMS. For example, the department
solicits end user involvement and feedback in the iterative system
development process based on user acceptance criteria. \24\ According
to the Senior Project Manager for VBMS Development within the Office of
Information and Technology, at the end of each development cycle and
before a new version of VBMS is deployed, end users are involved in
user acceptance testing and a final customer acceptance meeting. \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ User acceptance criteria are criteria that a deliverable must
satisfy to be accepted by a user, customer, or other authorized entity.
\25\ User acceptance testing is formal testing conducted to enable
a user, customer, or other authorized entity to determine whether to
accept a deliverable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The department also provides training to a subset of end users-
known as "superusers"-on the updated functionality introduced in a new
version of VBMS. These superusers are expected to train the remaining
users in the field on the new version's features. The department tracks
the overall satisfaction level with training received after each VBMS
major release. However, this tracking is limited to superusers'
satisfaction with the training, rather than with their satisfaction
with the system. \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ As of March 31, 2015, VA reported it had exceeded its target
goal of 90 percent with a 94 percent satisfaction rate with VBMS
superuser training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the department solicits customer feedback about the system
through interviews. For example, the Director of the Program Management
Office stated that the Under Secretary for Benefits hosts a weekly
phone call with bargaining unit employees as a "pulse check" on VBA
transformation activities, including VBMS. According to this official,
the VBA Office of Field Operations also offers an instant messaging
chat service to all regional office employees to solicit feedback about
the latest deployment of VBMS functionality.
Another method in which the department obtains customer input is
through a formal feedback process. For example, according to the
Director, VA provides national service desk support to assist users in
troubleshooting system issues and identifying system defects. In
addition, VBMS applications include a built-in feature that enables
users to provide feedback to the Program Management Office on problems
with the system. According to the Director, the feedback received by
the office also helps to identify user training issues.
Nevertheless, while VA has taken these various steps to obtain
feedback on the performance and implementation of VBMS, it has not
established goals to define user satisfaction that can be used as a
basis for gauging the success of its efforts to promote satisfaction
with the system. Further, while the efforts that have been taken to
solicit users' feedback provide VBA with useful insights about
particular problems, data are not centrally compiled or sufficient for
supporting overall conclusions about whether customers are satisfied.
In addition, VBA has not employed a customer satisfaction survey of
claims processing employees who use the system on a daily basis to
process disability claims. Such a survey could provide a more
comprehensive picture of overall customer satisfaction and help
identify areas where the system's development and implementation
efforts might need additional attention.
According to the Director of the Program Management Office, VBA has
not used a survey to solicit feedback because of concern that such a
mechanism may negatively impact the efficiency of claims processors in
completing disability compensation claims on behalf of veterans.
Further, the Director believed that the office had the benefit of
receiving ongoing end user input on VBMS by virtue of the intensive
testing cycles, as well as several of the other mechanisms by which end
users have provided ongoing feedback. Nevertheless, without
establishing user satisfaction goals and collecting the comprehensive
data that a statistically valid survey can provide, the Program
Management Office limits its ability to obtain a comprehensive
understanding of VBMS users' satisfaction with the system. Thus, VBA
could miss opportunities to improve the efficiency of its claims
process by increasing satisfaction with VBMS. Therefore, we recommended
that VA develop and administer a statistically valid survey of VBMS
users to determine the effectiveness of steps taken to make
improvements in users' satisfaction. The department agreed with this
recommendation.
Most Types of Users Reported Satisfaction with VBMS, but Decision
Review Officers Were Generally Dissatisfied
In response to a statistical survey that we administered, most of
the VBMS users reported that they were satisfied with the system that
had been implemented at the time of the survey. \27\ These users
(claims assistants, veteran service representatives, supervisory
veteran service representatives, rating veterans service
representatives, decision review officers, and others) \28\ were
satisfied with the three modules of VBMS. \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ We received a response rate of 60 percent. We adjusted for
characteristics that were associated with survey response propensity
using standard weighting class adjustments defined by sampling strata.
We assumed that nonresponse adjusted data are missing at random and
therefore concluded the respondent analyses using the nonresponse
adjusted weights are unbiased for the population of VBMS users sampled
in the survey and the responses to be generalizable to all VBA claims
processors at 56 VA regional offices. Confidence intervals for
estimates we report from this survey are based on a confidence level of
95 percent and are calculated using methods appropriate for a
stratified random sample. Confidence intervals are never wider than
plus or minus 5 percentage points. At a 95 percent confidence level,
this means that in about 95 out of 100 instances, the sampling
procedures we used would be expected to produce a confidence interval
containing the true population value we estimate.
\28\ Some survey respondents identified themselves as "other" when
selecting their role (e.g., rating quality review specialist).
\29\ Survey respondents were asked to rate their VBMS experience
with various system usability statements and were given the option to
select the following answer choices: "strongly agree," "agree,"
"neither agree nor disagree," "disagree," "strongly disagree," and "not
applicable or no basis to judge." We defined satisfaction as a
combination of the "strongly agree" and "agree" responses, and excluded
those respondents who selected "not applicable or no basis to judge"
for analysis of satisfaction, within the main report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, an estimated 59 percent of the claims processors were
satisfied with VBMS-Core; an estimated 63 percent were satisfied with
the Rating module, and an estimated 67 percent were satisfied with the
Awards module.
Nevertheless, while a majority of users were satisfied with the
three modules, decision review officers expressed considerably less
satisfaction than other users with VBMS-Core and VBMS-Rating. \30\
Specifically, for VBMS-Core, an estimated 27 percent of decision review
officers were satisfied compared to an estimated 59 percent of all
roles of claims processors (including decision review officers) who
were satisfied. In addition, for VBMS-Rating, an estimated 38 percent
of decision review officers were satisfied, compared to an estimated 63
percent of all roles of claims processors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Decision review officers do not typically use VBMS-Awards.
Therefore, decision review officers were not compared to other users
for that module.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision review officers were considerably less satisfied with VBMS
in comparison to all roles of claims processors in additional areas.
For example, an estimated 26 percent of decision review officers viewed
VBMS-Core as an improvement over the previous legacy system or systems
for establishing claims and storing and reviewing electronic documents
related to a claim in an eFolder. In contrast, an estimated 58 percent
of all users (including decision review officers) viewed the Core
module as an improvement.
In addition, an estimated 26 percent of decision review officers
viewed VBMS-Rating as an improvement over the previous systems with
respect to providing Web-accessible tools, including rules-based rating
calculators, to assist in making claims rating decisions. In contrast,
an estimated 55 percent of all roles of claims processors viewed the
Rating module as an improvement. For VBMS-Awards, an estimated 61
percent of all roles viewed this module as an improvement over the
previous systems to automate the award and notification process.
Similarly, in considering the three modules, a majority of users
(including decision review officers) would have chosen VBMS over the
legacy system or systems. However, decision review officers indicated
that they were less likely to have chosen VBMS-Core and VBMS-Rating
over legacy systems. Specifically, an estimated 27 percent of decision
review officers would have chosen VBMS-Core compared to an estimated 60
percent of all roles of claims processors. In addition, an estimated 27
percent of decision review officers would have chosen VBMS-Rating
compared to 61 percent of all roles that would have chosen the system
over the legacy system or systems. For VBMS-Awards, an estimated 67
percent of all roles would have chosen this module over the previous
systems.
Decision review officers perform an array of duties to resolve
claims issues raised by veterans and their representatives. They may
also conduct a new review or complete a review of a claim without
deference to the original decision, and, in doing so, must click
through all documents included in the e-Folder. Survey comments from
decision review officers stated, for example, that reviews in the VBMS
paperless environment take longer because of the length of time spent
loading, scrolling, and viewing each document (particularly if the
documents are large, such as a service medical record file).
Additionally, multiple decision review officers commented that it is
easier and faster to review documents in a paper file. Although such
comments provide illustrative examples of individual decision review
officers' views and are not representative, according to the Director
of the Program Management Office, decision review officers' relative
dissatisfaction is not surprising because the system does not yet
include functionality that supports their work, which primarily relates
to appeals processing. To improve this situation, we recommended that
VA establish goals that define customer satisfaction with the system
and report on actual performance toward achieving the goals based on
the results of our survey of VBMS users and any future surveys VA
conducts. The department concurred with this recommendation.
In conclusion, while VA has made progress in developing and
implementing VBMS, additional capabilities to fully process disability
claims were delayed beyond when the system's completion was originally
planned. Further, in the absence of a plan that identifies when and at
what cost the system can be expected to fully support disability
compensation and pension claims processing and appeals, holding VA
management accountable for meeting a schedule, while ensuring
sufficient program funding, will be difficult. Also, without goals for
system response times, users do not have an expectation of the response
times they can anticipate, and management lacks an indication of how
well the system is performing. Furthermore, continuing to deploy system
releases with defects that impact functionality increases the risk that
these defects will diminish users' ability to process disability claims
in an efficient manner. Lastly, although the results of our survey
provide VBA with useful data about users' satisfaction with VBMS (e.g.,
the majority of users are satisfied), without having goals to define
user satisfaction, VBA does not have a basis for gauging the success of
its efforts to improve the system. As we stressed in our report,
attention to these issues can improve VA's efforts to effectively
complete the development and implementation of VBMS. Fully addressing
our recommendations, as VA agreed to do, should help the department
give appropriate attention to these issues.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the
Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you may have.
Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
For further information about this testimony, contact Valerie C.
Melvin at (202) 512-6304 or [email protected]. Contact points for our
offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are listed on the
last page of the testimony. Other key contributors to this testimony
include Mark Bird (assistant director), Kavita Daitnarayan, Kelly
Dodson, Nancy Glover, Brandon S. Pettis, and Eric Trout.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission
from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary
if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077,
or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates.
Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, [email protected], (202)
512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 ,
Washington, DC 20548
Why GAO Did This Study
VBA pays disability benefits for conditions incurred or aggravated
while in military service, and pension benefits for low-income veterans
who are either elderly or have disabilities unrelated to military
service. In fiscal year 2014, the department paid about $58 billion in
disability compensation and about $5 billion in pension claims.
The disability claims process has been the subject of attention by
Congress and others, due in part to long waits for processing claims
and a large backlog of claims. To process disability and pension claims
more efficiently, VA began development and implementation of an
electronic, paperless system-VBMS-in 2009.
This statement summarizes GAO's September 2015 report (GAO-15-582)
on (1) VA's progress toward completing the development and
implementation of VBMS and (2) the extent to which users report
satisfaction with the system.
What GAO Recommends
In its September 2015 report, GAO recommended that VA develop a
plan with a time frame and a reliable cost estimate for completing
VBMS, establish goals for system response time, minimize the incidence
of high and medium severity system defects for future VBMS releases,
assess user satisfaction, and establish satisfaction goals to promote
improvement. VA concurred with GAO's recommendations.
What GAO Found
As GAO reported in September 2015, the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has
made progress in developing and implementing the Veterans Benefits
Management System (VBMS), with deployment of the initial version of the
system to all of its regional offices as of June 2013. Since then, VBA
has continued developing and implementing additional system
functionality and enhancements that support the electronic processing
of disability compensation claims. As a result, 95 percent of records
related to veterans' disability claims are electronic and reside in the
system. However, VBMS is not yet able to fully support disability and
pension claims, as well as appeals processing. Nevertheless, while the
Under Secretary for Benefits stated in March 2013 that the development
of VBMS was expected to be completed in 2015, implementation of
functionality to fully support electronic claims processing has been
delayed beyond 2015. In addition, VBA has not yet produced a plan that
identifies when the system will be completed. Accordingly, holding VA
management accountable for meeting a time frame and for demonstrating
progress will be difficult.
As VA continues its efforts to complete development and
implementation of VBMS, three areas could benefit from increased
management attention.
Cost estimating: The program office does not have a
reliable estimate of the cost for completing the system. Without such
an estimate, VA management and the department's stakeholders have a
limited view of the system's future resource needs, and the program
risks not having sufficient funding to complete development and
implementation of the system.
System availability: Although VBA has improved its
performance regarding system availability to users, it has not
established system response time goals. Without such goals, users do
not have an expectation of the system response times they can
anticipate and management does not have an indication of how well the
system is performing relative to performance goals.
System defects: While the program has actively managed
system defects, a recent system release included unresolved defects
that impacted system performance and users' experiences. Continuing to
deploy releases with large numbers of defects that reduce system
functionality could adversely affect users' ability to process
disability claims in an efficient manner.
VA has not conducted a customer satisfaction survey that
would allow the department to compile data on how users view the
system's performance, and ultimately, to develop goals for improving
the system. GAO's survey of VBMS users found that a majority of them
were satisfied with the system, but decision review officers were
considerably less satisfied. Although the results of GAO's survey
provide VBA with data about users' satisfaction with VBMS, the absence
of user satisfaction goals limits the utility of survey results.
Specifically, without having established goals to define user
satisfaction, VBA does not have a basis for gauging the success of its
efforts to promote satisfaction with the system, or for identifying
areas where its efforts to complete development and implementation of
the system might need attention.
Statements For The Record
THE AMERICAN LEGION
Information Technology (IT) systems are only as effective as the
data they have to work with. There is a tremendous amount of promise in
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Benefits Management
System (VBMS). VBMS represents something the veterans' community has
been hoping for since 1988 and that VA has spent over a billion dollars
working to implement. However, no matter what technological rewards
this system promises, it will only be as strong as the data and if VA
doesn't make substantial improvements to the scanning procedures that
collect that data, the system will continue to deliver substandard
results.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown and distinguished Members of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on behalf of Commander Dale Barnett
and the over 2 million members of The American Legion, we applaud you
and your colleagues for conducting this hearing to examine the VBMS and
how it ultimately impacts delivery of benefits to disabled veterans.
Background
Although efforts to move to an electronic claims processing system
date back to at least 1988, the current VA system, VBMS, was created
through former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki's directive to modernize the
claims processing system in 2009. VBMS was deployed with a mission of
reducing claims processing times and improving accuracy in
adjudications. Today, VBMS is utilized by Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) and Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) personnel to
adjudicate claims.
In September 2009 VA's initial foray into electronic claims
processing cost $579.2 million, and by January 2015 costs had exploded
to approximately $1.3 billion \1\, according to a September 2015 VA
Office of Inspector General (VAOIG) report. Within the same report, VA
contends that VBMS is expected to meet VA's objective of eliminating
the backlog with a 98 percent accuracy by the end of 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VAOIG Report: Follow-up of the Veterans Benefits Management
System: Sept. 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key question is whether this represents a realistic prediction
of the impact of the VBMS electronic claims processing system.
According to the VA's final Monday Morning Workload Report (MMWR)
for 2015, VBA had the following claims in its inventory \2\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ VA Monday Morning Workload Report: December 28, 2015
u 361,973 claims that were pending;
u 74, 378 claims waiting in excess of 125 days for adjudication
(20.5%);
u 318,266 appeals; and
u 214,154 dependency claims
The first MMWR following the initial September 2009 investment in
VBMS indicated VBA's inventory as \3\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ VA Monday Morning Workload Report: October 5, 2009
u 388,774 claims pending
u 158,290 claims waiting in excess of 125 days for adjudication
(35.6%)
u 174,891 appeals
u 50,790 dependency claims
Though VA regularly assured the veteran community in Congressional
testimonies that it would meet its stated goal of ending the backlog by
the end of 2015, the December 2015 MMWR reflects a failure to meet the
stated objective. Additionally, the same MMWR indicated VA's claims
accuracy as 90.19 percent and issue based accuracy as 96.3 percent.
The American Legion commends VA for its significant efforts in
reducing the backlog - however, we continue to maintain our concerns
and frustrations in which VA has approached this task. Since the
inception of VBMS in September 2009 the appeals inventory has more than
doubled - ballooning over 108 percent. Dependency claims awaiting
adjudication have exploded by over 400 percent. Conveniently, VA fails
to include these statistics in it backlog measure. With these startling
numbers, The American Legion remains concerned that VA has largely
focused upon adjudicating certain claims that comprise VA's chosen
"backlog statistics" rather than addressing the root concern - that
veterans must wait for justice for their service connected injuries. A
veteran waiting on appeal is a veteran who is still waiting, and
absolutely must be considered part of the real backlog.
Feedback on VBMS
The American Legion has over 3,000 accredited representatives
located throughout the nation. These dedicated advocates are employed
in numerous capacities throughout the nation. Many of these employees
are employed in VA facilities and utilize VBMS daily. While many
acknowledge that VBMS has improved functions within VA, they will also
point out the shortcomings of the system.
In response to the September 2015 VAOIG and Government
Accountability Reports, The American Legion collated information from
our personnel located within the VA's facilities that utilize the VBMS
system to provide feedback. Noted concerns pertaining to VBMS included:
u Inability to assist sensitive cases requiring accredited
representatives to contact other VA regional offices (VAROs) to assist
veterans employed by VA.
u Non-rating claims are not integrated completely within VBMS.
u Debt Management Center has not been integrated.
u Veterans On-Line Applications (VONAPPS) and documents reflecting
E-benefits powers of attorney/Stakeholders Enterprise Portal (SEP)
acceptances only appear in Virtual VA (a separate electronic system).
u Pension Management Center (PMC) claims only appear in Virtual
VA.
u Correspondence sent to veteran's state that the power of
attorney (POA) has received a copy; accredited representatives are not
receiving these copies and no alert is provided by VA to the POA
indicating correspondence has occurred.
u POAs are required to review a decision within 48 hours. If a
claim is adjudicated and the POA is out of the office, it can put
additional pressure on POAs to review the decisions.
u Rating decisions performed by adjudicators that telework are
unable to be reviewed due to the manner VA has created the telework
procedures.
u As the day progresses, the system becomes slower until 5 PM
Eastern, when VAROs in the Eastern Time Zone end their duty days and
reduces the number of users.
u Lack of search capability within VBMS
u Scanned documents are frequently improperly identified
The American Legion conducts training biannually for our accredited
representatives. The issue of VBMS and its limits in functionality were
a topic of great concern in August 2015. Our representatives called for
a resolution to address their concerns. In September 2015, The American
Legion urged "VA to keep the veterans' accredited service organization
representatives at the local VAROs informed of all decisions made on
claims and/or appeals of claimants/appellants who have assigned the
service organizations as their VA accredited representative \4\."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Resolution No. 104: Local Accredited Representative Access to
Veterans Benefits Management System Decisions: SEP 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examining the concerns cited above, perhaps the key limiting factor
revolves around the improperly identified scanned documents and lack of
search capabilities. When VBMS was still in the development stage, the
ability to rapidly search through data within a veteran's file for
medical information relevant to their claim was consistently cited as
the primary advantage of electronic over paper processing. However,
this feature continues to fall short in VA's delivery of VBMS.
The American Legion continues to find inconsistent scanning results
nationwide. Finding improperly labeled folders in a veteran's file is
not a rare occurrence, but an almost daily occurrence for those who
work with claims files. This has been a consistent complaint from both
service officers and the VA employees The American Legion has spoken
with. While a mislabeled folder can be relabeled by initiating contact
with appropriate personnel in VA offices, this is still a complicating
factor that makes the VBMS files more difficult to work through. The
mislabeling is clearly a result of substandard scanning, and making a
stronger effort to improve the quality of scanning on the front end
would help alleviate this problem.
Further compounding efforts to utilize advantages of an electronic
system is the lack of an effective search mechanism. Because the
scanned documents have no Optical Character Recognition (OCR) - a
promised feature from the early stage of VBMS planning - there is no
way to search these documents for key words and phrases. It therefore
offers little to no improvement over manually searching though paper
files, with perhaps additional eye strain from staring at monitors.
VA has included the veteran's service organizations (VSOs) while
designing and implementing VBMS, and they have asked for input to
improve functionality. However, this is where the conversation often
ends. VA rarely, if ever, implements the requests, and it is
particularly frustrating to repeatedly make requests or suggestions for
improvement in the field or VA Central Office and fail to see them
implemented.
However, The American Legion applauds VA's efforts to modernize its
claims processing system. As always, The American Legion is willing to
assist VA to ensure that veterans are best served.
Conclusion
In order to improve the VBMS system, it makes the most sense to
start at the beginning, with the scanning of documents. If improvements
can be made to the scanning process, adding nationwide consistency,
properly labeled file folders, and improving the ability to
electronically search documents, this system could begin to live up to
its potential. Until then, with substandard product input in the
system, we are virtually guaranteed substandard output.As always, The
American Legion thanks this committee for the opportunity to explain
the position of the more than 2 million veteran members of this
organization. For additional information regarding this testimony,
please contact Mr. Warren J. Goldstein at The American Legion's
Legislative Division at (202) 861-2700 or [email protected].
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Chairman Benishek, Ranking Member Brownley and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee on Health, I appreciate the opportunity to
present this testimony for the record on behalf of the Brentwood
Village Business Improvement District (BID) and the Brentwood Village
Chamber of Commerce (BVCC) a 501(c)(6) nonprofit.
Collectively, the BID and BVCC work with over 100 businesses
currently operating in Brentwood Village, an area on the north end of
Zone 4 in the West Los Angeles VA Campus. While our storefronts operate
adjacent to the VA property, our community is inextricably linked to
the VA by our shared values and patronage.
To this end, for the past 70 years, the VA has generously provided
parking lots on the eastern edge of its campus that have helped service
both Veterans, residents, employees and customers to Brentwood Village
as well as the community at large. We believe that the continued shared
used of the North Parking lot and Playing Field/South parking lot in
Zone 4 is necessary to provide these continued services for veterans.
Under the new VA Master Plan, the aforementioned parking lots in
Zone 4 are to become green space and/or access roads, which would
negatively impact both the businesses that utilize those parking lots
and the Veterans who work there and frequent those establishments.
Not only would this eliminate hundreds of parking spaces for
Veterans, village businesses and park patrons, but it would cause
additional adverse effects such as compounding traffic in an already
over-populated and congested area of West Los Angeles. Unfortunately,
there are no other parking alternatives in the immediate vicinity.
We have submitted a number of ideas to the VA that would be
beneficial to Veterans within the community and ameliorate the
aforementioned issue with the parking. Please find some of our
suggestions below for your consideration:
1) Promote health and wellness by working with the VA to
implement a Food Donation Program for all West Los Angeles Veterans,
especially homeless and disadvantaged Veterans - Participating
Brentwood Village restaurants to provide unused/unsold food to
Veterans.
2) Provide skill building and employment by working with the VA
to change the Playing field/South parking lot to a Veteran's Park and
potentially create licensing fee for people who bring dogs to the park
- this will offer socialization, physical recreation and volunteerism.
3) Participating Brentwood Village Merchants to provide
training/employment for Veterans through Mentorship/Internship
programs. We will adopt a "Veterans First" hiring policy.
4) Work with the VA to update the ticketing hardware/software
and pricing for both parking lots to ensure better access for Veterans
and offer potential employment opportunities to elderly and service
connected disabled veterans.
5) Participating Brentwood Village Merchants will offer Veterans
discounts on goods/services to help promote health, wellness and
socialization.
6) Raise funds for scholarship programs/housing and for Veterans
currently housed at the Domiciliary who will be transitioning to their
first year of independent living.
Thank you for your consideration of our observations, suggestions
and recommendations. Taking care of our nation's Veterans is a priority
for all of us. As members of the BID and BVCC we take pride in our
longstanding connection to the West Los Angeles VA and look forward to
resolving this issue together. We welcome the opportunity to continue
this dialogue, answer any questions, or provide you with any additional
information that you may require.
Questions And Answers For The Record
Department of Veterans Affairs Pre-Hearing Questions:
Question a: As noted in the GAO report, Congress has provided VA
with approximately $1.3 billion dollars in funding for the VBMS
program. As part of the FY 2016 budget request, VBA asked for $253
million in funding for various technology improvements and processes,
and for sustainment of the existing components of VBMS. Provide the
total projected cost of developing, implementing, and sustaining the
VBMS.
Response: Modernizing VBA systems is an essential part of VBA's
overall transformation effort. Resources have already been invested in
VBMS to enable VA to fulfill its ambitious goal to transition from
paper-based claims to 21st century, electronic claims processing.
Delivering the remaining VBMS requirements will allow VBA to capitalize
on the investment with a comprehensive technical solution. Each VBMS
release provides new or enhanced application functionality, and the
system continues to evolve to meet end-user and organizational needs
over time.
The FY 2016 budget request includes $76 million for development
efforts to enhance the capabilities of VBMS. This funding will deliver
functionality such as appeals processing enhancements at the Agency of
Original Jurisdiction level, pension automation, and enhancements to
the National Work Queue (NWQ). Improvements to electronic
communications and expanded access to Veteran information in the VBMS
electronic folder (eFolder) are also scheduled for FY 2016. These
capabilities have been identified as a high priority for VA
stakeholders. Furthermore, FY 2016 funding will also allow VA to
integrate with Department of Defense (DoD) information systems to
improve evidence request suspense times, eliminate interagency
duplication of efforts, and allow end-users to process benefit claims
faster and more accurately.
The remainder of the FY 2016 funding request will provide
sustainment services to support continued system stability to the
workforce through performance monitoring, defect and incident
resolution, and routine maintenance procedures. Sustainment funding is
critical to support the enterprise business capabilities that enable
efficient claims processing.
Planned enhancements for FY 2017 will allow end-users to process
more claims end-to-end within a single system, further reducing the
reliance on legacy systems. This transition will allow VBA to drive
improvements on the timeliness and quality of benefits delivery and
focus on the MyVA initiative, which outlines VA's transformation to a
Veteran-centric organization. At that time, VA expects to achieve
department-wide interoperability goals and will evaluate a new
investment plan for FY 2018.
Question b: Describe in detail how the Department distinguishes
between what is considered "development" of VBMS, as compared to
"sustainment" of VBMS.
Response: Development funds are used to enhance and complete the
functionality that will enable VA to electronically process disability
compensation claims from end-to-end in VBMS. Development and
integration efforts will deliver new functionality, such as support of
pension and appeals business processes, which are currently supported
primarily by legacy systems. Although VBMS now supports the full
lifecycle of disability compensation claims, enhancement requests from
end-users are considered valuable development opportunities to
streamline business processes and increase productivity.
Sustainment funds support all activities related to the operation
and maintenance of the VBMS application in production at the current
capability and performance level, including support for deployment
resources and equipment. Sustainment costs do not support new
functionality or enhancements, but rather the maintenance of existing
information systems and applications. There are two types of
sustainment funds: mandatory and marginal. Mandatory sustainment
provides funding to keep production systems and applications running.
Marginal sustainment supports new cost or increased cost to maintain a
newly deployed application or system from the point of deployment until
the end of the fiscal year.
Question c: Describe in detail the features of VBMS that have been
developed thus far, and which of those features are now considered to
be in sustainment.
Response: VBMS is a web-based application primarily used by VBA
employees to electronically process disability compensation claims.
Additional stakeholder groups, including the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), and Veterans Service Organizations (VSO), can
access VBMS to aid in the claims process and execute their respective
actions. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) also has access to
VBMS to review the eFolder.
A major feature of VBMS is the eFolder, which is used to
electronically store claim-related documents and evidence. VBMS
features developed to date enable VA to electronically intake and
establish claims, develop and evaluate evidence, provide rating
decisions, and generate awards. Rating functionality provides rules-
based tools and automated decision recommendations. Awards
functionality automates award and notification processes.
Sustainment funding is used to sustain all of the above deployed
capabilities, along with the VBMS infrastructure. Development funding
only supports the development of new features and system enhancements,
along with integration work that enables VBMS to support the strategic
partners of VBA. All features are considered in sustainment as soon as
they are deployed to production.
Question d: Provide the percentage of total VBMS development that
has been completed, and the expected date of completion.
Response: With the completion of the electronic eFolder, VBMS has
reached its initial operating capability. Ongoing development efforts
enhance existing functionality and application performance, as well as
deploy new features to increase claims processing efficiency and help
the VA workforce meet its strategic goals. VA recognizes the need to
continue to invest in "next generation" VBMS. VBMS employs an Agile
development methodology that allows solutions and requirements to
evolve based on priority for each development cycle. Development plans
are prioritized and tailored as new business requirements are
identified. The long-term vision for the VBMS program will involve
transitioning from an application-centric model to one focused on
delivering enterprise business capabilities. VA expects to achieve
Department-wide interoperability goals that support common access,
stakeholder integration, and end-user satisfaction in FY 2018.
Question e: Describe in detail the functionality VBMS currently
contains to process paperless appeals.
Response: Some appeals-specific functionality has been delivered
for VBA and the Board. This functionality provides the Board's end-
users with a distinct eFolder view, the ability to bookmark, and
restricted viewing of the Board's annotations and notes. These features
support paperless appeals processing to view documents in the eFolder.
VBMS is collaborating with appeals subject matter experts to include
more Agency of Original Jurisdiction appeals-specific requirements for
future development.
Question f: Describe in detail the Department's plan to determine
to what extent end-users are satisfied with the VBMS program.
Response: The VBMS Program Management Office (PMO) has a strong
desire to obtain customer satisfaction information from all end-users,
to include claims processors, VHA clinicians, and other stakeholders.
As stated in response to the recent GAO report (GAO-15-582), VBA is
working with labor partners on distribution of a survey, as well as the
specific items to be assessed by this survey. The VBMS PMO expects to
release a survey in March 2016 to measure end-user satisfaction.
However, a survey gives only a snapshot in time, while continuous
feedback provides opportunity for the system to be adapted based on
that feedback and realization of benefits offered by Agile methodology.
The VBMS PMO has sought feedback from users since initial deployment
and also relied on the subject-matter expertise of users to develop the
system. The VBMS PMO provides various channels for customer feedback,
including stakeholder reengagement, user acceptance testing (UAT),
requirements and design sessions, a post-deployment command center,
superuser training, change management agent calls, Under Secretary for
Benefits (USB) pulse check calls, and the national Transformation Chat.
These channels are in addition to the help desk report that captures
and prioritizes all reported VBMS-related issues. Enhancement requests
from end-users are frequently reviewed and considered for possible
inclusion in a future release, as they offer insight to potential
improvements to everyday processes. VBMS will continue this process of
continual feedback.
Question g: Provide the percentage of all decisions that were
appealed through a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in FY 2015. Please also
provide the total number of NODs filed in FY 2015.
Response: Five percent of the 1.4 million rating-related claim
decisions made in FY 2015 had been appealed by the end of FY 2015. Most
of the Veterans who received a decision in 2015 are still within their
one-year appeal period. There were 169,069 NODs established in FY 2015.
Approximately 91 percent of these NODs were filed on compensation and
pension rating claim decisions. Within this 91 percent, approximately
55 percent of the NODs were submitted on claims completed in FY 2015,
with the remainder submitted on claims completed in earlier fiscal
years.
Question h: Provide the total number of Statements of the Case
(SOCs) that were issued in FY 2015.
Response: There were 100,018 SOCs issued in FY 2015. Many of these
SOCs were issued for NODs submitted in earlier fiscal years. An
additional 28,766 Supplemental SOCs (SSOCs) were issued in FY 2015.
Question i: Provide the percentage of all Statements of the Case
(SOCs) issued in FY 2015 that granted the claimed benefit(s) on appeal.
Please also provide the percentage of all SOCs issued in FY 2015 that
denied the claimed benefit(s) on appeal.
Response: In FY 2015, VBA resolved 16,718 appeals through a full
grant of the benefit sought; as a result, no SOC was issued on these
NODs. VBA resolved an additional 2,193 appeals following issuance of an
SOC, but prior to certification to the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board). In addition, 54,468 appellants were satisfied with their SOC
and chose not to pursue their appeal to the Board. Approximately 46
percent of appellants who were issued an SOC in FY 2015 chose to
continue their appeal to the Board.
Question j: Provide the Average Days Pending (ADP) between the
filing of a non-rating claim and the issuance of a decision in FY 2015.
Response: The FY 2015 Average Days to Complete (ADC) non-rating
claims data (from the date of filing to the issuance of a decision) is
provided in the table below. Non-Rating Related End Products (EPs)
represent that grouping of other than rating claims most likely to
impact the benefit provided to a Veteran or Survivor.
Other-Than-Rating End Product Activity FY2015
Other Than Rating EP Group Completes ADC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Rating Related EPs 1,219,432 94.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control End Products 1,042,740 179.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other C&P End Products 850,213 151.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Other Than Rating 3,112,385 143.7
Question k: Describe in detail what resources VBA has devoted to
ensure that the functionality of VBMS remains responsive to needs of
BVA employees working on appeals cases.
Response: The primary focus of VBMS has been to deliver
functionality supporting paperless compensation claims processing
toward reducing the claims backlog. As a result, many appeals are
available in a paperless environment, and the Board leverages many of
the same features as VBA, including simultaneous access by multiple
users, ability to search documents electronically, and reduction in the
potential for lost mail or misplaced files. Functionality specific to
the Board was added to the scope of Major Release 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0.
The Board now has nearly 700 end-users in unique user roles for judges,
attorneys, and administration of appeals work. In December 2013, VBMS
Release 6.0 featured a customized "Board View" of the electronic
folder. This distinct view of the electronic folder includes restricted
viewing of Board annotations and notes, and bookmarking capabilities.
VBA continues to work with the Board to identify and address areas
of improvement in appeals processing. VBA is also collaborating with
the Board-led Appeals Modernization effort, which is leveraging the
U.S. Digital Services Team to integrate the electronic folder with the
Department's legacy appeals database known as the Veterans Appeals
Control and Locator System (VACOLS).
For Steven Schliesman from Chairman Miller:
The IG and GAO found that the major reason for cost overruns of
VBMS is due to VA expanding functionality requirements.
Question: Since 2009, how many times has VA changed functionality
requirements?
VA Response: The scope of VBMS functionality has changed six times
since 2009 as part of a robust VA prioritization and Congressional
approval process. The initial VBMS scope included requirements for
converting paper claims documents into an electronic format, storing
them in an electronic document repository, and allowing Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA) employees access to these documents to
facilitate claims processing. In FY 2012, VBMS development priorities
shifted to support the goals of the VBA Transformation Plan, including
a new focus on processing electronic data and increasing automation of
claim establishment, development, and rating. The initial scope
capabilities were delivered by 2013. However, VBMS development
continued as VA identified additional opportunities for improving the
claims process electronically.
The following six changes resulted from programmatic and business
decisions aligned with the VA priority goal to end the claims backlog
through implementation of VBMS capabilities:
1. In FY 2013, VA submitted a reprogramming request, which was
approved by Congress, to develop and deliver functionality to support
VA priority goals, including (but not limited to) Disability Benefits
Questionnaires (DBQ) integration and rating evaluation builders.
2. In FY 2014, VA submitted a reprogramming request, which was
approved by Congress, to develop and deliver functionality to support
VA priority goals, including (but not limited to) Service Treatment
Record integration with DoD, rating decision capabilities, Virtual VA
integration, and workload management improvements.
3. In FY 2014, VA submitted a reprogramming request, which was
approved by Congress, to accelerate automation of workflow and workload
management functionality.
4. The FY 2015 Budget, which was approved by Congress, enabled
the development and delivery of functionality to support VA priority
goals, including (but not limited to) National Work Queue and rating
capabilities.
5. In FY 2015, VA submitted a reprogramming request, which was
approved by Congress, to develop and deliver Centralized Mail support,
eFolder functionality, National Work Queue capabilities, and awards
modernization.
6. The FY 2016 Budget, which was approved by Congress, enabled
the development and delivery of functionality to support VA priority
goals, including (but not limited to) National Work Queue, rating, and
awards capabilities.
Question: How much of the $600 million [stated by Steven Schliesman
in his exchange with Chairman Miller] is a result of those changes?
VA Response: Based on the information provided above regarding the
reprogramming, of the $610.6M appropriated as VBMS Development,
Modernization & Enhancement (DME) funding since 2009, $239.1M is a
result of these changes and were managed through both VA Prioritization
and Reprogramming processes.
For Beth McCoy from Rep. Huelskamp:
Question: Please provide a list of my (Kansas First U.S.
Congressional District) constituents [that have claims] that are in the
backlog.
Response: As of May 22, 2016, there were 111 claims in the rating
backlog with zip codes located in the Kansas First U.S. Congressional
District. A hard copy of the list of claimants is provided to HVAC
committee staff by courier. Please note that VA is unable to determine
if 7 of the claims with only a 5 digit zip code were definitively in
the Kansas First U.S. Congressional District, because the zip code
crosses into another congressional district. The 7 claims are on page
10 of the hard copy list.
[all]