Government and Regulations

Black veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be treated with evidence-based treatments, in a study conducted in 130 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022.

The study involved 12,135 Black veterans and 40,717 White veterans. Most patients hospitalized during period 1 (March-September 2020) were Black veterans and the proportion of White patients increased over time. The latter 3 periods, which included the Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, saw the most admissions.

Controlling for the site of treatment, Black patients were equally likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (40% vs 43%). However, they were less likely to receive steroids, remdesivir, or immunomodulatory drugs.

The researchers say their data confirm other findings from 41 US health care systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet), which found lower use of monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID infection for patients who identified as Asian, Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiple races.

The researchers did not observe consistent differences in clinical outcomes between Black and White patients. After adjusting for demographics, chronic health conditions, severity of acute illness, and receipt of COVID-19–specific treatments, there was no association of Black race with hospital mortality or 30-day readmission. Black and White patients had a similar burden of preexisting health conditions. Of 38,782 patients discharged, 14% were readmitted within 30 days; the median time to readmission for both groups was 9 days.

Differences in care were partially explained by within- and between-hospital differences, the researchers say. They also cite research that demonstrated a poorer quality of care for hospitals with higher monthly COVID-19 discharges and hospital size.

The study results contradict the assumptions that differences in inpatient treatment by race and ethnicity may be due to differences in clinical indications for medication use based on age and comorbidities, such as chronic kidney or liver disease, the researchers say. For one thing, the VA issued a systemwide COVID-19 response plan that included specific treatment guidelines and distribution plans. But they also point to recent reports that have suggested that occult hypoxemia not detected by pulse oximetry occurs “far more often in Black patients than White patients,” which could result in delayed or missed opportunities to treat patients with COVID-19.

Black veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be treated with evidence-based treatments, in a study conducted in 130 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022.

The study involved 12,135 Black veterans and 40,717 White veterans. Most patients hospitalized during period 1 (March-September 2020) were Black veterans and the proportion of White patients increased over time. The latter 3 periods, which included the Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, saw the most admissions.

Controlling for the site of treatment, Black patients were equally likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (40% vs 43%). However, they were less likely to receive steroids, remdesivir, or immunomodulatory drugs.

The researchers say their data confirm other findings from 41 US health care systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet), which found lower use of monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID infection for patients who identified as Asian, Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiple races.

The researchers did not observe consistent differences in clinical outcomes between Black and White patients. After adjusting for demographics, chronic health conditions, severity of acute illness, and receipt of COVID-19–specific treatments, there was no association of Black race with hospital mortality or 30-day readmission. Black and White patients had a similar burden of preexisting health conditions. Of 38,782 patients discharged, 14% were readmitted within 30 days; the median time to readmission for both groups was 9 days.

Differences in care were partially explained by within- and between-hospital differences, the researchers say. They also cite research that demonstrated a poorer quality of care for hospitals with higher monthly COVID-19 discharges and hospital size.

The study results contradict the assumptions that differences in inpatient treatment by race and ethnicity may be due to differences in clinical indications for medication use based on age and comorbidities, such as chronic kidney or liver disease, the researchers say. For one thing, the VA issued a systemwide COVID-19 response plan that included specific treatment guidelines and distribution plans. But they also point to recent reports that have suggested that occult hypoxemia not detected by pulse oximetry occurs “far more often in Black patients than White patients,” which could result in delayed or missed opportunities to treat patients with COVID-19.

Black veterans hospitalized with COVID-19 were less likely to be treated with evidence-based treatments, in a study conducted in 130 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022.

The study involved 12,135 Black veterans and 40,717 White veterans. Most patients hospitalized during period 1 (March-September 2020) were Black veterans and the proportion of White patients increased over time. The latter 3 periods, which included the Delta- and Omicron-predominant periods, saw the most admissions.

Controlling for the site of treatment, Black patients were equally likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (40% vs 43%). However, they were less likely to receive steroids, remdesivir, or immunomodulatory drugs.

The researchers say their data confirm other findings from 41 US health care systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORNet), which found lower use of monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID infection for patients who identified as Asian, Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiple races.

The researchers did not observe consistent differences in clinical outcomes between Black and White patients. After adjusting for demographics, chronic health conditions, severity of acute illness, and receipt of COVID-19–specific treatments, there was no association of Black race with hospital mortality or 30-day readmission. Black and White patients had a similar burden of preexisting health conditions. Of 38,782 patients discharged, 14% were readmitted within 30 days; the median time to readmission for both groups was 9 days.

Differences in care were partially explained by within- and between-hospital differences, the researchers say. They also cite research that demonstrated a poorer quality of care for hospitals with higher monthly COVID-19 discharges and hospital size.

The study results contradict the assumptions that differences in inpatient treatment by race and ethnicity may be due to differences in clinical indications for medication use based on age and comorbidities, such as chronic kidney or liver disease, the researchers say. For one thing, the VA issued a systemwide COVID-19 response plan that included specific treatment guidelines and distribution plans. But they also point to recent reports that have suggested that occult hypoxemia not detected by pulse oximetry occurs “far more often in Black patients than White patients,” which could result in delayed or missed opportunities to treat patients with COVID-19.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is pushing further deployments of the system to June 2023 “to address challenges” and make sure it’s functioning optimally.

Among the challenges: Safety concerns “voluminous enough and prevalent enough” to prompt the VA to disclose to 41,500 veterans enrolled in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Ohio that their care “may have been impacted as a result of the system’s deployment as it is currently configured,” VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said in a news conference.

The plan was to launch in the first quarter of 2023 in Western Washington, Michigan, and Ohio. But in a recent release, the VA said an investigation had found several technical and system issues, such as latency and slowness, and problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders. During this “assess and address” period, the VA says, it will correct outstanding issues—especially those that may have patient safety implications—before restarting deployments at other VA medical centers.

“Right now, the Oracle Cerner [EHR] system is not delivering for veterans or VA health care providers—and we are holding Oracle Cerner and ourselves accountable to get this right,” said VA Deputy Secretary Donald Remy, who has oversight over the EHR program. “We are delaying all future deployments of the new EHR while we fully assess performance and address every concern. Veterans and clinicians deserve a seamless, modernized health record system, and we will not rest until they get it.”

The modernized EHR, intended to replace the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), has been plagued by problems from the very first launch in October 2020 at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center and associated clinics in the Northwest. Deputy Inspector David Case, of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), reported to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on oversight between 2020 and July 2021. Among other things, the OIG identified problems with the infrastructure and with users’ experiences. Clinical and administrative staff at Mann-Grandstaff and a Columbus clinic shared their frustration with OIG personnel about the “significant system and process limitations that raised concerns about the continuity of and prompt access to quality patient care.”

For example, according to an OIG report from July 2022, the new EHR sent thousands of orders for medical care to an “undetectable location, or unknown queue” instead of the intended location. The mis-delivery caused 149 patient harm events.

On October 11, the VA confirmed to The Spokesman-Review, a Spokane-based newspaper, that a patient had died at the VA clinic in Columbus. The death was attributed to the patient not receiving medication due to incorrect information. The incident is being treated as a potential “sentinel event.”

Elnahal, who met with employees in September at the Columbus clinic where the Oracle Cerner system was launched in April, said he found that the highly complex system made it hard for clinicians to perform routine tasks, such as ordering tests or follow-up appointments. Delays in follow-ups—including a yearlong delay in treatment for a veteran ultimately diagnosed with terminal cancer—were the main cause of the cases of harm cited in the July OIG report.

The veterans who received the letter about the potential impact on their health care “got caught up in this phenomenon of commands not getting where they need to go,” Elnahal said in a news conference in September.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, has been consistently pressing the VA to do something about the EHR system’s flaws. “It’s painfully clear,” she said in a statement, “we need to stop this program until the VA can fix these serious issues before they hurt anyone else.”

After finding more than 200 orders in the unknown queue in May 2022, the OIG said, it “has concerns with the effectiveness of Cerner’s plan to mitigate the safety risk.” While executing its “assess and address” plan, the VA will continue to focus on the 5 facilities where the new system has been deployed. “Sometimes, you’re not presented with options to immediately resolve the safety concerns that are in front of you,” Elnahal told reporters. “It is simply the case that the best option in front of us to resolve these patient safety concerns is to work with Oracle Cerner over the next several months to resolve the Cerner system issues at the sites where it exists. We know that this is possible, because other health systems have gone through this journey before, and I think we can do it.”

Veterans who believe their care may have been affected can call a dedicated call center at 800.319.9446. A VA health care team will follow up within 5 days.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is pushing further deployments of the system to June 2023 “to address challenges” and make sure it’s functioning optimally.

Among the challenges: Safety concerns “voluminous enough and prevalent enough” to prompt the VA to disclose to 41,500 veterans enrolled in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Ohio that their care “may have been impacted as a result of the system’s deployment as it is currently configured,” VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said in a news conference.

The plan was to launch in the first quarter of 2023 in Western Washington, Michigan, and Ohio. But in a recent release, the VA said an investigation had found several technical and system issues, such as latency and slowness, and problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders. During this “assess and address” period, the VA says, it will correct outstanding issues—especially those that may have patient safety implications—before restarting deployments at other VA medical centers.

“Right now, the Oracle Cerner [EHR] system is not delivering for veterans or VA health care providers—and we are holding Oracle Cerner and ourselves accountable to get this right,” said VA Deputy Secretary Donald Remy, who has oversight over the EHR program. “We are delaying all future deployments of the new EHR while we fully assess performance and address every concern. Veterans and clinicians deserve a seamless, modernized health record system, and we will not rest until they get it.”

The modernized EHR, intended to replace the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), has been plagued by problems from the very first launch in October 2020 at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center and associated clinics in the Northwest. Deputy Inspector David Case, of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), reported to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on oversight between 2020 and July 2021. Among other things, the OIG identified problems with the infrastructure and with users’ experiences. Clinical and administrative staff at Mann-Grandstaff and a Columbus clinic shared their frustration with OIG personnel about the “significant system and process limitations that raised concerns about the continuity of and prompt access to quality patient care.”

For example, according to an OIG report from July 2022, the new EHR sent thousands of orders for medical care to an “undetectable location, or unknown queue” instead of the intended location. The mis-delivery caused 149 patient harm events.

On October 11, the VA confirmed to The Spokesman-Review, a Spokane-based newspaper, that a patient had died at the VA clinic in Columbus. The death was attributed to the patient not receiving medication due to incorrect information. The incident is being treated as a potential “sentinel event.”

Elnahal, who met with employees in September at the Columbus clinic where the Oracle Cerner system was launched in April, said he found that the highly complex system made it hard for clinicians to perform routine tasks, such as ordering tests or follow-up appointments. Delays in follow-ups—including a yearlong delay in treatment for a veteran ultimately diagnosed with terminal cancer—were the main cause of the cases of harm cited in the July OIG report.

The veterans who received the letter about the potential impact on their health care “got caught up in this phenomenon of commands not getting where they need to go,” Elnahal said in a news conference in September.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, has been consistently pressing the VA to do something about the EHR system’s flaws. “It’s painfully clear,” she said in a statement, “we need to stop this program until the VA can fix these serious issues before they hurt anyone else.”

After finding more than 200 orders in the unknown queue in May 2022, the OIG said, it “has concerns with the effectiveness of Cerner’s plan to mitigate the safety risk.” While executing its “assess and address” plan, the VA will continue to focus on the 5 facilities where the new system has been deployed. “Sometimes, you’re not presented with options to immediately resolve the safety concerns that are in front of you,” Elnahal told reporters. “It is simply the case that the best option in front of us to resolve these patient safety concerns is to work with Oracle Cerner over the next several months to resolve the Cerner system issues at the sites where it exists. We know that this is possible, because other health systems have gone through this journey before, and I think we can do it.”

Veterans who believe their care may have been affected can call a dedicated call center at 800.319.9446. A VA health care team will follow up within 5 days.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is pushing further deployments of the system to June 2023 “to address challenges” and make sure it’s functioning optimally.

Among the challenges: Safety concerns “voluminous enough and prevalent enough” to prompt the VA to disclose to 41,500 veterans enrolled in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Ohio that their care “may have been impacted as a result of the system’s deployment as it is currently configured,” VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said in a news conference.

The plan was to launch in the first quarter of 2023 in Western Washington, Michigan, and Ohio. But in a recent release, the VA said an investigation had found several technical and system issues, such as latency and slowness, and problems with patient scheduling, referrals, medication management, and other types of medical orders. During this “assess and address” period, the VA says, it will correct outstanding issues—especially those that may have patient safety implications—before restarting deployments at other VA medical centers.

“Right now, the Oracle Cerner [EHR] system is not delivering for veterans or VA health care providers—and we are holding Oracle Cerner and ourselves accountable to get this right,” said VA Deputy Secretary Donald Remy, who has oversight over the EHR program. “We are delaying all future deployments of the new EHR while we fully assess performance and address every concern. Veterans and clinicians deserve a seamless, modernized health record system, and we will not rest until they get it.”

The modernized EHR, intended to replace the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), has been plagued by problems from the very first launch in October 2020 at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center and associated clinics in the Northwest. Deputy Inspector David Case, of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), reported to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on oversight between 2020 and July 2021. Among other things, the OIG identified problems with the infrastructure and with users’ experiences. Clinical and administrative staff at Mann-Grandstaff and a Columbus clinic shared their frustration with OIG personnel about the “significant system and process limitations that raised concerns about the continuity of and prompt access to quality patient care.”

For example, according to an OIG report from July 2022, the new EHR sent thousands of orders for medical care to an “undetectable location, or unknown queue” instead of the intended location. The mis-delivery caused 149 patient harm events.

On October 11, the VA confirmed to The Spokesman-Review, a Spokane-based newspaper, that a patient had died at the VA clinic in Columbus. The death was attributed to the patient not receiving medication due to incorrect information. The incident is being treated as a potential “sentinel event.”

Elnahal, who met with employees in September at the Columbus clinic where the Oracle Cerner system was launched in April, said he found that the highly complex system made it hard for clinicians to perform routine tasks, such as ordering tests or follow-up appointments. Delays in follow-ups—including a yearlong delay in treatment for a veteran ultimately diagnosed with terminal cancer—were the main cause of the cases of harm cited in the July OIG report.

The veterans who received the letter about the potential impact on their health care “got caught up in this phenomenon of commands not getting where they need to go,” Elnahal said in a news conference in September.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, has been consistently pressing the VA to do something about the EHR system’s flaws. “It’s painfully clear,” she said in a statement, “we need to stop this program until the VA can fix these serious issues before they hurt anyone else.”

After finding more than 200 orders in the unknown queue in May 2022, the OIG said, it “has concerns with the effectiveness of Cerner’s plan to mitigate the safety risk.” While executing its “assess and address” plan, the VA will continue to focus on the 5 facilities where the new system has been deployed. “Sometimes, you’re not presented with options to immediately resolve the safety concerns that are in front of you,” Elnahal told reporters. “It is simply the case that the best option in front of us to resolve these patient safety concerns is to work with Oracle Cerner over the next several months to resolve the Cerner system issues at the sites where it exists. We know that this is possible, because other health systems have gone through this journey before, and I think we can do it.”

Veterans who believe their care may have been affected can call a dedicated call center at 800.319.9446. A VA health care team will follow up within 5 days.

Some 80,000 active-duty women are stationed in states with abortion restrictions or bans. That’s 40% of active-duty service women in the continental United States, according to research sponsored by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and released in September. Nearly all (95%) are of reproductive age. Annually, an estimated 2573 to 4126 women have an abortion, but just a handful of those are done at military treatment facilities. Moreover, roughly 275,000 DoD civilians also live in states with a full ban or extreme restrictions on access to abortion. Of those, more than 81,000 are women. Nearly 43% have no access to abortion or drastically abridged access.  

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization has created uncertainty for those women and their families, and potential legal and financial risk for the health care practitioners who would provide reproductive care, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in an October 20, 2022 memo.

Therefore, he has directed the DoD to take “all appropriate action… as soon as possible to ensure that our service members and their families can access reproductive health care and our health care providers can operate effectively.”

Among the actions he has approved: Paying for travel to reproductive health care—essentially, making it more feasible for members to cross state lines. Service members, he noted in the memo, are often required to travel or move to meet staffing, operational, and training requirements. The “practical effects,” he said, are that significant numbers of service members and their families “may be forced to travel greater distances, take more time off from work, and pay more out-of-pocket expenses to receive reproductive health care.” 

Those effects, Austin said, “qualify as unusual, extraordinary, hardship, or emergency circumstances for service members and their dependents and will interfere with our ability to recruit, retain, and maintain the readiness of a highly qualified force.”

Women, who comprise 17% of the active-duty force, are the fastest-growing subpopulation in the military. For the past several years, according to the DoD research report, the military services have been “deliberately recruiting women”—who perform essential duties in every sector: health care and electrical and mechanical equipment repair, for example.

“The full effects of Dobbs on military readiness are yet to be known,” the report says, but it notes several potential problems: Women may not join the service knowing that they could end up in a state with restrictions. If already serving, they may leave. In some states, women face criminal prosecution.

The long arm of Dobbs reaches far into the future, too. For instance, if unintended pregnancies are carried to term, the DoD will need to provide care to women during pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period—and the family will need to care for the child. Looking only at women in states with restricted access or bans, the DoD estimates the number of unintended pregnancies annually would be 2800 among civilian employees and between 4400 and 4700 among active-duty service women.

Men are also directly affected: More than 40% of male service members are married to a civilian woman who is a TRICARE dependent, 20% of active-duty service women are married to a fellow service member, and active-duty service men might be responsible for pregnancies among women who are not DoD dependents but who might be unable to get an abortion, the DoD report notes.

Austin has directed the DoD to create a uniform policy that allows for appropriate administrative absence, to establish travel and transportation allowances, and to amend any applicable travel regulations to facilitate official travel to access noncovered reproductive health care that is unavailable within the local area of the service member’s permanent duty station.

So that health care practitioners do not have to face criminal or civil liability or risk losing their licenses, Austin directed the DoD to develop a program to reimburse applicable fees, as appropriate and consistent with applicable federal law, for DoD health care practitioners who wish to become licensed in a state other than that in which they are currently licensed. He also directed the DoD to develop a program to support DoD practitioners who are subject to adverse action, including indemnification of any verdict, judgment, or other monetary award consistent with applicable law.

“Our greatest strength is our people,” Austin wrote. “There is no higher priority than taking care of our people, and ensuring their health and well-being.” He directed that the actions outlined in the memorandum “be executed as soon as possible.”

Some 80,000 active-duty women are stationed in states with abortion restrictions or bans. That’s 40% of active-duty service women in the continental United States, according to research sponsored by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and released in September. Nearly all (95%) are of reproductive age. Annually, an estimated 2573 to 4126 women have an abortion, but just a handful of those are done at military treatment facilities. Moreover, roughly 275,000 DoD civilians also live in states with a full ban or extreme restrictions on access to abortion. Of those, more than 81,000 are women. Nearly 43% have no access to abortion or drastically abridged access.  

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization has created uncertainty for those women and their families, and potential legal and financial risk for the health care practitioners who would provide reproductive care, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in an October 20, 2022 memo.

Therefore, he has directed the DoD to take “all appropriate action… as soon as possible to ensure that our service members and their families can access reproductive health care and our health care providers can operate effectively.”

Among the actions he has approved: Paying for travel to reproductive health care—essentially, making it more feasible for members to cross state lines. Service members, he noted in the memo, are often required to travel or move to meet staffing, operational, and training requirements. The “practical effects,” he said, are that significant numbers of service members and their families “may be forced to travel greater distances, take more time off from work, and pay more out-of-pocket expenses to receive reproductive health care.” 

Those effects, Austin said, “qualify as unusual, extraordinary, hardship, or emergency circumstances for service members and their dependents and will interfere with our ability to recruit, retain, and maintain the readiness of a highly qualified force.”

Women, who comprise 17% of the active-duty force, are the fastest-growing subpopulation in the military. For the past several years, according to the DoD research report, the military services have been “deliberately recruiting women”—who perform essential duties in every sector: health care and electrical and mechanical equipment repair, for example.

“The full effects of Dobbs on military readiness are yet to be known,” the report says, but it notes several potential problems: Women may not join the service knowing that they could end up in a state with restrictions. If already serving, they may leave. In some states, women face criminal prosecution.

The long arm of Dobbs reaches far into the future, too. For instance, if unintended pregnancies are carried to term, the DoD will need to provide care to women during pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period—and the family will need to care for the child. Looking only at women in states with restricted access or bans, the DoD estimates the number of unintended pregnancies annually would be 2800 among civilian employees and between 4400 and 4700 among active-duty service women.

Men are also directly affected: More than 40% of male service members are married to a civilian woman who is a TRICARE dependent, 20% of active-duty service women are married to a fellow service member, and active-duty service men might be responsible for pregnancies among women who are not DoD dependents but who might be unable to get an abortion, the DoD report notes.

Austin has directed the DoD to create a uniform policy that allows for appropriate administrative absence, to establish travel and transportation allowances, and to amend any applicable travel regulations to facilitate official travel to access noncovered reproductive health care that is unavailable within the local area of the service member’s permanent duty station.

So that health care practitioners do not have to face criminal or civil liability or risk losing their licenses, Austin directed the DoD to develop a program to reimburse applicable fees, as appropriate and consistent with applicable federal law, for DoD health care practitioners who wish to become licensed in a state other than that in which they are currently licensed. He also directed the DoD to develop a program to support DoD practitioners who are subject to adverse action, including indemnification of any verdict, judgment, or other monetary award consistent with applicable law.

“Our greatest strength is our people,” Austin wrote. “There is no higher priority than taking care of our people, and ensuring their health and well-being.” He directed that the actions outlined in the memorandum “be executed as soon as possible.”

Some 80,000 active-duty women are stationed in states with abortion restrictions or bans. That’s 40% of active-duty service women in the continental United States, according to research sponsored by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and released in September. Nearly all (95%) are of reproductive age. Annually, an estimated 2573 to 4126 women have an abortion, but just a handful of those are done at military treatment facilities. Moreover, roughly 275,000 DoD civilians also live in states with a full ban or extreme restrictions on access to abortion. Of those, more than 81,000 are women. Nearly 43% have no access to abortion or drastically abridged access.  

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization has created uncertainty for those women and their families, and potential legal and financial risk for the health care practitioners who would provide reproductive care, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in an October 20, 2022 memo.

Therefore, he has directed the DoD to take “all appropriate action… as soon as possible to ensure that our service members and their families can access reproductive health care and our health care providers can operate effectively.”

Among the actions he has approved: Paying for travel to reproductive health care—essentially, making it more feasible for members to cross state lines. Service members, he noted in the memo, are often required to travel or move to meet staffing, operational, and training requirements. The “practical effects,” he said, are that significant numbers of service members and their families “may be forced to travel greater distances, take more time off from work, and pay more out-of-pocket expenses to receive reproductive health care.” 

Those effects, Austin said, “qualify as unusual, extraordinary, hardship, or emergency circumstances for service members and their dependents and will interfere with our ability to recruit, retain, and maintain the readiness of a highly qualified force.”

Women, who comprise 17% of the active-duty force, are the fastest-growing subpopulation in the military. For the past several years, according to the DoD research report, the military services have been “deliberately recruiting women”—who perform essential duties in every sector: health care and electrical and mechanical equipment repair, for example.

“The full effects of Dobbs on military readiness are yet to be known,” the report says, but it notes several potential problems: Women may not join the service knowing that they could end up in a state with restrictions. If already serving, they may leave. In some states, women face criminal prosecution.

The long arm of Dobbs reaches far into the future, too. For instance, if unintended pregnancies are carried to term, the DoD will need to provide care to women during pregnancy, delivery, and the postpartum period—and the family will need to care for the child. Looking only at women in states with restricted access or bans, the DoD estimates the number of unintended pregnancies annually would be 2800 among civilian employees and between 4400 and 4700 among active-duty service women.

Men are also directly affected: More than 40% of male service members are married to a civilian woman who is a TRICARE dependent, 20% of active-duty service women are married to a fellow service member, and active-duty service men might be responsible for pregnancies among women who are not DoD dependents but who might be unable to get an abortion, the DoD report notes.

Austin has directed the DoD to create a uniform policy that allows for appropriate administrative absence, to establish travel and transportation allowances, and to amend any applicable travel regulations to facilitate official travel to access noncovered reproductive health care that is unavailable within the local area of the service member’s permanent duty station.

So that health care practitioners do not have to face criminal or civil liability or risk losing their licenses, Austin directed the DoD to develop a program to reimburse applicable fees, as appropriate and consistent with applicable federal law, for DoD health care practitioners who wish to become licensed in a state other than that in which they are currently licensed. He also directed the DoD to develop a program to support DoD practitioners who are subject to adverse action, including indemnification of any verdict, judgment, or other monetary award consistent with applicable law.

“Our greatest strength is our people,” Austin wrote. “There is no higher priority than taking care of our people, and ensuring their health and well-being.” He directed that the actions outlined in the memorandum “be executed as soon as possible.”

In an intensive push to fill acute workforce shortages, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is holding a “national onboarding surge event” the week of November 14. The goal is to get people who have already said yes to a job in the VA on that job more quickly. Every VA facility has been asked to submit a list of the highest-priority candidates, regardless of the position.

One of the most pressing reasons for getting more workers into the pipeline faster is that more and more veterans are entering VA care. As of October 1, tens of thousands of veterans will be eligible for VA health care, thanks to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), passed in August, which expanded benefits for post-9/11 service members with illnesses due to toxic exposures.

Another reason is the need to fill the gaps left by attrition. In an October 19 press briefing, VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said the agency needs to hire about 52,000 employees per year just to keep up with the rate of health care professionals (HCPs) leaving the agency. At a September breakfast meeting with the Defense Writers Group, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said July 2022 marked the first month this year that the VA hired more nurses than it lost to retirement. He said the VA needs to hire 45,000 nurses over the next 3 years to keep up with attrition and growing demand for veteran care.

“We have to do a better job on hiring,” McDonough said. Streamlining the process is a major goal. Hiring rules loosened during the pandemic have since tightened back up. He pointed out that in many cases, the VA takes 90 to 100 days to onboard candidates and called the long-drawn-out process “being dragged through a bureaucratic morass.” During that time, he said, “They’re not being paid, they’re filling out paperwork… That’s disastrous.” In his press briefing, Elnahal said “we lose folks after we’ve made the selection” because the process is so long.

Moreover, the agency has a critical shortage not only of HCPs but the human resources professionals needed to fast-track the hirees’ progress. McDonough called it a “supply chain issue.” “We have the lowest ratio of human resource professionals per employee in the federal government by a long shot.” Partly, he said, because “a lot of our people end up hired away to other federal agencies.”

McDonough said the VA is also interested in transitioning more active-duty service members with in-demand skills, certifications, and talent into the VA workforce. “Cross-walking active duty into VA service much more aggressively,” he said, is another way to “grow that supply of ready, deployable, trained personnel.” The PACT Act gives the VA new incentives to entice workers, such as expanded recruitment, retention bonuses, and student loan repayment. The VA already provides training to about 1500 nurse and nurse residency programs across the VA, McDonough said but has plans for expanding to 5 times its current scope. He also addressed the question of a looming physician shortage: “Roughly 7 in 10 doctors in the United States will have had some portion of their training in a VA facility. We have to maintain that training function going forward.” The VA trains doctors, he added, “better than anybody else.”

The onboarding event will serve as a “national signal that we take this priority very seriously,” Elnahal said. “This will be not only a chance to have a step function improvement in the number of folks on board, which is an urgent priority, but to also set the groundwork for the more longitudinal work that we will need to do to improve the hiring process.”

Bulking up the workforce, he said, is “still far and away among our first priorities. Because if we don’t get our hospitals and facility staffed, it’s going to be a really hard effort to make process on the other priorities.”

In an intensive push to fill acute workforce shortages, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is holding a “national onboarding surge event” the week of November 14. The goal is to get people who have already said yes to a job in the VA on that job more quickly. Every VA facility has been asked to submit a list of the highest-priority candidates, regardless of the position.

One of the most pressing reasons for getting more workers into the pipeline faster is that more and more veterans are entering VA care. As of October 1, tens of thousands of veterans will be eligible for VA health care, thanks to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), passed in August, which expanded benefits for post-9/11 service members with illnesses due to toxic exposures.

Another reason is the need to fill the gaps left by attrition. In an October 19 press briefing, VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said the agency needs to hire about 52,000 employees per year just to keep up with the rate of health care professionals (HCPs) leaving the agency. At a September breakfast meeting with the Defense Writers Group, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said July 2022 marked the first month this year that the VA hired more nurses than it lost to retirement. He said the VA needs to hire 45,000 nurses over the next 3 years to keep up with attrition and growing demand for veteran care.

“We have to do a better job on hiring,” McDonough said. Streamlining the process is a major goal. Hiring rules loosened during the pandemic have since tightened back up. He pointed out that in many cases, the VA takes 90 to 100 days to onboard candidates and called the long-drawn-out process “being dragged through a bureaucratic morass.” During that time, he said, “They’re not being paid, they’re filling out paperwork… That’s disastrous.” In his press briefing, Elnahal said “we lose folks after we’ve made the selection” because the process is so long.

Moreover, the agency has a critical shortage not only of HCPs but the human resources professionals needed to fast-track the hirees’ progress. McDonough called it a “supply chain issue.” “We have the lowest ratio of human resource professionals per employee in the federal government by a long shot.” Partly, he said, because “a lot of our people end up hired away to other federal agencies.”

McDonough said the VA is also interested in transitioning more active-duty service members with in-demand skills, certifications, and talent into the VA workforce. “Cross-walking active duty into VA service much more aggressively,” he said, is another way to “grow that supply of ready, deployable, trained personnel.” The PACT Act gives the VA new incentives to entice workers, such as expanded recruitment, retention bonuses, and student loan repayment. The VA already provides training to about 1500 nurse and nurse residency programs across the VA, McDonough said but has plans for expanding to 5 times its current scope. He also addressed the question of a looming physician shortage: “Roughly 7 in 10 doctors in the United States will have had some portion of their training in a VA facility. We have to maintain that training function going forward.” The VA trains doctors, he added, “better than anybody else.”

The onboarding event will serve as a “national signal that we take this priority very seriously,” Elnahal said. “This will be not only a chance to have a step function improvement in the number of folks on board, which is an urgent priority, but to also set the groundwork for the more longitudinal work that we will need to do to improve the hiring process.”

Bulking up the workforce, he said, is “still far and away among our first priorities. Because if we don’t get our hospitals and facility staffed, it’s going to be a really hard effort to make process on the other priorities.”

In an intensive push to fill acute workforce shortages, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is holding a “national onboarding surge event” the week of November 14. The goal is to get people who have already said yes to a job in the VA on that job more quickly. Every VA facility has been asked to submit a list of the highest-priority candidates, regardless of the position.

One of the most pressing reasons for getting more workers into the pipeline faster is that more and more veterans are entering VA care. As of October 1, tens of thousands of veterans will be eligible for VA health care, thanks to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), passed in August, which expanded benefits for post-9/11 service members with illnesses due to toxic exposures.

Another reason is the need to fill the gaps left by attrition. In an October 19 press briefing, VA Undersecretary for Health Shereef Elnahal said the agency needs to hire about 52,000 employees per year just to keep up with the rate of health care professionals (HCPs) leaving the agency. At a September breakfast meeting with the Defense Writers Group, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said July 2022 marked the first month this year that the VA hired more nurses than it lost to retirement. He said the VA needs to hire 45,000 nurses over the next 3 years to keep up with attrition and growing demand for veteran care.

“We have to do a better job on hiring,” McDonough said. Streamlining the process is a major goal. Hiring rules loosened during the pandemic have since tightened back up. He pointed out that in many cases, the VA takes 90 to 100 days to onboard candidates and called the long-drawn-out process “being dragged through a bureaucratic morass.” During that time, he said, “They’re not being paid, they’re filling out paperwork… That’s disastrous.” In his press briefing, Elnahal said “we lose folks after we’ve made the selection” because the process is so long.

Moreover, the agency has a critical shortage not only of HCPs but the human resources professionals needed to fast-track the hirees’ progress. McDonough called it a “supply chain issue.” “We have the lowest ratio of human resource professionals per employee in the federal government by a long shot.” Partly, he said, because “a lot of our people end up hired away to other federal agencies.”

McDonough said the VA is also interested in transitioning more active-duty service members with in-demand skills, certifications, and talent into the VA workforce. “Cross-walking active duty into VA service much more aggressively,” he said, is another way to “grow that supply of ready, deployable, trained personnel.” The PACT Act gives the VA new incentives to entice workers, such as expanded recruitment, retention bonuses, and student loan repayment. The VA already provides training to about 1500 nurse and nurse residency programs across the VA, McDonough said but has plans for expanding to 5 times its current scope. He also addressed the question of a looming physician shortage: “Roughly 7 in 10 doctors in the United States will have had some portion of their training in a VA facility. We have to maintain that training function going forward.” The VA trains doctors, he added, “better than anybody else.”

The onboarding event will serve as a “national signal that we take this priority very seriously,” Elnahal said. “This will be not only a chance to have a step function improvement in the number of folks on board, which is an urgent priority, but to also set the groundwork for the more longitudinal work that we will need to do to improve the hiring process.”

Bulking up the workforce, he said, is “still far and away among our first priorities. Because if we don’t get our hospitals and facility staffed, it’s going to be a really hard effort to make process on the other priorities.”

For years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has painstakingly labored to track, research, and address veteran suicide. Their exceptional work was dealt an unwarranted blow a month ago with the publication of an incomplete report entitled Operation Deep Dive (OpDD). The $3.9 million study from America’s Warrior Partnership (AWP) examined death data of former service members in 8 states between 2014 and 2018. The interim report criticized the VA for minimizing the extent of veteran suicide, asserting, “former service members take their own lives each year at a rate approximately 2.4 times greater than previously reported by the VA.”

The sensational results were accepted at face value and immediately garnered negative nationwide headlines, with lawmakers, media outlets, and veterans rushing to impugn the VA. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Ranking Republican Member Jerry Moran of Kansas opined, “The disparity between the numbers of veteran suicides reported by the VA and [OpDD] is concerning. We need an honest assessment of the scope of the problem.” A U.S. Medicine headline stated “VA undercounted thousands of veteran suicides. [OpDD] posited daily suicide rate is 240% higher.” Fox News declared, “Veterans committing suicide at rate 2 times higher than VA data show: study,” as did Military Times, “Veterans suicide rate may be double federal estimates, study suggests.”

Disturbingly, those who echoed AWP’s claims got the story backward. It’s AWP, not VA, whose suicide data and conclusions are faulty.

For starters, the VA data encompasses veterans across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. In contrast, AWP inferred national veteran suicide figures based on partial, skewed data. As delineated by researchers in an in-press Military Medicine letter to the Editor, 7 of the 8 states sampled (Alabama, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, and Oregon) had suicide rates above the national average for the years under investigation. This factor alone overinflates AWP’s purported suicide numbers.

Additionally, AWP altered the definition of “taking one’s life” and then misapplied that designation. Conventionally, the term refers to suicide, but AWP used it to also include nonnatural deaths assessed by coroners and medical examiners as accidental or undetermined. Two examples of this self-injury mortality (SIM) are opioid overdoses and single-driver car crash deaths. AWP added suicides and SIMs to derive a total number of veterans who took their life and falsely contrasted that aggregate against the VA count of suicides. That’s like comparing the whole category of fruit to the subcategory of apples.

AWP should be applauded for drawing attention to and accounting for accidental and undetermined deaths. However, the standard protocol is to consider SIMs distinctly from suicides. Among the many reasons for precise labeling is so that grieving family members aren’t mistakenly informed that their loved one died by suicide. VA conveys the rate of veteran overdose deaths in separate reports, for example, the Veteran Drug Overdose Mortality, 2010-2019 publication. Those numbers were ignored in AWP’s calculations.

AWP was neglectful in another way. The second phase of the project—a deep examination of community-level factors preceding suicides and nonnatural deaths—began in 2019. This information was collected and analyzed through sociocultural death investigation (SDI) interviews of 3 to 4 family members, friends, and colleagues of the deceased. SDIs consisted of 19 factors, such as history of the veteran’s mental health problems, social connectedness, finances, group memberships, and access to firearms. However, the interim report omitted the preliminary analysis of these factors, which AWP stated would be made available this year.

OpDD conclusions were so unfounded that AWP’s analytic research partner, the University of Alabama, distanced itself from the interim report. “We were not consulted on the released figures,” Dr. Karl Hamner, the University of Alabama principal investigator on the study, told me. “We did not make any conclusions and we don’t endorse the reported findings about national rates or numbers per day. Nor did we make any statements about the VA’s data.”

As it happens, the VA’s 2022 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report was issued the same week as the OpDD report. VA found that veteran suicides decreased by 9.7% over the last 2 years, nearly twice the decrease for nonveterans. Yet, in a contemporaneous hearing of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, AWP’s President and CEO Jim Lorraine testified that the progress preventing veteran suicide was “a disgrace” and “a failure.” He misattributed that it was VA (not AWP) that “must be more open and transparent about their data.”

Unsupported denigration of the VA tarnishes its reputation, undermining veterans’ trust in the health care system and increasing barriers to seeking needed services. More broadly, it fortifies those forces who wish to redirect allocations away from VA and towards non-VA veterans’ entities like AWP. The media and other stakeholders must take a lesson about getting the story straight before reflexively amplifying false accusations about the VA. Veterans deserve better.

For years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has painstakingly labored to track, research, and address veteran suicide. Their exceptional work was dealt an unwarranted blow a month ago with the publication of an incomplete report entitled Operation Deep Dive (OpDD). The $3.9 million study from America’s Warrior Partnership (AWP) examined death data of former service members in 8 states between 2014 and 2018. The interim report criticized the VA for minimizing the extent of veteran suicide, asserting, “former service members take their own lives each year at a rate approximately 2.4 times greater than previously reported by the VA.”

The sensational results were accepted at face value and immediately garnered negative nationwide headlines, with lawmakers, media outlets, and veterans rushing to impugn the VA. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Ranking Republican Member Jerry Moran of Kansas opined, “The disparity between the numbers of veteran suicides reported by the VA and [OpDD] is concerning. We need an honest assessment of the scope of the problem.” A U.S. Medicine headline stated “VA undercounted thousands of veteran suicides. [OpDD] posited daily suicide rate is 240% higher.” Fox News declared, “Veterans committing suicide at rate 2 times higher than VA data show: study,” as did Military Times, “Veterans suicide rate may be double federal estimates, study suggests.”

Disturbingly, those who echoed AWP’s claims got the story backward. It’s AWP, not VA, whose suicide data and conclusions are faulty.

For starters, the VA data encompasses veterans across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. In contrast, AWP inferred national veteran suicide figures based on partial, skewed data. As delineated by researchers in an in-press Military Medicine letter to the Editor, 7 of the 8 states sampled (Alabama, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, and Oregon) had suicide rates above the national average for the years under investigation. This factor alone overinflates AWP’s purported suicide numbers.

Additionally, AWP altered the definition of “taking one’s life” and then misapplied that designation. Conventionally, the term refers to suicide, but AWP used it to also include nonnatural deaths assessed by coroners and medical examiners as accidental or undetermined. Two examples of this self-injury mortality (SIM) are opioid overdoses and single-driver car crash deaths. AWP added suicides and SIMs to derive a total number of veterans who took their life and falsely contrasted that aggregate against the VA count of suicides. That’s like comparing the whole category of fruit to the subcategory of apples.

AWP should be applauded for drawing attention to and accounting for accidental and undetermined deaths. However, the standard protocol is to consider SIMs distinctly from suicides. Among the many reasons for precise labeling is so that grieving family members aren’t mistakenly informed that their loved one died by suicide. VA conveys the rate of veteran overdose deaths in separate reports, for example, the Veteran Drug Overdose Mortality, 2010-2019 publication. Those numbers were ignored in AWP’s calculations.

AWP was neglectful in another way. The second phase of the project—a deep examination of community-level factors preceding suicides and nonnatural deaths—began in 2019. This information was collected and analyzed through sociocultural death investigation (SDI) interviews of 3 to 4 family members, friends, and colleagues of the deceased. SDIs consisted of 19 factors, such as history of the veteran’s mental health problems, social connectedness, finances, group memberships, and access to firearms. However, the interim report omitted the preliminary analysis of these factors, which AWP stated would be made available this year.

OpDD conclusions were so unfounded that AWP’s analytic research partner, the University of Alabama, distanced itself from the interim report. “We were not consulted on the released figures,” Dr. Karl Hamner, the University of Alabama principal investigator on the study, told me. “We did not make any conclusions and we don’t endorse the reported findings about national rates or numbers per day. Nor did we make any statements about the VA’s data.”

As it happens, the VA’s 2022 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report was issued the same week as the OpDD report. VA found that veteran suicides decreased by 9.7% over the last 2 years, nearly twice the decrease for nonveterans. Yet, in a contemporaneous hearing of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, AWP’s President and CEO Jim Lorraine testified that the progress preventing veteran suicide was “a disgrace” and “a failure.” He misattributed that it was VA (not AWP) that “must be more open and transparent about their data.”

Unsupported denigration of the VA tarnishes its reputation, undermining veterans’ trust in the health care system and increasing barriers to seeking needed services. More broadly, it fortifies those forces who wish to redirect allocations away from VA and towards non-VA veterans’ entities like AWP. The media and other stakeholders must take a lesson about getting the story straight before reflexively amplifying false accusations about the VA. Veterans deserve better.

For years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has painstakingly labored to track, research, and address veteran suicide. Their exceptional work was dealt an unwarranted blow a month ago with the publication of an incomplete report entitled Operation Deep Dive (OpDD). The $3.9 million study from America’s Warrior Partnership (AWP) examined death data of former service members in 8 states between 2014 and 2018. The interim report criticized the VA for minimizing the extent of veteran suicide, asserting, “former service members take their own lives each year at a rate approximately 2.4 times greater than previously reported by the VA.”

The sensational results were accepted at face value and immediately garnered negative nationwide headlines, with lawmakers, media outlets, and veterans rushing to impugn the VA. Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Ranking Republican Member Jerry Moran of Kansas opined, “The disparity between the numbers of veteran suicides reported by the VA and [OpDD] is concerning. We need an honest assessment of the scope of the problem.” A U.S. Medicine headline stated “VA undercounted thousands of veteran suicides. [OpDD] posited daily suicide rate is 240% higher.” Fox News declared, “Veterans committing suicide at rate 2 times higher than VA data show: study,” as did Military Times, “Veterans suicide rate may be double federal estimates, study suggests.”

Disturbingly, those who echoed AWP’s claims got the story backward. It’s AWP, not VA, whose suicide data and conclusions are faulty.

For starters, the VA data encompasses veterans across all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. In contrast, AWP inferred national veteran suicide figures based on partial, skewed data. As delineated by researchers in an in-press Military Medicine letter to the Editor, 7 of the 8 states sampled (Alabama, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, and Oregon) had suicide rates above the national average for the years under investigation. This factor alone overinflates AWP’s purported suicide numbers.

Additionally, AWP altered the definition of “taking one’s life” and then misapplied that designation. Conventionally, the term refers to suicide, but AWP used it to also include nonnatural deaths assessed by coroners and medical examiners as accidental or undetermined. Two examples of this self-injury mortality (SIM) are opioid overdoses and single-driver car crash deaths. AWP added suicides and SIMs to derive a total number of veterans who took their life and falsely contrasted that aggregate against the VA count of suicides. That’s like comparing the whole category of fruit to the subcategory of apples.

AWP should be applauded for drawing attention to and accounting for accidental and undetermined deaths. However, the standard protocol is to consider SIMs distinctly from suicides. Among the many reasons for precise labeling is so that grieving family members aren’t mistakenly informed that their loved one died by suicide. VA conveys the rate of veteran overdose deaths in separate reports, for example, the Veteran Drug Overdose Mortality, 2010-2019 publication. Those numbers were ignored in AWP’s calculations.

AWP was neglectful in another way. The second phase of the project—a deep examination of community-level factors preceding suicides and nonnatural deaths—began in 2019. This information was collected and analyzed through sociocultural death investigation (SDI) interviews of 3 to 4 family members, friends, and colleagues of the deceased. SDIs consisted of 19 factors, such as history of the veteran’s mental health problems, social connectedness, finances, group memberships, and access to firearms. However, the interim report omitted the preliminary analysis of these factors, which AWP stated would be made available this year.

OpDD conclusions were so unfounded that AWP’s analytic research partner, the University of Alabama, distanced itself from the interim report. “We were not consulted on the released figures,” Dr. Karl Hamner, the University of Alabama principal investigator on the study, told me. “We did not make any conclusions and we don’t endorse the reported findings about national rates or numbers per day. Nor did we make any statements about the VA’s data.”

As it happens, the VA’s 2022 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report was issued the same week as the OpDD report. VA found that veteran suicides decreased by 9.7% over the last 2 years, nearly twice the decrease for nonveterans. Yet, in a contemporaneous hearing of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, AWP’s President and CEO Jim Lorraine testified that the progress preventing veteran suicide was “a disgrace” and “a failure.” He misattributed that it was VA (not AWP) that “must be more open and transparent about their data.”

Unsupported denigration of the VA tarnishes its reputation, undermining veterans’ trust in the health care system and increasing barriers to seeking needed services. More broadly, it fortifies those forces who wish to redirect allocations away from VA and towards non-VA veterans’ entities like AWP. The media and other stakeholders must take a lesson about getting the story straight before reflexively amplifying false accusations about the VA. Veterans deserve better.

Sarah Sheffield, a nurse practitioner at a Veterans Affairs clinic in Eugene, Oregon, had a problem. Her patients — mostly in their 70s and beyond — couldn’t read computer screens. It’s not an unusual problem for older people, which is why you might think Oracle Cerner, the developers of the agency’s new digital health record system, would have anticipated it.

But they didn’t.

Federal law requires government resources to be accessible to patients with disabilities. But patients can’t easily enlarge the text. “They all learned to get strong reading glasses and magnifying glasses,” said Sheffield, who retired in early October.

The difficulties are everyday reminders of a dire reality for patients in the VA system. More than a million patients are blind or have low vision. They rely on software to access prescriptions or send messages to their doctors. But often the technology fails them. Either the screens don’t allow users to zoom in on the text, or screen-reader software that translates text to speech isn’t compatible.

“None of the systems are accessible” to these patients, said Donald Overton, executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association.

Patients often struggle even to log into websites or enter basic information needed to check in for hospital visits, Overton said: “We find our community stops trying, checks out, and disengages. They become dependent on other individuals; they give up independence.”

Now, the developing VA medical record system, already bloated by outsize costs, has been delayed until June 2023. So far, the project has threatened to exacerbate those issues.

While users in general have been affected by numerous incidents of downtime, delayed care, and missing information, barriers to access are particularly acute for blind and low-vision users — whether patients or workers within the health system. At least one Oregon-based employee has been offered aid — a helper assigned to read and click buttons — to navigate the system.

Over 1,000 Section 508 complaints are in a backlog to be assessed, or assigned to Oracle Cerner to fix, Veterans Affairs spokesperson Terrence Hayes confirmed. That section is part of federal law guaranteeing people with disabilities access to government technology.

Hayes said the problems described by these complaints don’t prevent employees and patients with disabilities from using the system. The complaints — 469 of which have been assigned to Oracle Cerner to fix, he said — mean that users’ disabilities make it more difficult, to the point of requiring mitigation.

The project is under new management with big promises. North Kansas City, Missouri-based developer Cerner, which originally landed the VA contract, was recently taken over by database technology giant Oracle, which plans to overhaul the software, company executive Mike Sicilia said during a September Senate hearing. “We intend to rewrite” the system, he said. “We have found nothing that can’t be addressed in relatively short order.”

But that will happen under continued scrutiny. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said his panel would continue to oversee the department’s compliance with accessibility standards. “Whether they work for VA or receive health care and benefits, the needs of veterans must be addressed by companies that want to work with the VA,” he said.

Takano, along with fellow Democrats Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Jon Tester of Montana, sent a letter Oct. 7 to VA Secretary Denis McDonough noting the significant gaps in the agency’s systems, and urging VA to engage with all disabled veterans, not merely those who are blind.

VA was alerted early and often that Cerner’s software posed problems for blind- and low-vision users, interviews and a review of records show. As early as 2015, when the Department of Defense and VA were exploring purchasing new systems, the National Federation of the Blind submitted letters to both departments, and Cerner, expressing concerns that the product would be unusable for clinicians and patients.

Alerts also came from inside VA. “We pointed out to Cerner that their system was really dependent on vision and that it was a major problem. The icons are really, really small,” said Dr. Art Wallace, a VA anesthesiologist who participated in one of the agency’s user groups to provide input for the eventual design of the system.

The Cerner system, he told the agency and KHN, is user-unfriendly. On the clinician side, it requires multiple high-resolution monitors to display a patient’s entire record, and VA facilities don’t always enjoy that wealth of equipment. “It would be very hard for visually impaired people, or normal people wearing bifocals, to use,” he concluded.

Before the software was rolled out, the system also failed a test with an employee working with a team at Oregon’s White City VA Medical Center devoted to helping blind patients develop skills and independence, said Carolyn Schwab, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1042.

In the testing, the system didn’t work with adaptive equipment, like text-to-speech software, she said. Despite receiving these complaints about the system, VA and Cerner “implemented it anyway.” Recently, when a regional AFGE president asked VA why they used the software — despite the federal mandates — he received no response, Schwab said.

Some within the company also thought there would be struggles. Two former Cerner employees said the standard medical record system was getting long in the tooth when VA signed an agreement to purchase and customize the product.

Because it was built on old code, the software was difficult to patch when problems were discovered, the employees said. What’s more, according to the employees, Cerner took a doggedly incremental approach to fixing errors. If someone complained about a malfunctioning button on a page filled with other potholes, the company would fix just that button — not the whole page, the employees said.

VA spokesperson Hayes denied the claims, saying the developer and department try to address problems holistically. Cerner did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Accessibility errors are as present in private sector medical record systems as public. Cerner patched up a bug with the Safari web browser’s rendering of its patient portal when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s student clinic threatened legal action, the former employees said. (“MIT Medical does not, as a general practice, discuss individual vendor contracts or services,” said spokesperson David Tytell.)

Legal threats — with hospital systems and medical record systems routinely facing lawsuits — are the most obvious symptom of a lack of accessibility within the U.S. health care system.

Deep inaccessibility plagues the burgeoning telehealth sector. A recent survey from the American Federation for the Blind found that 57% of respondents struggled to use providers’ proprietary telehealth platforms. Some resorted to FaceTime. Many said they were unable to log in or couldn’t read information transmitted through chat sidebars.

Existing federal regulations could, in theory, be used to enforce higher standards of accessibility in health technology. The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights issued guidance during the pandemic on making telehealth technologies easier to use for patients with disabilities. And other agencies could start leaning on hospitals, because they are recipients of government dollars or federal vendors, to make sure their offerings work for such patients.

That might not happen. These regulations could prove toothless, advocates warn. While there are several laws on the books, the advocates argue that enforcement and tougher regulations have not been forthcoming. “The concern from stakeholders is: Are you going to slow-walk this again?” said Joe Nahra, director of government relations at Powers Law, a Washington, D.C., law firm.

Building in accessibility has historically benefited all users. Voice assistance technology was originally developed to help blind- and low-vision users before winning widespread popularity with gadgets like Siri and Alexa.

Disability advocates believe vendors often push technology ahead without properly considering the impact on the people who will rely on it. “In the rush to be the first one, they put accessibility on the back burner,” said Eve Hill, a disability rights attorney with Brown, Goldstein & Levy, a civil rights law firm.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Sarah Sheffield, a nurse practitioner at a Veterans Affairs clinic in Eugene, Oregon, had a problem. Her patients — mostly in their 70s and beyond — couldn’t read computer screens. It’s not an unusual problem for older people, which is why you might think Oracle Cerner, the developers of the agency’s new digital health record system, would have anticipated it.

But they didn’t.

Federal law requires government resources to be accessible to patients with disabilities. But patients can’t easily enlarge the text. “They all learned to get strong reading glasses and magnifying glasses,” said Sheffield, who retired in early October.

The difficulties are everyday reminders of a dire reality for patients in the VA system. More than a million patients are blind or have low vision. They rely on software to access prescriptions or send messages to their doctors. But often the technology fails them. Either the screens don’t allow users to zoom in on the text, or screen-reader software that translates text to speech isn’t compatible.

“None of the systems are accessible” to these patients, said Donald Overton, executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association.

Patients often struggle even to log into websites or enter basic information needed to check in for hospital visits, Overton said: “We find our community stops trying, checks out, and disengages. They become dependent on other individuals; they give up independence.”

Now, the developing VA medical record system, already bloated by outsize costs, has been delayed until June 2023. So far, the project has threatened to exacerbate those issues.

While users in general have been affected by numerous incidents of downtime, delayed care, and missing information, barriers to access are particularly acute for blind and low-vision users — whether patients or workers within the health system. At least one Oregon-based employee has been offered aid — a helper assigned to read and click buttons — to navigate the system.

Over 1,000 Section 508 complaints are in a backlog to be assessed, or assigned to Oracle Cerner to fix, Veterans Affairs spokesperson Terrence Hayes confirmed. That section is part of federal law guaranteeing people with disabilities access to government technology.

Hayes said the problems described by these complaints don’t prevent employees and patients with disabilities from using the system. The complaints — 469 of which have been assigned to Oracle Cerner to fix, he said — mean that users’ disabilities make it more difficult, to the point of requiring mitigation.

The project is under new management with big promises. North Kansas City, Missouri-based developer Cerner, which originally landed the VA contract, was recently taken over by database technology giant Oracle, which plans to overhaul the software, company executive Mike Sicilia said during a September Senate hearing. “We intend to rewrite” the system, he said. “We have found nothing that can’t be addressed in relatively short order.”

But that will happen under continued scrutiny. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said his panel would continue to oversee the department’s compliance with accessibility standards. “Whether they work for VA or receive health care and benefits, the needs of veterans must be addressed by companies that want to work with the VA,” he said.

Takano, along with fellow Democrats Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Jon Tester of Montana, sent a letter Oct. 7 to VA Secretary Denis McDonough noting the significant gaps in the agency’s systems, and urging VA to engage with all disabled veterans, not merely those who are blind.

VA was alerted early and often that Cerner’s software posed problems for blind- and low-vision users, interviews and a review of records show. As early as 2015, when the Department of Defense and VA were exploring purchasing new systems, the National Federation of the Blind submitted letters to both departments, and Cerner, expressing concerns that the product would be unusable for clinicians and patients.

Alerts also came from inside VA. “We pointed out to Cerner that their system was really dependent on vision and that it was a major problem. The icons are really, really small,” said Dr. Art Wallace, a VA anesthesiologist who participated in one of the agency’s user groups to provide input for the eventual design of the system.

The Cerner system, he told the agency and KHN, is user-unfriendly. On the clinician side, it requires multiple high-resolution monitors to display a patient’s entire record, and VA facilities don’t always enjoy that wealth of equipment. “It would be very hard for visually impaired people, or normal people wearing bifocals, to use,” he concluded.

Before the software was rolled out, the system also failed a test with an employee working with a team at Oregon’s White City VA Medical Center devoted to helping blind patients develop skills and independence, said Carolyn Schwab, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1042.

In the testing, the system didn’t work with adaptive equipment, like text-to-speech software, she said. Despite receiving these complaints about the system, VA and Cerner “implemented it anyway.” Recently, when a regional AFGE president asked VA why they used the software — despite the federal mandates — he received no response, Schwab said.

Some within the company also thought there would be struggles. Two former Cerner employees said the standard medical record system was getting long in the tooth when VA signed an agreement to purchase and customize the product.

Because it was built on old code, the software was difficult to patch when problems were discovered, the employees said. What’s more, according to the employees, Cerner took a doggedly incremental approach to fixing errors. If someone complained about a malfunctioning button on a page filled with other potholes, the company would fix just that button — not the whole page, the employees said.

VA spokesperson Hayes denied the claims, saying the developer and department try to address problems holistically. Cerner did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Accessibility errors are as present in private sector medical record systems as public. Cerner patched up a bug with the Safari web browser’s rendering of its patient portal when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s student clinic threatened legal action, the former employees said. (“MIT Medical does not, as a general practice, discuss individual vendor contracts or services,” said spokesperson David Tytell.)

Legal threats — with hospital systems and medical record systems routinely facing lawsuits — are the most obvious symptom of a lack of accessibility within the U.S. health care system.

Deep inaccessibility plagues the burgeoning telehealth sector. A recent survey from the American Federation for the Blind found that 57% of respondents struggled to use providers’ proprietary telehealth platforms. Some resorted to FaceTime. Many said they were unable to log in or couldn’t read information transmitted through chat sidebars.

Existing federal regulations could, in theory, be used to enforce higher standards of accessibility in health technology. The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights issued guidance during the pandemic on making telehealth technologies easier to use for patients with disabilities. And other agencies could start leaning on hospitals, because they are recipients of government dollars or federal vendors, to make sure their offerings work for such patients.

That might not happen. These regulations could prove toothless, advocates warn. While there are several laws on the books, the advocates argue that enforcement and tougher regulations have not been forthcoming. “The concern from stakeholders is: Are you going to slow-walk this again?” said Joe Nahra, director of government relations at Powers Law, a Washington, D.C., law firm.

Building in accessibility has historically benefited all users. Voice assistance technology was originally developed to help blind- and low-vision users before winning widespread popularity with gadgets like Siri and Alexa.

Disability advocates believe vendors often push technology ahead without properly considering the impact on the people who will rely on it. “In the rush to be the first one, they put accessibility on the back burner,” said Eve Hill, a disability rights attorney with Brown, Goldstein & Levy, a civil rights law firm.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Sarah Sheffield, a nurse practitioner at a Veterans Affairs clinic in Eugene, Oregon, had a problem. Her patients — mostly in their 70s and beyond — couldn’t read computer screens. It’s not an unusual problem for older people, which is why you might think Oracle Cerner, the developers of the agency’s new digital health record system, would have anticipated it.

But they didn’t.

Federal law requires government resources to be accessible to patients with disabilities. But patients can’t easily enlarge the text. “They all learned to get strong reading glasses and magnifying glasses,” said Sheffield, who retired in early October.

The difficulties are everyday reminders of a dire reality for patients in the VA system. More than a million patients are blind or have low vision. They rely on software to access prescriptions or send messages to their doctors. But often the technology fails them. Either the screens don’t allow users to zoom in on the text, or screen-reader software that translates text to speech isn’t compatible.

“None of the systems are accessible” to these patients, said Donald Overton, executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association.

Patients often struggle even to log into websites or enter basic information needed to check in for hospital visits, Overton said: “We find our community stops trying, checks out, and disengages. They become dependent on other individuals; they give up independence.”

Now, the developing VA medical record system, already bloated by outsize costs, has been delayed until June 2023. So far, the project has threatened to exacerbate those issues.

While users in general have been affected by numerous incidents of downtime, delayed care, and missing information, barriers to access are particularly acute for blind and low-vision users — whether patients or workers within the health system. At least one Oregon-based employee has been offered aid — a helper assigned to read and click buttons — to navigate the system.

Over 1,000 Section 508 complaints are in a backlog to be assessed, or assigned to Oracle Cerner to fix, Veterans Affairs spokesperson Terrence Hayes confirmed. That section is part of federal law guaranteeing people with disabilities access to government technology.

Hayes said the problems described by these complaints don’t prevent employees and patients with disabilities from using the system. The complaints — 469 of which have been assigned to Oracle Cerner to fix, he said — mean that users’ disabilities make it more difficult, to the point of requiring mitigation.

The project is under new management with big promises. North Kansas City, Missouri-based developer Cerner, which originally landed the VA contract, was recently taken over by database technology giant Oracle, which plans to overhaul the software, company executive Mike Sicilia said during a September Senate hearing. “We intend to rewrite” the system, he said. “We have found nothing that can’t be addressed in relatively short order.”

But that will happen under continued scrutiny. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said his panel would continue to oversee the department’s compliance with accessibility standards. “Whether they work for VA or receive health care and benefits, the needs of veterans must be addressed by companies that want to work with the VA,” he said.

Takano, along with fellow Democrats Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Jon Tester of Montana, sent a letter Oct. 7 to VA Secretary Denis McDonough noting the significant gaps in the agency’s systems, and urging VA to engage with all disabled veterans, not merely those who are blind.

VA was alerted early and often that Cerner’s software posed problems for blind- and low-vision users, interviews and a review of records show. As early as 2015, when the Department of Defense and VA were exploring purchasing new systems, the National Federation of the Blind submitted letters to both departments, and Cerner, expressing concerns that the product would be unusable for clinicians and patients.

Alerts also came from inside VA. “We pointed out to Cerner that their system was really dependent on vision and that it was a major problem. The icons are really, really small,” said Dr. Art Wallace, a VA anesthesiologist who participated in one of the agency’s user groups to provide input for the eventual design of the system.

The Cerner system, he told the agency and KHN, is user-unfriendly. On the clinician side, it requires multiple high-resolution monitors to display a patient’s entire record, and VA facilities don’t always enjoy that wealth of equipment. “It would be very hard for visually impaired people, or normal people wearing bifocals, to use,” he concluded.

Before the software was rolled out, the system also failed a test with an employee working with a team at Oregon’s White City VA Medical Center devoted to helping blind patients develop skills and independence, said Carolyn Schwab, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1042.

In the testing, the system didn’t work with adaptive equipment, like text-to-speech software, she said. Despite receiving these complaints about the system, VA and Cerner “implemented it anyway.” Recently, when a regional AFGE president asked VA why they used the software — despite the federal mandates — he received no response, Schwab said.

Some within the company also thought there would be struggles. Two former Cerner employees said the standard medical record system was getting long in the tooth when VA signed an agreement to purchase and customize the product.

Because it was built on old code, the software was difficult to patch when problems were discovered, the employees said. What’s more, according to the employees, Cerner took a doggedly incremental approach to fixing errors. If someone complained about a malfunctioning button on a page filled with other potholes, the company would fix just that button — not the whole page, the employees said.

VA spokesperson Hayes denied the claims, saying the developer and department try to address problems holistically. Cerner did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Accessibility errors are as present in private sector medical record systems as public. Cerner patched up a bug with the Safari web browser’s rendering of its patient portal when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s student clinic threatened legal action, the former employees said. (“MIT Medical does not, as a general practice, discuss individual vendor contracts or services,” said spokesperson David Tytell.)

Legal threats — with hospital systems and medical record systems routinely facing lawsuits — are the most obvious symptom of a lack of accessibility within the U.S. health care system.

Deep inaccessibility plagues the burgeoning telehealth sector. A recent survey from the American Federation for the Blind found that 57% of respondents struggled to use providers’ proprietary telehealth platforms. Some resorted to FaceTime. Many said they were unable to log in or couldn’t read information transmitted through chat sidebars.

Existing federal regulations could, in theory, be used to enforce higher standards of accessibility in health technology. The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights issued guidance during the pandemic on making telehealth technologies easier to use for patients with disabilities. And other agencies could start leaning on hospitals, because they are recipients of government dollars or federal vendors, to make sure their offerings work for such patients.

That might not happen. These regulations could prove toothless, advocates warn. While there are several laws on the books, the advocates argue that enforcement and tougher regulations have not been forthcoming. “The concern from stakeholders is: Are you going to slow-walk this again?” said Joe Nahra, director of government relations at Powers Law, a Washington, D.C., law firm.

Building in accessibility has historically benefited all users. Voice assistance technology was originally developed to help blind- and low-vision users before winning widespread popularity with gadgets like Siri and Alexa.

Disability advocates believe vendors often push technology ahead without properly considering the impact on the people who will rely on it. “In the rush to be the first one, they put accessibility on the back burner,” said Eve Hill, a disability rights attorney with Brown, Goldstein & Levy, a civil rights law firm.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took 609 days, but the US Senate has finally (unanimously) confirmed President Biden’s choice to head the Indian Health Service (IHS: Roselyn Tso.)

President Biden nominated Tso in March 2022, and she was formally sworn in on September 27, 2022. The long-awaited confirmation filled a space that hadn’t had a permanent director since Michael Weahkee, a Pueblo of Zuni citizen, stepped down in 2021. In the interim, Elizabeth Fowler, of the Comanche Nation, served as acting director.

Tso’s resume includes almost 40 years of professional experience working at all levels of the IHS. Before taking over as IHS director, she led the IHS Navajo area, the largest IHS regional area, managing more than 4000 employees and a budget of nearly $1 billion.

She also brings “decades of lived experience as a member of the Navajo Nation,” she said in a 40-minute Senate hearing with the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in May.

The first Navajo Nation citizen to head the IHS (and only the second woman to do so), Tso introduced herself in Navajo: Deeschii’nii (Start of the Red Streak People) and born for Hashk’aa hadzohi (Yucca Fruit Strung Out). “This is a historic achievement for all of our Navajo people and tribal nations across the country,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said. “To have one of our own Navajo members in the highest position with IHS is remarkable.”

Tso spoke of having to “navigate the services provided by the Agency for myself, family, and friends.” Her personal and professional backgrounds, she said, help her understand how patients experience the system and how that can be improved. “The health care provided at IHS is critical for those we serve. I understand this not just because I work there,” she said. “My family relies on IHS. My friends rely on IHS. I rely on the IHS.”

The long lacuna in confirming a permanent IHS director left the Native peoples particularly vulnerable—when the COVID-19 pandemic essentially worsened the existing problems they faced, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer. Life expectancy for Native people fell by more than 6 years between 2019 and 2021, to 65 years, compared with the US average of 76 years.

Without a full-time IHS leader, the National Council of Urban Indian Health said in a statement, tribal nations and other Native health care providers struggled to raise and address the issues they were facing amid the pandemic. “Since the resignation of Rear Admiral Weahkee, there have been countless requests from Indian Country calling on Congress and the Administration to nominate a new IHS director to address the growing health disparities experienced by AI/ANs.”

Tso laid out her priorities in her May testimony: creating a more unified health care system using the latest technology to develop centralized systems; improving accountability, transparency, and patient safety; addressing workforce needs and challenges, improving recruitment and retention.

Meeting her goals, she noted, would take “strong partnerships and communication with our Tribal partners…. Each tribe has unique needs, and those needs cannot be met if you do not understand them.”

Last year, President Joseph R. Biden asked Congress to significantly increase IHS funding, but his proposal was cut to $400 million. “For years, IHS has been funded at a rate that is far below its level of need, and the results of this historical neglect can be seen in the disparities in health outcomes for AI/AN people,” William Smith, Valdez Native Tribe, Chairman of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), wrote to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on the topic of the next IHS director. “Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the [Indian, tribal and urban] system is the chronic and severe underfunding and budgetary instability for health care and public health services infrastructure and delivery. Since its creation in 1955, IHS has been chronically underfunded, with annual appropriations never exceeding 50% of demonstrated need. This underfunding has contributed to substandard investment in health delivery systems, some of the worst health disparities among any US population and a severe lack of public health infrastructure and services for our people. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic these vulnerabilities were starkly exposed and while Congress moved decisively to invest into Tribal health and public health, the new Director must work to maintain these one-time investments.”

Stacy Bohlen, NIHB chief executive, told The Oklahoman that tribal leaders will look to Tso to press Congress for more money and to secure mandatory full funding for IHS—in contrast with the current annual appropriations, where Congress includes IHS in much larger budget bills. “When those bills stall, so does the money tribal clinics need to pay employees and suppliers,” making it hard to recruit and retain employees. “In the Indian Health System,” Bohlen says, “we simply can’t afford that kind of vulnerability.”

Securing advance appropriations and, ultimately, full mandatory funding for IHS, Smith wrote in his letter to the Senate committee, “fulfills the commitment made to our people generations ago and breaks down the systemic healthcare funding inequities the federal government tolerates for Tribes.”

Tso emphasized her intent to “improve the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health and well-being of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives served by the Agency.” Tso “understands the healthcare needs that many first people of this country deal with,” President Nez said. “Her work ethic, value system and approach to problem solving demonstrates the resilience of Indigenous peoples and the commitment to combat the systemic inequities that impact tribal nations.”

It took 609 days, but the US Senate has finally (unanimously) confirmed President Biden’s choice to head the Indian Health Service (IHS: Roselyn Tso.)

President Biden nominated Tso in March 2022, and she was formally sworn in on September 27, 2022. The long-awaited confirmation filled a space that hadn’t had a permanent director since Michael Weahkee, a Pueblo of Zuni citizen, stepped down in 2021. In the interim, Elizabeth Fowler, of the Comanche Nation, served as acting director.

Tso’s resume includes almost 40 years of professional experience working at all levels of the IHS. Before taking over as IHS director, she led the IHS Navajo area, the largest IHS regional area, managing more than 4000 employees and a budget of nearly $1 billion.

She also brings “decades of lived experience as a member of the Navajo Nation,” she said in a 40-minute Senate hearing with the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in May.

The first Navajo Nation citizen to head the IHS (and only the second woman to do so), Tso introduced herself in Navajo: Deeschii’nii (Start of the Red Streak People) and born for Hashk’aa hadzohi (Yucca Fruit Strung Out). “This is a historic achievement for all of our Navajo people and tribal nations across the country,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said. “To have one of our own Navajo members in the highest position with IHS is remarkable.”

Tso spoke of having to “navigate the services provided by the Agency for myself, family, and friends.” Her personal and professional backgrounds, she said, help her understand how patients experience the system and how that can be improved. “The health care provided at IHS is critical for those we serve. I understand this not just because I work there,” she said. “My family relies on IHS. My friends rely on IHS. I rely on the IHS.”

The long lacuna in confirming a permanent IHS director left the Native peoples particularly vulnerable—when the COVID-19 pandemic essentially worsened the existing problems they faced, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer. Life expectancy for Native people fell by more than 6 years between 2019 and 2021, to 65 years, compared with the US average of 76 years.

Without a full-time IHS leader, the National Council of Urban Indian Health said in a statement, tribal nations and other Native health care providers struggled to raise and address the issues they were facing amid the pandemic. “Since the resignation of Rear Admiral Weahkee, there have been countless requests from Indian Country calling on Congress and the Administration to nominate a new IHS director to address the growing health disparities experienced by AI/ANs.”

Tso laid out her priorities in her May testimony: creating a more unified health care system using the latest technology to develop centralized systems; improving accountability, transparency, and patient safety; addressing workforce needs and challenges, improving recruitment and retention.

Meeting her goals, she noted, would take “strong partnerships and communication with our Tribal partners…. Each tribe has unique needs, and those needs cannot be met if you do not understand them.”

Last year, President Joseph R. Biden asked Congress to significantly increase IHS funding, but his proposal was cut to $400 million. “For years, IHS has been funded at a rate that is far below its level of need, and the results of this historical neglect can be seen in the disparities in health outcomes for AI/AN people,” William Smith, Valdez Native Tribe, Chairman of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), wrote to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on the topic of the next IHS director. “Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the [Indian, tribal and urban] system is the chronic and severe underfunding and budgetary instability for health care and public health services infrastructure and delivery. Since its creation in 1955, IHS has been chronically underfunded, with annual appropriations never exceeding 50% of demonstrated need. This underfunding has contributed to substandard investment in health delivery systems, some of the worst health disparities among any US population and a severe lack of public health infrastructure and services for our people. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic these vulnerabilities were starkly exposed and while Congress moved decisively to invest into Tribal health and public health, the new Director must work to maintain these one-time investments.”

Stacy Bohlen, NIHB chief executive, told The Oklahoman that tribal leaders will look to Tso to press Congress for more money and to secure mandatory full funding for IHS—in contrast with the current annual appropriations, where Congress includes IHS in much larger budget bills. “When those bills stall, so does the money tribal clinics need to pay employees and suppliers,” making it hard to recruit and retain employees. “In the Indian Health System,” Bohlen says, “we simply can’t afford that kind of vulnerability.”

Securing advance appropriations and, ultimately, full mandatory funding for IHS, Smith wrote in his letter to the Senate committee, “fulfills the commitment made to our people generations ago and breaks down the systemic healthcare funding inequities the federal government tolerates for Tribes.”

Tso emphasized her intent to “improve the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health and well-being of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives served by the Agency.” Tso “understands the healthcare needs that many first people of this country deal with,” President Nez said. “Her work ethic, value system and approach to problem solving demonstrates the resilience of Indigenous peoples and the commitment to combat the systemic inequities that impact tribal nations.”

It took 609 days, but the US Senate has finally (unanimously) confirmed President Biden’s choice to head the Indian Health Service (IHS: Roselyn Tso.)

President Biden nominated Tso in March 2022, and she was formally sworn in on September 27, 2022. The long-awaited confirmation filled a space that hadn’t had a permanent director since Michael Weahkee, a Pueblo of Zuni citizen, stepped down in 2021. In the interim, Elizabeth Fowler, of the Comanche Nation, served as acting director.

Tso’s resume includes almost 40 years of professional experience working at all levels of the IHS. Before taking over as IHS director, she led the IHS Navajo area, the largest IHS regional area, managing more than 4000 employees and a budget of nearly $1 billion.

She also brings “decades of lived experience as a member of the Navajo Nation,” she said in a 40-minute Senate hearing with the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in May.

The first Navajo Nation citizen to head the IHS (and only the second woman to do so), Tso introduced herself in Navajo: Deeschii’nii (Start of the Red Streak People) and born for Hashk’aa hadzohi (Yucca Fruit Strung Out). “This is a historic achievement for all of our Navajo people and tribal nations across the country,” Navajo Nation President Jonathan Nez said. “To have one of our own Navajo members in the highest position with IHS is remarkable.”

Tso spoke of having to “navigate the services provided by the Agency for myself, family, and friends.” Her personal and professional backgrounds, she said, help her understand how patients experience the system and how that can be improved. “The health care provided at IHS is critical for those we serve. I understand this not just because I work there,” she said. “My family relies on IHS. My friends rely on IHS. I rely on the IHS.”

The long lacuna in confirming a permanent IHS director left the Native peoples particularly vulnerable—when the COVID-19 pandemic essentially worsened the existing problems they faced, such as diabetes mellitus and cancer. Life expectancy for Native people fell by more than 6 years between 2019 and 2021, to 65 years, compared with the US average of 76 years.

Without a full-time IHS leader, the National Council of Urban Indian Health said in a statement, tribal nations and other Native health care providers struggled to raise and address the issues they were facing amid the pandemic. “Since the resignation of Rear Admiral Weahkee, there have been countless requests from Indian Country calling on Congress and the Administration to nominate a new IHS director to address the growing health disparities experienced by AI/ANs.”

Tso laid out her priorities in her May testimony: creating a more unified health care system using the latest technology to develop centralized systems; improving accountability, transparency, and patient safety; addressing workforce needs and challenges, improving recruitment and retention.

Meeting her goals, she noted, would take “strong partnerships and communication with our Tribal partners…. Each tribe has unique needs, and those needs cannot be met if you do not understand them.”

Last year, President Joseph R. Biden asked Congress to significantly increase IHS funding, but his proposal was cut to $400 million. “For years, IHS has been funded at a rate that is far below its level of need, and the results of this historical neglect can be seen in the disparities in health outcomes for AI/AN people,” William Smith, Valdez Native Tribe, Chairman of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB), wrote to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, on the topic of the next IHS director. “Perhaps one of the greatest challenges facing the [Indian, tribal and urban] system is the chronic and severe underfunding and budgetary instability for health care and public health services infrastructure and delivery. Since its creation in 1955, IHS has been chronically underfunded, with annual appropriations never exceeding 50% of demonstrated need. This underfunding has contributed to substandard investment in health delivery systems, some of the worst health disparities among any US population and a severe lack of public health infrastructure and services for our people. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic these vulnerabilities were starkly exposed and while Congress moved decisively to invest into Tribal health and public health, the new Director must work to maintain these one-time investments.”

Stacy Bohlen, NIHB chief executive, told The Oklahoman that tribal leaders will look to Tso to press Congress for more money and to secure mandatory full funding for IHS—in contrast with the current annual appropriations, where Congress includes IHS in much larger budget bills. “When those bills stall, so does the money tribal clinics need to pay employees and suppliers,” making it hard to recruit and retain employees. “In the Indian Health System,” Bohlen says, “we simply can’t afford that kind of vulnerability.”

Securing advance appropriations and, ultimately, full mandatory funding for IHS, Smith wrote in his letter to the Senate committee, “fulfills the commitment made to our people generations ago and breaks down the systemic healthcare funding inequities the federal government tolerates for Tribes.”

Tso emphasized her intent to “improve the physical, mental, social, and spiritual health and well-being of all American Indians and Alaskan Natives served by the Agency.” Tso “understands the healthcare needs that many first people of this country deal with,” President Nez said. “Her work ethic, value system and approach to problem solving demonstrates the resilience of Indigenous peoples and the commitment to combat the systemic inequities that impact tribal nations.”

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June, Gilbert R. Cisneros Jr., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, released a memo on “Ensuring Access to Essential Women’s Health Care Services for Service Members, Dependents, Beneficiaries, and Department of Defense Civilian Employees.” In the memo, Cisneros clarified the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies and emphasized, “There will be no interruption to this care.”

Covered abortions—instances where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest—are still covered. Health care professionals will continue to follow this policy and military medical facilities leadership will implement measures to ensure continued access to care.

The implications of the Supreme Court decision are complicated, Cisneros said. “It is the Department of Justice’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law,” the memo continues. “We will work with the Department of Justice to ensure access to counsel for such civilian employees and Service members if needed and as appropriate.”

The decision also does not affect the DoD’s existing leave policies, which authorize active-duty service members to travel as necessary to receive abortion care. The travel may be government-funded official travel for a covered abortion, or for all other cases, may be undertaken as regular leave at the service member’s expense. DoD civilian employees may continue to use sick leave or other forms of leave to care for themselves or their family members. Sick leave may be used to cover travel to obtain any type of medical treatment.

The Court’s decision “will have significant implications,” Cisneros wrote, adding, “As Secretary Austin has made clear, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce, and DoD families, and we are committed to taking care of all our people and ensuring that the entire Force remains ready and resilient.”

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June, Gilbert R. Cisneros Jr., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, released a memo on “Ensuring Access to Essential Women’s Health Care Services for Service Members, Dependents, Beneficiaries, and Department of Defense Civilian Employees.” In the memo, Cisneros clarified the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies and emphasized, “There will be no interruption to this care.”

Covered abortions—instances where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest—are still covered. Health care professionals will continue to follow this policy and military medical facilities leadership will implement measures to ensure continued access to care.

The implications of the Supreme Court decision are complicated, Cisneros said. “It is the Department of Justice’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law,” the memo continues. “We will work with the Department of Justice to ensure access to counsel for such civilian employees and Service members if needed and as appropriate.”

The decision also does not affect the DoD’s existing leave policies, which authorize active-duty service members to travel as necessary to receive abortion care. The travel may be government-funded official travel for a covered abortion, or for all other cases, may be undertaken as regular leave at the service member’s expense. DoD civilian employees may continue to use sick leave or other forms of leave to care for themselves or their family members. Sick leave may be used to cover travel to obtain any type of medical treatment.

The Court’s decision “will have significant implications,” Cisneros wrote, adding, “As Secretary Austin has made clear, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce, and DoD families, and we are committed to taking care of all our people and ensuring that the entire Force remains ready and resilient.”

After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June, Gilbert R. Cisneros Jr., Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, released a memo on “Ensuring Access to Essential Women’s Health Care Services for Service Members, Dependents, Beneficiaries, and Department of Defense Civilian Employees.” In the memo, Cisneros clarified the US Department of Defense (DoD) policies and emphasized, “There will be no interruption to this care.”

Covered abortions—instances where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest—are still covered. Health care professionals will continue to follow this policy and military medical facilities leadership will implement measures to ensure continued access to care.

The implications of the Supreme Court decision are complicated, Cisneros said. “It is the Department of Justice’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law,” the memo continues. “We will work with the Department of Justice to ensure access to counsel for such civilian employees and Service members if needed and as appropriate.”

The decision also does not affect the DoD’s existing leave policies, which authorize active-duty service members to travel as necessary to receive abortion care. The travel may be government-funded official travel for a covered abortion, or for all other cases, may be undertaken as regular leave at the service member’s expense. DoD civilian employees may continue to use sick leave or other forms of leave to care for themselves or their family members. Sick leave may be used to cover travel to obtain any type of medical treatment.

The Court’s decision “will have significant implications,” Cisneros wrote, adding, “As Secretary Austin has made clear, nothing is more important than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce, and DoD families, and we are committed to taking care of all our people and ensuring that the entire Force remains ready and resilient.”

After a 5-year search, the US Senate in a 66-23 vote, confirmed a new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary for Health, filling a role that has been without permanent leadership since 2017. Shereef Elnahal, MD, takes over from Steve Lieberman, MD, who has been serving the role in an acting capacity since July 2021.

Elnahal’s nomination had been in limbo since May after Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) blocked an attempt to fast-track his confirmation, which was led by Sen. John Tester (D-MT) who chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Scott, who had no specific objection to Elnahal, argued that President Joseph Biden’s nominees haven’t been qualified. The debate turned acrimonious, with Tester accusing Scott of “turning his back on America’s veterans.” He called Scott’s objection as “obstruction at the worst, because this stops our veterans from getting the health care that they need.”

Tester urged his colleagues to support Elnahal’s confirmation, stressing the importance of filling the position. “Dr. Shereef Elnahal has an impressive record of leading health care systems and agencies and has shown a strong commitment to serving millions of veterans and hardworking employees at VA. Now more than ever,” Tester said, “the Department needs permanent, qualified leadership to guide the nation’s largest integrated health care system in the right direction.”

In a statement, Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL), ranking member of the US House of Representatives Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, agreed, saying, “Dr. Elnahal’s position is a vitally important one, particularly as the VA health care system prepares to care for millions more toxic-exposed veterans under the PACT [Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics] Act and the new electronic health record rollout continues to disappoint. Dr. Elnahal has his work cut out for him, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that veterans get the health care they have earned when they need it and where they want it, without having to wait too long or travel too far.”

Elnahal is in fact considered well qualified for the job. He was New Jersey’s 21st health commissioner, confirmed unanimously by the New Jersey Senate. During his nearly 2 years in that position, he led with what has become a signature move for him—increasing transparent access to information—by expanding the New Jersey Health Information Network, an interoperability platform that allows for electronic exchange of patient health information among health care providers.

Most recently, as president and CEO of University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey, he oversaw improvements in care quality and patient safety. He also established a partnership to provide supportive housing to patients experiencing homelessness, a hospital-based violence intervention program that has served as a national model, and a program that deploys trusted chaplains as community health workers. Notably, he led the hospital through the COVID-19 crisis; the hospital has served as a model for urban hospital and regional response efforts. Elnahal also set up one of the first COVID-19 vaccination sites in New Jersey.

Moreover, he’s not actually a newcomer to the VA. He served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Quality, Safety, and Value from 2016 through 2018, where he oversaw national policies around quality of care for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

During that earlier tenure, he was at the forefront of making VA care more transparent and responsive. Among other things, he cofounded the VHA Innovation Ecosystem, a program that fosters the spread of innovation and best practices. On his watch the VA also launched accesstocare.gov, which provides public access to performance, wait time, and other data. The rationale, Elnahal said in a 2018 interview with Federal Practitioner, was simple: “If we provide veterans with an easy-to-use tool that lets them see data on wait times and quality, they’ll be able to make informed decisions about where and when they receive their health care.” The site allows users to compare quality of care provided by VA medical centers with that of local private hospitals. For instance, they can see if a local VA facility’s wait time is better, worse, or the same as the regional average of private sector clinics.

In his drive to harness smart, sustainable ideas for improving veteran care, Elnahal also helmed the VA Diffusion of Excellence (VADOE) program, whose Shark Tank Competition gives a platform to employees “passionate about solving some of the toughest challenges across VHA.” The innovative winners have included VIONE, a medication deprescribing program, and the β-Lactam Allergy Assessment, an initiative to clarify which patients are truly allergic to BL antibiotics, reduce the incidence of multidrug-resistant infections, and reduce hospital length of stay. Both programs are being replicated across multiple facilities.

“We really empower and recognize the frontline employees who not only contribute the best practices but who replicate them,” Elnahal told Federal Practitioner in 2016. “Essentially, we give them a systemwide leadership role… This is part of many different initiatives that are trying to recognize and elevate the great work that physicians do and really improve their morale and reduce burnout.”

As Rep. Bost suggested, Elnahal now has even more work cut out for him. At this new starting gate, Elnahal says a top priority is improving recruiting and retention for clinical care positions. “The sacred healthcare mission of VA simply cannot be fulfilled without having people to do it, talented healthcare professionals who put the mission above all else.”

In a LinkedIn post, Elnahal thanked President Biden and VA Secretary McDonough for their confidence in him, and the US Senate for confirming him in a bipartisan vote. But “[m]ost of all,” he said, “my gratitude goes to Veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors…. Beyond thrilled and eager to get to work for them in a health system with more than 300,000 heroes. Onward to an incredible journey!”

After a 5-year search, the US Senate in a 66-23 vote, confirmed a new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary for Health, filling a role that has been without permanent leadership since 2017. Shereef Elnahal, MD, takes over from Steve Lieberman, MD, who has been serving the role in an acting capacity since July 2021.

Elnahal’s nomination had been in limbo since May after Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) blocked an attempt to fast-track his confirmation, which was led by Sen. John Tester (D-MT) who chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Scott, who had no specific objection to Elnahal, argued that President Joseph Biden’s nominees haven’t been qualified. The debate turned acrimonious, with Tester accusing Scott of “turning his back on America’s veterans.” He called Scott’s objection as “obstruction at the worst, because this stops our veterans from getting the health care that they need.”

Tester urged his colleagues to support Elnahal’s confirmation, stressing the importance of filling the position. “Dr. Shereef Elnahal has an impressive record of leading health care systems and agencies and has shown a strong commitment to serving millions of veterans and hardworking employees at VA. Now more than ever,” Tester said, “the Department needs permanent, qualified leadership to guide the nation’s largest integrated health care system in the right direction.”

In a statement, Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL), ranking member of the US House of Representatives Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, agreed, saying, “Dr. Elnahal’s position is a vitally important one, particularly as the VA health care system prepares to care for millions more toxic-exposed veterans under the PACT [Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics] Act and the new electronic health record rollout continues to disappoint. Dr. Elnahal has his work cut out for him, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that veterans get the health care they have earned when they need it and where they want it, without having to wait too long or travel too far.”

Elnahal is in fact considered well qualified for the job. He was New Jersey’s 21st health commissioner, confirmed unanimously by the New Jersey Senate. During his nearly 2 years in that position, he led with what has become a signature move for him—increasing transparent access to information—by expanding the New Jersey Health Information Network, an interoperability platform that allows for electronic exchange of patient health information among health care providers.

Most recently, as president and CEO of University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey, he oversaw improvements in care quality and patient safety. He also established a partnership to provide supportive housing to patients experiencing homelessness, a hospital-based violence intervention program that has served as a national model, and a program that deploys trusted chaplains as community health workers. Notably, he led the hospital through the COVID-19 crisis; the hospital has served as a model for urban hospital and regional response efforts. Elnahal also set up one of the first COVID-19 vaccination sites in New Jersey.

Moreover, he’s not actually a newcomer to the VA. He served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Quality, Safety, and Value from 2016 through 2018, where he oversaw national policies around quality of care for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

During that earlier tenure, he was at the forefront of making VA care more transparent and responsive. Among other things, he cofounded the VHA Innovation Ecosystem, a program that fosters the spread of innovation and best practices. On his watch the VA also launched accesstocare.gov, which provides public access to performance, wait time, and other data. The rationale, Elnahal said in a 2018 interview with Federal Practitioner, was simple: “If we provide veterans with an easy-to-use tool that lets them see data on wait times and quality, they’ll be able to make informed decisions about where and when they receive their health care.” The site allows users to compare quality of care provided by VA medical centers with that of local private hospitals. For instance, they can see if a local VA facility’s wait time is better, worse, or the same as the regional average of private sector clinics.

In his drive to harness smart, sustainable ideas for improving veteran care, Elnahal also helmed the VA Diffusion of Excellence (VADOE) program, whose Shark Tank Competition gives a platform to employees “passionate about solving some of the toughest challenges across VHA.” The innovative winners have included VIONE, a medication deprescribing program, and the β-Lactam Allergy Assessment, an initiative to clarify which patients are truly allergic to BL antibiotics, reduce the incidence of multidrug-resistant infections, and reduce hospital length of stay. Both programs are being replicated across multiple facilities.

“We really empower and recognize the frontline employees who not only contribute the best practices but who replicate them,” Elnahal told Federal Practitioner in 2016. “Essentially, we give them a systemwide leadership role… This is part of many different initiatives that are trying to recognize and elevate the great work that physicians do and really improve their morale and reduce burnout.”

As Rep. Bost suggested, Elnahal now has even more work cut out for him. At this new starting gate, Elnahal says a top priority is improving recruiting and retention for clinical care positions. “The sacred healthcare mission of VA simply cannot be fulfilled without having people to do it, talented healthcare professionals who put the mission above all else.”

In a LinkedIn post, Elnahal thanked President Biden and VA Secretary McDonough for their confidence in him, and the US Senate for confirming him in a bipartisan vote. But “[m]ost of all,” he said, “my gratitude goes to Veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors…. Beyond thrilled and eager to get to work for them in a health system with more than 300,000 heroes. Onward to an incredible journey!”

After a 5-year search, the US Senate in a 66-23 vote, confirmed a new US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Under Secretary for Health, filling a role that has been without permanent leadership since 2017. Shereef Elnahal, MD, takes over from Steve Lieberman, MD, who has been serving the role in an acting capacity since July 2021.

Elnahal’s nomination had been in limbo since May after Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) blocked an attempt to fast-track his confirmation, which was led by Sen. John Tester (D-MT) who chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Scott, who had no specific objection to Elnahal, argued that President Joseph Biden’s nominees haven’t been qualified. The debate turned acrimonious, with Tester accusing Scott of “turning his back on America’s veterans.” He called Scott’s objection as “obstruction at the worst, because this stops our veterans from getting the health care that they need.”

Tester urged his colleagues to support Elnahal’s confirmation, stressing the importance of filling the position. “Dr. Shereef Elnahal has an impressive record of leading health care systems and agencies and has shown a strong commitment to serving millions of veterans and hardworking employees at VA. Now more than ever,” Tester said, “the Department needs permanent, qualified leadership to guide the nation’s largest integrated health care system in the right direction.”

In a statement, Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL), ranking member of the US House of Representatives Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, agreed, saying, “Dr. Elnahal’s position is a vitally important one, particularly as the VA health care system prepares to care for millions more toxic-exposed veterans under the PACT [Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics] Act and the new electronic health record rollout continues to disappoint. Dr. Elnahal has his work cut out for him, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that veterans get the health care they have earned when they need it and where they want it, without having to wait too long or travel too far.”

Elnahal is in fact considered well qualified for the job. He was New Jersey’s 21st health commissioner, confirmed unanimously by the New Jersey Senate. During his nearly 2 years in that position, he led with what has become a signature move for him—increasing transparent access to information—by expanding the New Jersey Health Information Network, an interoperability platform that allows for electronic exchange of patient health information among health care providers.

Most recently, as president and CEO of University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey, he oversaw improvements in care quality and patient safety. He also established a partnership to provide supportive housing to patients experiencing homelessness, a hospital-based violence intervention program that has served as a national model, and a program that deploys trusted chaplains as community health workers. Notably, he led the hospital through the COVID-19 crisis; the hospital has served as a model for urban hospital and regional response efforts. Elnahal also set up one of the first COVID-19 vaccination sites in New Jersey.

Moreover, he’s not actually a newcomer to the VA. He served as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Quality, Safety, and Value from 2016 through 2018, where he oversaw national policies around quality of care for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

During that earlier tenure, he was at the forefront of making VA care more transparent and responsive. Among other things, he cofounded the VHA Innovation Ecosystem, a program that fosters the spread of innovation and best practices. On his watch the VA also launched accesstocare.gov, which provides public access to performance, wait time, and other data. The rationale, Elnahal said in a 2018 interview with Federal Practitioner, was simple: “If we provide veterans with an easy-to-use tool that lets them see data on wait times and quality, they’ll be able to make informed decisions about where and when they receive their health care.” The site allows users to compare quality of care provided by VA medical centers with that of local private hospitals. For instance, they can see if a local VA facility’s wait time is better, worse, or the same as the regional average of private sector clinics.

In his drive to harness smart, sustainable ideas for improving veteran care, Elnahal also helmed the VA Diffusion of Excellence (VADOE) program, whose Shark Tank Competition gives a platform to employees “passionate about solving some of the toughest challenges across VHA.” The innovative winners have included VIONE, a medication deprescribing program, and the β-Lactam Allergy Assessment, an initiative to clarify which patients are truly allergic to BL antibiotics, reduce the incidence of multidrug-resistant infections, and reduce hospital length of stay. Both programs are being replicated across multiple facilities.

“We really empower and recognize the frontline employees who not only contribute the best practices but who replicate them,” Elnahal told Federal Practitioner in 2016. “Essentially, we give them a systemwide leadership role… This is part of many different initiatives that are trying to recognize and elevate the great work that physicians do and really improve their morale and reduce burnout.”

As Rep. Bost suggested, Elnahal now has even more work cut out for him. At this new starting gate, Elnahal says a top priority is improving recruiting and retention for clinical care positions. “The sacred healthcare mission of VA simply cannot be fulfilled without having people to do it, talented healthcare professionals who put the mission above all else.”

In a LinkedIn post, Elnahal thanked President Biden and VA Secretary McDonough for their confidence in him, and the US Senate for confirming him in a bipartisan vote. But “[m]ost of all,” he said, “my gratitude goes to Veterans, families, caregivers, and survivors…. Beyond thrilled and eager to get to work for them in a health system with more than 300,000 heroes. Onward to an incredible journey!”

Thousands of military veterans who are sick after being exposed to toxic smoke and dust while on duty are facing a Senate roadblock to ambitious legislation designed to provide them care.

The Senate could start work as soon as this week on a bipartisan bill, called the Honoring Our PACT Act, that passed the House of Representatives in March. It would make it much easier for veterans to get health care and benefits from the Veterans Health Administration if they get sick because of the air they breathed around massive, open-air incineration pits. The military used those pits in war zones around the globe — sometimes the size of football fields — to burn anything from human and medical waste to plastics and munitions, setting it alight with jet fuel.

As it stands now, more than three-quarters of all veterans who submit claims for cancer, breathing disorders, and other illnesses that they believe are caused by inhaling poisonous burn pit smoke have their claims denied, according to estimates from the Department of Veterans Affairs and service organizations.

The reason so few are approved is that the military and VA require injured war fighters to prove an illness is directly connected to their service — something that is extremely difficult when it comes to toxic exposures. The House’s PACT Act would make that easier by declaring that any of the 3.5 million veterans who served in the global war on terror — including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf — would be presumed eligible for benefits if they come down with any of 23 ailments linked to the burn pits.

Although 34 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill in the House, only one Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has signaled support for the measure. At least 10 GOP members would have to join all Democrats to avoid the threat of a filibuster in the Senate and allow the bill to advance to President Joe Biden’s desk. Biden called on Congress to pass such legislation in his State of the Union address, citing the death of his son Beau Biden, who served in Iraq in 2008 and died in 2015 of glioblastoma, a brain cancer included on the bill’s list of qualifying conditions.

Senate Republicans are raising concerns about the measure, however, suggesting it won’t be paid for, that it is too big, too ambitious, and could end up promising more than the government can deliver.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would cost more than $300 billion over 10 years, and the VA already has struggled for years to meet surging demand from troops serving deployments since the 2001 terror attacks on America, with a backlog of delayed claims running into the hundreds of thousands. Besides addressing burn pits, the bill would expand benefits for veterans who served at certain nuclear sites, and cover more conditions related to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam, among several other issues.

While the bill phases in coverage for new groups of beneficiaries over 10 years, some Republicans involved in writing legislation about burn pits fear it is all too much.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, summed up the concern as stemming from promising lots of assistance “that might look really good,” but the bottom line is that those “who really need the care would never get into a VA facility.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another member of the panel, agreed. “What we’re concerned with is that you’ve got a backlog of 222,000 cases now, and if you implement, by legislative fiat, the 23 presumptions, we’re gonna go to a million and a half to two and a half million backlog,” he said. Tillis has advanced his own burn pits bill that would leave it to the military and VA to determine which illnesses automatically were presumed to be service-connected. That tally is likely to cover fewer people. “So the question we have is, while making a new promise, are we going to be breaking a promise for all those veterans that need care today?”

Republicans have insisted they want to do something to help veterans who are increasingly getting sick with illnesses that appear related to toxic exposure. About 300,000 veterans have signed up with the VA’s burn pits registry.

Sen. Jerry Moran from Kansas, the top Republican on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, held a press conference in February with Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the committee chairman, advocating a more gradual process to expand access to benefits and define the illnesses that would qualify.

The event was designed to show what would easily gain bipartisan support in the Senate while the House was still working on its bill.

Veterans’ service organizations, which try to avoid taking partisan positions, have praised such efforts. But they’ve also made clear they like the House bill. More than 40 of the groups endorsed the PACT Act before it passed the lower chamber.

Aleks Morosky, a governmental affairs specialist for the Wounded Warrior Project, plans to meet with senators this month in hope of advancing the PACT Act.

“This is an urgent issue. I mean, people are dying,” Morosky said.

He added that he believes some minor changes and input from the VA would eliminate the sorts of problems senators are raising.

“This bill was meticulously put together, and these are the provisions that veterans need,” Morosky said. “The VA is telling us that they can implement it the way they’ve implemented large numbers of people coming into the system in the past.”

He pointed to the recent expansion of Agent Orange benefits to Navy veterans and to VA Secretary Denis McDonough’s testimony to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs committee in March. McDonough largely supported the legislation but said the VA would need new leasing authority to ensure it had adequate facilities, as well as more say over adding illnesses to be covered.

Senate Republicans are not so sure about the VA’s ability to absorb such a large group of new patients. Tillis and Rounds suggested one solution would be to greatly expand the access to care veterans can seek outside the VA. They pointed to the Mission Act, a law passed in 2018 that was meant to grant veterans access to private health care. Some critics say it has not lived up to its promise. It’s also been expensive, requiring emergency appropriations from Congress.

“You better think about having community care — because there’s no way you’re going to be able to ramp up the medical infrastructure to provide that purely through the VA,” Tillis said.

Tester said in a statement that the committee was working on McDonough’s requests — and could have a modified bill for a vote before Memorial Day.

“In addition to delivering historic reform for all generations of toxic-exposed veterans, I’m working to ensure this legislation provides VA with additional resources and authorities to hire more staff, establish new facilities, and make critical investments to better ensure it can meet the current and future needs of our nation’s veterans,” Tester said.

Whether or not those changes satisfy enough Republicans remains to be seen.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and earlier wrote a burn pits bill, said neither cost nor fears about problems on implementation should get in the way of passing the bill. Her proposal was incorporated into the House’s PACT Act.

“To deny service because of a lack of resources or a lack of personnel is an outrageous statement,” Gillibrand said. “We promised these men and women when they went to war that when they came back, we would protect them. And that is our solemn obligation. And if it needs more resources, we will get them more resources.”

She predicted Republicans would come along to help pass a bill.

“I’m optimistic, actually. I think we just need a little more time to talk to more Republicans to get everybody on board,” she said.

Thousands of military veterans who are sick after being exposed to toxic smoke and dust while on duty are facing a Senate roadblock to ambitious legislation designed to provide them care.

The Senate could start work as soon as this week on a bipartisan bill, called the Honoring Our PACT Act, that passed the House of Representatives in March. It would make it much easier for veterans to get health care and benefits from the Veterans Health Administration if they get sick because of the air they breathed around massive, open-air incineration pits. The military used those pits in war zones around the globe — sometimes the size of football fields — to burn anything from human and medical waste to plastics and munitions, setting it alight with jet fuel.

As it stands now, more than three-quarters of all veterans who submit claims for cancer, breathing disorders, and other illnesses that they believe are caused by inhaling poisonous burn pit smoke have their claims denied, according to estimates from the Department of Veterans Affairs and service organizations.

The reason so few are approved is that the military and VA require injured war fighters to prove an illness is directly connected to their service — something that is extremely difficult when it comes to toxic exposures. The House’s PACT Act would make that easier by declaring that any of the 3.5 million veterans who served in the global war on terror — including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf — would be presumed eligible for benefits if they come down with any of 23 ailments linked to the burn pits.

Although 34 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill in the House, only one Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has signaled support for the measure. At least 10 GOP members would have to join all Democrats to avoid the threat of a filibuster in the Senate and allow the bill to advance to President Joe Biden’s desk. Biden called on Congress to pass such legislation in his State of the Union address, citing the death of his son Beau Biden, who served in Iraq in 2008 and died in 2015 of glioblastoma, a brain cancer included on the bill’s list of qualifying conditions.

Senate Republicans are raising concerns about the measure, however, suggesting it won’t be paid for, that it is too big, too ambitious, and could end up promising more than the government can deliver.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would cost more than $300 billion over 10 years, and the VA already has struggled for years to meet surging demand from troops serving deployments since the 2001 terror attacks on America, with a backlog of delayed claims running into the hundreds of thousands. Besides addressing burn pits, the bill would expand benefits for veterans who served at certain nuclear sites, and cover more conditions related to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam, among several other issues.

While the bill phases in coverage for new groups of beneficiaries over 10 years, some Republicans involved in writing legislation about burn pits fear it is all too much.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, summed up the concern as stemming from promising lots of assistance “that might look really good,” but the bottom line is that those “who really need the care would never get into a VA facility.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another member of the panel, agreed. “What we’re concerned with is that you’ve got a backlog of 222,000 cases now, and if you implement, by legislative fiat, the 23 presumptions, we’re gonna go to a million and a half to two and a half million backlog,” he said. Tillis has advanced his own burn pits bill that would leave it to the military and VA to determine which illnesses automatically were presumed to be service-connected. That tally is likely to cover fewer people. “So the question we have is, while making a new promise, are we going to be breaking a promise for all those veterans that need care today?”

Republicans have insisted they want to do something to help veterans who are increasingly getting sick with illnesses that appear related to toxic exposure. About 300,000 veterans have signed up with the VA’s burn pits registry.

Sen. Jerry Moran from Kansas, the top Republican on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, held a press conference in February with Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the committee chairman, advocating a more gradual process to expand access to benefits and define the illnesses that would qualify.

The event was designed to show what would easily gain bipartisan support in the Senate while the House was still working on its bill.

Veterans’ service organizations, which try to avoid taking partisan positions, have praised such efforts. But they’ve also made clear they like the House bill. More than 40 of the groups endorsed the PACT Act before it passed the lower chamber.

Aleks Morosky, a governmental affairs specialist for the Wounded Warrior Project, plans to meet with senators this month in hope of advancing the PACT Act.

“This is an urgent issue. I mean, people are dying,” Morosky said.

He added that he believes some minor changes and input from the VA would eliminate the sorts of problems senators are raising.

“This bill was meticulously put together, and these are the provisions that veterans need,” Morosky said. “The VA is telling us that they can implement it the way they’ve implemented large numbers of people coming into the system in the past.”

He pointed to the recent expansion of Agent Orange benefits to Navy veterans and to VA Secretary Denis McDonough’s testimony to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs committee in March. McDonough largely supported the legislation but said the VA would need new leasing authority to ensure it had adequate facilities, as well as more say over adding illnesses to be covered.

Senate Republicans are not so sure about the VA’s ability to absorb such a large group of new patients. Tillis and Rounds suggested one solution would be to greatly expand the access to care veterans can seek outside the VA. They pointed to the Mission Act, a law passed in 2018 that was meant to grant veterans access to private health care. Some critics say it has not lived up to its promise. It’s also been expensive, requiring emergency appropriations from Congress.

“You better think about having community care — because there’s no way you’re going to be able to ramp up the medical infrastructure to provide that purely through the VA,” Tillis said.

Tester said in a statement that the committee was working on McDonough’s requests — and could have a modified bill for a vote before Memorial Day.

“In addition to delivering historic reform for all generations of toxic-exposed veterans, I’m working to ensure this legislation provides VA with additional resources and authorities to hire more staff, establish new facilities, and make critical investments to better ensure it can meet the current and future needs of our nation’s veterans,” Tester said.

Whether or not those changes satisfy enough Republicans remains to be seen.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and earlier wrote a burn pits bill, said neither cost nor fears about problems on implementation should get in the way of passing the bill. Her proposal was incorporated into the House’s PACT Act.

“To deny service because of a lack of resources or a lack of personnel is an outrageous statement,” Gillibrand said. “We promised these men and women when they went to war that when they came back, we would protect them. And that is our solemn obligation. And if it needs more resources, we will get them more resources.”

She predicted Republicans would come along to help pass a bill.

“I’m optimistic, actually. I think we just need a little more time to talk to more Republicans to get everybody on board,” she said.

Thousands of military veterans who are sick after being exposed to toxic smoke and dust while on duty are facing a Senate roadblock to ambitious legislation designed to provide them care.

The Senate could start work as soon as this week on a bipartisan bill, called the Honoring Our PACT Act, that passed the House of Representatives in March. It would make it much easier for veterans to get health care and benefits from the Veterans Health Administration if they get sick because of the air they breathed around massive, open-air incineration pits. The military used those pits in war zones around the globe — sometimes the size of football fields — to burn anything from human and medical waste to plastics and munitions, setting it alight with jet fuel.

As it stands now, more than three-quarters of all veterans who submit claims for cancer, breathing disorders, and other illnesses that they believe are caused by inhaling poisonous burn pit smoke have their claims denied, according to estimates from the Department of Veterans Affairs and service organizations.

The reason so few are approved is that the military and VA require injured war fighters to prove an illness is directly connected to their service — something that is extremely difficult when it comes to toxic exposures. The House’s PACT Act would make that easier by declaring that any of the 3.5 million veterans who served in the global war on terror — including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Persian Gulf — would be presumed eligible for benefits if they come down with any of 23 ailments linked to the burn pits.

Although 34 Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill in the House, only one Republican, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has signaled support for the measure. At least 10 GOP members would have to join all Democrats to avoid the threat of a filibuster in the Senate and allow the bill to advance to President Joe Biden’s desk. Biden called on Congress to pass such legislation in his State of the Union address, citing the death of his son Beau Biden, who served in Iraq in 2008 and died in 2015 of glioblastoma, a brain cancer included on the bill’s list of qualifying conditions.

Senate Republicans are raising concerns about the measure, however, suggesting it won’t be paid for, that it is too big, too ambitious, and could end up promising more than the government can deliver.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would cost more than $300 billion over 10 years, and the VA already has struggled for years to meet surging demand from troops serving deployments since the 2001 terror attacks on America, with a backlog of delayed claims running into the hundreds of thousands. Besides addressing burn pits, the bill would expand benefits for veterans who served at certain nuclear sites, and cover more conditions related to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam, among several other issues.

While the bill phases in coverage for new groups of beneficiaries over 10 years, some Republicans involved in writing legislation about burn pits fear it is all too much.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, summed up the concern as stemming from promising lots of assistance “that might look really good,” but the bottom line is that those “who really need the care would never get into a VA facility.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another member of the panel, agreed. “What we’re concerned with is that you’ve got a backlog of 222,000 cases now, and if you implement, by legislative fiat, the 23 presumptions, we’re gonna go to a million and a half to two and a half million backlog,” he said. Tillis has advanced his own burn pits bill that would leave it to the military and VA to determine which illnesses automatically were presumed to be service-connected. That tally is likely to cover fewer people. “So the question we have is, while making a new promise, are we going to be breaking a promise for all those veterans that need care today?”

Republicans have insisted they want to do something to help veterans who are increasingly getting sick with illnesses that appear related to toxic exposure. About 300,000 veterans have signed up with the VA’s burn pits registry.

Sen. Jerry Moran from Kansas, the top Republican on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, held a press conference in February with Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), the committee chairman, advocating a more gradual process to expand access to benefits and define the illnesses that would qualify.

The event was designed to show what would easily gain bipartisan support in the Senate while the House was still working on its bill.

Veterans’ service organizations, which try to avoid taking partisan positions, have praised such efforts. But they’ve also made clear they like the House bill. More than 40 of the groups endorsed the PACT Act before it passed the lower chamber.

Aleks Morosky, a governmental affairs specialist for the Wounded Warrior Project, plans to meet with senators this month in hope of advancing the PACT Act.

“This is an urgent issue. I mean, people are dying,” Morosky said.

He added that he believes some minor changes and input from the VA would eliminate the sorts of problems senators are raising.

“This bill was meticulously put together, and these are the provisions that veterans need,” Morosky said. “The VA is telling us that they can implement it the way they’ve implemented large numbers of people coming into the system in the past.”

He pointed to the recent expansion of Agent Orange benefits to Navy veterans and to VA Secretary Denis McDonough’s testimony to the Senate Veterans’ Affairs committee in March. McDonough largely supported the legislation but said the VA would need new leasing authority to ensure it had adequate facilities, as well as more say over adding illnesses to be covered.

Senate Republicans are not so sure about the VA’s ability to absorb such a large group of new patients. Tillis and Rounds suggested one solution would be to greatly expand the access to care veterans can seek outside the VA. They pointed to the Mission Act, a law passed in 2018 that was meant to grant veterans access to private health care. Some critics say it has not lived up to its promise. It’s also been expensive, requiring emergency appropriations from Congress.

“You better think about having community care — because there’s no way you’re going to be able to ramp up the medical infrastructure to provide that purely through the VA,” Tillis said.

Tester said in a statement that the committee was working on McDonough’s requests — and could have a modified bill for a vote before Memorial Day.

“In addition to delivering historic reform for all generations of toxic-exposed veterans, I’m working to ensure this legislation provides VA with additional resources and authorities to hire more staff, establish new facilities, and make critical investments to better ensure it can meet the current and future needs of our nation’s veterans,” Tester said.

Whether or not those changes satisfy enough Republicans remains to be seen.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and earlier wrote a burn pits bill, said neither cost nor fears about problems on implementation should get in the way of passing the bill. Her proposal was incorporated into the House’s PACT Act.

“To deny service because of a lack of resources or a lack of personnel is an outrageous statement,” Gillibrand said. “We promised these men and women when they went to war that when they came back, we would protect them. And that is our solemn obligation. And if it needs more resources, we will get them more resources.”

She predicted Republicans would come along to help pass a bill.

“I’m optimistic, actually. I think we just need a little more time to talk to more Republicans to get everybody on board,” she said.