[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ASSESSING WHETHER VA IS ON TRACK TO SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENT APPEALS
REFORM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2018
Q10_______
Serial No. 115-72
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-810 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- TIM WALZ, Minnesota, Ranking
Chairman Member
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado MARK TAKANO, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
Samoa BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
MIKE BOST, Illinois KATHLEEN RICE, New York
BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine J. LUIS CORREA, California
NEAL DUNN, Florida CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana SCOTT PETERS, California
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
JIM BANKS, Indiana
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
Rico
BRIAN MAST, Florida
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, June 24, 2018
Page
Assessing Whether VA Is On Track To Successfully Implement
Appeals Reform................................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable David P. Roe, Chairman................................. 1
Honorable Mark Takano, Acting Ranking Member..................... 3
WITNESSES
Honorable Paul R. Lawrence, Under Secretary for Benefits,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U. S. Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 31
Accompanied by:
Honorable Cheryl L. Mason, Chairman, Board of Veterans'
Appeals, U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. David R. McLenachen, Director, Appeals Management Office,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U. S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Richard J. Hipolit, Deputy General Counsel for Legal
Policy, Office of General Counsel, U. S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Lloyd Thrower, Deputy Chief Information Officer, Account
Manager, Benefits Portfolio, Office of Information &
Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Ms. Elizabeth H. Curda, Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office.... 7
Prepared Statement........................................... 33
Accompanied by:
Mr. James T. Whitcomb, Assistant Director, Education,
Workforce, and Income Security Team, U.S. Government
Accountability Office
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES.................... 42
ASSESSING WHETHER VA IS ON TRACK TO SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENT APPEALS
REFORM
----------
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. David R. Roe
presiding.
Present: Representatives Roe, Bilirakis, Coffman, Flores,
Radewagen, Bost, Poliquin, Dunn, Bergman, Banks, Mast, Takano,
Brownley, Kuster, O'Rourke, Correa, Lamb, Esty, and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DAVID P. ROE, CHAIRMAN
The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order and thank you all for being here today. This is the
second hearing on appeals reform in the last 6 months, which
underscores the importance of this issue to the Committee.
After hearing horror stories of veterans who had been
waiting 5, 6, 7 years, even longer for a final decision on
their claims, the Veterans Appeals Improvement Modernization
Act of 2017, the AMA gave veterans hope that a modern appeals
system could improve appeals processing.
Congress worked on appeals; it did not end with the passage
of the law. We will hold as many hearings as we need to ensure
the VA effectively implements the law.
VA is telling us that the law will go into effect February
of 2019, less than 7 months from now, but between now and
February VA has a lot of work to do. The Department has to
update its IT system, issue regulations, create forms, train
employees, allocate staff appropriately, to help us monitor
VA's progress on appeals reform. The AMA requires the
Department submit reports every 90 days.
I was very disappointed that the first report, which was
submitted last November, lacked many details, because it seemed
that the VA had not yet focused on all the steps it needed to
take to implement the AMA. However, the next two reports, which
were submitted in February and May, were better and contained
much-needed details. This showed me that VA is beginning to
think through all the steps that it will need to effectively
overhaul the current appeals process, including its IT systems,
which is one of the most important components of the new
appeals system. Needless to say, appeals reform can't go into
effect unless the Department's computer programs are able to
manage appeals and the new system.
During the January hearing, Mr. McLenachen testified that
about 75 percent of the IT functionality would be delivered by
August. Last Thursday, VA informed my staff that only 35
percent of the core functions will actually be completed by
next month with remaining core functions delivered in December.
VA has assured my staff that executing this plan remains a
first priority of VBA and OI&T Technology Resources.
During the July 18th Economic Opportunity Subcommittee
hearing, VA testified that OI&T is working 24/7 on updating the
IT systems for the Forever GI Bill. I would appreciate some
clarification on how OI&T intends to balance both of these top
priorities to ensure that both are timely accomplished.
I am concerned about whether the appeals software will be
ready in time and whether VA will have a contingency plan if it
is not ready.
I also expect to get an update on the status of the new
regulations that VA will need to begin handling appeals in the
new system. Publishing new Federal regulations is a long
process that can sometimes take years. My understanding is that
the regulations are supposed to be published this morning.
Frankly, the Department has its work cut out to finalize
regulations and be completely ready for the new system by
February of 2019.
It is also important that VA understand that this Committee
not only expects the Department to successfully roll out the
new appeals system, but to also reduce the current appeals
backlog. Right now, VA has a backlog of almost 430,000 pending
appeals with many veterans waiting 6 years or longer just for a
final decision on their claims for benefits. That is
unacceptable. Veterans have a right to get a correct decision
on their claims in the first place, but if they disagree with
the decision, they should have their appeals decided accurately
and within a reasonable amount of time.
VA had hoped that the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program,
or RAMP, which allows veterans who have pending appeals to
transfer to the new system, would significantly reduce the
number of legacy appeals. However, it doesn't look like RAMP
will make much of a dent in the appeals backlog since only 13
percent of eligible veterans have chosen to transfer to RAMP.
And I will say that I have been out and talked to some
benefits folks and the RAMP program seems to work; it is
convincing. And when I was out speaking to the DAV National
Convention, I encouraged them to use RAMP, because I said this
is something that it is a resource I don't think you are using
right now and you can get an appeals claim adjudicated much
quicker, and I have heard that from several of our claims
people out there. So, I would encourage all of us on this dais
to inform and educate our own constituents about the use of
RAMP.
One of my biggest concerns is how VA will resolve the
appeals backlog while putting the new law into practice with
the current leadership vacuum, and that vacuum just got solved
last night. Just last night, the Senate confirmed Secretary
Wilkie's nomination, and right now the Department still does
not have a permanent Deputy Secretary or Chief Information
Officer. Although I trust that the people at this table are
doing the best they can right now, there is no one single
person who has the responsibility for overseeing appeals reform
both at VBA and the Board. VA needs to ensure that both VBA and
the Board are talking to each other, particularly with respect
to developing integrated IT systems that will allow employees
to better communicate with each other.
I am looking forward to an open and productive discussion,
to ensure that when the law is fully implemented the VA will
have developed a process that provides veterans with accurate
and timely decisions on their claims that they deserve.
Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here
today, and I now yield to Ranking Member Takano for any opening
statement that he might have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK TAKANO, ACTING RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, we congratulate Secretary Designate Wilkie on
his confirmation by the Senate yesterday and we look forward to
working together with him in the future.
I will get to the details of appeals modernization in a
moment, but it is no secret that several actions taken by top
VA leadership recently are troubling to our side of the aisle.
I do not think we can get together as a Full Committee and
pretend that these controversies don't impact important
progress and key programs throughout the agency, including the
implementation of the Appeals Improvement and Modernization
Act.
First, the Senate actually had to intervene in late June to
ensure the right of VA's IG to obtain records as part of an
ongoing investigation. Acting Secretary O'Rourke refused to
cooperate with the requests for information of the VA Inspector
General. Because Mr. O'Rourke's failure to cooperate is
unprecedented, several of us sent a letter to the Counsel of
the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, which
provides oversight of Federal IGs. If he or the new Secretary
are allowed to ignore the IG's request for information in the
future, an important check will be lost on the kinds of waste
and impropriety this Committee has been trying to locate and
eliminate.
The vote was 96-to-zero in the Senate to rein in Acting
Secretary O'Rourke. This vote shouldn't have been necessary,
and it is a distraction from the work the VA should be doing.
Furthermore, when I asked him about it in our Full
Committee hearing last Tuesday, Mr. O'Rourke's answer was that
the IG's, quote, ``access to OAWP has been unfettered since day
one,'' end quote. This was untrue.
Secondly, recently several key career employees were moved
to less important positions or pushed out, many seemingly
without cause. After highly credible concerns were raised in
whistleblower reports and press interviews with VA employees,
several of us sent a letter to the U.S. Office of Special
Counsel asking for an investigation into whether this career
public servants were moved out for cause or for political
reasons, actions which could violate the Hatch Act or other
Title 5 protections. This is yet another distraction from what
VA should be doing.
There has been considerable shuffling of leadership staff
at VBA too. We have just welcomed a new Under Secretary for
Benefits, Dr. Paul Lawrence, for whom we wish nothing but
success. But two key VBA vacancies remain unfilled, Deputy
Under Secretary for Disability Assistance and Deputy Under
Secretary for Economic Opportunity.
Now, though we are grateful for the experience and
continued dedication to duty of Chair Mason at the Board, Mr.
Thrower in the Office of Information & Technology, and Mr.
McLenachen, Ms. Murphy, Mr. Quill and others at VBA, if appeals
modernization is going to be implemented on time in 7 short
months, VBA management must stabilize. Vacant positions must be
filled and the controversies and distractions of all this
shuffling must end.
The Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act signed into
law on August 23rd of last year was a triumph of
bipartisanship. There was and is nothing Republican or
Democratic about what we were able to accomplish together.
And I want to take a moment to acknowledge Congresswoman
Dina Titus of Nevada for her extraordinary skill and her effort
at bringing the stakeholders together.
The VSOs invested a lot of time in the idea that if they
put aside some long-held differences, and worked in concert
with the other and the VA, a better way forward could be
devised. This was an unprecedented coming together of our
Veterans Service Organizations and we thank them for that.
The result of all this effort was the Appeals Improvement
and Modernization Act and, after 11 months, we are now at a key
point in the implementation process. The long-awaited
regulations will be published this week. What these regulations
say and whether the IT necessary to make all this work can be
delivered on time are where we should be--these are what we
should be concentrating our efforts on, these regulations and
the IT.
GAO will testify that there are still gaps in key areas.
The report says that VA's plan for a performance measurement
system lacks specificity. The timeline does not reflect the
interdependencies among key activities. And, finally, VA has
not done the risk assessments basic to any change-management
strategy. Nonetheless, there is progress and hope for a
successful rollout of full implementation in February.
The pilot programs are in place, claims processors and
attorneys have been hired, impressive IT has been delivered and
is working at the Board. Having said that, if another
leadership upheaval sweeps through and the experienced hands
like those here today are replaced or reassigned, Appeals
Improvement and Modernization could be jeopardized.
Now, we are very, very proud of this Act and we don't want
unnecessary distractions to get into the way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
really appreciate him mentioning our agenda a better way in his
comments, that was good.
Joining us today are the Honorable Paul Lawrence, the Under
Secretary of Benefits. He is accompanied by the Honorable
Cheryl Mason, the Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
Thank you for being back. David McLenachen, the Director of
Appeals Management Office at the Veterans Benefits
Administration; Richard Hipolit, the Deputy General Counsel for
Legal Police with the General Counsel's Office; and by Mr.
Lloyd Thrower, the Deputy Chief Information Officer, Account
Manager, and Benefits Portfolio of the Office of Information &
Technology.
Elizabeth Curda, the Director of Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Team for GAO. She is accompanied by James T.
Whitcomb, the Assistant Director of the Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Team at GAO.
Thank all of you all for being here this morning and, Mr.
Under Secretary Lawrence, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE PAUL R. LAWRENCE
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Roe,
Ranking Member Takano, and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting us to provide an update on VA's progress
implementing the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization
Act.
You just introduced my team to the left, and so I will save
your time and not do that again.
We agree, this legislation is the most significant
statutory change affecting VA appeals in decades. We want to
thank the Committee again for their support and legislative
efforts, which will allow VA to transform and streamline a
longstanding process into one that will positively impact
veterans.
I am pleased to report that Appeals Modernization remains
on track for implementation in February 2019. My confidence is
based on my work with the team since I was sworn in. I have
regularly met to review our team, the schedule, and our
progress, and I can tell you that we have a strong team in
place with a well-thought-out plan for implementation and
beyond.
In addition to the weekly meetings I convene with our VBA
team, I meet twice monthly with Chairman Mason to review this
work. Prior to my confirmation, the Deputy Secretary met
regularly with Chairman Mason and the AMO team to review
progress. Lastly, we meet with GAO and Congress regularly to
report on our progress. We have been transparent and plan to
continue having these open discussions. We all want to avoid
surprises with the implementation date.
The Rapid Appeals Modernization Program, or RAMP, is a
significant achievement. As of July 2018, over 31,000 veterans
had opted into RAMP and more than $33 million in retroactive
benefits have been paid. VA is also processing RAMP claims in
an average of 84 days, well below the average processing goal
of 125 days. RAMP is providing valuable insights into staff
composition, workload management, successful methods of
outreach, and identification of quality errors.
The Board's Early Applicability of Appeals Modernization,
or BEAAM, research program is providing feedback to inform
assumptions about veterans' choices and experiences. While the
results of BEAAM are still being reviewed, veterans report they
are optimistic about the changes and appreciate VA for working
with them.
VA submitted the proposed rules for Appeals Modernization
to the Federal Register on July 18th. We are waiting for them
to publish as soon as they complete their own review.
VBA's appeals program is supported by 1,495 FTEs. VBA has
requested an additional 605 FTE in the 2019 President's budget
to process legacy appeals and decision reviews under the
modernized process. To create further efficiencies and ensure
it meets its stated goals, VBA is establishing three decision-
review operations centers under the direct control and
oversight of VBA's Appeals Management Office.
To ensure smooth implementation, the Board is also
undertaking an aggressive plan to recruit, hire, and train new
employees. The Board is currently on pace to hire up to a total
of approximately 1,050 FTEs by the end of the year. Chairman
Mason has also recently recommended eight Veterans Law Judge
candidates to fill vacancies.
We have been focusing on resolving legacy appeals for
veterans. At the end of June, VBA's inventory had decreased by
almost 13 percent and appeals production was 8.7 percent above
target. VBA plans to complete its legacy appeals by the end of
2020.
The Board has delivered a record production of over 64,000
decisions thus far in fiscal year 2018 and is on track to
deliver over 81,000 decisions to veterans by the end of the
year.
The Department has undertaken efforts to modernize the
appeals process through improvements in technology, and I am
pleased to report that these activities are on track and all
milestones have been met. In January, as you referenced, sir,
we told the Committee that we would have 75 percent of the IT
complete by August with the rest finished by December. This
estimate was based on early analysis of the system requirements
for appeals modernization. We have learned much since January
and I want to update you on the schedule.
Our current plan is to complete six core functions,
approximately 35 percent, in August and the 11 other functions,
the remaining 65 percent, by December. Our current estimate is
based on a detailed examination of the business and engineering
requirements as they relate to the VBMS software. It accounts
for core pieces that must be installed in the August release
before other changes may be added in the software development
process. VA has a high level of confidence in the success of
this plan because it is based on the inputs of longstanding
VBMS project teams in both VA and VA's OI&T.
We will continue to closely monitor this development plan
and advise the Committee of any delays we encounter. But again,
all milestones have been met and we are on track.
Lastly, in terms of communication, VA is currently holding
regular discussions with VSOs, veteran advocates, Congressional
stakeholders, and GAO. Through collaboration, senior leadership
from the Board and VBA have provided approximately 25 outreach
sessions this year with more scheduled.
Most importantly, VA is listening to our veterans to help
us improve the services we provide.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We will be
pleased to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Paul R. Lawrence appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.
And, Ms. Curda, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH H. CURDA
Ms. Curda. Chairman Roe, Vice Ranking Member Takano, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here to
discuss GAO's observations on VA's progress in planning for the
reform of its disability appeals process.
Reforming the appeals process is a complex endeavor
involving major process people and technology changes, an
endeavor that will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of
veterans with disabilities. Such a major undertaking requires
careful planning to improve VA's chances of success.
Last March, we reported that while VA's initial plan
reflected aspects of sound planning, improvements were still
needed to provide greater assurance that appeals reform will be
successful. We recommended that VA's plan; one, address all
legally required elements in the act; two, articulate how it
will monitor and assess the performance of appeals processes;
three, augment its project plan for implementation; and, four,
address risk more fully. VA agreed with our recommendations.
Today, I will discuss our observations on how VA's updated
plan reflects progress in implementing our March 2018
recommendations and areas where their plans could be more
robust.
Regarding addressing risks to the plan, VA has taken some
important steps to address our recommendation. For example,
previously VA had plans to test only the two new VBA appeals
options. Since then, VA has initiated a small-scale, non-
generalizable test of the three new Board options. VA plans to
use these tests to collect information on what options veterans
choose and their experiences using the new options. This
additional information about the choice's veterans make given
all five options could help identify and mitigate some risks.
VA is also better positioned to mitigate risks by
developing new analytical tools that will enable it to better
project resource needs using different assumptions about opt-in
rates and productivity.
While some progress has been made in assessing certain
risks, VA has not made progress in articulating a full set of
goals and measures for important dimensions of performance such
as timeliness, accuracy, and customer satisfaction. The plan
includes timeliness goals for three of the five new options and
indicates VA is collecting data to inform the development of
additional performance measures, but will not complete this
effort until after implementation of the new appeals process.
However, sound planning practices call for agencies to
define expected performance before they implement major process
reforms rather than letting the process define success after
the fact.
Similarly, the plan does not include success criteria or
analysis plans for its RAMP and Board pilot tests. Without
success criteria or analysis plans, it is unclear how VA will
use the information from these tests to determine if the new
process is working and enable comparisons to the legacy
process. The new metrics VA is required to collect and report
under Section V of the Reform Act could help VA measure the
relative timeliness of the new and legacy processes, but VA has
not articulated how it plans to make this assessment.
Regarding project management, VA's plan provides more
detail about planned activities, as well as some indicators it
will use to assess its readiness for implementation. However,
the project plan does not include the small-scale pilot of the
new Board options, a key activity, and lacks detail on other
activities such as its customer outreach effort.
The master schedule also continues to lack information on
how any delays in completing activities such as IT development
would affect related activities such as training and full
implementation. VA officials indicated they plan to address
some of these issues in their next update.
Finally, VA's plan now addresses 18 of the Act's 22
required elements, which is up from the 17 we reported on in
March. VA's plan now has fully addressed the element for
projecting productivity and partially addresses the four
remaining elements. VA's plan needs to address the four
remaining elements, which include information vital to the
success of appeals reform such as delineating total resources
required by VA for the new and legacy systems, and setting
milestones for the reduction of legacy appeals.
In summary, VA's updated plan includes some important new
details that increase the reform plan's chances for success.
However, without fully addressing our recommendations, the plan
continues to have shortcomings such that we cannot be certain
that implementation will go smoothly or that VA will know if
the new system is performing any better than the system it is
replacing.
This concludes my prepared statement and I will be happy to
address the Committee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Elizabeth H. Curda appears in
the Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you. I will yield myself 5 minutes and
get started.
Has the RAMP--and anyone can answer this--has the RAMP
program given you any indication about which route the veterans
might take? I know they are limited, somewhat it is limited,
but has that given you any idea so that you will know if you
have the right personnel, Mr. Secretary, or anyone can take it?
Mr. Lawrence. Let me ask Mr. McLenachen to answer the
detailed question.
Mr. McLenachen. It has given us that information and it has
been pretty consistent throughout the program. We have been
running at about two thirds of veterans are selecting the
higher-level review option, about a third supplemental claim.
That has been surprisingly consistent throughout the whole
program. I would expect to even out a little bit more after we
get to February and we are actually just doing reviews after an
initial decision is first made.
The Chairman. But does that help you when you are looking
at your personnel to know which route, because that is what Ms.
Curda was talking about, does that help you somewhat?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, it does, because the higher-level
reviewers are more experienced employees, those are our
decision review officers, so it does help us with how we need
to allocate the resources we have to each of those lanes.
The Chairman. One of the things I would ask you to do, so
that we can compare apples to apples, whether you appeal back
to the RO or to the Board, I would still like you all to report
that as an appeal and not name it something else, so that we
look back a year from now and realize the appeals are half what
they were, but they really are not, they are really the same.
If we could do that, maybe--all these Members of the Committee
will understand that, but new Members might not, and I don't
want to let us give the impression to the veterans that we have
cut these way down when really we haven't.
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, sir, we are addressing that. In the
RAMP program, we are using what we call end products, separate
end products just for this workload, for RAMP workload. When we
get to February, when we have the new law implemented, we are
going to use separate end products for those things going
forward. So we--
The Chairman. I would just call it an appeal to the RO, as
versus an appeal to the Board, therefore how many appeals--I
understand what an appeal is, what you just said I don't know
what is. So--
Mr. McLenachen. So we are tracking the work separately,
sir, so we were able to report out on that.
The Chairman. That is important, I think. And I think the
other thing with what we are doing, all these processes are
extremely important, but what matters to our constituents and
to the veterans out there is do I hear something, I mean, in a
timely fashion, that is really it, and that it doesn't take--
and the word out on the street is, when you get this appeal
done, it is going to take years probably. But I have had
veterans come up to me, I can tell you I am very happy with the
RAMP program, and come up and say I heard something in two
months. I had them out in Reno tell me that and I think you are
to get a shout-out for that. I think there is a great
implementation.
Under Secretary Lawrence, the question I have is, the VA
has been fairly famous at not delivering on time and with this
IT being only 30--I heard what you said, that you needed these
six core measures before you could get to the 11, we are going
to have another one of these hearings hopefully before the end
of the year to go back to this, because it is very close to
February, we are not very far away from that at all, and do you
feel confident that we will be there and be ready to roll, have
the personnel you need, the IT systems.
And the other thing I was going to ask Ms. Mason for you
all to talk about, since you are using different software, can
those two software packages on an appeal to the Board
communicate with the software package you are using on the
other two RAMPs.
Mr. Lawrence. Sure, thank you. Let me try to unpack all the
different questions.
So, yes to your broad one. I feel confident based on my
review and inspection, and I will ask Mr. Thrower to speak a
little bit more about IT in just a second. The other thing I
would like to point out was, as you indicated, you just learned
about this last week, and I think there was some confusion on
our understanding of the information we should report to you. I
think we were thinking mostly about the implementation date
being in jeopardy, but that is on us, and what we agreed to do
with your staff is have regular discussions of where we are on
this. And I just volunteered, and Lloyd will repeat, us coming
in, talking about how we measure, so that the units of measure
are not unclear as well, so that we can provide you the level
of comfort we have.
But let me let Mr. Thrower talk about this too as well.
Mr. Thrower. Yes, sir. So, actually we are very confident
in our delivery schedule right now. Once we broke this out in
February and looked at individual requirements, we stacked
them, ranked them, and built a schedule that had a very level
effort throughout, so we wouldn't have peaks and valleys
throughout, so that we could have a level amount of effort
throughout the entire year. We have met every single milestone
that we have had.
The pieces that we are delivering right now, the specific
function points in August are actually the heavy-lift pieces,
the ability to track claims and contentions. And so that is a
huge step that we are making, and we will be delivering next
month.
To the last point that you asked specifically around the
integration points between the case flow and VBMS, the two
engineering teams have been working side-by-side since February
of this year to understand the integration points between them
and to test out capabilities along the way, and we have had a
very smooth relationship between the two development teams.
The Chairman. Thank you. My time has expired, but one last
just comment, and I will turn it over to Mr. Takano, is that,
you know, we heard that things would be ready for the Forever
GI Bill and they are not ready to go. So that is our concern.
Mr. Takano. Dr. Lawrence, the GAO stakeholders and
Committee staff have continually pressed the need for detailed
planning outlines, yet the VA has failed to provide truly
detailed plans and risk assessment. Can you please explain the
reason why you have not provided the above details?
Mr. Lawrence. Sure. We very much value our relationship
with GAO and want to work closely on them. We appreciate all
the detailed work they do on our program. In fact, Ms. Curda
and I were just talking on August 3rd, her boss, the
Comptroller General of the United States, is coming over to our
office and meet with me and talk about how we more closely and
better understand it.
That said, I think she reported that we continue to work
closely and achieve many of those things. In just a second, I
will ask Mr. McLenachen, because he regularly meets with her. I
think we are making progress, I think they continue to
challenge us and push us further, and we want to work closely
to make sure we do that.
So, Mr. McLenachen, would you like to add anything?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, sir. We do work closely and, as you
heard in the prior report, 17 of the 22 recommendations that
GAO had been fulfilled by us. We fulfilled one more to GAO's
satisfaction, but this is a process of us continuing to work
closely with them. Really, I could say that what my
understanding of what GAO is looking for is more detail. So
every report that we issue, every update, we try to provide
that other detailed information.
I just want to point out that what is being reported today
is based on an update that we did in May, right now in
concurrence in VA is our August update, so that will have
additional details that GAO is looking for.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Curda for the GAO, you have mentioned in your testimony
that it is the best practice to identify a set of goals and
measures before testing and implementing the new appeals
process. Can you explain more about what you mean by that?
Ms. Curda. Certainly. It is really important to establish
at the outset what the vision of success for the appeals reform
will be, so that you can design your program to achieve that
vision of success. So having clear goals about how much time
processes will take, the degree of accuracy, what is expected
in terms of customer satisfaction, are important for designing
the system, for doing a risk assessment to determine if there
are any things that can get you off track in terms of achieving
those goals and mitigate for them; it is important for
establishing accountability for what is expected in terms of
results; and, finally, for monitoring and feedback, so at the
end of the day you have information coming and telling you are
you on track, are you achieving what was intended by appeals
reform.
Mr. Takano. All right, thank you. And you believe that the
VA has not sufficiently established those goals and measures,
is that correct?
Ms. Curda. That is correct. We have seen some timeliness
information, but not for all the Board options, and we have not
seen other measures of performance that would be important to
create what we call a balanced set of measures. You can do
things much more quickly, but you have to keep an eye on
accuracy as well, because if you are doing things faster, you
could be making mistakes. So you need to keep an eye on both
things.
And I understand that they have existing measures and they
intend to do more with those and to develop those, but now is
the time to kind of get that worked out.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Dr. Lawrence, is the VBA stabilized? What
I mean by that is, is the new reorganization of staff pretty
much run its course and, you know, do you feel confident in
your team that they will be able to be in place enough, at
least long enough to see the implementation of this plan?
Mr. Lawrence. Sure, yes. Let me tell you about my discovery
when I arrived in the middle of May. I concluded very quickly
that I am very fortunate, even blessed to have a very strong
senior team around me. So, stabilized is not the word I would
use, sir. I made some realignment to better focus on the needs
of veterans, but I have no additional changes anticipated of
that magnitude.
Mr. Takano. Very good.
Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Chairman Bost, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bost. Just kind of going down where we have already
been going and not to beat a dead horse, but, Mr. Thrower, it
is absolutely essential that IT has to be up.
We were talking in January. Mr. McLenachen testified 75
percent, right? Functional would be delivered in August, which
is just a few days away, and we were informed, our staff was
that it is only 35 percent. That is kind of hard to figure out
how you are going to come up with the rest of the getting us
100 percent by the December goal, which is only 4 months away.
What is your back-up plan if it doesn't get there?
Mr. Thrower. So, as I said, you know, one, I will say that
initial estimates back in January were prior to actual
engineering analysis done on this effort. We did break this out
in terms of specific capabilities that needed to be delivered,
we scheduled them, and we scheduled them very specifically, so
we did not have peaks and valleys, that we had a very even
level of effort throughout the entire effort.
I do understand that, you know, it is very clear that the
numbers that we provided last week, let me just say they were
very specific to function points that were being delivered in
August versus December, that does not actually tell the full
story of this effort. And we are more than happy to come in and
we have offered to come brief the Committee on various points
along the way. We have--you know, function points, all function
points are not equal, as well as the impact of their delivery
on this full effort. The most critical pieces of this, the
hardest parts of this effort are actually being delivered in
August, the ability to manage, to take a claim and be able to
track individual contentions within a claim, the ability to
break into our three new lanes of where an appeal can go and
track at the contention level is actually being delivered next
month. Most of the additional pieces are follow-on details and
of much lower level of effort.
Mr. Bost. Okay. This law was signed by the President in
August 23rd, 2017, but you didn't deliver the detailed plan for
the IT schedule until February. Can you see why this Committee
is a little concerned on where we are going with this? And my
original question was, if you don't make it, what is the plan?
Because you are telling me you are going to make it, but
everything we were watching from this Committee--and we want to
work with you, we want to see it happen, but every time we turn
around it is like, we are going to get there, we are going to
get there, we are guaranteeing we are going to get there, and
we are just getting towards the edge and that is my concern.
So, is there another plan in case you don't make it?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. I appreciate that, I appreciate the
perspective and I understand completely what you are seeing. A
little closer to the project, we are seeing different
information in terms of the regular drumbeat of the activities
we are supposed to see. And, again, our offer is to come to you
and your Committee and explain what we are seeing in more
detail. I appreciate the perspective, though, and it is not
lost on me, as well as the reference to the GI Bill.
What I can tell you is, yes, there is a back-up plan.
Broadly, while we wait for the system to come on, we will do
things manually to honor the commitment of, you know, dealing
with appeals.
Mr. Bost. That is an important part.
Mr. Lawrence. We will have that. It is unpleasant to talk
about, because it is expensive. But again, you know, what we
are seeing, what I am seeing in terms of the IT progress is
solid, it doesn't reflect perhaps what you are seeing, which
leads me to think we need to explain more in detail to explain
our level of confidence.
Mr. Bost. And we on this Committee do that.
But, Ms. Curda, you also see a problem with this, right?
GAO has been very clear in what they have given to us that
there is a problem.
Ms. Curda. Yes. We have several open recommendations to VA
on its IT planning, including the need for more detailed
schedules for when VBMS updates will be completed, when case
flow functionality will be in place, when testing will be done,
and so forth. And we have not seen the detail we would need to
see to close those recommendations and, you know, we have not
seen the objective information that they have been describing
that gives them confidence that they will be 35 percent done or
100 percent done, we haven't seen that information.
Mr. Bost. Okay. Just so you know, as you can tell, by every
question that is coming up from up here, we are all concerned,
and we are depending on you to make sure it happens.
So, with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Ms. Esty, you are recognized.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the vice Ranking Member and the Chairan and
all of you for joining us on this important endeavor, which is
so important to millions of veterans across this country. And I
will say, we have been impressed with the speeding up of
appeals and all of that is in the right direction, but as you
can tell from our questions, we are very concerned that this
continue.
So I have three questions I would like to ask. For Under
Secretary Lawrence, the RAMP program is crucial to successful
implementation of the appeals process by giving us information
and feedback, you and us information and feedback about how it
is proceeding, but we are all concerned, and the Chairan
referenced this that we have only got a 13-percent uptake based
on the outreach. So what do you think is going to be the effect
on processing notices of disagreement and appeals in the future
if we don't get to a significantly higher percentage than 13
percent?
Mr. Lawrence. Certainly. We are learning a lot from RAMP,
as I indicated in my statement, and I also shared the
experience that the Chairan did when he talked about what he
experienced. I think if you sort of think about our journey at
the beginning, it was a promise and, as a result, one could
imagine folks being reluctant to participate. Now we have
information about what happens when you participate in terms of
the grant rate and the speed. We are trying really hard to
communicate that regularly. While he was at the DAV conference,
I was at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and put up a slide in my
presentation that explained the contribution of the VSOs in our
places, in our RO, where the participation rate is amongst the
highest and the difference where it is amongst the lowest. It
is our educating the VSOs and getting them to talk to their
veterans about what happens when you go through the experience.
So I am very positive on the experience. I think, broadly,
it began low and had it stayed low, I think that would have
been a real knock on VBA, but the fact that we began to think
about why this was and take more outreach steps and communicate
more, plus we now have a good story to communicate. So I am
very positive about what RAMP is going to give us.
Ms. Esty. Again, I agree with you on everything you said,
but it isn't the answer to the question what is going to
happen, so we can return to that.
Mr. Lawrence. Sure.
Ms. Esty. And I do think you should look to use us as well
and the VSOs, and put up on your Web site and other places to
get that information out, so people understand. Perhaps even
put veterans up who have gone through the process to explain
and demystify it for people, just a suggestion.
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you.
Ms. Esty. Secondly, I know there have been some concerns
raised that the reason for low participation may be that the
notices--and we have talked about this many times before,
before your tenure, about plain language in notices. We have
heard informally feedback; the VSOs have been pretty happy with
it in part because I think they worked very closely with VA.
The state resource officers have not been as enthusiastic, we
have heard informally they still feel that this is inadequately
clear.
Can I get your commitment to continue to work with them and
every other group that is responsible for successful
implementation to ensure that we are all working together?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Esty. And training for folks and all of that?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes. And one quick point, I know your time
is--I did watch the hearings as part of my preparation for
confirmation, one of the first things I did was convene a group
and say tell me about the letters. So we will continue to work
with them and, yes, we will work with you.
Ms. Esty. And that works with everybody, those who feel
that they are where they need to be and those who really feel
that they need to be moved, and that may be a matter of
education.
Final question for Ms. Curda. Again, if you can really
specify the importance of establishing ahead of time broad
criteria for implementation and success, and the need to do
that ahead of time. I know it is annoying, because you are
trying to get everything ready to implement and I know, Mr.
Thrower, you are trying to do that, but if we don't have
criteria ahead of time, can you please detail what the problem
is if we don't have broad criteria for assessment prior to
implementation?
Ms. Curda. Certainly. Both the RAMP pilot and the more
recent BEAAM pilot are positive steps. I mean, certainly we all
agree it is good to learn something about veteran's choices
before implementing the system, but they really aren't designed
to be complete pilot tests of how the new system will work and
whether it will be working as is intended. It is a limited
test, it is not generalizable, and the criteria haven't been
specified. Having undertaken these tests, it is not clear at
what level of performance of the system VA would consider
acceptable such that VA could then certify and be confident
about implementing the full system and that everything will go
smoothly and according to plan.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Dr. Dunn, you are recognized.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the panel for being here. And thank you very much,
Secretary Lawrence, I know you are fairly new on the job here.
You have been there less than 3 months, I think, is that right?
Yeah.
But I was reading your bio over the weekend and I have to
say, you know, I have been guilty of being pessimistic at times
about how the VA is going to solve all these problems, but I
think we have got terrific background here in yours to tackle
some of the big problems in the VA. So I am hopeful, I am
allowing myself to be hopeful there. I noticed that you were
named twice, like the National Public Service Leader
organizations, outstanding, and that you are an Airborne
Infantry Captain, right?
Mr. Lawrence. Sir, of the two, I am most proud of the
second one, and the first one, just to qualify, I was one of
100 people who were selected in that, but it is nice of you--
Mr. Dunn. Outstanding, outstanding. Well, thank you for
your service.
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn. So, although it has been earlier, I am going to
ask you a couple questions. What do you see as the biggest
challenge on the benefits side of the VA organization and what
do you think is the most promising thing over there?
Mr. Lawrence. One of the most challenging things is to just
work the number of claims we get. There is no magic to that,
just simply the processing, we get a lot of them, and the real
challenge is to continue the progress that has been made and
not maintain. My biggest concern is organizations struggle when
they maintain performance. So I have talked about embracing the
changes, but accelerating and learning from it as we go
forward. So that is something I pay attention to a lot and
trying to understand if there are new ways to think about it
based on what we have learned and the like.
The most promising thing I have seen is just as I alluded
to a minute ago, it is a very strong team that is very focused.
As you saw in bio, I have been consultant to government and
have worked in other government agencies. I think the VBA team
is amongst the leaders in discipline, in terms of how they
manage things, and measurement, quite frankly.
Mr. Dunn. That is outstanding, thank you.
So if you could ask a bunch of Congressmen and
Congresswomen to lean in and help you in some way, what would
you ask of them?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, first I would want to make sure we
delivered on all the things you have already given us. So that
is my first thing, so I would do it carefully. I think I would
probably follow up on some recommendations of how to enlist
your help in terms of the communication and the connectivity to
the states and the different parts where you are, as well as
really thinking through, but I haven't done this yet, an
understanding of how to really, you know, modernize the IT
systems we work with. But I am not asking that now, because I
need to think that through further.
And I know coming off some difficult moments, that is not
the excuse and that is not what I am trying to do, but I do
think as we think about doing--and Mr. Wilkie talked about that
in his confirmation about being agile, that is something we are
going to have to understand in terms of how old the systems are
we deal with and our ability to do that.
So those are two things, I would call those coming through
the back of my mind, they are not requests at this point,
though I appreciate the encouragement from you and other
Members on this Committee.
Mr. Dunn. Have you had enough time to get your arms around
the budget yet? I mean, is it bloated? Is it too big, is it too
small? Is it--
Mr. Lawrence. Well, yes, I have, but I will--you know, I am
sure you can ask me a question about the budget that I won't
know the answer to, but here is my general observation: what
goes on at VBA is a function of the veterans asking for our
help, so it is an input-output sort of model. Veterans are
asking a lot from us in terms of delivering the benefits. Right
now my assessment is as appropriate. As we continue to see how
these programs work out and the like, we could very well come
back and ask for more. I will be unlikely in my tenure to send
you a check back, quite honestly.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you so much.
I am going to turn my attention to Ms. Mason briefly. How
many hearing requests are currently pending at the Board?
Ms. Mason. Currently, we have over 84,000 hearing requests
pending.
Mr. Dunn. So how many requests in 2017 did we have, how
many requests did we have versus how many did we complete, so
the input-output balance, the net?
Ms. Mason. I believe in 2017 we had a little less than
80,000, and we completed over 13,000 sir.
Mr. Dunn. So, 80,000 requests, 13,000 done?
Ms. Mason. We offered 25,000 in 2017, but only 13,000
veterans took us up on that offer.
Mr. Dunn. So you are falling behind there?
Ms. Mason. We are. We are working towards moving ahead and
trying to look for new opportunities and working with IT on
expanding our hearings, as well as the foundation for that.
Mr. Dunn. Are you optimistic we could catch up? That is
pretty far behind.
Ms. Mason. I am optimistic we can catch up. One of the
initiatives that I have already started is working with the
VSOs and our stakeholders on veterans' requests for hearings,
and getting our arms around what those exactly are and how we
move through those.
Mr. Dunn. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too just wanted to put my two cents in relative to this
issue that the GAO has pointed out with regards to the
articulation of performance measurements. It seems to me that
we are sort of putting the cart before the horse here. And, Mr.
Lawrence, I wanted you to respond specifically to that, that
certainly the GAO was saying that these performance goals and
measures haven't been articulated, which therefore lacks a
vision, which therefore, as implementation moves forward, will
lack, you know, some kind of accountability.
And you also mentioned that you plan on having a new update
in August relative to some of the GAO recommendations. So if
you could just comment on that and do you perceive to have that
included in the August update?
Mr. Lawrence. Certainly. Let me comment on the first part
and then ask Mr. McLenachen to talk about the update, because
he has been working with them on that directly.
I am going to go look into this, because I am hoping it is
a communication challenge on our part, because I do think we
have goals and performance metrics that we talk about and
perhaps we haven't communicated in sufficient detail. So I am
certainly accepting their advice and counsel, and I want to try
to figure out what is behind that, because I have a pretty good
sense in my own mind of what success looks like and I want to
make sure we provide that.
So I will take that and report back however appropriate,
but I will ask Mr. McLenachen to talk about the August update,
because I know he and Chairman Mason have been working closely
on this.
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, Dr. Lawrence is correct, we do have
goals and metrics from the very beginning to include RAMP and
final implementation for the two VBA lanes, our goal has been
125 days and that is what we will be tracking against. So, we
will have timeliness measures, our average days to complete and
the average age of our pending inventory.
We also have a robust quality program in VBA. One of the
things that GAO has asked us to do is to expand upon the
details about that quality assurance program that we have, so
we will do that as well.
And then, finally, we do track production. We set
production targets and we track against those targets, and we
are also doing work on customer satisfaction surveys as well.
So we are addressing all of those metrics, we have them, we
will be using them and measuring them going forward.
Ms. Brownley. Ms. Curda, does that sound consistent to you
or correct?
Ms. Curda. Well, that is certainly what has been discussed
in plans, that they are working on it, they are doing things,
but we haven't seen the specific goals and measures that they
are talking about, particularly on the Board side of things. We
have seen the VBA goals, but at the Board, two of the lanes
lack timeliness goals.
Ms. Brownley. And can you give us a timeline on when those
would be clearly articulated and public?
Ms. Mason. For the Board, the lanes that Ms. Curda is
referring to I believe are the 90-day evidence lanes and the
hearing lanes under the AMA. We do have the 365 lanes already
identified, that we will have those decisions done in 365 days.
The 90-day lane and the hearing lane, we are going to have to
assess that and we are working to assess that. The promise we
made to the stakeholders in March of 2016 was the legacy
veterans and the 365 veterans have priority in the way we do
our cases at the Board.
And so we are continuing to assess that, and I am working
to try and get some timeliness goals around those other two
lanes, I am not there yet.
Ms. Brownley. Well, you didn't give a timeline. So I
understand everybody is working on it, but I think we would
like to see a timeframe. And then obviously we would like to
see what the performance metrics actually are, so that we can
do our job, and part of our job is oversight and making sure
that we are, you know, meeting these goals and obviously
providing the best services that we can to our veterans.
Mr. Lawrence, I wanted to ask you a very specific question
relative to the L.A. regional office. The director has been
missing for a year now, there is an interim person who is
sitting in that position. I know, I wrote a letter along with
my colleagues last November asking for a swift appointment to
fill that position, we never received a response, and, to my
knowledge, there is still not a permanent director.
Can you give me an idea of when you plan on filling this
position?
Mr. Lawrence. I know I talk regularly with our folks who
lead the field operations about openings and how we are going
through the HR process to fill them. I am unfamiliar with the
details of this, but I will follow up and get back to you on
that.
Ms. Brownley. Okay. Well, just, you know, the L.A. regional
office covers eight California counties, it is a very large
office, processes a lot of benefits, over $1.5 billion in
annual payments, and not having that position filled is a
problem.
It seems as though the performance there, based on what we
can discern from the data, has remained generally pretty steady
over this last year, which, you know, is good, but it also
seems to, you know, in July there is a little start of ticking,
you know, in an upward projection, which obviously we want just
the opposite.
And my last question is to Ms. Curda--
The Chairman. I ask the gentlelady to speed it up.
Ms. Brownley. Oh, I apologize, I apologize. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
Ms. Brownley. I got carried away.
The Chairman. You did get carried away, it's okay.
Mr. Mast, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Lawrence, Ms. Mason, I wonder if you could, one of you
help to enlighten the Committee, take us through a day in the
life of somebody that is working through these appeals, whether
it is somebody going through the higher-level appeal, whatever
RAMP that they want to go through, what is the timeframe from
the time they get something placed on their desk, when we are
sitting here trying to do the math on saying, okay, there are
however many tens of thousands of people waiting on these,
there are new ones coming in, what does that look like for
them? What is a day in the life, a day in the week, or a day in
the month of, you know, for them doing all of that? Is it
different for me? How different is it for somebody like General
Bergman who has substantially more years of distinguished
service than I do, or what is the difference?
Ms. Mason. Well, I will start with the Board. A day in the
life of an attorney at the Board is once the case gets to the
Board--and we process those cases in docket order, and so every
day there are cases coming in to the attorneys and the judges--
so the judge would assign the case to the attorney, the
attorney would begin working the case. Depending on the number
of issues, it may take a day, it takes a little bit more.
Mr. Mast. Take me through that, working the case. He gets
the case, working the case.
Ms. Mason. Working the case means that they are going in
through our electronic records system, looking at all the
evidence in the record, and the Board, because it does a de
novo review, the attorneys are required to review everything in
the record and electronically, and review those records and
make sure that we have identified all the issues, all the
contentions, any concerns, anything that we haven't addressed
at the Board, that if it is an administrative issue, then that
is going to stop it--
Mr. Mast. Does that mean they are reading every page of
whatever--
Ms. Mason. Yes.
Mr. Mast [continued]. --is submitted for that item of their
health that is being looked at?
Ms. Mason. They are reading the entire claims folder. And
these days it is electronic, so they are reading it
electronically.
Mr. Mast. How many pages could we be talking about?
Ms. Mason. Thousands, thousands of pages. So--
Mr. Mast. On one case?
Ms. Mason. For one case, for one case. And if it is
multiple issues, tens of thousands of pages, because we are
talking about from the time--you know, we are looking at the
service records, we are looking at the evidence that the
veterans have submitted in support of their cases, we are
looking at medical records, we are looking at hearing
transcripts, anything in that record is what the attorneys are
reviewing and looking at.
And so depending on the complexity of the case and the
number of issues and things like that, the attorneys can assess
it very--you know, with the reading and the amount of time
going through that, then they are assessing as they are reading
through and making determinations about what they are doing
with the cases.
Then, usually the next day, they are writing. So they are
writing the decision up for the judge. Sometimes it takes
longer than two days. Sometimes the attorneys are working
several cases at once, depending on what is going with their
caseload, because the attorneys do approximately 3.25 cases a
week at the Board.
So those cases are moved through. They write up the
decision, again through the template program we have. Through
the assessment, there are conversations back and forth with the
judge during that process. Then the decision goes in to the
judge.
Once the judge gets the decision, the judge--and the judges
are deciding over 20 cases a week these days with what is
current productivity, and again it depends on the number of
issues in the case. So the judge is going then to assess the
file and take a look at the file. The attorney will have tabbed
the importance evidence that is vital to the judge and that is
going to be connected through the interactive decision
template, so they can link back to it through the decision, and
be able to review and sign that decision.
And then the decision goes out the door to dispatch, which
takes a couple of days with the electronic signing of the
decision and then the upload to VBMS, and then from there the
case goes to VBA for effectuation.
Mr. Mast. That research portion of it, what is your
expectation of how long that should take? That seems like the
most intensive portion of all of this. What is your
expectation? Again, understanding that everybody has a
different case, but what is the expectation there of
reasonable?
Ms. Mason. Realistically, that is 60 to 70 percent of the
attorney's time on each case. So it--I can't tell you a set
number of hours. It depends on the number of issues per case.
Mr. Mast. Attorneys are pretty good about knowing how many
hours they want to charge somebody. I would think that.
Ms. Mason. They are pretty good. They are pretty good. The
more senior attorneys are more efficient at it and we do have
the specialty case team in place to help with that. But you
know, as--
Mr. Mast. So what is the expectation?
Ms. Mason. A straightforward case that is fairly--a
straightforward case would be somewhere between 8 to 10 hours
for one of my experienced attorneys.
Mr. Mast. Eight to ten hours for 1,000 to 10,000 pages?
Ms. Mason. And that would be to include the writing time.
Mr. Mast. That is absolutely alarming to me. Thank you for
your responses.
Ms. Mason. You are welcome.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Lamb, you are recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, can you
talk about how you have engaged the regional offices in the
transition from the Legacy process to RAMP, just to make sure
what they--they have what they need for when the full
implementation comes?
Mr. Lawrence. Sure. Broadly, I have engaged the regional
office as a part of, you know, taking over and engaging with
them. I have established council or top ten folks to randomly
provide me advice and I am convening with them tomorrow. But in
terms of appeals specifically, let me enlist Mr. McLenachen
because has--
Mr. Lamb. Sure.
Mr. Lawrence [continued]. --worked with them for a longer
period of time.
Mr. McLenachen. So one of the things that we did is we
developed appeals modernization 101 training and we required
every VBA employee that is related to claims processing, not
just appeals, but just even claims processors to take that
training. As of yesterday, we were at 99 percent completion on
that training.
In addition to that, the regional offices that are working
on RAMP claims, they have received specialized training, both
initial and follow up and they receive 100 percent review for a
month when they start working those.
If you look at Appendix C in the 90-day update to our
implementation plan, there was a listing of all of the outreach
and communications that we have done. I have personally visited
regional offices that have the most eligible veterans and
talked to local congressional staff, attorneys, VSO
representatives, and our own employees to make sure everybody
has a good understanding of the new system.
So we have taken a very aggressive approach.
Mr. Lamb. Have you received much feedback or buy in from
the regional offices themselves? Like has that affected the way
that you are doing the roll out?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes. I--strong buy in from the regional
offices. I think what we are really seeing when we go out
locally is a lack of complete understanding. And between us, me
and Chairman Mason, and the VSO representatives that have
knowledge of the program, once that explanation is done then
there definitely is complete commitment to it.
Mr. Lamb. Okay. Do you know whether vacancies in the
regional offices are going to complicate the implementation of
this at all? Has that come up as you visited or talked to
folks? I know in Pittsburgh, for example, near where I am from,
we have an assistant director vacancy. Is that something you
have seen around the Nation?
Mr. McLenachen. So what I can tell you about is our appeals
workforce. As the undersecretary said, 1,495 employees, we are
almost at full strength on the appeals teams that do this work.
We are down about 17 at this minute.
Mr. Lamb. Okay. Chairman Mason, did you have something to
add there? It looked like you were leaning in. I didn't--
Ms. Mason. No.
Mr. Lamb. Okay. Ms. Curda, do you believe with everything
we have heard today, with everything you have studied before
you came here today, do you believe it is possible to roll out
this plan on time?
Ms. Curda. I think it will be challenging. I think you can
certainly always make improvements in the areas of risk
management and risk reduction. Any risk you can identify and
mitigate is going to increase your odds of success. And so what
we are talking about here are odds and chances of success, not
certainty.
I think as it stands now, I am a little concerned about the
lack of detail. But if the detailed information that the Board
and VBA are talking about is available and made available to us
to take a look at it, we might have greater assurance than we
have right now.
Mr. Lamb. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. General
Bergman, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of the panel for being here. If this was easy, it would already
have been done. Okay, so we know you are all engaged. And
Congressman Mast just left, but I told him on his way out thank
you for allowing me to tee up what I was about to say on the
front end and that is any general officer, and I will keep it
to the Army and the Marine Corps at this point because we are
largely infantry, and any general officer worth their sale
knows that they do what they do every day for those young
infantrymen and women who are the--at the pointy end of the
spear and that never changes no matter while you are in
uniform, but even after your uniform days have completed.
So can we agree here as a group that a simple mission
statement based upon the title of our hearing here is that to
successfully implement appeals reform, is that a pretty simple
mission statement?
Mr. Lawrence. That is correct. Yes, we agree.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. And when you implement a mission
statement, someone has to be in command of that mission. And
there is a difference. There is a unique difference in command
and staff. That is why we have command and staff colleges.
There are people in command and there are people on the staff
providing that valuable input. And you are usually, over the
course of time, you will establish yourself either as one of
those commanders who is the person to be in command or as a
really solid staff officer who supports that commander. And
there is a difference between the two.
So having said that, who is in command?
Mr. Lawrence. This is somewhat of a unique situation, but I
am not going to defer your question. In February 2019, the
Board will be in command of appeals. At this point, for VBA, I
am in command of the VBA Legacy appeal. The Chairman is in
command of the Board's Legacy appeals.
In my opening statement, that is why I referenced working
closely together through this unique period of time. But in
February, the Chairman will be in command.
Mr. Bergman. Okay. So mission failure is not an option, but
there are in the military terms' reliefs for cause, okay? And
this could be mission failure. Is your organization set up to--
before the mission fails, to relieve a commander who maybe is
not getting it done and all of a sudden, we wake up at the 11th
or 11 hour 30, are you prepared to make changes if the
milestones are not being met?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. In fact, again in my opening
statement, I alluded to the second week I was there, I began to
meet regularly with the AMO office, and I meet with them
regularly to monitor performance. And that is one of the things
I think about regularly.
Mr. Bergman. Yes, I hope this doesn't seem harsh. This is
just reality. And the constituent population that we are
serving here, the veterans, know that we have, as commanders,
have held them accountable for mission accomplishment and their
performance in that unit involved in that fight. And I know
that they expect us to do the same at the highest levels.
And as partners in this with you, in other words as a
Committee Member trying to be part of the solution, not be part
of the problem, stay out of your way, but at the same time, we
hold ourselves accountable to our constituents here as--in our
districts, but also as fellow Members of the Committee.
I just wanted to hear you articulate to whatever level you
would like the accountability within your system that if
something goes bad, sooner rather than later, people will be
either reassigned, whatever it is, so that the mission does not
fail just because somebody said well, it is a--we have some
flexibilities here.
Mr. Lawrence. Sure. You have my assurance. And just so you
know, my father was in the military, as was I. One of the
things I learned from him was mission first, men always. And we
talk about the mission all the time and what that is going to
take.
And as you know, a great deal of flexibility moving people.
So yes, that would be my intention were that the reason.
Mr. Bergman. Yes. There will be naturally after-action
reports that occur that okay, lessons learned. We can do this
better. We can do that better. But just saying well, we tried
but we didn't get it. We didn't meet the deadlines. That is not
acceptable. And I just appreciate all of your effort and
whatever we can do to be part of the solution here with you to
repeat that one more time, we are all in. So and I see my time
is about to expire. So thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Ms.
Kuster, you are recognized.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
panel for being with us. We have had a lot of discussion this
morning about deadlines and timing. I am going to shift gears
here a little bit to the financing of it all. And I notice from
the GAO report that one issue deserves extra attention.
So in the plan, the VA has failed to, ``delineate the total
resources required by VBA and the Board.'' On our part, we
think it is unclear what the delineation would entail. But
given the lack of information for cost between the discreet
appeal systems, it is going to make our oversight more
difficult.
So I want to turn the question to the VA. What--why does
your plan fail to keep separate account of cost for the VBA and
the Board and how should we continue our oversight trying to
make that distinction?
Mr. Lawrence. Let me go first from the VBA perspective. I
am going to have to research this further because I have a
pretty good insight into cost. So I will ask Mr. McLenachen to
jump in in terms of the interaction with GAO. But I commit to
figuring that out why that is because as an economist, cost is
something I understand. So we will figure this out. But I know,
Dave, you work closely with them.
Mr. McLenachen. Yes. One of the things that GAO asked us to
do was improve our sensitivity analysis for our modeling that
we have done. We have delineated how we are going to allocate
our resources--excuse me--in VBA. In addition to that, in the
present fiscal year 2019 budget. We have requested 605
additional FTE. So we believe that we have hit the target on
that financial piece that you are asking about.
Ms. Kuster. In the past, has the money flowed back and
forth between these accounts? I am just looking for our
oversight to be able to delineate that distinction.
Mr. Lawrence. No. They are--it is separate funding for VBA
and for the Board.
Ms. Kuster. Okay.
Ms. Curda. Could we address that question because I think
there is--
Ms. Kuster. Yes.
Ms. Curda [continued]. --some confusion--
Ms. Kuster. Yes, thank you.
Ms. Curda [continued]. --about the requirement and about
how to implement that. And I just wanted to ask my colleague,
Jamie, to just describe a little bit what we are seeing in the
plan versus what we would expect to see.
Mr. Whitcomb. So the plan requires VA to delineate the
total resources between VBA and the Board and Legacy and new
appeals processes. And in this latest plan, VBA provided FTE
information, but the Board did not. And there was also not a
delineation of other resource categories you would expect to
see in processing Legacy and new appeals, like the IT piece,
and communications with veterans and other stakeholders, those
sorts of things are missing from the plan for that element.
Ms. Kuster. All right. So that is helpful if we can get
that information following up from the VBA and the VA. I think,
you know, obviously in your testimony you talked about a
significant number of new employees and I think while we
support the mission of moving forward and addressing certainly
the backlog and keeping up going forward, this Committee
routinely is going back to our colleagues who are cost
conscious and we need to use our oversight function to be on
top of that.
So if you could bring that information back to the
Committee, that would be helpful. I am going to turn my last
minute over to Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Ms. Kuster. I just wanted to ask
Ms. Curda in terms of--well, let me back up for a minute. I
think this Committee, and certainly I am continually concerned
about are the fact that there are so many positions across the
VA that are unfilled positions.
So my question to you is, do you think the VA has the right
about of human capital plans and management capacities to
implement--you know, to successfully implement this reform?
Have you taken a look at that at all?
Ms. Curda. We have not assessed whether they have adequate
resources to implement this. I think--in terms of risk, when
you have unfilled positions and a large change and new process
to implement, that creates--you know, to the extent you have
unfilled position, it does create additional risk that you
won't have the resources needed to fully implement the reform.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentle lady for yielding. Ms.
Radewagen, you are recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to
thank the panel for coming in today. Thank you for your
service.
My question here is for all of the witnesses at the table.
Given that the title of this hearing is assessing whether VA is
on track to successfully implement appeals reform, I would like
to ask each of you to give VA a grade, A, B, C, D, or F on this
assessment, what it would be, and why.
Mr. Lawrence. Sure. I will go first. I would give us an A
minus. I think some of our critique that our colleagues from
GAO have rendered is fair and appropriate. And I wish that we
were more complete in providing them the information. But
overall, when I assess, as they indicated, a model of people,
process, and technology. And when I do the review behind each
of them, I think we are doing very well. And that is, in many
ways, reflected in my confidence that we are going to be on
time.
Ms. Mason. I would agree with the Under Secretary that it
is an A minus. Again, people, process, and technology is
something the Board has been focused on for the past two and a
half years and we are continuing to focus on that. And we will
be on time.
Ms. Curda. I would just say our assessment is based on the
information that was provided in this plan, which is the report
that was provided and updated recently. And we have also
invited VA to provide additional information, which they have
in some cases to supplement what is in here. And, you know,
looking over all of this, I mean, without knowing some of the
things that they are doing that aren't in plans, that aren't
documented, and that we haven't seen, I would give them a C.
It is intermediate. They are on their way. They could--this
could be much better in terms of what we are seeing.
Mr. McLenachen. So I hate to disagree with my boss, but
that is the position you have put me in. But just based on our
requirements of addressing GAO's recommendations, I will lower
it to a B.
Mr. Thrower. I think I would agree with Mr. McLenachen,
just simply from the point of view--for one reason only. I
would give us a B because I think we could do a better job of
communicating across the board about our progress and our
status and that would help. But I think overall in terms of our
effort and where we are, I am totally on board with the Under
Secretary and the Chairman that we are going to make it on
time, that we are on track, and that we are going to deliver.
Mr. Hipolit. From my perspective, I would also say a B just
because I don't like to be overly optimistic. I know we still
have a lot of work to do and I want to give us a little bit of
a challenge to get up to the A level.
But one thing that I have observed, we mentioned earlier
about the regulations and that has been part of the process I
have been fairly heavily involved in. And the proposed rule
notice for a very major set of regulations to implement this
program is with the Federal Register. And I understood from--
what I learned this morning, it won't be published today, but
publication in imminent and that is a big step in the process.
I think we are on track to get the regulations in place in
order to implement on time.
Ms. Radewagen. And now this question is for Chairman Mason.
Chairman Mason, a key component of VA space allocation plan to
accommodate new hires is to allow Board employees with little
VA experience to participate in telework. What are VA's plans
to collect information from supervisors to ensure that telework
is not negatively affecting the quality of work or morale?
Ms. Mason. We currently have a very strong telework program
with the Board. We have over 475 people, I believe current
numbers are around 488 people on either telework or full remote
status. We do have a very strong and robust program in
evaluating whether someone is ready to go on telework and that
is worked through the supervisor.
During the period that they are on telework and from then
on, we assess them just as we assess all of our staff, our
attorney staff, who are--whether they are in the office or on
telework, we work with them. If they flounder and we provide
support, and if need be, they are offered the opportunity to
come back into the office and work with us.
But the telework program for our space program does seem to
work very well. And the majority of the people on telework
right now, I would think--I would have to double check the
numbers, but I believe the majority of our telework staffers
are meeting or exceeding goal. Of current staff, we have 92
percent at full successful at the current status.
Ms. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentle lady for yielding. And Mr.
Correa, you are recognized.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General question, as
well, to the panel. In appeals reform, when you hear reform,
you think positive and maybe the challenges of the risks
inherent. So my question is how do you mitigate the risk? I
mean, how do you make sure that as you jump from this to
something better that we don't overlook certain things.
Are you having any pilot projects to make sure that maybe
everything, all the I's are dotted and all of the T's are
crossed? What are we doing to make sure that we are not leaving
anything behind?
Mr. Lawrence. Sure. Let me go first and then I will list
others to answer as you have directed. A couple of things, sir.
Yes, it is not correct, I don't think, to call it a pilot but
the RAMP, the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program, has given us
real insight to the veteran's experience, our ability to
deliver, and the like. So that is pretty important.
In addition, the primary tool as the leader is, you know,
regular reviews that are detailed enough to better understand,
you know, how this is all going to work. And quite frankly,
candid conversation about what the risks are, how we are
mitigating them, and evaluation of that as we work our plans
going forward. So let me make sure I have enough time.
Ms. Mason. I would agree with the Under Secretary. Ongoing
meetings and assessments and check-ins and make sure we are on
target. The Board is--just concluded the initial phase of the
Beam program and we are collecting that data and moving out
with that. That is a small-scale test program. We will also be
rolling out the RAMP assessment in October. And we will also be
doing some sensitivity reviews, surveys at those times to
gather information. So--as well as the ongoing conversations
with our stakeholders.
Mr. Correa. Go ahead.
Mr. McLenachen. I would just add that the legislation
actually sets us up for making sure that we are doing that
mitigation assessment. We had to do the implementation plan,
the regular updates. We have the assistance of GAO, so there is
a lot of assessment of what the risks are and how we might
address them in that implementation plan.
Mr. Hipolit. If I could add to that too. I think the level
of commitment and communication that I have observed on this
process has been very exemplary. I have been with the agency
for a long time and we have been communicating on a really
regular basis between the Veterans Benefits Administration, the
Board of Veterans Appeals, the Office of General Counsel.
I think that has really helped us keep on track and
recognize what the obstacles we face are and make sure nothing
is slipping through the cracks.
Mr. Thrower. Yes. And really, I guess, to close out for our
team on this one is it is a combination of many of those
things. It--we have integrated working teams that kind of
cross--across anything that is working in the IT space. It is a
very close collaboration with the VBA team and the Board team.
So we are all on the same page all of the time.
Regular reviews. I meet with Dr. Lawrence and Chairman
Mason on a very regular basis, as do our teams and present
status and update. And along the way is also in terms of
building and along the way touch points and cushions to be able
to modify and adjust as we need to along the way.
Mr. Correa. Let me just thank all of you for the work you
are doing, the effort, and also let you know this is not your
job. It is our job. So if there is anything we can do, input--
as fast as you can give us that information so we can react. As
legislatures, we would be much appreciated. And again, I thank
you for the good work you do for all of our veterans.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Poliquin, you are recognized.
Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, today
we have two very important guests with us today I would like to
introduce you to, Mr. Graham Barry (ph) and Mr. James Hotham
(ph) have traveled all the way from the great State of Maine.
They are student leaders, community leaders when it comes to
the Future Farmers of American organization. And I would like
to acknowledge them, Mr. Chairman, and have Mr. Barry and Mr.
Hotham stand so the rest of America can see you. Go ahead,
gentlemen, stand up, please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Folks, thank you very
much for being here. We are all on the same page. We want you
to be incredibly successful. The great State of Maine has about
nine and a half to ten percent of our population of veterans.
We love our veterans in the State of Maine.
Our first VA hospital in the country is located in the
State of Maine in Augusta, Togus. I think it was formed in 1865
to 1866 to take care of our veterans after the Civil War. That
tells you the commitment we have to our veterans.
And I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, traveling throughout the
great State of Maine, I hear as often as anything else when it
comes to our veterans' community that the backlog on the
appeals that they have filed is something that really drives
them batty. And I know you know that, and we are trying to fix
it. And we are all on board to try to help you do that.
Just as a curiosity, we have about seven million veterans
now that we are taking care of in our country, Mr. Lawrence,
roughly, what percent of them are on some form of disability?
Roughly.
Mr. Lawrence. [Nonverbal response.]
Mr. Poliquin. Does anybody have that answer? It doesn't
have to be you.
Mr. Lawrence. I am reluctant to guess on that one, sir. I
will get back to you with more--
Mr. Poliquin. That would be great. If you can get back to
me on that, that would be great. Can someone tell me here, Mr.
Lawrence, we will point to you if you don't mind, or ask you
rather that question, what percent of your project is done,
roughly? Roughly.
Mr. Lawrence. Sure, let me defer to Mr. McLenachen and Mr.
Thrower.
Mr. Poliquin. Sure, absolutely. Sir.
Mr. McLenachen. So I would say probably about, in my view,
about two-thirds.
Mr. Poliquin. Great.
Mr. McLenachen. For example, the regulations, procedures,
all of the policies around implementing the law. So really what
we need going forward is once we get the IT piece in place, I
am pretty confident that we are--
Mr. Poliquin. And you are going to--and you support what
has been said here earlier that you folks are going to meet
your goal on time, correct?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes.
Mr. Poliquin. Okay. That is early February of 2019 if I
have that correct. Okay. Do you still have a claims backlog
that is through the roof that it was before we started this
process?
Mr. Lawrence. No. No.
Mr. Poliquin. Good.
Mr. Lawrence. The claims backlog has been brought down with
a lot of work prior to my arrival. And right now it hovers
between 70,000 claims that are over 125 days and 80,000.
Mr. Poliquin. Okay. I think, Mr. Chairman, that was about
400,000 when we started this process. Maybe I have got that
wrong, but it was a heck of a lot larger. Yes.
Ms. Mason. The claims are different from appeals. The
appeals are still--
Mr. Poliquin. Thank you.
Ms. Mason [continued]. --about 400,000--
Mr. Poliquin. I appreciate that correction. Thank you very
much. Can--Mr. Lawrence, can you tell me to the best of your
ability the fact that in some areas, what I have heard today is
that we are behind in some area. What would be the number one
thing that comes to mind to you why we have slipped, if we
have, in certain areas?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes. Respectfully, I don't mean to quibble on
slipping. I think we are on schedule. And I think that the
offer I made earlier to meet with your staff to explain that,
especially in the IT area because I know we have--
Mr. Poliquin. Great.
Mr. Lawrence [continued]. --bantered numbers. I take
seriously the feedback from GAO and I want to look into that to
figure out why they didn't give us at least an A minus in my
scale. But I am confident from broad strokes we are on
schedule.
Mr. Poliquin. Well, you might guess that when you say A
minus, and the GAO says C then I have--it raises some antenna
that I have. But we will take it as it is.
The great State of Maine has two districts. I represent the
second district, which is highly rural. We have Lewiston and
Auburn, which is about 35,000 people. We call it L.A. And then
we have Bangor, which has about 35,000 people. Then we have 400
small towns. And Mr. Barry and Mr. Hotham in the back of the
room are from two of those small towns.
What I am concerned about is are you folks going to be able
to communicate at the right time the changes to the appeals
process, effectively to folks in rural America, which is very
different in many ways than folks that live in the urban areas.
Mr. Lawrence?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. This has been one of the issues
that I have been counseled about as soon as I very first showed
up at the beginning of the process about the unique features of
states, like you described, that are rural.
So something more broadly, VBA is thinking about all the
time. In terms of the tools and the techniques we use. I don't
want them to be east coast centric, but obviously access to
technology and the like. In addition, we are thinking seriously
about the relationship we have--the VBA has with the states,
and the states then have with their networks as a way to
communicate with folks.
Also as Chairman Mason and Mr. McLenachen--it is the
repetition and getting out and quite frankly through the VSO's,
explaining in a very personal way the benefits of being
involved.
Mr. Poliquin. We have formed in the great State of Maine a
veteran's advisory panel to help me to make sure I get all of
the on-ground information I need to bring back to our Committee
with the Chairman. And if we can help in any way to communicate
this, we certainly will. We are all on board. Good luck, but we
will be holding you accountable. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. And
I will be in the great State of Maine to clear all of that up
for Mr. Poliquin. We will be up there to--Ms. Brownley, did you
get your question answered?
Ms. Brownley. I did, but may I ask him one thing?
The Chairman. You can.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say
that I appreciate all of you being here and I appreciate you,
Mr. Lawrence, for right up-front stating deadlines and
timeframes. We don't get that that often and so I appreciate
all of the work that you are doing. And my take away from this
hearing is that you are working diligently to succeed. So thank
you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you and no further questions. I thank
you for being here today. It has been, again, a very productive
hearing. Mr. Takano, do you have any closing comments?
Mr. Takano. Yes, just--let me just say that I did
acknowledge Congresswoman Titus earlier for her--work on the
appeals modernization legislation. But I also want to
acknowledge Elizabeth Esty. She took the ball and ran with it.
And as the--our Ranking Member on the Subcommittee
jurisdiction, brought the final produce along with the Chairman
on the majority side. And so we are--to the floor.
And I am--so we are very, very proud of this legislation.
The implementation is the key part. I am very concerned that
the GAO is--would give you a current rating of a C and it is
imperative that you--Dr. Lawrence, are responsive and get the
more detailed documents and planning accomplished.
And in particular, the generalized goals and objectives
prior to the processes, those must drive the processes. And so
I am cautiously optimistic that this is going to come to
fruition, as we hope it will. But nevertheless, this is a
tremendous, tremendous undertaking and I can't stress enough
that Congress has given you the legislative tool and the
resources.
And so we have asked you, do you have enough resources? Do
you have what you need? The indication is yes. So there is no
reason for us not to succeed and I ask that we do succeed. So
thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I ask
unanimous consent that written statements provided for the
record be placed into the hearing record without objection, so
ordered. And I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have
five legislative days in which to extend their remarks and
exclude extraneous material, and without objection, so ordered.
And I will, just to echo Mr. Takano's comments, I think
probably in our offices, the thing we hear the most about are
either VA health care issues or VA disability claims and
appeals. I think this is a gigantic step forward from 2009 and
2010 when there were a million claims. People kind of forget
that eight years ago.
So the VA has made a herculean effort to lower this, and
certainly with only 70 or 75,000 claims, that are over 125
days, that is a huge improvement. So that is a big shout out.
And Dr. Lawrence, thank you. I know this is your first time to
testify in front of the Committee. We appreciate you being here
and on the quarter system, I did, while you were doing this, I
took all the grades down. You are 3.1. That is your GPA for
this quarter. So--
Mr. Lawrence. I think they all went to better schools than
me, sir.
The Chairman [continued]. --to let you know. And the
witnesses, you are all excused and no further comments. The
meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Honorable Paul R. Lawrence, Ph.D.
Good morning Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for inviting us to provide an update on VA's
progress implementing the Veterans Appeals Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA). Joining me today are Ms. Cheryl Mason,
Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals; Mr. Richard Hipolit, Deputy
General Counsel; Mr. Lloyd Thrower, Deputy CIO, Account Manager for
Benefits, Office of Information and Technology (OI&T); and Mr. David
McLenachen, Director, Appeals Management Office, Veterans Benefits
Administration.
AMA, enacted on August 23, 2017, is the most significant statutory
change affecting VA appeals in decades, and I wish to thank the
Committee for its work on this much-needed comprehensive legislation
that is transforming an archaic process into one that makes sense for
Veterans and their families, their advocates, VA, stakeholders, and
taxpayers. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the progress of
implementation and actions we are taking to manage the legacy appeals
inventory.
I am pleased to report that VA is making progress on Appeals
Modernization and remains on track for implementation in February 2019.
VA remains deeply committed to helping Veterans receive the benefits
that they have earned. While the proposed regulations are at the
Federal Register for publication, the Department is also focused on
additional aspects of implementation, to include developing and
updating information technology (IT) systems for the new claims and
appeals process, developing and refining meaningful performance metrics
to track progress, providing training across VA for employees, and
collaborating in the implementation process with stakeholders -
Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), Veteran advocates, Congressional
stakeholders, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), among
others.
VA is implementing a multifaceted strategy for managing the new
process while concurrently reducing legacy appeals. The Rapid Appeals
Modernization Program (RAMP) is allowing Veterans with legacy appeals
to have appeals heard under the new system, and the Board's Early
Applicability of Appeals Modernization (BEAAM) program is providing
data to inform preliminary assumptions about Veterans' choices,
understanding, and experiences. This strategy reflects the Department's
ongoing commitment to continue reducing the legacy appeals inventory
while simultaneously developing technologies, processes and procedures
for implementing the new statute.
RAMP, the Legacy Appeals Strategy, and VBA Production
AMA authorized VA to create programs to test assumptions in the
implementation of the new claims and appeals system. In response, VA
launched RAMP on November 1, 2017, giving eligible Veterans with
disability compensation appeals the voluntary option to have their
decisions reviewed in the Higher-Level or Supplemental Claim Lanes
outlined in AMA. RAMP gives Veterans early access to the benefits of
the new system and helps to lower the number of appeals pending in the
legacy system during transition.
As advantageous as RAMP may be for eligible Veterans, participation
in RAMP is voluntary. To help communicate eligibility, VBA has sent
over 200,000 letters to Veterans and has conducted significant outreach
activities through both VSO and Congressional stakeholders. This
outreach has produced a RAMP opt-in rate of more than 13 percent. As of
June 30, 2018, more than 30,000 Veterans had opted into RAMP. To date,
more than $30 million in retroactive disability compensation benefits
have been paid to Veterans in the program. VA is processing RAMP claims
in an average of 78 days, well below the processing goal of an average
of 125 days for the two VBA lanes. RAMP is a significant
accomplishment. It represents a meaningful choice for Veterans before
implementation of the statute in February 2019.
VBA has also been focusing on resolving legacy appeals for
Veterans. At the end of June, compensation and pension appeals
inventory had decreased by almost 13 percent, and appeals production
was 8.7 percent above target.
Board Production and BEAAM
The core mission of the Board is focused on holding hearings and
delivering decisions which provide answers to Veterans. I am proud to
announce that the Board has delivered a record production output of
over 65,000 decisions thus far in fiscal year (FY) 2018, a historic
high for any FY, and is on track to deliver over 81,000 decisions to
Veterans by the end of the FY. The Board's continuing strategy to
reduce the pending inventory of appeals focuses on: 1) re-engineering
processes to include introducing a new decision template and a
specialty case program, 2) exploring new case review techniques, 3)
allowing the Board to issue timely decisions soon after a Veteran has a
hearing with a Veterans Law Judge, and 4) using telework to retain
experienced personnel. In addition to strategies that support
production goals, the Board is aligned with VBA's RAMP efforts to help
reduce the number of appeals coming to the Board.
From May 1 through the end of June 2018, VA began the Board's BEAAM
program, a small-scale research program to collect preliminary data
about initial Veterans' choices and experiences. While the results of
BEAAM are preliminary and still under review, Veterans participating in
BEAAM report that they are optimistic about the changes. Veterans also
appreciate that VA is working with them and their representatives in
preparation for the implement of AMA.
Information Technology and Digital Services
The Department has undertaken enterprise-wide efforts to modernize
the appeals process through improvements in technology, and I am
pleased to report that these activities are on track and already
helping to improve internal processes at VA.
OI&T and the United States Digital Service at VA (DSVA) prioritize
three areas to ensure the Board is ready to implement Appeals
Modernization: functionality for establishing new appeals, scheduling
hearings, and managing the new dockets and workflow inherent in the new
law. In the area of establishing appeals, DSVA continues work on the
Caseflow Intake system to ensure that appeals, supplemental claims, and
higher-level reviews are appropriately tracked. The DSVA team is also
developing a Caseflow Hearing Schedule system to improve the Board's
scheduling of legacy and AMA hearings. With Caseflow Queue, the DSVA is
developing functionality to manage five dockets at the Board and
provide tools to all Board users to streamline work flow, automate
tasks, and improve efficiencies in the processing of appeals.
The Board and DSVA rolled out the Vets.gov Appeals Status Tool in
March 2018 to provide Veterans a better understanding of how the
appeals system works and give Veterans transparency on where they are
in the appeals process. DSVA will continue developing additional online
content and functionality in an effort to increase Veterans'
understanding of the new processes under AMA.
In addition to direct review at the Board, the provisions of the
law allow Veterans to obtain review of claims decisions within VBA. VA
is working to ensure synchronization between DSVA and VBA design
efforts in conjunction with necessary prioritization of VA IT
resources. VBA has delivered IT system requirements for necessary
appeals modernization enhancements within the Veterans Benefits
Management System (VBMS) that will support automatic establishing,
tracking, documenting, and distributing workload for claims decision
reviews under the new process.
If a Veteran seeks review on more than one issue, the Veteran will
have the ability to elect a separate review path for each. OI&T
developers and DSVA are partnering to modify both VBMS and the Caseflow
system to ensure full traceability and reporting of the adjudication of
each issue, regardless of which review path a Veteran has chosen to
pursue. This capability is on track for delivery at the end of this
calendar year to ensure Veterans are fully able to leverage the
flexibility allowed by the law as soon as it goes into effect.
Workforce Planning, Training, and Human Capital Strategy
To ensure smooth implementation, the Board is undertaking an
aggressive workforce plan to recruit, hire, and train new employees.
The Board is currently on pace to hire up to a total of approximately
1,050 full time equivalents (FTEs) by the end of the FY. The Board
added approximately 250 FTEs from 2016 to 2018, with an additional 150
FTEs expected between July 2018 and September 2018. The majority of
these hires are attorneys responsible for preparing decisions for
Veterans Law Judges. The Chairman also recently recommended eight
Veterans Law Judge candidates to fill open vacancies.
VBA's compensation and pension appeals program is presently
supported by 1,495 FTEs. VBA has requested an additional 605 FTEs in
the FY 2019 President's budget to process legacy compensation and
pension appeals and decision reviews under the modernized process. To
best maximize its resources and enable efficiencies, VBA will
centralize these additional assets to conduct decision reviews under a
unified organizational structure that will include the establishment of
two Decision Review Operation Centers (DROCs). VBA will also convert
the current Appeals Resource Center (ARC) in Washington, DC, into a
third DROC using existing assets.
The Board and VBA collaborated on training and outreach activities
for employees and stakeholders, to include for VSOs and Congressional
staff. The Board is also conducting ongoing internal training for both
its legal and administrative staff. Since the implementation of RAMP in
November 2017, VBA has continuously provided updated training for
employees directly involved in public contact teams, intake processing
centers, and appeals teams regarding RAMP and the future of the
decision review process. VBA developed and continues to deliver Appeals
Modernization training to its employees, which provides a comprehensive
overview of full implementation and a greater awareness of the RAMP
pilot.
Moreover, VBA has provided additional claims processing training as
VBA has expanded from the initial RAMP processing site - ARC - to
select Regional Office appeals teams across the Nation. These appeals
teams are dedicated to RAMP processing, and VBA has provided each team
with both instructor-led and refresher training. VBA is leveraging the
feedback, best practices, and lessons learned from RAMP training events
in the development and planned delivery of training materials for full
implementation.
Stakeholder Engagement
VA worked collaboratively with a wide spectrum of stakeholder
groups to refine the new VA claims and appeals process. VA is currently
holding regular discussions with VSOs, Veteran advocates, Congressional
stakeholders, and GAO. VA is also listening to Veterans to help improve
the services provided by the Department. The dedicated engagement of
these people and organizations is providing VA with invaluable
feedback, which is aiding VA efforts to: 1) develop new forms, 2)
establish internal standard operating procedures, 3) create training
materials, and 4) develop communications and outreach products for
Veterans. VA will also fully consider comments received after a notice
of proposed rulemaking is published. VA is grateful to all stakeholders
for their continued contributions of time, energy, and expertise in
this effort.
VA is working strategically to increase awareness of appeals
modernization and RAMP through a combination of direct outreach and
increased communications products. Beyond the local outreach that VA
continues routinely, the Department engages with Veteran stakeholders
to disseminate information through national conferences and training
events. Through coordination and collaboration, senior leadership from
the Board and VBA have provided approximately 25 such outreach sessions
so far this year, with several more scheduled throughout the fall. VA
is expanding its communications and has initiated discussions with its
Change Management Agents, Outreach Coordinators, and other influencer
groups at its 56 Regional Offices.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased to respond
to any questions that you, or other Members, may have.
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth H. Curda
VA DISABILITY BENEFITS
Some Progress, but Further Steps Needed to Improve Appeals Reform
Planning
Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity today to provide an update on the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) plans for implementing a new
disability appeals process while still attending to appeals under the
current, or legacy, process.
VA provides cash benefits to veterans for disabling conditions
incurred in or aggravated by military service, paying about $72 billion
to about 4.5 million veterans in fiscal year 2017. If veterans are
dissatisfied with VA's initial decision they can appeal-first to the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and then, if not satisfied
there, to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), a separate agency
within VA. For appeals resolved in fiscal year 2017, veterans waited an
average of approximately 3 years from the date they initiated their
appeal to resolution by either VBA or the Board-and an average of 7
years for appeals resolved by the Board. Due in part to the challenges
VA faces managing large workloads and deciding disability claims and
appeals in a timely manner, GAO in 2003 designated VA disability
compensation, along with other federal disability programs, as one of
the government's highest risk areas. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Disability programs are an area that we continue to monitor on
our high-risk list. See GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High
Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO 17 317
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017
(Act) makes changes to VA's disability appeals process by replacing the
current appeals process with one that gives veterans various options
for further review by VBA or to bypass VBA and appeal directly to the
Board. \2\ The Act further requires VA to submit a comprehensive plan
for implementing the new appeals process to the appropriate committees
of Congress and GAO. \3\ (VA submitted its plan to GAO on November 22,
2017.) The Act delineates 22 legally required elements of this plan. In
addition, the Act requires VA to provide progress reports to the
appropriate committees of Congress and GAO at least every 90 days,
until the Act's changes to the appeals process generally go into effect
and then at least every 180 days after this date for 7 years. VA
submitted progress reports in February and May 2018, and its next
progress report is due in August 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pub. L. No. 115-55, 2, 131 Stat. 1105, 1105.
\3\ The Act defines ``appropriate committees of Congress'' as the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on
Appropriations in the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Act also includes a provision for GAO to assess whether VA's
appeals plan comports with sound planning practices and identify any
gaps in the plan. \4\ In our March 2018 report assessing VA's plan, we
concluded that while VA's November 2017 plan reflected aspects of sound
planning, improvements in planning are still needed to ensure
successful appeals reform. We recommended VA's plan (1) address all
legally required elements in the Act; (2) articulate how it will
monitor and assess the performance of appeals processes; (3) augment
its project plan for implementation; and (4) address risk more fully.
\5\ VA agreed with our recommendations. Subsequently, in April 2018 we
designated two of our four recommendations-monitoring and assessing
performance as well as addressing risks-as ``priority recommendations''
for VA to implement. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Pub. L. No. 115-55, 3(c), 131 Stat. 1105, 1118.
\5\ GAO, VA Disability Benefits: Improved Planning Practices Would
Better Ensure Successful Appeals Reform, GAO 18 352 (Washington, D.C.:
March 22, 2018). We also discussed our work and proposed
recommendations in a January 2018 testimony. See GAO, VA Disability
Benefits: Opportunities Exist to Better Ensure Successful Appeals
Reform, GAO 18 349T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2018).
\6\ Priority recommendations are open recommendations GAO believes
warrant priority attention from heads of key departments and agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today addresses VA's progress in implementing the four
recommendations. Specifically, it summarizes steps VA has taken to
address GAO's recommendations identified in our March 2018 report, and
what aspects of our recommendations that VA has yet to address. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO 18 352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this statement, we reviewed VA's May 2018 updated appeals
reform plan and information we received from VA officials about any
significant steps taken to implement our March 2018 recommendations. We
also interviewed relevant VA officials and reviewed information related
to VA's progress in addressing four related recommendations from work
that we conducted prior to enactment of the Act. \8\ The work upon
which this statement is based was conducted in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We have been monitoring VA's progress in addressing a related
set of five recommendations in our 2017 report on VA's appeals
planning. See GAO, VA Disability Benefits: Additional Planning Would
Enhance Efforts to Improve the Timeliness of Appeals Decisions, GAO 17
234 (Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2017). Specifically, we made five
recommendations to improve VA's ability to implement its proposed
reform to the appeals process while addressing a growing appeals
workload, with which VA agreed in principle. In summary, we recommended
that VA develop: (1) a detailed workforce plan, (2) a complete schedule
of information technology (IT) updates, (3) better estimates of future
workloads and timeliness, (4) a robust plan for monitoring appeals
reform, and (5) a strategy for assessing whether the new process
improves veterans' experiences over the current process. We also
suggested that Congress require VA to pilot test appeals reform
changes. As of July 2018, these five recommendations remained open.
However, we plan to close the recommendation related to VA developing
better estimates of future workloads and timeliness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
VA's Current Disability Compensation Appeals Process
VA's process for deciding veterans' eligibility for disability
compensation begins when a veteran submits a claim to VA. \9\ Staff in
one of VBA's 56 regional offices assist the veteran by gathering
additional evidence, such as military and medical records, that is
needed to evaluate the claim. Based on this evidence, VBA decides
whether the veteran is entitled to compensation and, if so, how much. A
veteran dissatisfied with the initial claim decision can generally
appeal within 1 year from the date of the notification letter sent by
VBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For additional details about VA's current and new appeals
processes and the Act, see GAO 18 352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current appeals process (now referred to by VA as the
legacy process), an appeal begins with the veteran filing a Notice of
Disagreement. VBA then re-examines the case and generally issues a
Statement of the Case that represents its decision. A veteran
dissatisfied with VBA's decision can file an appeal with the Board. In
filing that appeal, the veteran can indicate whether a Board hearing is
desired. Before the Board reviews the appeal, VBA prepares the file and
certifies it as ready for Board review. If the veteran requests a
hearing to present new evidence or arguments, the Board will hold a
hearing by videoconference or at a local VBA regional office. The Board
reviews the evidence and either issues a decision to grant or deny the
veteran's appeal or refers (or remands) the appeal back to VBA for
further work.
VA's New Appeals Process
The Act made changes to VA's appeals process that will generally
take effect no earlier than February 2019, which is approximately 18
months after enactment. \10\ According to its appeals plan, VA intends
to implement the Act by February 2019, by replacing the current appeals
process with a process offering veterans who are dissatisfied with
VBA's decision on their claim five options: two of those options afford
the veteran an opportunity for an additional review of VBA's decision
within VBA, and the other three options afford them the opportunity to
bypass additional VBA review and appeal directly to the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pub. L. No. 115-55, 2, 131 Stat. 1105, 1105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the new appeals process, the two VBA options will be:
1. Request higher-level review: The veteran asks VBA to review its
initial decision based on the same evidence but with a higher-level
official reviewing and issuing a new decision.
2. File supplemental claim: The veteran provides additional
evidence and files a supplemental claim with VBA for a new decision on
the claim. The veteran could also request a VBA hearing.
The three Board options will be:
3. Request Board review of existing record: The veteran appeals to
the Board and asks it to review only the existing record without a
hearing.
4. Request Board review of additional evidence, without a hearing.
5. Request Board review of additional evidence, with a hearing.
In November 2017, VA initiated a pilot test of the new VBA higher-
level review and supplemental claim options. According to VA's appeals
plan, a purpose of this pilot-the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program
(RAMP)-is to reduce legacy appeals by providing veterans with a chance
for early resolution of their claims within VBA's new process.
Participation in RAMP is voluntary, but veterans must withdraw their
pending legacy appeal to participate, according to VA's appeals plan.
VA Has Addressed Some Aspects of GAO's Recommendations on Appeals
Reform Planning
In our March 2018 report, we found that VA could help ensure
successful implementation of appeals reform by addressing gaps in its
planning. We recommended four actions that VA should take: (1) address
all legally required elements required by the Act; (2) articulate how
it will monitor and assess the performance of the new appeals process
compared to the legacy process, (3) augment its master schedule to
manage the project, and (4) address risk more fully. VA has taken steps
in response to all four, but has not fully addressed our
recommendations.
VA Has Yet to Provide Complete Information on GAO's Recommendation to
Address the Act's Required Elements
In our March 2018 report, we found that VA's November 2017 plan for
implementing a new disability appeals process while attending to
appeals under way in the current (legacy) process, addressed most, but
not all, elements required by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2017. \11\ Specifically, we found that VA's
appeals plan addressed 17 of 22 elements required by the Act. For the
five remaining elements, it partially addressed 4 elements related to
monitoring implementation, projecting productivity, and workforce
planning, and did not address 1 element related to identifying total
resources. \12\ This element called for delineating the resources
needed by VBA and the Board to implement the new appeals process and
address legacy appeals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We identified 22 required elements for VA's comprehensive plan
under section 3(a) and (b) of the Act. Specifically, subsection (a)
contains 4 elements, and subsection (b) requires the appeals plan to
address 18 elements.
\12\ See GAO 18 352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommended in March 2018 that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
address all 22 required elements in the Act in VA's appeals plan to
Congress. This included delineating resources required for all VBA and
Board appeals options using sensitivity analyses and results from the
RAMP test where appropriate and needed. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Sensitivity analysis-used in scenario planning to, for
example, determine the resources needed for implementing a new process-
is an analysis to determine how sensitive outcomes are to changes in
assumptions, such as those used to determine resource needs. The
assumptions that deserve the most attention should depend on the
dominant benefit and cost elements and the areas of greatest
uncertainty of the program or process being analyzed. See GAO 09 3SP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since our 2018 report, VA has taken some action on the five
elements that were not fully addressed. For example, VA's updated plan
added details related to projecting staff productivity, identifying
total resources, as well as about personnel requirements and
projections for processing legacy appeals. For identifying total
resources, VA added FTE information for other offices that help
implement the appeals process and prepared a model to project resource
needs.
VA's updated plan, however, continues to only partially address 3
elements related to monitoring implementation and workforce planning,
and now addresses the 1 element related to projecting productivity and
partially addresses the 1 element related to delineating the total
resources. For total resources, VA's updated plan does not delineate
the total resources required by VBA and the Board. Until VA's appeals
plan provides complete information on all required elements, Congress
may not have the information needed to conduct oversight of the
agency's efforts to implement and administer the new process while
addressing legacy appeals.
VA Has Partially Addressed GAO's Recommendation to Measure, Monitor,
and Assess Performance
In our 2018 report, we found that VA could improve its planning
practices related to monitoring and assessing performance on a range of
key dimensions of success. Specifically, the plan had not (1)
established timeliness goals for two of the three Board options (i.e.,
Board review of additional evidence without a hearing and Board review
of additional evidence with a hearing); (2) articulated additional
aspects of performance important for managing appeals, such as accuracy
of decisions, veteran satisfaction with the process, or cost; (3)
provided important details about what aspects of the new appeals'
performance would be compared to what aspects of the legacy process'
performance; or (4) explained how the agency would monitor whether
resources are being appropriately devoted to both the new and legacy
appeals processes and how it will track both sets of workloads.
To address these gaps, we recommended that the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs clearly articulate in VA's appeals plan how VA will
monitor and assess the new appeals process compared to the legacy
process. These include specifying a balanced set of goals and measures
with related baseline data, such as timeliness goals for all VBA
appeals options and Board dockets, and measures of accuracy, veteran
satisfaction, and cost.
In its May 2018 updated plan, VA addressed some but not all aspects
of this recommendation. Specifically:
Timeliness goals and balanced measures. VA's updated plan states
that the agency is collecting data to inform its development of a
complete and balanced set of measures for all new appeals options
(e.g., timely and accurate processing of appeals while ensuring veteran
satisfaction). VA's original plan had outlined timeliness goals for the
two VBA options and for the Board option that does not include new
evidence or a hearing. However, VA does not intend to establish
timeliness goals or balanced measures for all options until after fully
implementing the new appeals process. Further, VA officials told us
they are working to produce metrics required under the Act, but have
yet to fully articulate a plan for monitoring. For example, there is
not a specific plan to monitor the accuracy of decisions under or
veteran satisfaction with the new process. \14\ Until VA identifies a
complete set of timeliness goals and balanced measures, the agency will
not have a way to determine how well the new process is performing.
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Section 5 of the Act requires VA to periodically publish on
its website various metrics on the new and legacy processes, which
could help VA measure performance. Pub. L. No. 115-55, 5, 131
Stat. 1105, 1123.
\15\ The absence of goals and measures falls short sound planning
practices that call for articulating an ``end state'' or vision for
what successful implementation process change would look like. See GAO,
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and
Organizational Transformations, GAO 03 669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of new and legacy processes. VA's updated plan states
that VA is working toward capturing the metrics listed in section 5 of
the Act, which could help VA measure relative performance of the new
and legacy processes. \16\ However, VA's updated plan does not state
how VA will assess whether the new process addresses problems in the
legacy process. \17\ For example, according to VA's updated plan and
agency officials we interviewed, VA believes it cannot measure the
timeliness of legacy appeals processing from when an appeal is filed to
its resolution. According to VA, developing this measure is not
feasible because the legacy process has no defined endpoint. Submission
of additional evidence by veterans can, at any point, cause additional
cycles of re-adjudication. However, VA has not articulated other
options for comparing the timeliness of the new and legacy processes in
its May 2018 update to its plan. Without this assessment, VA cannot
determine the extent to which the new process, which also allows for
multiple appeal opportunities, will achieve final resolution of
veterans' appeals sooner, on average, than the legacy process.
Moreover, VA's updated plan does not fully explain how the agency will
use the Act's metrics to assess relative performance of the new and
legacy appeals processes on issues like accuracy, veteran satisfaction,
or cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For example, VA is required to report average duration of each
segment of the legacy appeals process as well as for appeals under the
new process, such as the average duration for processing claims and
supplemental claims for the new VBA options.
\17\ As we previously reported, VA's business case for reform in
some instances relied on unproven assumptions and limited analyses of
its legacy process to identify root causes of performance problems. See
GAO 17 234 and GAO 18 352. In addition, in March 2017 we recommended
that VA develop a strategy for assessing process reform-relative to the
legacy process-that ensures transparency on the extent to which VA is
improving veterans' experiences with its disability appeals process.
GAO 17 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring processing of legacy versus new appeals. VA's updated
plan articulates VA's intention to use sensitivity and other analyses
to monitor and address workload changes in its legacy and new appeals
processes. \18\ These analyses could better position VA to manage the
two parallel processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ We had previously recommended VA conduct additional
sensitivity analyses to inform projections of future appeals
inventories. See GAO 17 234. In its plan, VA refers to this as its
forecast model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, VA has not established complete and balanced goals
and measures or developed a plan for comparing the new and legacy
processes. In recent communications on the status of implementing our
recommendations, VA officials indicated they plan to address some of
these monitoring and performance issues in the next update. Until VA
does so, the agency risks not fully understanding whether the new
process is an improvement, or whether veterans with appeals in the
legacy process are experiencing poor results. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In our March 2017 report, we had recommended VA develop a
robust plan for closely monitoring implementation of process reform
that includes metrics and interim goals to help track progress,
evaluate efficiency and effectiveness, and identify trouble spots. GAO
17 234.
VA Has Made Little Progress in Addressing GAO's Recommendation to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Augment Its Master Schedule for Implementation
Our March 2018 report also identified elements of a high-quality
and reliable implementation schedule that were missing from VA's master
schedule for appeals reform. Specifically, we reported that VA's master
schedule-which the agency included with its November 2017 plan-did not
(1) include all key activities; (2) show which activities must finish
prior to the start of other activities, or the amount of time an
activity could be delayed before the delay affects VA's estimated
implementation date; (3) reflect interim goals and milestones for
monitoring implementation; or (4) assign resources for activities.
We recommended that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs augment the
master schedule for VA's appeals plan to reflect all activities-such as
modifications to IT systems-as well as assigned responsibilities,
interdependencies, start and end dates for key activities for each
workgroup, and resources. These steps establish accountability and
reduce overall risk of implementation failures.
In its updated plans, VA took steps to develop interim goals and
milestones for monitoring implementation, among other positive actions,
but the master schedule still included gaps in sound practices for
project management. Specifically:
Key activities and their duration. The updated master schedule VA
provided in its May 2018 plan added activities, but VA continues to
exclude some major activities-including those beyond the planned
February 2019 implementation date-and their duration. For example:
The updated master schedule does not include a small-
scale pilot of the new Board options, even though this pilot is
occurring at the same time VA is preparing for full implementation. In
response to our questions about this issue, as of July 2018, VA
officials said they are adding related pilot test activities to the
master schedule.
Many activities in the master schedule have the same
label or description, such as ``communications,'' ``change
management,'' ``implementation,'' ``training,'' and ``hosting,'' that
do not clearly identify their associated end product without the need
to review high-level summary or predecessor activity names.
The updated master schedule lacks details and
transparency regarding Caseflow, the new information technology system
for VA's appeals process. \20\ While VA identified the overall
functionality and general timing needed for Caseflow, the steps to
accomplish them lack specificity. Further, VA's updated plan indicates
Caseflow will be ``minimally ready'' by the end of calendar year 2018.
At a June 2018 meeting with VA, we asked officials to define the term
``minimally ready'' and what additional activities or functionality, if
any, they planned after reaching this milestone. In response, VA
officials pointed us to another source that they said outlined the
remaining functionality to complete Caseflow. However, when we
consulted this source, we could not determine what functionality listed
was to be implemented before or after October 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In March 2017, we recommended that VA develop a schedule for
information technology updates that explicitly addresses when and how
any process reform will be integrated into new systems and when
Caseflow will be ready to support a potential streamlined appeals
process at its onset. See GAO 17 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The updated master schedule also lacks start and finish
dates as well as status information (e.g., not started, in planning, in
progress, complete, etc.) for many of the activities.
Sequencing and linkages among activities. VA's updated plan
provided new details about some sub-activities related to processing
legacy appeals, monitoring implementation, drafting Board policies, and
training. Moreover, the May 2018 updated master schedule was
reorganized to improve its flow and alignment, according to VA
officials. However, the overall updated master schedule generally does
not indicate logical relationships regarding the sequence in which
activities should occur, and whether any delays in one activity will
dynamically affect other activities linked to it. \21\ This type of
logic is necessary to define both when an activity may start and finish
and when an activity must start and finish for meeting a specified
program completion date. These are known as early and late dates,
respectively. For example, the plan does not indicate the latest date
regulations can fall behind schedule before the planned February 2019
implementation date is impacted, or related activities such as
training. This sound planning practice is especially important because
VA officials said the agency is concurrently executing many of the
activities. Without logical relationships, the master schedule is less
effective for modeling the impact of delayed or accelerated activities
on related activities, and ultimately for estimating the final
implementation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See GAO, GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for
Project Schedules, GAO 16 89G (Washington, D.C.: December 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim goals and milestones for monitoring implementation. VA has
taken steps to address this aspect of the recommendation. In addition
to reiterating the use of an agency-wide governance structure to
coordinate implementation of its new appeals process, VA in its updated
May 2018 plan added indicators to monitor and assess its readiness for
full implementation. Indicators include monitoring the status of
implementing regulations and information technology as well as
considering any lessons learned through its piloting of the new
process. These ``readiness indicators'' could help VA better identify
potential issues related to implementation of the new appeals process.
However, the master schedule does not show sequencing and linkages for
these indicators.
Establishing resources. VA's updated plan states the agency will
use existing resources to implement the new appeals process. Moreover,
the master schedule identifies the ``owners'' or parts of the
organization that are playing a role in appeals reform, such as the
Veterans Health Administration (VHA). However, other than identifying
the ``owners'' for the activities, resources needed are not identified
for the groups of related activities identified in the master schedule
or for processing legacy and new appeals processes once implemented in
February 2019. By not estimating these resources, VA's plan does not
illuminate resource constraints and indicate whether other parts of the
organization or workgroups are dedicated full-time to the tasks or
activities for which they are responsible, or whether other constraints
exist on funding or time. In general, neither the plan nor the master
schedule refers to underlying budget or cost documents or information.
In recent discussions on the status of implementing our
recommendations, VA officials indicated they plan to address some of
these issues in the August 2018 update. Until all necessary activities
are accounted for, VA cannot be certain whether key activities are
scheduled in the correct order, resources are properly allocated, and
key risks have been identified, among other sound practices for guiding
implementation and accountability. Furthermore, to the extent that the
master schedule is used for internal coordination, the absence of
necessary elements could hinder coordination, increasing the likelihood
of disruption or delay.
VA Has Addressed Many, but Not All Aspects of GAO's Recommendation to
More Fully Assess Risk
In our 2018 report, we found that VA's November 2017 appeals plan
could more fully assess key risks related to implementing the new
appeals process. In particular, we found that VA's plan did not include
testing of new Board options or clearly define how it would assess the
RAMP pilot test of the VBA-only options before implementing the process
more broadly. \22\ Further, we reported that VA's plan had not
comprehensively reflected key risks because the agency had not
established a complete and balanced set of goals and measures, which
are a necessary pre-condition to effectively assessing risk. \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ We previously reported on the benefits of testing appeals
reform and the risks of not doing so, and recommended that Congress
require VA to develop options for testing appeal reform prior to
implementation. See GAO 17 234. The Act authorizes VA to carry out
programs to test any assumptions relied upon in developing its
comprehensive plan and test the feasibility and advisability of any
facet of the new appeals process.
\23\ See GAO 18 352. A risk assessment is the identification and
analysis of risks related to achieving the defined objectives. This
assessment provides the basis for developing appropriate risk
responses. See GAO 14 704G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommended the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ensure that the
appeals plan more fully addresses risk associated with appeals reform
by, for example, assessing risks against a balanced set of goals and
measures, articulating an assessment plan for RAMP, and testing or
conducting sensitivity analyses of all appeals options-prior to fully
implementing the new appeals process.
In its updated May 2018 plan, VA took many steps to address our
recommendation, although opportunities exist to better assess risks
associated with implementing appeals reform and managing appeals
workloads in the legacy process. Specifically:
Testing all aspects of the new appeals process. Since our March
2018 report, VA has taken steps to pilot test the three new Board
appeals options. In its May 2018 updated plan, VA describes a small-
scale test program-the Board's Early Applicability of Appeals
Modernization (BEAAM)-to collect information about what options
veterans choose and their experiences using the new appeals options.
For BEAAM, the Board is partnering with veterans service organizations
to identify 50 veterans who are dissatisfied with a recent claim
decision, and allowing these veterans to appeal directly to the Board.
Participating veterans have begun opting in, and VA plans to collect
information on adjudication of these appeals. In addition, for veterans
dissatisfied with their RAMP decisions, as of October 2018 the Board
will begin adjudicating their appeals to further test new Board
processes and technology.
VA officials also reported progress with developing new sensitivity
analyses that will allow the agency to change assumptions related to
key variables-both individually and in conjunction with one another.
\24\ VA anticipates these analyses will allow the agency to project
potential budget needs and staffing requirements and more accurately
predict resolution of legacy appeals given certain assumptions.
Further, VA anticipates using the analyses to determine distribution of
resources, and quickly react to changes in its pending legacy and new
appeals processes, and other trends. By taking these steps, VA may be
better positioned to estimate future disability appeals inventories,
timeliness, and resource needs as well as assess risks associated with
implementing a new appeals process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ This step is also consistent with our 2017 recommendation that
VA conducts additional sensitivity analyses to better project future
workloads and hiring needs to help mitigate potential risks. See GAO 17
234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defining success criteria and articulating how to assess RAMP and
BEAAM. In its updated plan, VA broadly defines what it hopes to achieve
with the RAMP and BEAAM pilots, such as providing information on
veterans' choices in the new process, testing new technology and
procedures, and estimating workloads. It also states that VA will use
the results to inform the assumptions in its sensitivity analyses. In
addition, the updated plan states that VBA is refining the methods to
evaluate RAMP.
The applicability of BEAAM results to a fully implemented appeals
process may be limited. For example, the BEAAM pilot and the Board's
implementation of RAMP provide limited time in which to conduct and
assess the results. Moreover, because VA's test is very small in scale
(up to 50 veterans), it will be important for VA to consider, for
example, whether these appeals reflect the complexity of cases and the
range of circumstances expected in a fully implemented new appeals
process. In a mid-May 2018 meeting with VA officials, we raised these
and similar concerns. VA officials said they would consider these
concerns.
Finally, although VA's updated plan includes a timeline for testing
and assessing the new processes, VA's updated schedule indicates that
VA is planning to assess RAMP results between February 15, 2019 and May
10, 2019. These dates occur after VA intends to fully implement its new
process. Our recommendation specifies that testing and assessment of
pilot results should occur prior to full implementation.
Comprehensively assess risks. Within VA's updated plan, VA has
added to its ``risk register,'' which describes risks associated with
many elements of its plan and related mitigation strategies. However,
VA's updated plan has not established a complete and balanced set of
goals and measures as discussed above, which are a necessary pre-
condition to effectively assessing risk. Having a complete set of goals
and measures would allow VA to better identify and target risks
associated with reaching these goals while concurrently managing two
processes. Thus, VA may not have comprehensively reflected key risks in
its updated plan.
In conclusion, although VA intends to fully implement the new
disability appeals process in about 6 months (February 2019), VA still
has an opportunity to create a stronger foundation of sound planning
practices. To its credit, VA has taken a number of positive steps
toward implementing our prior recommendations to improve its planning
for disability appeals reform while it attends to legacy appeals.
Efforts such as testing Board appeals options and resuming sensitivity
analysis will provide useful information to guide VA through the
uncertainty often associated with process change. However, VA needs to
fully address our four recommendations to reasonably assure smooth
implementation of appeals reform. As we noted in our prior work, VA is
undertaking a complex endeavor that involves updating and creating new
processes while on-boarding hundreds of new staff and implementing new
technology-an endeavor that will affect the lives of hundreds of
thousands of veterans with disabilities. Such an undertaking requires
an appropriate level of planning to improve VA's chance of success.
VA's continued efforts to address our recommendations will better
position the agency in its implementation of new appeals processes.
Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the Committee,
this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions you may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
For further information about this testimony, please contact
Elizabeth H. Curda at (202) 512-7215 or [email protected]. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this testimony. Other key contributors to
this testimony include James Whitcomb (Assistant Director), Daniel
Concepcion (Analyst in Charge), and Michele Grgich. In addition, key
support was provided by Susan Aschoff, Mark Bird, Grace Cho, Alex
Galuten, Joel Green, Sheila R. McCoy, Karen Richey, Almeta Spencer, and
Walter Vance.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to
copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission
from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or
other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary
if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday
afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony,
and correspondence. To have GAO e mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to https://www.gao.gov and select ``E-mail Updates.''
Order by Phone
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website,
https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077,
or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO
Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our
Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Congressional Relations
Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, [email protected], (202)
512-4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548
Public Affairs
Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149,
Washington, DC 20548
Strategic Planning and External Liaison
James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, [email protected], (202)
512-4707
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814,
Washington, DC 20548
Statement For The Record
NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE
Chairman Roe, Ranking Member Walz and members of the committee, on
behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the opportunity to
present the VFW's views on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
efforts to implement appeals reform.
The VFW fully understands and respects the magnitude of
transformation that VA must accomplish over the next seven months to
ensure the new appeal framework can be deployed on time and in
accordance with the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act
of 2017. To date, we believe that VA has been very aggressive in
seeking to develop new business processes to ensure the new framework
succeeds. We have provided feedback along the way and will continue to
have open communication with VA about the challenges of implementing
such a systemic change in a very short period of time.
The VFW has seen several successes in the Rapid Appeals
Modernization Program (RAMP) to this point. VA should be commended for
deploying a system that improved workflow. However, as a veterans
service organization (VSO) that represents more than 500,000 veterans
in their claims and appeals, it is our duty to watch this process
closely, identify deficiencies, and work with VA and Congress to fix
them.
First, we are encouraged by the grant rate that VA is reporting for
appeals that have gone through the Higher Level Review lane. To the
VFW, this indicates that review officers are taking this program
seriously, and are not afraid to correct decisions. The VFW has also
noticed that newer appellants are more likely to opt into RAMP than to
stay in the legacy system, which could still take years to navigate.
Even when veterans receive denials under RAMP, they are notified in a
timely manner and more clear and simplified options to seek further
resolution. We saw one example of this in Florida where a veteran opted
into Higher Level Review continued to be denied, but was given a rating
decision within only a matter of weeks of opting into RAMP. With a new
rating decision in hand that provided improved explanation of the law
and evidence considered, both the veteran and the VFW service officer
were better equipped to address the veteran's appeal.
VFW has also seen success with, the underutilized, informal
conference process. In Kansas, our representative has had success
ensuring that the adjudicator has a clear understanding of the issues
under appeal, which increase the likelihood of veterans receiving
favorable decisions.
The VFW is pleased that VA was able to share draft regulations with
VSOs very early in this process, soliciting VSO feedback. What we read
at the time seemed very veteran-centric and gave us peace of mind. As
the administrators of a national claims assistance program, we feel VA
has made progress in improving collaboration which allows us to
encourage our representatives in the field to recommend RAMP as a
course of action for claimants. We are concerned, however, that VA is
running behind on its proposed timeline for implementation. We
anticipated that VA would publish its proposed regulations for public
comment no later than July 1, 2018, with an expedited public comment
period ending August 1, 2018. This timeline was critical to ensuring
full implementation by February 2019. Unfortunately, the proposed
regulations have yet to be published for public comment. We hope this
does not skew the timeline significantly in meeting the statutory
implementation deadline, since other implementation steps depend on the
finalization of the regulations, such as the development of revised
forms reflecting the options to appeal directly to the Board of
Veterans Appeals (BVA).
With regard to processing, we do have concerns over consistency in
the process. We have questions about how long it takes some VA offices
to properly process RAMP paperwork. We have seen veterans whose claims
were already certified to BVA, awaiting a hearing, receive a RAMP opt-
in notice, even though they would be ineligible to participate. The
paperwork to opt into RAMP is also confusing now that the program has
been expanded. Originally, notice letters were sent with a coversheet
filled out by VA that would route RAMP appeals to the Appeals Resource
Center. Claimants choosing to opt in without having received a notice
letter may not complete this section, as it states it is to be
completed by VA personnel, and may therefore experience delays in
establishing the claim.
VA's computer systems have also caused issues with implementation.
For example, RAMP actions cannot be taken before actions on other
claims are completed, or vice versa. These conflicts create unnecessary
hurdles for claims processors to resolve in a process that is supposed
to be simplified. IT concerns must also be addressed to allow claimants
to pursue different issues in different lanes, for full implementation
of appeals reform.
VA's adjudication numbers seem to also reinforce that processing is
not as consistent as we need it to be. Though we have seen a
significant increase in veterans who opt in, we have not seen a
significant increase in RAMP decisions. This worries the VFW when it
comes to full implementation. Will VA have the resources to process
these new claims in a timely manner, or will we experience similar
backlogs to what we saw at BVA, that led to calls for reform?
In speaking with our field representatives, we also have concerns
over the quality of decisions we see in the supplemental claims lane.
From VA's latest report, the grant rate through supplemental claims is
only 26 percent, which is lower than the grant rate at BVA. One of our
representatives expressed a concern that the quality review system at
the local VA Regional Office would actively discourage benefit grants
through the supplemental claims lane. Since supplemental claims are
considered by the same regional office that processed that original
claim, the regional office would be reluctant to change the decisions
because doing so would negatively affect its overall quality review.
When it comes to Higher Level Review, we do see a promising
practice emerging, now that VBA has designated three new Decision
Review Operations Centers (DROCs) to handle this workload. We believe
that the DROCs can help ensure consistency in decision-making at the
higher level, and mitigate some concerns about VAROs simply confirming
prior decisions. However, we are interested to learn how the DROCs will
be staffed and if VA believes the staffing level will be sufficient for
the anticipated number of Higher Level Reviews.
Finally, with regard to duty to assist, we must remind the
committee to continue asking questions about this critical legal
protection for veterans. While everything we have seen to date
indicates that VA is maintaining this obligation, we want to do
everything in our power to ensure that no veteran slips through the
cracks as new business processes emerge and standard practices within
VA change.
Again, we understand the magnitude of VA's task. To ensure it can
succeed, VA must be as proactive as they can be in informing the VSOs
of changes and consulting us on new business processes. Historically,
VA has changed its workflows and only informed stakeholders after the
fact, not recognizing that this affects both the veterans they serve
and VSO service providers who help veterans navigate these systems. For
organizations like the VFW that orchestrate large-scale claims
assistance operations, we are always available to provide practical
expertise and advice on how process changes will affect workflow and
customer experience.
Once fully implemented, we continue to believe that the new appeals
framework will result in a cleaner, more understandable, and veteran-
centric benefits system. We appreciate VA's diligence in everything
they have accomplished to this point and we look forward to continuing
to work with VA and this committee to make appeals modernization a
success.