Congressman Speaks Out Again in Support of Bedford VA
Peabody, MA Today, Congressman John F. Tierney (D-MA) appeared and testified at the Local Advisory Panel's (LAP's) final meeting, at which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in conjunction with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) publicly presented its Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) "Stage II Options" report. Tierney spoke in opposition to a VA consultant's presentation which, despite earlier VA rejections, retains three of the four proposed options calling for the consolidation into Brockton of the Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital in Bedford, MA. A final report is now expected to be presented to the VA Secretary for final deliberation on the future of the Bedford VA Hospital.
A copy of Chairman Tierney's opening statement as prepared for delivery is below:
Opening Statement of Chairman John F. Tierney
Local Advisory Panel (LAP) meeting on the Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) process
As Prepared for Delivery
September 17, 2007
Chairwoman Murphy, and Members of the Local Advisory Panel, I welcome the opportunity to be with you again at this fourth and final meeting.
Before I begin the substance of my remarks, I'd like to publicly commend your efforts.
As you know, in addition to BPO 1, the so-called baseline option, which maintains services at Bedford and the other existing VA campuses, Secretary Nicholson selected three other options - BPO 8, BPO 10, and BPO 11 - for further consideration. BPOs 8, 10 and 11 all propose consolidating Bedford at Brockton but deviate with respect to how the other Boston-area campuses will be treated.
At every stage of this process - during each one of these meetings - you have been consistent in your strong support for BPO 1.
In fact, the Stage 2 report actually takes note that the "LAP and stakeholders are adamant that BPO 1 is the preferred option as it keeps services and programs at all facilities, maintains access to healthcare services for Boston area veterans, and maintains the GRECC program at Bedford."
Thank you for that support, for being on the right side of this issue and for standing-up for our veterans.
Now, I believe my prior testimony before this Panel fairly outlines my view
that the Bedford VA facility plays a unique and pivotal role in the provision of quality care to New England veterans;
that prior efforts to transfer services from Bedford have been reviewed and rejected, so the matter should be settled;
that this process has progressed in a way that has exceeded the scope of the initial feasibility study proposed in the May 2004 CARES Decision document issued by then-VA Secretary Principi;
and, at a time when an unprecedented number of our soldiers are returning from Iraq or Afghanistan with debilitating injuries, now is absolute wrong time to be closing such a critical VA hospital.
So, Madame Chairwoman, rather than restating why I believe Bedford should not be consolidated at Brockton, a point on which we clearly agree, I thought it would be more useful for the public record and for those VA officials who may be present to draw attention to certain aspects of the Stage 2 report that reinforce our case or that make dubious or unsupportable claims.
For instance:
The Stage 2 report quantified the number of research programs that would be affected, making clear that there would be a "high likelihood for negative impact" on such programs should BPO 8, BPO 10, and BPO 11 be implemented.
With respect to the number of staff required to change jobs, the Stage II report notes that 779 staff members would be required to change jobs if BPO 8 was implemented; 1,712 staff members would be required to change jobs if BPO 10 was implemented, and; 1,621 staff members would be required to change jobs if BPO 12 was implemented. Not surprisingly, the Stage 2 report assessed the number of staff required to change jobs would lead to a "high likelihood of negative impact" if BPOs 8, 10 or 12 were approved.
The Stage 2 report is also careful and correct to note that "BPO 8, BPO 10, BPO 11 would "require staff residing north of the city to commute south of the city, a commute that "will create a burden on those VA employees residing north of the city and currently working at Bedford."
The Stage 2 report estimates that it would take less time to complete the modernization and renovation of the facilities at Bedford (114 months) than the proposed consolidation at Brockton (120 months). On page 208, it goes on to suggest that the number and frequency of patient moves required by the renovation of Bedford would yield a "high negative impact. However, were Bedford to be consolidated and all the patients moved to Brockton, the Stage 2 report claims there would be a "medium negative impact."
I do not want to underestimate the difficulty patients and families would have to endure if construction occurred at Bedford, but I take issue with the Stage 2 report making such a fine distinction between "high" and "medium" negative impact.
The reality is that - given the high volume of patients that would need to be moved from Bedford and the extensive renovations occurring at the Brockton facility - BPOs 8, 10 and 11 are likely to be just as disruptive for patients and their families as our preferred option, BPO 1, would be. I believe this should be corrected in the final report that is presented to the Secretary.
Along these same lines, when evaluating "specialized VA programs," the Stage II report asserts, on page 210 and 211, that moving Bedford's Geriatrics Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC) and Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) to Brockton's Center of Excellence for the Seriously Mentally Ill "may result in synergies between programs" and "has the potential to provide more enhancement relative to the baseline option."
How can anyone justifiably suggest that would be the outcome?
In fact, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report earlier this year that examined the CARES decisions that are currently being implemented across the country.
In that report, GAO found that the "VA does not centrally track or monitor the implementation of CARES decisions. This type of information - which could be used as performance measures - could help VA officials and stakeholders assess VA's programs in the implementation of CARES."
The question is begged: if VA is not monitoring the implementation of the current CARES decisions, what data do they have to support the claim that "synergies" or "more enhancement" may result if Bedford's unique programs are transferred to Brockton?
Just saying "synergies" or "more enhancement" may happen certainly doesn't make it so.
Projecting the future needs of our veterans cannot rest on "best case" assumptions of how challenging it will be to provide optimum care while we are simultaneously co-locating services and consolidating campuses.
Unless it is substantiated by significant data, I believe such a claim should be removed from the final report that is presented to the Secretary.
Now, Madame Chairwoman, as you might have expected, the Stage 2 report is favorable toward BPOs 8, 10 and 11 when it comes to such categories as: the market potential for the reuse of the land, the reduction of vacant or underutilized space, and overall cost effectiveness.
However, we have long argued that this CARES process is not merely a real property exercise but one that impacts real patients, real families, and real health care professionals.
And, on balance, I think our preferred choice, BPO 1, fares quite well in the Stage 2 report's evaluation of those factors that would seem to matter most to our veterans and those who want what's best for them.
There are 2 final points that I would like to make:
1. The Stage 2 Report's so-called "Tradeoff Analysis" seems to recognize that BPO 10 and BP0 11 likely would not enhance the VA's mission and would have the highest likelihood of negatively impacting patients, staff and existing research programs.
While this appears to be on point, you'll notice that, in certain cases, the Stage 2 report speaks of BPO 8's strengths in terms of having "less of a negative effect" than BPO 10 and BPO 11.
Let's work to prevent an outcome where the VA "settles" on BPO 8 because it may be perceived as good in some areas and it is not as bad as BPO 10 and BPO 11.
2. Despite my long-outstanding request to the VA for specific data evidencing estimated impacts by the numbers of seriously injured and ill returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members on VA facilities and services, no response has yet been received.
Without verifiable data - and this report indicates consideration of no such materials - recommendations should not be considered realistic or complete.
Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Panel, following today's meeting, the VA Secretary will have a very important decision to make.
It is imperative that the Secretary be mindful of the concerns I have outlined as well as our "adamant" support for maintaining services at Bedford and the other existing VA campuses.
As our country continues to produce new generations of veterans, the legacy of this CARES process must evidence how dedicated we are to expanding and enhancing services for them.
Again, thank you for your support for the Bedford VA Hospital and for your participation in what has been a long process.