Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions S1014
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 1014. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in the management of health care services for veterans to place certain low-income veterans in a higher health-care priority category; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to change the way the Veterans' Administration defines low-income veterans by taking into account variations in the cost of living in different parts of the country. The Corzine-Clinton legislation would make the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation just that: Equitable.
More specifically, this bill would replace the national income threshold for consideration in Priority Group 5currently $24,000 for all parts of the countrywith regional thresholds defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This simple but far-reaching proposal would help low-income veterans across the country afford quality health care and ensure that Veterans Integrated Service Networks or VISNs receive adequate funding to care for their distinct veteran populations.
Our Nation's veterans have made great sacrifics in defense of American freedom and values, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude. The United States Congress must ensure that all American veteransveterans who have sweated in the trenches to defend libertyhave access to quality health care.
In 1997, Congress implemented the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system, or VERA, to distribute medical care funding provided by the VA. The funding formula was established to better take into account the costs associated with various veteran populations. Unfortunately, the VERA formula that was created fails to take into account regional differences in the cost of living, a significant metric in determining veteran healthcare costs. This oversight in the VERA formula dangerously shortchanges veterans living in regions with high costs of living and elevated healthcare expenses.
To allocate money to the Veterans Integrated Service Networks, VISNs, VERA divides veterans into eight priority groups. Veterans who have no service-connected disability and whose incomes fall below $24,000 are considered low income and placed in Priority Group 5, while veterans whose incomes exceed this national threshold and qualify for no other special priorities are placed in either Priority Group 7c or Priority Group 8. VERA only reimburses the treating Medical Care facility for the care that they provided to veterans in priority groups 1-5 and does not provide any Federal reimbursement for the care provided to priority group 7 and 8 veterans.
Using a national threshold for determining eligibility as a low-income veteran puts veterans living in high cost areas at a decided disadvantage. In New Jersey, HUD's fiscal year 2002 standards for classification as "low-income" exceed $24,000 per year in every single county. And some areas exceed the VA baseline by more than 50 percent. Similarly, HUD's "low-income" classification for New York City is set at $35,150, and for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, at $40,150.
As a result, regions that have a high cost of living, like VISN 3, which encompasses substantial portions of New Jersey and New York, tend to have a reduced population of Priority Group 5 veterans and an inflated population of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans.
The fundamental inequity of the VERA formula is apparent when you consider the VERA allocations do not take into account the number of veterans classified in Priority Groups 7c and 8. Because of the costs associated with these Priority Groups 7c and 8 veterans are not considered as part of the VERA allocation, and because high cost of living areas have large populations of Priority Group 7c and 8 veterans, high cost regions must provide care to thousands of veterans without adequate funding.
This additional financial burden on VISNs with large populations of non-reimbursable veterans in Priority Group 7c and 8 has had a tremendous impact on VISN 3. Since FY 1996, VISN 3 has experienced a decline in revenue of 10 percent. As a result of the tremendous shortfall in the VISN 3 budget, the VA cannot move forward with plans to open clinics in various locations, including prospective clinics in Monmouth and Passaic Counties. Consequently, veterans in VISN 3 are forced to wait for unreasonably long periods to receive medical care and travel long distances to existing clinics, and those veterans who are able to access care are being treated in facilities operating under tremendous financial difficulty.
Furthermore, miscategorizing which vets quality as Priority Group 5 unjustifiably reduces access to medical care for thousands of veterans. Under existing rules, veterans placed in Priority and Groups 7c and 8 must provide a copayment to receive medical care at a VA medical facility; Veterans placed in Priority Group 5 receive medical care free of charge. Under the existing framework, low-income vets in high cost areas are often inappropriately placed in Priority Groups 7c and 8, and are forced to provide a copayment.
Recent studies by both the RAND Institute and the General Accounting Office identify this flaw in the VERA formula and recommend a geographic means test like the one provided in our legislation to improve the allocation of resources under VERA. Such a test would ensure that the VERA formula allocation better reflects the true costs of VA healthcare in the various VISNs in the United States.
Our legislation would make a simple adjustment to the VERA formula to account for variations in the cost of living in different regions. The bill would help veterans in high cost areas afford VA health care and guarantee that VISNs across the country receive adequate compensation for the care they provide.
I hope my colleagues will join Senator Clinton and me in supporting this important bill, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.