Veterans Concerned About New Proposal

Washington Post: Charging Private Insurance For VA Care May Have Bad Consequences, Say Veterans

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Washington Post Staff Writer Ann Scott Tyson.

---

An Obama administration proposal to bill veterans' private insurance companies for treatment of combat-related injuries has prompted veterans groups to condemn the idea as unethical and powerful lawmakers on Capitol Hill to promise their opposition.

Nevertheless, the White House confirmed yesterday that the idea remains under consideration, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and leaders of veterans groups are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss it further.

The proposal -- intended to save the Department of Veterans Affairs $530 million a year -- would authorize VA to bill private insurance companies for the treatment of injuries and medical conditions related to military service, such as amputations, post-traumatic stress disorder and other battle wounds. VA already pursues such third-party billing for conditions that are not service-related.

Veterans groups said the change would be an abrogation of the government's responsibility to care for the war wounded. And they expressed concern that the new policy would make employers less willing to hire veterans, for fear of the cost of insuring them, and that insurance benefits for veterans' families would be jeopardized.

Lawmakers explicitly ruled out the proposal yesterday in budget recommendations from the Senate and House veterans' affairs committees.

The chairman of the Senate panel, Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), said a majority of the committee members say the plan is fundamentally unfair.

"America's veterans and their families pay the true cost of war everyday, and we must pay for the care and benefits they have earned. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to pass a budget worthy of their service," Akaka said in a statement.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a senior member of the Veterans' Affairs and Budget committees, warned VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki last week that the idea would be "dead on arrival," and she vowed yesterday that any budget containing the provision "is not going to pass."

"The VA has an obligation to pay for service-related care, and they should not be nickel-and-diming vets in the process," she said in an interview. "This proposal means that family members will be hurt because, if a vet meets the maximum [benefit amount] for their insurance, their wife and kids would not be able to get insurance [benefits] anymore. . . . God forbid a wounded vet from Iraq has a wife who gets breast cancer."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that the Obama administration has not made "the final . . . decision on third-party billing as it relates to service-related injuries."

At the same time, Gibbs noted that the administration is seeking an 11 percent increase in discretionary spending in the VA budget, a decision lawmakers and veterans groups have praised. "This president takes very seriously the needs of our wounded warriors that have given so much to protect our freedom on battlefields throughout the world," Gibbs said at a White House news conference.

VA and the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for more details on the proposal.

Veterans groups said the plan was a puzzling political misstep by the new administration in its relations with the 25 million Americans who have served in the military. Obama heard firsthand about such objections Monday when he met with leaders of the groups at the White House.

"To ask veterans to save $500 million in a [VA] budget of over $100 billion is not only bad policy, it is bad politics," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who attended the meeting.

"It could be a rookie mistake," he said. "Ultimately, it's only going to hurt the president."

Another problem, critics said, is that the proposal could hurt wounded veterans' employment opportunities, particularly with small businesses.

"A small company is not going to want to take on the burden of increased premiums" by hiring a wounded veteran, said Craig Roberts, media relations manager for the American Legion. He added that the proposal could make buying private health insurance prohibitively expensive for these veterans.

Details of the proposal remained unclear yesterday, and a spokesman for the health insurance industry said its potential impact is difficult to assess. "We are going to carefully evaluate any proposal that is made," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for the trade association America's Health Insurance Plans.

Lawmakers and veterans advocates said VA could save $500 million by simply collecting from private insurers all that it is authorized to bill for non-service injuries each year.

More broadly, the issue underscores a significant challenge confronting the administration: ballooning health-care costs for veterans and active military members taking up an ever-larger share of VA and Pentagon budgets.

It is uncertain how many veterans would be affected by the proposed change, which would concern only those with private health insurance. As many as 7 million veterans are enrolled in the VA health-care program, and about 5 million use VA facilities each year.

Some veterans groups voiced concern that the administration's plan could represent a move toward privatizing VA benefits.

Other experts said it reflects the broader dilemma of how to increase cost-sharing for medical care in comprehensive programs such as the VA one. "There has been no change in cost-sharing features for 10 or 12 or more years," said William Winkenwerder Jr., the Pentagon's former top health official, who runs a private health strategy and consulting firm in the Washington area. "That is what is most responsible for driving up the cost of those programs to the government," he said.

Still, any proposals to increase cost-sharing "tend not to be very popular politically, especially at this time," Winkenwerder said.

[Smurdy]

During the presidential campaign, I listen to all of the speeches that I could, trying to make an informed decision on who to vote for. When I listened to all of the grand ideas put forth by Obama, all I kept thinking was, "how is he going to pay for all of this"? Now we know. This is only the beginning. I am sad.

[tomadams99]

Even the thought of the White House proposal is disgusting, and Obama and minions should be embarrassed. I would like to hear what Shinseki's take on the proposal was and has been. If he was part of it, he is shameful and undeserving of the post he now occupies.

[Annytheperson]

first pancake, <br /> <br />from what I understand, this is to be considered for this budget... not next year, not 2 years from you... and in case you haven't noticed, there is no legislation on the table regarding health care as of yet.

[Annytheperson]

I am saddened and appalled. This has been news for the past several days, and yet Obama still doesn't let it go. I thought he would have more sense than that, but apparently I am wrong. What a sad state of the union. Perhaps he can figure out how to get life insurance benefits back from war widows as well!

[poeticaintit]

If I'm not mistaken...he received a great deal of support from Veterans....I believe Colin Powell was smitten. I know we're talking about Veterans NOT getting the cushy benefits and pensions Colin gets...but still.... <br />What is it that Obama said during the 2 years he campaigned that people didn't think he meant? Obama made it clear he was going to clean us out...who thought that didn't mean THEM?

[Nejxn]

The fact that the Obama administration would even give this ridiculous proposal one minute of consideration speaks volumes about how they really feel about our military and the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect us. With every day that passes, I have less and less respect for or confidence in this administration.

[whosaid1]

Posted by iam4honesty <br /> <br />You've not read the article.....or if you have, you've failed to understand. Any Vet would understand why his insurance company should pay for NON-SERVICE Connected care. But for those things a VET has disability for....or is SERVICE connected...the VA should have to honor the "implied" contract...without reimbursement from ones insurance company.

[Renegade.Rivers]

So how are they going to get private insurance to pay, when many private insurers will not insure pre-existing diseases and injuries, and those that do, sometimes require a wait of anywhere from 3 to 5 years. After I was released from the military, and before I was granted 100% disability, there was not an insurer in the country that would even accept me, let alone pay for my pre-existing conditions.

[whatever88]

to: firstpancake <br /> <br />Are you mentally unstable? This decision would be same as a company implementing a policy requiring any employee who is injured on the job to use their private insurance to pay for the medical costs. Ever heard of workmen's compensation? If you get injured on the job then the employer is required to take care of the costs. This issue is no different. <br /> <br />The fact that you talk about universal health care is also very interesting...this is the kind of crap we will all have to deal with when universal health care come! Hello! Congress or the President decide that we need to cut costs and then everyone dependant on this so call universal health care gets screwed!

[iam4honesty]

Insurance companies have been given a pass on the medical cost they should, by contract, be paying because veterans tend to go to VA facilities even though they may have private insurance. This move will force the insurance companies to pay for the care even though that care was provided by the VA. <br /> <br />The administration is, at the same time, increasing the VA budget to ensure that veterans are provided with better care than they have ever had. <br /> <br />This is another example of fiscal responsibility that escaped the previous administration... or maybe just an indication that big insurance no longer has our government in their pockets.