Andrew B. Einhorn
December 7, 2007 2:20 PM

VA has the best health care system in the country

Disabled female veteran
November 11, 2008 4:12 PM

Yeah right!! Get real! That only applies if you're a male veteran. Female veterans are often used as human guinea pigs for 1st year intern surgery projects. It's barbaric and inhumane!!! I say this from over 20 years experience. These days the walking wounded walk away and stay away to survive!

William H, Heino Sr.
November 15, 2008 12:30 PM

VA prescriptions are dispensed in supplies of 90 days. However, for those unfamiliar with my claim, to explain these over-charges by the VA in violation of 38 USC 1722A, this example will be at it's simplest and most understandable throughout my explanation, . Let's say that you are at the VA, standing in line getting your prescription. The vet in front of you is getting the exact same prescription. She picks up her 30 day supply of 30 pills. Her copay for a 30 day supply of 30 pills is $8. You also are dispensed an $8 supply of 30 pills of the same exact prescription. Being that your condition is not as severe, your prescription requires you to split this 30 pill $8 supply. After you sit down at your kitchen table and split your 30 pill supply, now you have 60 split pills, a 2 month supply. But hold on! Except your co-payment cost for this 30 pill, $8 supply, now that it has been split, has increased. It now carries a co-payment of $16. This explains how veterans' has been overcharged by the VA since 2002. Shafted by the Board of Veterans Appeals in their phony denial. Do you see anything wrong? You should! Counsel Taylor of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals references remarks from the July 16, 2001 Federal Register. “Also, as we stated in the proposal, under 38 U.S.C. 1722A, VA may not require a veteran to pay an amount in excess of the actual cost of the medication and the pharmacy administrative costs related to the dispensing of the medication. Counsel Taylor, citing, "1722A clearly pertains to VA's cost in dispensing". Dispensing! Where there is no difference in the prescription, supply amount, handling, or dispensing time, a 30 pill supply is dispensed, with a $16 co-payment. Interestingly, in the same exact manner as all 30-day, 30 pill $8 supplies are dispensed, as explained in the Federal Register! No splitting of pills was involved in the dispensing procedure. However, of an exact same $8 dispensed supply, automatically these 'standard' 30-day $8 co-payment whole pill supplies are increased 100% (2 month split pill supply). Their is no difference! No difference in dispensing two supplies that are exactly alike in prescription and supply, or to the cost related to dispensing! However, counsel Taylor is emphatic in making the point, conclusive, that it clearly pertains to the cost in dispensing? Or is it the ISSUE, the " 30-day or less supply"? For some unknown reason, which counsel Taylor did not elaborate on, a second exact duplicate supply increases, double the co-pay cost? Although, counsel Taylor may have tried, but failed. “38 USC 1722A; (a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary shall require a veteran to pay the United States $8 for each 30-day supply of medication furnished such veteran under this chapter on an outpatient basis for the treatment of a non-service-connected disability or condition. If the amount supplied is less than a 30-day supply, the amount of the charge may not be reduced.” Which then also means, if the amount is not less than 30-day supplies, as described in paragraph (1) the Secretary may not require a veteran to pay an amount in excess of the cost for medication provided to a veteran as described in paragraph (2). = Citing my argument, BVA’s counsel Taylor, quotes inaccurately. An intentional selection and placing of the word, “of” in order to confuse, and again, to mislead. 38 USC 1722A “Copayment for medications. Paragraph (2) The Secretary may not require a veteran to pay an amount in excess of the cost of the Secretary for medication as described in paragraph (1).” = The correct reading is, “(2) The Secretary may not require a veteran to pay an amount in excess of the cost to the Secretary for medication described in paragraph (1).” = "The appellant has not cited to, and the Board is unable to find any authority allowing for a deviation from the standard copayment." The Board is right! I too, am unable to find that authority. Counsel Taylor in an effort in re-enforcing the Board's position cites “(b) The Secretary, pursuant to regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe may-...(1) increase the co-payment amount in effect under subsection (a);..” Pursuant to regulations? Means according to the law! To regulations as written. Where is this regulation mentioned in the Code of Federal Regulations, this "standard" co-payment you talk about, for $16 split pill supplies? Where, counsel Taylor, does it mention increased co-payment cost for one of two (2) exact duplicate 30-day prescription supplies? Other than my example, where is it mentioned 15 pills is less than 30-day supply? "The Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish administrative regulations in the Federal register before they can be legally effective." Where? Due to the BVA losing the original claim, a rebuild file was sent to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims. Because they refused to look at a rebuilt file, it was sent back on remand to the Board of veterans’ Appeals. This process took over well over a year just to return the file. A practice of deny, lose, stall, delay, until mission accomplished.

Kurt Priessman
December 8, 2008 11:25 AM

I would like to ask a very pertinent question of VA administrators, doctors, and patients. If administrators deny significant diagnostic testing due to budgets, philosophy, or whatever lame excuse can be thought of; and therefore physicians cannot diagnose with any degree of certainty the patients ailment, condition, or disability, and therefore patients lack sufficient medical information to submit for disability compensation, or treatment, how is it that anyone thinks this is the best health care in the world? Is failure to refer for diagnostic testing or treatment, even in life and death situations, both for in-house and contracted referrals morally and ethically right? Does anyone think that in a government system where under tort and the Feres Doctrine, an individual responsible for the deaths of possibly hundreds of veterans, cannot be held liable or criminally culpable a good health care system? If you do, then I suggest that we change the laws and find out if that is the concensus of veterans.