[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IS THE VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION PROPERLY
PROCESSING AND DECIDING
VETERANS CLAIMS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY
ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-75
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via http://govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-850 WASHINGTON : 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, MARK TAKANO, California, Ranking
American Samoa, Vice-Chairwoman Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan JULIA BROWNLEY, California
NANCY MACE, South Carolina MIKE LEVIN, California
MATTHEW M. ROSENDALE, SR., Montana CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina SHEILA CHERFILUS-MCCORMICK,
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida Florida
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas Pennsylvania
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
KEITH SELF, Texas GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
Jon Clark, Staff Director
Matt Reel, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas, Chairman
C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire,
JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona Ranking Member
ELIJAH CRANE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO,
KEITH SELF, Texas Pennsylvania
MORGAN MCGARVEY, Kentucky
DELIA C. RAMIREZ, Illinois
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, JULY 23, 2024
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Morgan Luttrell, Chairman.......................... 1
The Honorable Chris Pappas, Ranking Member....................... 2
WITNESSES
Panel I
Mr. Ronald S. Burke Jr., Deputy Under Secretary, Office of Policy
& Oversight, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 4
Accompanied by:
Mr. Kenneth Smith, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary,
Operations Management, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Ms. Kristina Messenger, Deputy Executive Director of
Operations, Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Stephen Bracci, Director, Compensation Programs Inspection
Division, Office of Audits and Evaluations, Office of Inspector
General (OIG), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............. 6
Ms. Elizabeth Curda, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).......... 8
Ms. Linda Parker-Cooks, President, Local 138, American Federation
of Government Employees (AFGE)................................. 9
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements Of Witnesses
Mr. Ronald S. Burke Jr. Prepared Statement....................... 25
Mr. Stephen Bracci Prepared Statement............................ 39
Ms. Elizabeth Curda Prepared Statement........................... 48
Ms. Linda Parker-Cooks Prepared Statement........................ 62
IS THE VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION PROPERLY
PROCESSING AND DECIDING
VETERANS CLAIMS?
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2024
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance &
Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:25 p.m., in
room 360, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Morgan Luttrell
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Luttrell, Self, Franklin, and
Pappas.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MORGAN LUTTRELL, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Luttrell. The subcommittee will come to order. Thank
you to all of our witnesses for being here today. Today we are
going to take a closer look at whether the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) has implemented quality assurance and
training programs to ensure that VBA employees properly process
and decide veterans' and survivors' claims for U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.
Inadequate employee training and ineffective quality
control processes have led to the reworked waste agency
resources and incorrect decisions on veterans' and survivors'
claims for VA benefits.
When the VBA claims processors have to redo their work and
when veterans and survivors have to appeal incorrect decisions
on their claims that adds months and years to how long veterans
and survivors must wait to finally receive the benefits they
are eligible for.
Given the sporadic problem set, a lot of veterans just give
up on pursuing their claims. We recognize that it is difficult
to balance the goal of issuing veterans fast decisions on their
claims with the goal of issuing fair and correct decisions, but
we must assure that quality is not sacrificed for quantity.
VBA has made some great improvements to its quality
assurance and training programs, including some progress since
we first notified the VA of our intentions to hold this
hearing. However, based on our reports from the VA Office of
Inspector General (IG) and the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO), there is much work still to be done.
Numerous VA OIG reports have identified disproportionately
high rates of error in certain kinds of disability compensation
claims and certain processing tasks. Just last week, the VA OIG
issued a report in which OIG estimated the VBA had an error
rate of roughly 75 percent in claims, an estimated error rate
of 75 percent where veterans were seeking a 100 percent rating
based on their inability to work.
There are the so-called Total Disability Based On
Individual Unemployability (TDIU) claims. That is much too
high. OIG estimated that from May 2022 to April 2023 alone,
TDIU claims processing error resulted in at least $100 million
in improper payments and that improper payments could have been
as high as $250 million.
As another example, in February 2024, a report by OIG
estimated that VBA had an error rate of 43 percent in claims
where veterans were seeking benefits for hip and knee
replacements. OIG estimated that from February 2021 to August
2022 alone these hip and knee claim processing errors resulted
in $3.3 million in improper payments.
When errors resulted in underpayments, affected veterans do
not receive the benefits they have earned. When errors result
in overpayments, VA wastes taxpayer dollars. We owe it to the
veterans, the families, and the American taxpayer to hold the
VBA accountable for the quality claims processing and decision-
making.
I look forward to working with VBA leadership here with us
today and employees as well as we go--as with GAO and OIG today
and in the future to ensure that VBA's quality assurance and
training programs effectively prevent these errors from
happening again.
With that, I yield to the ranking member for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS PAPPAS, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you, Chairman Luttrell. I look
forward to exploring this important issue of quality assurance
and training within the Veterans Benefits Administration
together.
From Fiscal Year 2023 to the first half of 2024, over 4.4
million disability claims have been submitted to VBA. As a
result, veterans have been compensated nearly $143 billion for
their injuries incurred while serving on our Nation's security
interests.
The task of processing these millions of claims veterans
depend on falls to just 20,000 claims processors inside VBA
regional offices spread throughout the country. Because of the
scale, complexity, and importance of VBA's disability
compensation program, the GAO added the program to their high-
risk list back in 2003. That is 21 years ago.
Since then, both GAO and OIG have consistently identified
quality and training-related issues that have uncovered deeper
concerns in VBA's leadership ability to modernize and reform
operations through quality assurance and training.
I anticipate GAO and OIG will speak directly to their
respective concerns outlined in their reports, so I will share
just two quotes sampled from their reports that I believe
communicate the heart of the issue.
From OIG, quote, ``While VBA's quality assurance program
routinely identified claims processing deficiencies and
communicated results to internal and external stakeholders,
Office of Field Operations (OFO) did not ensure that regional
office employees took adequate corrective actions and addressed
the deficiencies identified,'' end quote.
From GAO, quote, ``Reforms are done on a project-by-project
basis without centralized leadership and not consistently in
accordance to the leading reform practices,'' end quote.
During visits to VBA regional offices, this committee has
consistently heard concerns from claims processors about VBA's
training and quality assurance efforts. The story is always the
same. New employees return from Virtual In-person (VIP)
training feeling unprepared for the duties of their job, but
they voice these concerns to leadership but have not been
heard.
In response, employees in regional offices have taken it
upon themselves to design and implement grassroots training
programs to fill the gaps in VBA's foundational training for
new hires. This is unacceptable that any employee feels that
they must contact Congress to receive the foundational
knowledge they need to do their job effectively.
Similarly, we consistently hear that individual performance
standards are becoming increasingly strict. Employees are
expected to process a higher volume in less time and at a
higher quality.
On top of this, in our last hearing, we heard how claims
processors rarely receive feedback on errors they have made in
their work. This significantly hinders the rate that an
employee can learn and by effect overall workforce quality and
retention.
To be fair, VBA has had to respond to unprecedented demand
from the success of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson
Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT)
Act. To respond to that demand they have hired and onboarded
thousands of claims processors seemingly overnight. Even the
most robust operation would be strained but all systems must be
continuously reevaluated.
VBA employees face tremendous challenges in processing
complex disability claims. These challenges are only
exacerbated by changing policies and processes that are
disconnected from the workforce. Claims processors need to have
the training and support from management to meet the needs of
veterans, especially under increasingly demanding production
quotas and quality metrics.
Today I want to explore the disconnect between the
processes put in place by VBA leadership to meet claims
processing volume and quality requirements and the daily
experience of frontline VA employees.
I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Our panel of witnesses today include our lead witness from
the VA, Mr. Ron Burke, deputy undersecretary for Policy and
Oversight in the Veterans Benefit Administration. Good to see
you again, sir.
Mr. Ken Smith, assistant deputy undersecretary for field
operations in the VBA. Good to see you again, Mr. Smith.
Ms. Messenger, deputy executive director, Operations,
Compensation Service at the VBA. It is a pleasure.
Mr. Stephen Bracci, Director of the Compensation Programs
Inspection Division for the VA Office of Inspector General. Mr.
Bracci, a pleasure.
Ms. Elizabeth Curda, director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security at the Government Accountability Office. Thank
you for joining us.
Ms. Linda Parker-Cooks, president of the Local 138 American
Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). Ms. Cooks, thank you
for joining us.
I ask the witnesses in our panel to please stand and raise
your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the
witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Thank you all for being here today. Mr. Burke, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes, sir, to deliver your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF RONALD BURKE
Mr. Burke. Thank you, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member
Pappas, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
us here today to discuss the efficacy of the Department of
Veterans Affairs' quality assurance and training programs.
Joining me today are Mr. Kenneth Smith, assistant deputy under
secretary for Field Operations and Ms. Kristina Messenger,
deputy executive director of Operations, Compensation Service,
both from VBA.
VA is committed to providing outstanding customer service
to the Nation's veterans, their families, and survivors, and VA
is steadfast in its commitment to provide accurate decisions
for all veterans and survivors.
VBA has a robust training and quality review program
holding employees, regional offices, and program offices to the
highest standard for producing quality claims decisions while
also promoting continuous learning and performance improvement.
We appreciate the subcommittee's interest in this topic and I
know we share the same goal of collaboration and continuous
improvement.
I would like to focus on a few efforts that I believe are
innovative and have the potential to transform business as
usual. My office, the Office of Policy and Oversight, in
partnership with offices such as Compensation Service and the
Office of Field Operations, has created a suite of quality-
related programs that facilitate greater collaboration and
better focus on root causes.
In Fiscal Year 2022, VBA established the Overdevelopment
Reduction Task Force for the purpose of reducing
overdevelopment in the Compensation and Pension (C&P) claims
process. This task force includes a diverse group of subject
matter experts from both VBA Central Office and the field and
is charged with analyzing the claims development process to
streamline procedures.
That particular effort led to more than 30 improvements,
including guidance on requesting exams and preventing
redundancy. VBA is currently in the second phase of this task
force, which is now focusing on several large-scale initiatives
that will have lasting positive impact on claims processing
with more than 60 improvements identified and underway as far
as implementation is concerned.
Additionally, since November 2021, VBA implemented work
groups focused on both quality and training where subject
matter experts can share insights, lessons learned, and
innovative methodology used for both quality and training
programs across the Benefits Administration.
This exchange of knowledge not only enhances the
proficiency of claims processors but also cultivates a culture
of accountability and high standards within the organization.
By leveraging collective expertise, VA adapts swiftly to
changes in policy or procedures keeping the VA workforce well-
equipped to deliver timely and accurate decisions for veterans.
As a further example VBA's commitment to continued process
improvement of quality programs, at the start of Fiscal Year
2023 my office established an overarching program for special
focus reviews, or SFRs, which help identify gaps in performance
and address and identify areas of improvement.
While individual program offices conduct their own SFRs,
this additional oversight facilitates a consistent method to
measure the efficiency and validity of procedural and policy
actions. I am proud to let the committee know in just under 2
fiscal years VBA has completed 58 SFRs on topics ranging from
C&P exam clarification requests to Camp Lejeune claims
processing.
In addition to immediate corrective actions taken to
improve policies, processes, and performance, VBA has made 190
recommendations of which 138 have been completed as of the end
of June 2024.
Additionally, as part of our larger effort to provide the
best possible service to veterans and survivors, on June 6th of
this year VBA held the first Quality Standdown and Employee
Wellness Day. This day met two important goals: improving the
quality of our work across all business lines from the Central
Office to the field and improving employee wellness and
experience by addressing burnout and mental health. Nearly all
of VBA's 34,000 employees participated on that day.
Finally, we acknowledge that there is always room for
improvement. In terms of training, VBA has taken a long, hard
look at our current training programs and the efficiency of
those programs. We have asked ourselves, what can we do better?
How can we better prepare our claims processors?
We have been out in the field actively talking to claims
processors nationwide and gathering feedback. We have also been
talking to our veterans service center managers, Veterans
Service Organizations (VSO), and AFGE partners to get their
comments and ideas.
Then we are listening, listening to ideas, listening to
criticisms, and we are listening for ways we can improve. Based
on this feedback, I am proud to announce that in June 2024 VBA
kicked off a massive training modernization project for all
Veterans Service Representatives (VSR) and Ratings Veterans
Service Representatives (RVSR), which will completely revamp
and transform what training looks like with the aim to
significantly overhaul and transform the VBA training process.
VBA has scrutinized the current training for claims
processors and will be immediately tackling some effective
short-term improvements which can be implemented within the
next 3 to 6 months. Simultaneously, we have established work
groups to completely revamp the training process with ambitious
plans for long-term modernization of claims processor training.
The training overhaul will result in a more effective
process and better prepared claims processors to complete
claims for veterans more efficiently with exceptional quality.
We are excited for this next era of training for VBA.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. My colleagues
and I are prepared to respond to any questions that you or
other members of the subcommittee may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Ronald Burke Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Burke. The written statement
of Mr. Burke will be entered into the hearing record.
Mr. Bracci, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir, to
deliver your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN BRACCI
Mr. Bracci. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas, and
members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss the OIG's oversight of VBA's quality assurance and
training programs related to disability claims. While VBA has
made enhancements to its quality assurance program, there is
still work to be done.
That program is intended to help ensure timely, accurate,
and consistent claims decisions. VBA's training program must
prepare new and current employees to follow complex and
frequently changing guidance. Given that millions of veterans
and family members will receive over $150 billion in disability
benefits this fiscal year, the OIG is committed to continuing
its independent oversight to provide VBA with meaningful
recommendations for improvements.
As detailed in my statement, we have persistently
identified challenges to both programs. Four OIG reports from
the last few years addressed such critical areas as: one,
processing errors made on veterans' individual unemployability
claims; two, inconsistencies implementing changes to the
disability rating schedule; three, issues with claims
automation; and four, unwarranted medical reexaminations of
veterans.
In the individual unemployability claims report released
last week, we found that VBA's training did not provide staff
adequate examples to equip them to adjudicate these complex
claims. We estimated that claims processing errors resulted in
at least $100 million in improper payments during the 1-year
review period, including both underpayments and overpayments.
Earlier this year, a team assessed the effectiveness of
VBA's implementation of disability rating schedule updates in
2021 for hip and knee replacement claims. We estimated that
inaccurate decisions made by claims processors resulted in at
least $3.3 million in improper payments. As a result, we
recommended VBA implement claims accuracy monitoring when
ratings schedule revisions are made and update the training,
accordingly.
Our findings reflect the larger concern that without the
thorough quality assurance processes, VBA cannot gauge the
effectiveness of its training to make requisite changes that
address the staff's training needs.
We also issued a report last year that evaluated VBA's
effort to implement an automated decision support tool that
extracted and summarized blood pressure readings and
hypertension-related medication data from veterans' records.
The team found the summary sheets did not provide accurate and
reliable evidence resulting in incorrect decisions.
We recommended VBA improve its quality assurance process
and monitor the results to ensure the accuracy of summary
sheets and final decisions.
Another report published last year revealed that veterans
were being required to attend unwarranted medical
reexaminations. Although VBA may require veterans to be
reexamined to verify a disability's existence or severity,
unnecessary reexaminations subject veterans to undue hardship,
waste money, and slow claims processing.
We found VBA's practices were inconsistent with procedures
and estimated that staff were erroneously establishing dates
for reexaminations about 66 percent of the time. We recommended
that VBA update training materials and ensure claims processors
meet all training requirements.
We will continue to track all recommendations from these
reports until they are fully implemented. Concerns about VBA's
quality assurance program predate these reports. Our six
nationwide reports published from 2020 to 2022 detail issues we
found with VBA's governance structure for the program.
The Compensation Service, which administers the program and
assesses accuracy nationwide, lacks the authority to remediate
the issues and errors identified. That authority lies with the
Office of Field Operations, OFO, which manages the day-to-day
operations of VBA's regional offices. Therefore, it is critical
that these offices coordinate effectively.
We found issues with VBA's national quality assurance
review program called STAR. We also reported on concerns with
the local quality review teams in place at regional offices.
Last, we determined OFO did not ensure all claims processing
errors were corrected.
Although VA has made progress in implementing action plans
that address our recommendations, its leaders must continue to
improve internal quality assurance and ensure high-risk claims
are monitored.
In closing, we continue to take on complex oversight
projects to help VBA improve claims processing accuracy for
veterans, their caregivers, and survivors while making the most
effective use of taxpayer dollars. Our ongoing work includes
PACT Act claims accuracy, as well as training for claims
processors and medical examiners.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The Prepared Statement Of Stephen Bracci Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Bracci. Your written statement
will be entered into the hearing record.
Ms. Curda, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to deliver
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH CURDA
Ms. Curda. Good afternoon, Chairman Luttrell, Ranking
Member Pappas, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to
be here to discuss GAO's work regarding VBA's training program
for disability claims processors. Veterans who have been
injured in service to their country deserve timely and high
quality disability compensation decisions, and claims
processors play a vital role in responding to their needs.
VBA is filled with dedicated claims processors who work
hard to make numerous daily decisions on disability and other
claims, which is often a complex undertaking.
VBA faces well-known challenges with processing large
volumes of disability claims and issues with the quality of
decisions. In fact, one measure of accuracy for claims
decisions has fallen from a high of 93 percent to 77 percent
more recently.
To help VA manage increasing workloads with the influx of
PACT Act claims, Congress has provided additional funding to
help VA hire thousands of new staff. However, hiring alone is
not a guarantee of success.
An effective training program is needed to, one, help new
claims processors become fully proficient, and two, for
seasoned staff to maintain their knowledge and skills in an
ever-changing, complex environment.
The focus of this hearing is appropriate because training
and quality have a clear connection. That is, training helps
prevent errors from occurring in the first place.
My testimony focuses on VBA's progress in implementing the
10 recommendations in our June 2021 report. Our report examined
wide-ranging aspects of VBA's training program for claims
processors against a framework of leading practices for
training.
Overall, our report highlighted shortfalls in VBA's
management of its training, such as directing and coordinating
training across VBA, monitoring whether claims processors
completed required training, and assessing training results. To
remedy these shortfalls in how VBA planned, designed,
implemented, and evaluated its training for claims processors,
we made 10 recommendations.
As of today, 6 of our 10 recommendations have been
addressed and four have not been fully implemented. I am
pleased with the progress VBA has made on addressing our
recommendations, particularly in the past several months. For
example, VBA has taken steps to enhance training for
instructors who teach claims processors and to ensure that all
assigned training is completed.
However, VBA needs to fully address the four remaining
recommendations. For example, we recommended that VBA
established performance goals with targets for VBA's training
program. VBA has established performance goals for some aspects
of its training but lacks goals and targets for some of its
annual required training.
Further, VBA's plan for its training program lacks
important details, such as how VBA training will help claims
processors improve decisions and accuracy. In addition,
although VBA is collecting more feedback from frontline staff
about its training, it is not clear how that feedback is being
incorporated into improvement efforts.
To some this talk of planning and evaluation can seem quite
dry and technical, however, effective management of VBA's
training program can help claims processors meet veterans'
needs by providing timely and accurate decisions. It can also
save taxpayer dollars by reducing mistakes and rework of the
same claim if it is appealed.
In closing, noted quality assurance guru Edwards Deming
once observed that, ``A bad system will beat a good person
every time.'' Developing a good system for training VBA's
claims processors would empower staff to process disability
claims more accurately and efficiently.
This concludes my prepared statement, and I am happy to
address your questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Elizabeth Curda Appears In The
Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ms. Curda. Your statement will be
entered into the hearing record.
Ms. Parker-Cooks, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF LINDA PARKER-COOKS
Ms. Parker-Cooks. Chairman Luttrell, Ranking Member Pappas,
and members of the subcommittee, AFGE and its national VA
Council appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Linda Parker-Cooks and I am the president of
AFGE Local 138 representing the VBA regional office in Detroit,
Michigan. I am a 20-year U.S. Army veteran and a service-
connected disabled veteran.
After my military service I have continued to serve my
fellow veterans at VBA for the past 18 years and currently
serve as a decision review officer and a certified VBA elite
master instructor. On behalf of thousands of frontline VBA
workers, over half of whom are veterans themselves, it is a
privilege to offer AFGE frontline perspective on how VBA trains
its employees.
VBA faces many challenges in effectively training its
employees to process claims. I want to highlight several of
these issues and offer specific changes that would better
enable VBA employees to serve veterans.
For decades VA used in-person and interactive challenge
training that lasted several weeks. Today, VBA uses inferior
virtual in-person training including instructor-led web
training (IWT) and classroom training to train employees. The
primary problem with IWT is that new employees have not yet
mastered the basics of VBA.
New employees in IWT do not understand the claims process
or the VA lingo that is critical for employees to do their job.
This is an easy problem to fix. IWT does not use the actual
tools that employees will use in their jobs. In particular, new
trainees do not have access to Veterans Benefits Management
System (VBMS)-Core until after IWT.
IWT provides examples in Portable Document Format (PDF).
Trainees will not use the actual technology for weeks.
Employees are not trained on if they can grant or deny
service-connection or the elements required to grant on a
direct, secondary, aggravated, or presumptive basis.
Furthermore, IWT does not train employees to analyze the
claim and review evidence including VA medical records,
Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQ), and what this
evidence says about having a current diagnosis. Again, they
have only seen PDF examples. To improve IWT employees must have
access to VBMS-Core and review claims in the system instead of
looking at PDFs.
Additionally, VBA must teach new employees the basics,
including learning the claims process, VA terminology, and what
a claim looks like. It must also give employees hands-on
experience with the technology they will actually use every
day.
AFGE also recommends that the current size of 100 be
lowered to more than no more than 35. Smaller groups allow for
a more interactive environment and more questions to be
addressed during class. VBA has trainers available to them but
are not using them effectively.
Following IWT, trainings shift into several weeks of
classroom training to refine their skills. AFGE urges VBA to be
more strategic and reorder the curriculum to allow the
employees to better learn the information.
Currently, classes are taught in a haphazard order instead
of sequenced to enhance on the building of concepts. Training
should be reordered to allow the instructors to reference the
material that was just taught, reinforce the concepts, and use
this to teach higher level concepts.
Following the completion of IWT and classroom training,
there are still significant gaps on critical issues employees
will need to perform their duties successfully. AFGE recommends
VBA's training to include modules on weighing in evidence, due
process, and denials of service-connection that would help
employees' confidence, performance, and retention.
As a result of the current curriculum and schedule of VIP
and classroom training, regional offices have been forced to
provide supplemental training to fill in the learning gaps and
the lag in starting national training. With VBA using the
national work queue and relying on the idea that each employee,
regardless of station, is trained the same way, AFGE strongly
recommends standardizing the supplemental training.
Last, the PACT Act training primarily consists of prepared
PowerPoint presentations in the talent management system and
self-review of the ever-changing Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP). This training is not interactive and is there more to
check the box than actually help the employees do their job.
AFGE again urges VBA to consult with AFGE to understand the
problems frontline employees are facing and what training would
help to improve performance. AFGE and NST stands ready to work
with the committee and VBA to improve training and quality.
Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The Prepared Statement Of Linda Parker-Cooks Appears In
The Appendix]
Mr. Luttrell. The written statement of Ms. Cooks will be
entered into the record. We will now move to questioning.
Ms. Parker-Cooks, it sounds like you have got it figured
out. Who is on the receiving end of what she just said? Is that
you, Mr. Burke?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Luttrell. Well, I was hanging on every word she just
said. I am hoping that you were, too. Given Mr. Bracci's report
is any--are those communications happening between AFGE and you
guys?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, got a very good
working relationship with my partner in the AFGE here. We are--
--
Mr. Luttrell. Is that true?
Ms. Parker-Cooks. Yes.
Mr. Luttrell. This is time that you can be totally honest
in here. You are----
Mr. Burke. I am not going to lie to you. I am not going to
lie to you.
Mr. Luttrell. I appreciate you----
Mr. Burke. I am not going to lie to you.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
Mr. Burke. They have got a very good relationship with not
only AFGE but also our partners in IG, and that is also true.
What I can tell you is most of what you just heard is being
incorporated into a massive training modernization process that
is already under way.
We are looking at how we improve the training to employees.
We are looking how we capitalize and maximize more in-person,
smaller class sizes, more access to real cases earlier, access
to VBMS, all of the things it was just discussed or were just
discussed, those are part of four massive work groups that we
have right now that are chiseling away and revamping the way
that we modernize the training.
Mr. Luttrell. Do you agree with that statement, Ms. Cooks?
Ms. Parker-Cooks. I hope that is happening. I hope it is
happening.
Mr. Luttrell. We do, too. I have--but you seem to be the
subject matter expert and what you just said in your opening
statement, I am hoping that what he just told me is being
confirmed by you that it is happening. Is that true?
Ms. Parker-Cooks. I have not seen the changes yet, I will
say. I have not seen the changes yet. I do know that, again,
what I have shared here has been shared with Mr. Burke and so I
hope that they did take our input to actually implement those
changes.
Mr. Luttrell. I would hope before we have you in front of
this committee again, I can look directly at Ms. Cooks and say
thank you, Mr. Burke. That is exactly what probably should have
happened. I would hate to think that you would come back in
here and she says they did not pay any attention to me
whatsoever. That would not happen.
Mr. Burke. Could I add to that, sir?
Mr. Luttrell. Absolutely.
Mr. Burke. We are at the early stages of working groups.
Mr. Luttrell. What does ``early'' mean?
Mr. Burke. ``Early'' means we just formed them in a month
and a half ago. We established working groups. In my written
testimony--or my oral testimony, rather, we talked about--I
talked about we have identified items that can be implemented
in the next 3 to 6 months.
I have the pleasure of going to Labor Management Forum next
week in Chicago with a friend of mine. We are briefing and it
will be on the training modernization efforts. If we had had
this meeting or this hearing next week you would have a better
feel that we are all on the same page.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. I am going off of what Mr. Bracci told
us that it has been the past 3 or 4 years, I believe you said 3
or 4 years of kind of a repeated report, so I am glad to see
there is traction and that you are moving on this.
Mr. Bracci, I kind of missed it, but you said the
operations officer does not have authorities that he or she may
need?
Mr. Bracci. The Compensation Service.
Mr. Luttrell. Is that Ms. Messenger? Does that belong to
you, what he is speaking on as far as authorities?
Go ahead, Mr. Bracci.
Mr. Bracci. The Compensation Service, which actually falls
under Mr. Burke's authority----
Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
Mr. Bracci [continuing]. it oversees the quality assurance
program. They conduct reviews. They have analysts that conduct
reviews and report on quality nationwide, but they do not have
the authority to remedy and make sure these errors are
corrected.
Mr. Luttrell. Please explain to me what authorities he
needs so if it is something that we can address, or is it
Secretary-driven?
Mr. Bracci. Currently, that authority lies with the Office
of Field Operations. They oversee regional offices and claims
processors, and they drive decisions on priorities. They have
to ensure the training is completed. They have to ensure that
errors are corrected. That is the office that has the authority
to make sure that errors are corrected.
Mr. Luttrell. It is supposed to have the authority?
Mr. Bracci. They have the authority under the organization
structure.
Mr. Luttrell. They do have it. Okay. Maybe I misunderstood
what is going on.
Mr. Bracci. They do, yes.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Just to be 100 percent clear, you do
have the authority that you need?
Mr. Burke. The answer is yes to that question, sir. In
fact, the Office of Field Operations has recently stood up a
compliance office that is not only helping to ensure that
required training is met, it is the one that is connecting
information to our performance standards group to ensure that
in our employee performance standards there are expectations on
timeliness of corrective actions.
That also is a new office that was stood up a year and a
half, maybe 2 years ago, I do not have the exact date, to
address the gap that IG just spoke about.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Pappas, you are recognized, sir.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you. I want to first focus on an issue
that came out of the OIG reports, rating schedule update for
hip and knee injuries. OIG found that an estimated 38 percent
of claims had an improper payment.
Mr. Burke, is VBA initiating a special focus review to
address these errors? If not, why not? If so, what is your
timeline for completing it?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. We will be doing a special focus
review. We actually reviewed the IG's findings. We have taken,
much like the TDIU cases where there are claims that need to be
corrected, we will take corrective action. We are also trying
to figure out if there are gaps in our training to the field.
We go back with those findings and we can improve the
training, update policies and procedures. Then, again, we use
the special focus reviews to do targeted after we do big
releases, like manual changes, Veterans Affairs Schedule for
Rating Disabilities (VASRD) changes. We will do a short period
of time go back and pull cases and see if we are compliant. Our
findings are similar with what the IG found.
Mr. Pappas. How do you make that assessment about whether
or not there is a gap with respect to training as you undertake
one of these special focus reviews?
Mr. Burke. In some instances it is pretty clear that the
mistakes are pretty common and we will go back to the training
and see that the training was either vague or contradictory.
Basically the policies, the training materials is really the
guide what we expect employees to follow.
When we find the outcome of the employee's work is
consistently going down a path that it was not intended to go,
that is normally not an employee issue. That is normally a
policy or training issue. Seeing those consistent trends allow
us to trace it back and say we have a gap in what we have
provided to the field.
Mr. Pappas. When VBA hears about a pervasive quality issue
from OIG or GAO what criteria do you use to decide whether or
not to initiate a special focus review? Or is it a monetary
value involved? Is it a percentage? What are you looking at to
trigger that? Or is it subjective?
Mr. Burke. Typically with special focus reviews we allow
all of VBA's business lines to recommend to my office the focus
in advance. Typically, it is timed to the release of something
new, something substantive that we want to make sure that
employees have grasped the training and that the training was
adequate.
Most of our special focus reviews have to do with something
that we have released relatively recently, a change in law, a
change in a process or a procedure, and then we will approve
the selected special focus review. The results of the special
focus review then come into my office and the recommendations
and findings are tracked until closure.
We do give our lines of business some leeway, if you will,
to pick those themes. We approve them and then track the
results.
Mr. Pappas. Okay.
Ms. Parker-Cooks, I appreciate your testimony as well. You
identified a long list of issues that could be looked at with
respect to improving training. I am wondering if you could just
talk more broadly about the quality of training itself and how
that impacts frontline employees and our need to focus on
recruitment and retention?
Ms. Parker-Cooks. Thank you. What I would like to say is
that when you are looking at the training and the quality of
it, and I specifically talked about the VIP, and it is
interesting that you brought up about the changes with the
musculoskeletal conditions. VIP rarely focus on those, and that
is our largest category. We are always getting claims for back
condition, knees, hips.
In VIP they cover the back and maybe the knee, but they are
not getting detailed training. It is interesting that that is a
high level error that you are seeing because they are not
focused on that training.
I think when you are looking at it the clear thing is that
we are starting them out and they are not getting the basics.
They do not understand what they are supposed to do. By the
time they end training they are frustrated. They do not feel
that they are prepared to do the job they have been hired to
do. Their confidence level is low. Then, of course, you are
seeing a revolving door where people are leaving.
If we change and restructure the training, of course, where
we are giving them the basics they need to start out and build
on that foundation, you are going to find that the employees
are more comfortable, confidence, trained, and then they are
going to also, of course, it is going to result in more
positive quality decisions.
I think if we focused on, and I am glad to hear that they
are saying that we are going to be making changes to the
training program, but that is what we need. We need to train
our employees to do the job right from the beginning so that
you do not see the rework.
That is what you are seeing now when you are coming out of
training is folks are doing the work but because they were not
trained well and they are not confident in what they are doing,
we are having more errors and you are having that work have to
be redone.
Mr. Pappas. Well, we certainly should not be setting people
up to fail. We should be setting them up for success so I
appreciate that feedback.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Mr. Self, sir, you are recognized.
Mr. Self. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we, and I make this comment almost every
hearing, we hear a lot about inputs from VA, inputs. We
established this. Mr. Burke in your testimony established,
established, established lots of inputs. Very little about
outputs.
Ms. Curda, I am not sure I got it entirely right, made the
statement we do not know how training will help I think it was
employees, but several times in your written testimony you said
basically the same thing.
I think I have found the sentence that you were referring
to specifically, and I quote from the GAO written testimony,
``The training program goals and measures do not address how
VBA training will help achieve the desired accuracy of benefits
decisions made by claims processor,'' which means your inputs
are not working to change the outputs is the way I read that
sentence.
I want to hear more in the future what the outputs of all
these things that you are establishing, all these bureaucracies
that you are establishing.
Now, my first question is to you, Mr. Burke, and I am
asking this on behalf of my Navy SEAL brother in arms Mr.
Crane. I have heard from VA employees in Arizona, too, that
they received inadequate training on processing PACT Act
claims. GAO stated that VA has not provided GAO with VA's
evaluation plan or reports for PACT Act training.
Mr. Crane asks, ``Within the next 2 weeks will you provide
us with VA's plan for PACT Act training and reports on the
trainings VA has already provided, yes or no?''
Mr. Burke. No, sir. I cannot commit to 2 weeks. I will
commit to going back and coming back to this committee with an
actual firm date. The reason I cannot commit to 2 weeks I am
not exactly sure where we are in that process.
Mr. Self. Okay. I would ask you----
Mr. Burke. We will come back.
Mr. Self [continuing]. to get back with Mr. Crane----
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Self [continuing]. to tell him when you will have that
report.
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Self. Now, Mr. Burke, let us stick with you. OIG
estimates there has been between $100 million to $250 million
in improper payments in TDIU claims processing errors alone.
These are errors alone.
What is your plan to recoup these funds and prevent such
significant losses in the future? $100 million to $250 million
is a significant amount of money in anyone's budget.
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. I am reviewing that TDIU report. It is
important to reflect that the findings were both overpayments
and underpayments. Obviously, underpayments are as bad as an
overpayment, right? Somebody is entitled to something they are
not getting paid for that.
We have taken corrective action on 95 percent of all the
cases identified in that report and we should have the
remainder done here shortly. Then it is important to also note
that the amounts, and my partner from IG can correct me if I am
wrong, that is that is not the actual overpayment. There is
they use a different calculator. They rejected that so there is
not really that much in actual overpayments today.
To your question, any----
Mr. Self. Well, wait a minute. I would like the OIG to
address that $100 and million to $250 million. That is not an
actual figure?
Mr. Bracci. $100 million is from statistical sampling. We
look at a sample of claims and then we project to that universe
of claims. That is how we come up with $100 million.
Mr. Self. It seems fair enough to me. You mentioned a
report, Mr. Burke. When will you have that report ready for
Chairman Luttrell?
Mr. Burke. Which report? I know that we are--I know I
mentioned----
Mr. Self. A report on these overpayments and underpayments.
You just mentioned it.
Mr. Burke. We are 95 percent through with the corrective
actions. That does not necessarily result in a report, but we
are happy to come back to the chairman to notify him when all
100 percent of it is----
Mr. Self. I was just using your word, okay?
Mr. Bracci, what are the underlying reasons for these joint
errors? What are the underlying reasons, $3.3 million in this
case. Not quite as big as the TDIU, but what are the reasons?
Mr. Bracci. Yes, sir. Relevant to this hearing we found
issues with quality assurance and with training. In this case
we found that there was not targeted quality assurance that
looked at these specific claims. Mr. Burke mentioned that they
are now doing a special focused review that will cover that.
They are addressing the recommendations that we have made.
We found that in the training there is a post-assessment
after the training is completed and we determined that about 75
percent of the employees who took the training initially failed
that training. It calls into question the adequacy of that
training.
We also made a recommendation to make improvements to that.
Mr. Self. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Bracci, I am sorry. Explain to me how you
are taking a statistical evaluation to present this committee
with a $100 million to $250 million and that is not the exact
number?
Mr. Bracci. Yes, sir. We do almost all of our work based on
statistical sampling. We----
Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
Mr. Bracci [continuing]. look at our----
Mr. Luttrell. What is that? Our N value is what, that you
are taking these numbers from?
Mr. Bracci. In the TDIU report, we looked at 200 claims.
Mr. Luttrell. Two hundred claims. You have got an N value
of 200?
Mr. Bracci. Yes.
Mr. Luttrell. Your valuation of plus payment and minus
payment is almost $250 million?
Mr. Bracci. $100 million in improper payments. We----
Mr. Luttrell. I am sorry. I thought there was a 250 in
there somewhere, too.
Mr. Bracci. No. The $100 million is what we determined was
the improper payments for that universe of claims. The
hundred----
Mr. Luttrell. What is the total number? You took an N value
of 200 out of what is our gross statistical number?
Mr. Bracci. I do not have that. I can come back to you and
with that number. I do not have that. I do not have the number
in front of me. I know that there are 375,000 veterans who are
receiving TDIU benefits.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
Mr. Bracci. So----
Mr. Luttrell. How much of that $100 million is overpayment?
Mr. Bracci. Not very much. The vast majority were
underpayments to veterans. I think we identified--we projected
about $85 million to be underpayments.
Mr. Luttrell. I would like to see that. I would like to see
those, how that equation is processed, please, if you do not
mind?
Mr. Bracci. Absolutely.
Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Burke, since the OIG's March 23 report
showing that 44 percent of disability compensation exams were
unnecessary, what is the VA doing to reduce unnecessary exams
for our veterans?
Mr. Burke. Yes, thank you for this question, sir. We have
actually spent a lot of energy in reducing unnecessary
developments, specifically the Overdevelopment Reduction Task
Force Version 2, which wraps up at the end of this month was
specifically focused on exams. We focused on vendor exams,
private DBQs, automation exams, and also the utilization and
the effectiveness of a new exam request tool.
This working group alone has been operating for most of
Fiscal Year 2024. They have already identified more than 60
manual change needs, improvements to tools and technologies,
partnership with the IG on how to detect and report fraudulent
DBQs, how to strengthen the messaging of using acceptable
medical evidence and reducing unnecessary exams because, as you
are aware and we are aware, calling a veteran into an exam that
is not necessary is expensive. It is inconvenient. It can be
confusing and it delays the process. We have focused
significant efforts this year on the second version of the
Overdevelopment Reduction Task Force, and I will commit now
there will be a third one in Fiscal Year 2025.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. When this task force is finished and
the next one ramps back up, at what point are you going to push
this out to all the VA facilities, and this problem will be
remedied? That seems like a pretty heavy lift.
Mr. Burke. That is an extremely heavy lift. That is why we
are on version two and there will be a version three.
Mr. Luttrell. How many are we going?
Mr. Burke. Until we fix it.
Mr. Luttrell. How many?
Mr. Burke. Until we fix it.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. I would assume there is not a--kind of
a timeframe at which that is going to hit Conroe, Texas, and I
can tell all of my folks, hey, like, we are good to go?
Mr. Burke. Every year I am in this role there will be one
until we fix it.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay.
Mr. Burke. It is a big issue. We have got a lot of work to
do.
Mr. Luttrell. Mr. Pappas.
Mr. Pappas. Thanks, maybe just a couple more.
Mr. Bracci, if I can turn to you? It is always good to have
a fellow Granite Stater here, so welcome. You know, you
reported on so many acute quality issues in your reports. You
reviewed root causes in the Office of Field Operations. Do you
agree with VA's assessment about these quality issues?
Mr. Bracci. Generally, yes. We acknowledge that disability
claims processing is a complex process with constantly changing
guidance. It is a difficult job to do.
When we identify issues, VBA does take action to address
our recommendations. We agree that the action that they take is
responsive to the intent of our recommendations.
Mr. Pappas. Mr. Burke, there is no question that VBA can
adequately identify acute quality assurance issues. We are here
because there is a structural issue limiting the OFO's ability
to implement and oversee policy changes to include action on
quality deficiencies.
I understand that there is going to be a major update to
VASRD in the late summer or fall, so taking this specific issue
how can you assure the committee that the update will not
result in the same sort of quality concerns that we have had
over the last 5 years?
Mr. Burke. I will give assurance that we have learned from
issues in the past. We are now including in the creation of
materials more subject matter expertise from the field, more
inclusion, more feedback. We are allowing folks in the field to
kick the tires, if you will, on significant policy changes
before we push them out to the field at large.
We have excellent collaboration with the Office of Field
Operations and the new compliance entity--well, all the
entities within OFO. We are collaborating with our partners in
AFGE and OIG.
I will say this. The one thing that I want to make sure
that I leave with this committee is the fact that the VBA
workforce is incredible. I have said this in previous hearings.
Prior to this year, VBA has never completed 10,000 claims
in a day. Never completed 10,000 claims in a day. This year
alone this amazing workforce has done it 87 times. We continue
to ride the strength of our workforce and invest in the
training and the improvements and learn from some of the
mistakes from the past.
Mr. Pappas. Once again, it would be helpful to leave this
hearing with a clear indication of what your training
priorities are because that is such an important piece of this
puzzle. Can you go over that again for me? Where are we going
with training and what resources are you bringing to bear to
address this problem?
Mr. Burke. I can, yes, sir. In fact, what I want to
describe and set up for a briefing here in the near future is
our focus on the training modernization. We are really looking
at it. We have established four key groups, four working
groups.
One is to focus on the things that we do before formal
training, how we onboard employees, how we equip them, how we
screen them better to ensure they are the right people to do
this job. That is the before formal training.
Then we have a work group that is focusing on a complete
redo of what we currently call VIP. VIP was done to replace the
old challenge training hat was outdated. We have modernized
everything within our organization except training, so now we
are modernizing and VIP will be a thing of the past once we do
this.
The second phase of that or the second work group is the
formal training. This goes to the tools, the technology, the
types of cases, the types of topics, the micro learning instead
of dumping everything in front of an employee. That is the
focus of that group.
The third one is the continued employee development because
it is not just about training new employees. It is about
refresher training. It is about consistency training.
Then the fourth would be the resources, the roles, and
responsibilities, and that goes to the class size, the
instructor cadre, how we actually ensure we have the right
people training our trainees and the right people that maintain
their skillset to continue to train and do refresher training.
We have a plan. We have a documented plan. We have a vision
and now we are executing with the work groups to get something
that we can come back to this committee and brief on in much
greater detail.
Mr. Pappas. Well, we are eager to see more progress there.
That is a pretty robust outline. Once again, just to
underscore, you cannot get there without folks like Ms. Parker-
Cooks and others who I think have really terrific insights and
recommendations and are going to be tasked with helping you
refine this over time.
You have got to have an open mind and an open door with
respect to those employees.
Ms. Curda, if I could just go to you within the time I have
remaining? You mentioned that your open recommendations related
to training have to do with program strategy, goals, and
evaluations. Is it safe to say that as it stands now VBA's
overarching training program is reflexive and reactive on an ad
hoc project-by-project basis? Is that how you would
characterize it?
Ms. Curda. Yes.
Mr. Pappas. Okay. Anything else there you would like to
leave us with, respect to training?
Ms. Curda. Well, I think our recommendations, I mean,
taking a step back from some of the micro issues, you know, we
are talking about this system they have in place to ensure
training works. Just taking a step back from that, getting out
of that reactive mode, planning for what you want to
accomplish, setting goals, priorities, having a way to evaluate
your progress.
If you do not have a goal going into it, how are you going
to know if you are accomplishing it at the end of the day? How
you going to monitor whether you are achieving the goal you set
out to achieve? That is what we were seeing missing back in
2021 when we did this report, no clear goals, no clear
strategy.
They have improved some of those things, but, I mean, this
is what I am hearing today is kind of new, so, you know, we had
not seen goals and evaluation plans for the existing training
program. Now they are going to introduce a new program. I would
just recommend that they think about doing this in a
disciplined way.
I think you brought up our reform initiatives report
earlier, and that is a roadmap to how to set up a program for
success, you know, establishing goals, checking in with
stakeholders, getting feedback from the people that have to
implement the training and do the program and take the
training.
Having milestones and measures of success, I think, are all
really, really important. That is an open recommendation that
we have to VA as well, and we would love to see them take some
action on that report.
Mr. Pappas. Yes.
Mr. Burke, how do you feel about that one?
Mr. Burke. We generally agree. I mean, as Ms. Curda said, I
think there were 10 recommendations. Six are already closed
out. The four they are partially addressed. We are--continue to
kind of make headway with that.
I do agree. In order to gauge the success of something you
have to have some milestones and some measurements, and we are
working to get to that point. That will be incorporated in the
new training modernization as well.
We are surveying with all of our training. We are doing
surveys. We are getting feedback from folks. We are getting
better in this realm but noted that we need to continue to make
some improvement there.
Mr. Pappas. Well, I think her remarks were just an
important cautionary note as you launch into this new effort
for some important ways to be thinking about how you structure
it, how you build in feedback loops, and what sort of
benchmarks we can have along the way. I hope you will continue
listening to those folks outside the department and within it
that can help guide the process.
Mr. Burke. Will do, yes, sir.
Mr. Pappas. Thanks. I yield back.
Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Pappas.
Keep leaning forward. You are never going to--I will never
wire brush you if you are leaning forward and thinking outside
the box. Here you all are the subject matter experts. You are
leaning forward to take care of guys like me and the rest of us
in this room, okay?
If I have to come in here and listen to another OIG report
that says same thing over and over again, just negative. By you
unpacking everything.
I get what Ms. Curda is saying and what the ranking member
is saying. Yes, put your guardrails up on your left and right
flank and move forward effectively and efficiently.
Ms. Parker-Cooks, are you happy with what you are hearing
in here?
Ms. Parker-Cooks. Let us see what happens in 3 to 6 months.
They say they have some things that could be implemented in 3
to 6 months. I am looking forward to seeing what that is.
Mr. Luttrell. I can assure you we most certainly are going
to have every one of you back in here in front of us to see and
hear just that. Okay?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Luttrell. I think that is a very fair statement.
Mr. Burke. I agree.
Mr. Luttrell. We are hearing what she is saying and she is
the subject matter expert when it comes to boots on the ground.
That is a fair statement?
Ms. Parker-Cooks. Yes, Chairman.
Mr. Luttrell. Okay. Okay. Thank you all for coming before
us today and speaking on the important issues ensuring that the
VBA implements effective quality assurance and training methods
so that the VA claims processors can provide our veterans and
their families with accurate and timely decisions on their VA
claims for VA benefits.
With that, I yield to you, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. Pappas. Just want to thank our panelists. I really
appreciate your reflections today, and this stuff is so
important to how we deliver the benefits that veterans deserve.
We have got to move forward in a way where we can set VA up for
success and just really grateful for the opinions that we heard
here today.
We want to work with you to get this right, so let us stay
engaged. I am sure we will be revisiting this pretty soon.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Luttrell. I am with you. Please keep up. We may wire
brush you here. I use that term. I have to use that term
talking about what you are doing. You are doing your jobs and
you are doing great work.
You have to get up every morning and take care of unsavory
people like myself and the rest of the veterans, right? I mean,
that is an incredible job that you do. Just get better every
day, okay?
I ask you unanimous consent that all members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material. Without objection, so ordered. This
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
Prepared Statements of Witnesses
----------
Prepared Statement of Ronald Burke
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]