User login
VHA Facilities Report Severe Staffing Shortages
VHA Facilities Report Severe Staffing Shortages
For > 10 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has annually surveyed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities about staffing. Its recently released report is the 8th to find severe shortages—in this case, across the board. There were 4434 severe staffing shortages reported across all 139 VHA facilities in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 50% increase from FY 2024.
In the OIG report lexicon, a severe shortage refers to "particular occupations that are difficult to fill," and is not necessarily an indication of vacancies. Vacancy refers to a "specific unoccupied position and is distinct from the designation of a severe shortage." For example, a facility could identify an occupation as a severe occupational shortage, which could have no vacant positions or 100 vacant positions.
Nearly all facilities (94%) had severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% had severe shortages for nurses even with VHA's ability to make noncompetitive appointments for those occupations. Psychology was the most frequently reported severe clinical occupational staffing shortage, reported by 79 facilities (57%), down slightly from FY 2024 (61%). One facility reported 116 clinical occupational shortages.
The report notes that the OIG does not verify or otherwise confirm the questionnaire responses, but it appears to support other data. In the first 9 months of FY 2024, the VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses compared with a deficit of 781 physicians and 2129 nurses over the same period in FY 2025.
VHA facilities are finding it hard to reverse the trend. According to internal documents examined by ProPublica, nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2000 doctors offered jobs from January through March 2025 turned them down, 4 times the rate in the same time period in 2024. VHA also lost twice as many nurses as it hired between January and June. Many potential candidates reportedly were worried about the stability of VA employment.
VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz did not dispute the ProPublica findings but accused the news outlet of bias and "cherry-picking issues that are mostly routine." A nationwide shortage of health care workers has made hiring and retention difficult, he said.
Kasperowicz said the VA is "working to address" the number of doctors declining job offers by speeding up the hiring process and that the agency "has several strategies to navigate shortages." Those include referring veterans to telehealth and private clinicians.
In a statement released Aug. 12, Sen Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, "This report confirms what we've warned for months—this Administration is driving dedicated VA employees to the private sector at untenable rates."
The OIG survey did not ask about facilities' rationales for identifying shortages. Moreover, the OIG says the responses don't reflect the possible impacts of "workforce reshaping efforts," such as the Deferred Resignation Program announced on January 28, 2025.
In response to the OIG report, Kasperowicz said it is "not based on actual VA health care facility vacancies and therefore is not a reliable indicator of staffing shortages." In a statement to CBS News, he added, "The report simply lists occupations facilities feel are difficult for which to recruit and retain, so the results are completely subjective, not standardized, and unreliable." According to Kasperowicz, the system-wide vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are 14% and 10%, respectively, which are in line with historical averages.
The OIG made no recommendations but "encourages VA leaders to use these review results to inform staffing initiatives and organizational change."
For > 10 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has annually surveyed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities about staffing. Its recently released report is the 8th to find severe shortages—in this case, across the board. There were 4434 severe staffing shortages reported across all 139 VHA facilities in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 50% increase from FY 2024.
In the OIG report lexicon, a severe shortage refers to "particular occupations that are difficult to fill," and is not necessarily an indication of vacancies. Vacancy refers to a "specific unoccupied position and is distinct from the designation of a severe shortage." For example, a facility could identify an occupation as a severe occupational shortage, which could have no vacant positions or 100 vacant positions.
Nearly all facilities (94%) had severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% had severe shortages for nurses even with VHA's ability to make noncompetitive appointments for those occupations. Psychology was the most frequently reported severe clinical occupational staffing shortage, reported by 79 facilities (57%), down slightly from FY 2024 (61%). One facility reported 116 clinical occupational shortages.
The report notes that the OIG does not verify or otherwise confirm the questionnaire responses, but it appears to support other data. In the first 9 months of FY 2024, the VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses compared with a deficit of 781 physicians and 2129 nurses over the same period in FY 2025.
VHA facilities are finding it hard to reverse the trend. According to internal documents examined by ProPublica, nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2000 doctors offered jobs from January through March 2025 turned them down, 4 times the rate in the same time period in 2024. VHA also lost twice as many nurses as it hired between January and June. Many potential candidates reportedly were worried about the stability of VA employment.
VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz did not dispute the ProPublica findings but accused the news outlet of bias and "cherry-picking issues that are mostly routine." A nationwide shortage of health care workers has made hiring and retention difficult, he said.
Kasperowicz said the VA is "working to address" the number of doctors declining job offers by speeding up the hiring process and that the agency "has several strategies to navigate shortages." Those include referring veterans to telehealth and private clinicians.
In a statement released Aug. 12, Sen Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, "This report confirms what we've warned for months—this Administration is driving dedicated VA employees to the private sector at untenable rates."
The OIG survey did not ask about facilities' rationales for identifying shortages. Moreover, the OIG says the responses don't reflect the possible impacts of "workforce reshaping efforts," such as the Deferred Resignation Program announced on January 28, 2025.
In response to the OIG report, Kasperowicz said it is "not based on actual VA health care facility vacancies and therefore is not a reliable indicator of staffing shortages." In a statement to CBS News, he added, "The report simply lists occupations facilities feel are difficult for which to recruit and retain, so the results are completely subjective, not standardized, and unreliable." According to Kasperowicz, the system-wide vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are 14% and 10%, respectively, which are in line with historical averages.
The OIG made no recommendations but "encourages VA leaders to use these review results to inform staffing initiatives and organizational change."
For > 10 years, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has annually surveyed Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities about staffing. Its recently released report is the 8th to find severe shortages—in this case, across the board. There were 4434 severe staffing shortages reported across all 139 VHA facilities in fiscal year (FY) 2025, a 50% increase from FY 2024.
In the OIG report lexicon, a severe shortage refers to "particular occupations that are difficult to fill," and is not necessarily an indication of vacancies. Vacancy refers to a "specific unoccupied position and is distinct from the designation of a severe shortage." For example, a facility could identify an occupation as a severe occupational shortage, which could have no vacant positions or 100 vacant positions.
Nearly all facilities (94%) had severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% had severe shortages for nurses even with VHA's ability to make noncompetitive appointments for those occupations. Psychology was the most frequently reported severe clinical occupational staffing shortage, reported by 79 facilities (57%), down slightly from FY 2024 (61%). One facility reported 116 clinical occupational shortages.
The report notes that the OIG does not verify or otherwise confirm the questionnaire responses, but it appears to support other data. In the first 9 months of FY 2024, the VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses compared with a deficit of 781 physicians and 2129 nurses over the same period in FY 2025.
VHA facilities are finding it hard to reverse the trend. According to internal documents examined by ProPublica, nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2000 doctors offered jobs from January through March 2025 turned them down, 4 times the rate in the same time period in 2024. VHA also lost twice as many nurses as it hired between January and June. Many potential candidates reportedly were worried about the stability of VA employment.
VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz did not dispute the ProPublica findings but accused the news outlet of bias and "cherry-picking issues that are mostly routine." A nationwide shortage of health care workers has made hiring and retention difficult, he said.
Kasperowicz said the VA is "working to address" the number of doctors declining job offers by speeding up the hiring process and that the agency "has several strategies to navigate shortages." Those include referring veterans to telehealth and private clinicians.
In a statement released Aug. 12, Sen Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, said, "This report confirms what we've warned for months—this Administration is driving dedicated VA employees to the private sector at untenable rates."
The OIG survey did not ask about facilities' rationales for identifying shortages. Moreover, the OIG says the responses don't reflect the possible impacts of "workforce reshaping efforts," such as the Deferred Resignation Program announced on January 28, 2025.
In response to the OIG report, Kasperowicz said it is "not based on actual VA health care facility vacancies and therefore is not a reliable indicator of staffing shortages." In a statement to CBS News, he added, "The report simply lists occupations facilities feel are difficult for which to recruit and retain, so the results are completely subjective, not standardized, and unreliable." According to Kasperowicz, the system-wide vacancy rates for doctors and nurses are 14% and 10%, respectively, which are in line with historical averages.
The OIG made no recommendations but "encourages VA leaders to use these review results to inform staffing initiatives and organizational change."
VHA Facilities Report Severe Staffing Shortages
VHA Facilities Report Severe Staffing Shortages
VA Workforce Shrinking as it Loses Collective Bargaining Rights
VA Workforce Shrinking as it Loses Collective Bargaining Rights
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is on pace to cut nearly 30,000 positions by the end of fiscal year 2025, an initiative driven by a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition. According to the VA Workforce Dashboard, health care experienced the most significant net change through the first 9 months of fiscal year 2025. That included 2129 fewer registered nurses, 751 fewer physicians, and drops of 565 licensed practical nurses, 564 nurse assistants, and 1294 medical support assistants. In total, nearly 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs and 12,000 more are expected to leave by the end of September 2025.
According to VA Secretary Doug Collins, the departures have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force that he proposed earlier in 2025.
The VA also announced that in accordance with an Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, it is terminating collective bargaining rights for most of its employees, including most clinical staff not in leadership positions. The order includes the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, which represents 16,000 VA nurses, and the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 320,000 VA employees. The order exempted police officers, firefighters, and security guards. The Unions have indicated they will continue to fight the changes.
VA staffing has undergone significant reversals over the past year. The VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2024 before reversing course this year. According to the Workforce Dashboard, the VA and Veterans Health Administration combined to hire 26,984 employees in fiscal year 2025. Cumulative losses, however, totaled 54,308.
During exit interviews, VA employees noted a variety of reasons for their departure. "Personal/family matters" and "geographic relocation" were cited by many job categories. In addition, medical and dental workers also noted "poor working relationship with supervisor or coworker(s)," "desired work schedule not offered," and "job stress/pressure" among the causes. The VA has lost 148 psychologists in fiscal year 2025 who cited "lack of trust/confidence in senior leaders," as well as "policy or technology barriers to getting the work done," and "job stress/pressure" among their reasons for departure.
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is on pace to cut nearly 30,000 positions by the end of fiscal year 2025, an initiative driven by a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition. According to the VA Workforce Dashboard, health care experienced the most significant net change through the first 9 months of fiscal year 2025. That included 2129 fewer registered nurses, 751 fewer physicians, and drops of 565 licensed practical nurses, 564 nurse assistants, and 1294 medical support assistants. In total, nearly 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs and 12,000 more are expected to leave by the end of September 2025.
According to VA Secretary Doug Collins, the departures have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force that he proposed earlier in 2025.
The VA also announced that in accordance with an Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, it is terminating collective bargaining rights for most of its employees, including most clinical staff not in leadership positions. The order includes the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, which represents 16,000 VA nurses, and the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 320,000 VA employees. The order exempted police officers, firefighters, and security guards. The Unions have indicated they will continue to fight the changes.
VA staffing has undergone significant reversals over the past year. The VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2024 before reversing course this year. According to the Workforce Dashboard, the VA and Veterans Health Administration combined to hire 26,984 employees in fiscal year 2025. Cumulative losses, however, totaled 54,308.
During exit interviews, VA employees noted a variety of reasons for their departure. "Personal/family matters" and "geographic relocation" were cited by many job categories. In addition, medical and dental workers also noted "poor working relationship with supervisor or coworker(s)," "desired work schedule not offered," and "job stress/pressure" among the causes. The VA has lost 148 psychologists in fiscal year 2025 who cited "lack of trust/confidence in senior leaders," as well as "policy or technology barriers to getting the work done," and "job stress/pressure" among their reasons for departure.
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is on pace to cut nearly 30,000 positions by the end of fiscal year 2025, an initiative driven by a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition. According to the VA Workforce Dashboard, health care experienced the most significant net change through the first 9 months of fiscal year 2025. That included 2129 fewer registered nurses, 751 fewer physicians, and drops of 565 licensed practical nurses, 564 nurse assistants, and 1294 medical support assistants. In total, nearly 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs and 12,000 more are expected to leave by the end of September 2025.
According to VA Secretary Doug Collins, the departures have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force that he proposed earlier in 2025.
The VA also announced that in accordance with an Executive Order issued by President Donald Trump, it is terminating collective bargaining rights for most of its employees, including most clinical staff not in leadership positions. The order includes the National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United, which represents 16,000 VA nurses, and the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 320,000 VA employees. The order exempted police officers, firefighters, and security guards. The Unions have indicated they will continue to fight the changes.
VA staffing has undergone significant reversals over the past year. The VA added 223 physicians and 3196 nurses in the first 9 months of fiscal year 2024 before reversing course this year. According to the Workforce Dashboard, the VA and Veterans Health Administration combined to hire 26,984 employees in fiscal year 2025. Cumulative losses, however, totaled 54,308.
During exit interviews, VA employees noted a variety of reasons for their departure. "Personal/family matters" and "geographic relocation" were cited by many job categories. In addition, medical and dental workers also noted "poor working relationship with supervisor or coworker(s)," "desired work schedule not offered," and "job stress/pressure" among the causes. The VA has lost 148 psychologists in fiscal year 2025 who cited "lack of trust/confidence in senior leaders," as well as "policy or technology barriers to getting the work done," and "job stress/pressure" among their reasons for departure.
VA Workforce Shrinking as it Loses Collective Bargaining Rights
VA Workforce Shrinking as it Loses Collective Bargaining Rights
AVAHO Encourages Members to Make Voices Heard
Advocacy for veterans with cancer has always been a central part of the Association for VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) mission, but that advocacy has now taken on a new focus: the fate of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees. The advocacy portal provides templated letters, a search function to find local Senators and Members of Congress, a search function to find regional media outlets, updates on voting and elections, and information on key legislation relevant to VA health care.
To ensure its members’ concerns are heard, AVAHO is encouraging members, in their own time and as private citizens, to contact their local representatives to inform them about the real impact of recent policy changes on VA employees and the veterans they care for. Members can select any of 4 letters focused on reductions in force, cancellation of VA contracts, the return to office mandate, and the National Institutes of Health’s proposed cap on indirect cost for research grants: “AVAHO recognizes the power of the individual voice. Our members have an important role in shaping the health care services provided to veterans across our nation.”
"The contracts that have been canceled and continue to be canceled included critical services related to cancer care," AVAHO notes on its Advocacy page. "We know these impacted contracts have hindered the VA’s ability to implement research protocols, process and report pharmacogenomic results, manage Electronic Health Record Modernization workgroups responsible for safety improvements, and execute new oncology services through the Close to Me initiative, just to name a few."
Advocacy for veterans with cancer has always been a central part of the Association for VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) mission, but that advocacy has now taken on a new focus: the fate of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees. The advocacy portal provides templated letters, a search function to find local Senators and Members of Congress, a search function to find regional media outlets, updates on voting and elections, and information on key legislation relevant to VA health care.
To ensure its members’ concerns are heard, AVAHO is encouraging members, in their own time and as private citizens, to contact their local representatives to inform them about the real impact of recent policy changes on VA employees and the veterans they care for. Members can select any of 4 letters focused on reductions in force, cancellation of VA contracts, the return to office mandate, and the National Institutes of Health’s proposed cap on indirect cost for research grants: “AVAHO recognizes the power of the individual voice. Our members have an important role in shaping the health care services provided to veterans across our nation.”
"The contracts that have been canceled and continue to be canceled included critical services related to cancer care," AVAHO notes on its Advocacy page. "We know these impacted contracts have hindered the VA’s ability to implement research protocols, process and report pharmacogenomic results, manage Electronic Health Record Modernization workgroups responsible for safety improvements, and execute new oncology services through the Close to Me initiative, just to name a few."
Advocacy for veterans with cancer has always been a central part of the Association for VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) mission, but that advocacy has now taken on a new focus: the fate of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees. The advocacy portal provides templated letters, a search function to find local Senators and Members of Congress, a search function to find regional media outlets, updates on voting and elections, and information on key legislation relevant to VA health care.
To ensure its members’ concerns are heard, AVAHO is encouraging members, in their own time and as private citizens, to contact their local representatives to inform them about the real impact of recent policy changes on VA employees and the veterans they care for. Members can select any of 4 letters focused on reductions in force, cancellation of VA contracts, the return to office mandate, and the National Institutes of Health’s proposed cap on indirect cost for research grants: “AVAHO recognizes the power of the individual voice. Our members have an important role in shaping the health care services provided to veterans across our nation.”
"The contracts that have been canceled and continue to be canceled included critical services related to cancer care," AVAHO notes on its Advocacy page. "We know these impacted contracts have hindered the VA’s ability to implement research protocols, process and report pharmacogenomic results, manage Electronic Health Record Modernization workgroups responsible for safety improvements, and execute new oncology services through the Close to Me initiative, just to name a few."
VA Choice Bill Defeated in the House
A U.S. House of Representatives appropriation to fund the Veterans Choice Program surprisingly went down to defeat on Monday. The VA Choice Program is set to run out of money in September, and VA officials have been calling for Congress to provide additional funding for the program. Republican leaders, hoping to expedite the bill’s passage and thinking that it was not controversial, submitted the bill in a process that required the votes of two-thirds of the representatives. The 219-186 vote fell well short of the necessary two-thirds, and voting fell largely along party lines.
Many veterans service organizations (VSOs) were critical of the bill and called on the House to make substantial changes to it. Seven VSOs signed a joint statement calling for the bill’s defeat. “As organizations who represent and support the interests of America’s 21 million veterans, and in fulfillment of our mandate to ensure that the men and women who served are able to receive the health care and benefits they need and deserve, we are calling on Members of Congress to defeat the House vote on unacceptable choice funding legislation (S. 114, with amendments),” the statement read.
AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans , Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Wounded Warrior Project all signed on to the statement. The chief complaint was that the legislation “includes funding only for the ‘choice’ program which provides additional community care options, but makes no investment in VA and uses ‘savings’ from other veterans benefits or services to ‘pay’ for the ‘choice’ program.”
The bill would have allocated $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program, taken funding for veteran housing loan fees, and would reduce the pensions for some veterans living in nursing facilities that also could be paid for under the Medicaid program.
The fate of the bill and funding for the Veterans Choice Program remains unclear. Senate and House veterans committees seem to be far apart on how to fund the program and for efforts to make more substantive changes to the program. Although House Republicans eventually may be able to pass a bill without Democrats, in the Senate, they will need the support of at least a handful of Democrats to move the bill to the President’s desk.
A U.S. House of Representatives appropriation to fund the Veterans Choice Program surprisingly went down to defeat on Monday. The VA Choice Program is set to run out of money in September, and VA officials have been calling for Congress to provide additional funding for the program. Republican leaders, hoping to expedite the bill’s passage and thinking that it was not controversial, submitted the bill in a process that required the votes of two-thirds of the representatives. The 219-186 vote fell well short of the necessary two-thirds, and voting fell largely along party lines.
Many veterans service organizations (VSOs) were critical of the bill and called on the House to make substantial changes to it. Seven VSOs signed a joint statement calling for the bill’s defeat. “As organizations who represent and support the interests of America’s 21 million veterans, and in fulfillment of our mandate to ensure that the men and women who served are able to receive the health care and benefits they need and deserve, we are calling on Members of Congress to defeat the House vote on unacceptable choice funding legislation (S. 114, with amendments),” the statement read.
AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans , Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Wounded Warrior Project all signed on to the statement. The chief complaint was that the legislation “includes funding only for the ‘choice’ program which provides additional community care options, but makes no investment in VA and uses ‘savings’ from other veterans benefits or services to ‘pay’ for the ‘choice’ program.”
The bill would have allocated $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program, taken funding for veteran housing loan fees, and would reduce the pensions for some veterans living in nursing facilities that also could be paid for under the Medicaid program.
The fate of the bill and funding for the Veterans Choice Program remains unclear. Senate and House veterans committees seem to be far apart on how to fund the program and for efforts to make more substantive changes to the program. Although House Republicans eventually may be able to pass a bill without Democrats, in the Senate, they will need the support of at least a handful of Democrats to move the bill to the President’s desk.
A U.S. House of Representatives appropriation to fund the Veterans Choice Program surprisingly went down to defeat on Monday. The VA Choice Program is set to run out of money in September, and VA officials have been calling for Congress to provide additional funding for the program. Republican leaders, hoping to expedite the bill’s passage and thinking that it was not controversial, submitted the bill in a process that required the votes of two-thirds of the representatives. The 219-186 vote fell well short of the necessary two-thirds, and voting fell largely along party lines.
Many veterans service organizations (VSOs) were critical of the bill and called on the House to make substantial changes to it. Seven VSOs signed a joint statement calling for the bill’s defeat. “As organizations who represent and support the interests of America’s 21 million veterans, and in fulfillment of our mandate to ensure that the men and women who served are able to receive the health care and benefits they need and deserve, we are calling on Members of Congress to defeat the House vote on unacceptable choice funding legislation (S. 114, with amendments),” the statement read.
AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans , Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, and Wounded Warrior Project all signed on to the statement. The chief complaint was that the legislation “includes funding only for the ‘choice’ program which provides additional community care options, but makes no investment in VA and uses ‘savings’ from other veterans benefits or services to ‘pay’ for the ‘choice’ program.”
The bill would have allocated $2 billion for the Veterans Choice Program, taken funding for veteran housing loan fees, and would reduce the pensions for some veterans living in nursing facilities that also could be paid for under the Medicaid program.
The fate of the bill and funding for the Veterans Choice Program remains unclear. Senate and House veterans committees seem to be far apart on how to fund the program and for efforts to make more substantive changes to the program. Although House Republicans eventually may be able to pass a bill without Democrats, in the Senate, they will need the support of at least a handful of Democrats to move the bill to the President’s desk.
Hematology and Oncology Staffing Levels for Fiscal Years 19–24
Background
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.
Methods
Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.
Analysis
For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).
Results
From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).
Conclusions
Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.
Background
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.
Methods
Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.
Analysis
For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).
Results
From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).
Conclusions
Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.
Background
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.
Methods
Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.
Analysis
For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).
Results
From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).
Conclusions
Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.
Access to Germline Genetic Testing through Clinical Pathways in Veterans With Prostate Cancer
Background
Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.
Methods
Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.
Results
We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.
Conclusions
NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.
Background
Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.
Methods
Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.
Results
We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.
Conclusions
NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.
Background
Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.
Methods
Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.
Results
We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.
Conclusions
NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.
DoD Surveillance: Low to Moderate Effectiveness for Flu Vaccine
A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE).
The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2).
Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.
Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.
Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses.
Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.
For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.
A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE).
The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2).
Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.
Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.
Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses.
Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.
For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.
A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE).
The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2).
Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.
Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.
Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses.
Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.
For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.
ACES Act to Study Cancer in Aviators Is Now Law
A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.
Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.
Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why.
“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.
Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.
However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.
Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”
“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”
“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”
The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024.
A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.
Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.
Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why.
“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.
Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.
However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.
Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”
“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”
“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”
The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024.
A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.
Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.
Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why.
“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.
Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.
However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.
Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”
“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”
“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”
The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024.
Housing Program Expansion Opens Doors to More Veterans
TOPLINE:Expanding United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) eligibility to veterans with other-than-honorable (OTH) discharge significantly increased their program enrollments without impacting services for those with honorable discharge. Emergency department visits increased for honorable discharge veterans while hospitalizations rose for both groups.
METHODOLOGY:
- A quality improvement study following SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines analyzed data from 129,873 veterans enrolled in HUD-VASH between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021.
- Analysis included 127,876 veterans (98.5%) with honorable/general discharge and 1997 veterans (1.5%) with OTH discharge, with a mean age of 53.7 years.
- Researchers utilized an interrupted time series design to compare program enrollments and healthcare utilization before (June 2019-December 2020) and after (January 2021-September 2021) policy implementation.
- Data linkage between the Homeless Operations and Management Evaluation System database and VA Corporate Data Warehouse enabled tracking of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and primary care visits.
TAKEAWAY:
- Monthly HUD-VASH enrollments showed a significant increase for OTH veterans after the policy change (difference in slopes, 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.52), while honorable/general veterans experienced a non-significant increase (difference in slopes, 9.23; 95% CI, −20.35-38.79).
- Emergency department visits demonstrated a significant increase for honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35) but not for OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.08;
95% CI, −0.12-0.28). - Hospitalizations significantly increased for both OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.098; 95% CI, 0.009-0.170) and honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.078; 95% CI, 0.004-0.060).
- Primary care visits showed no significant changes for either group after the policy implementation (OTH: change in slope, −0.12; 95% CI, −0.65-0.42; honorable/general: change in slope, 0.20;
95% CI, −0.13-0.53).
IN PRACTICE:“Expanding HUD-VASH eligibility increased access to housing and social support for OTH veterans without disrupting services for those with honorable discharges,” the authors reported. “Efforts should focus on improving access to connecting OTH veterans with clinical services outside of HUD-VASH.”
SOURCE:The study was led by Thomas F. Nubong, MD, Center of Innovation for Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Providence. It was published online on August 5 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially affecting results. Additionally, staff training on the policy change varied across US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites, introducing implementation inconsistencies. The single-group interrupted time series design, while effective for tracking temporal trends, limited formal comparisons between discharge groups.
DISCLOSURES: The analyses were conducted under the VA Homeless Programs Office with operational funding support. Jack Tsai, PhD, and Eric Jutkowitz, PhD, reported being principal investigators of a VA Merit study on the Impact of COVID-19 for the HUD-VASH program. James L. Rudolph, MD, reported receiving grants from Icosavax outside the submitted work and being a United States government employee.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE:Expanding United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) eligibility to veterans with other-than-honorable (OTH) discharge significantly increased their program enrollments without impacting services for those with honorable discharge. Emergency department visits increased for honorable discharge veterans while hospitalizations rose for both groups.
METHODOLOGY:
- A quality improvement study following SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines analyzed data from 129,873 veterans enrolled in HUD-VASH between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021.
- Analysis included 127,876 veterans (98.5%) with honorable/general discharge and 1997 veterans (1.5%) with OTH discharge, with a mean age of 53.7 years.
- Researchers utilized an interrupted time series design to compare program enrollments and healthcare utilization before (June 2019-December 2020) and after (January 2021-September 2021) policy implementation.
- Data linkage between the Homeless Operations and Management Evaluation System database and VA Corporate Data Warehouse enabled tracking of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and primary care visits.
TAKEAWAY:
- Monthly HUD-VASH enrollments showed a significant increase for OTH veterans after the policy change (difference in slopes, 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.52), while honorable/general veterans experienced a non-significant increase (difference in slopes, 9.23; 95% CI, −20.35-38.79).
- Emergency department visits demonstrated a significant increase for honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35) but not for OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.08;
95% CI, −0.12-0.28). - Hospitalizations significantly increased for both OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.098; 95% CI, 0.009-0.170) and honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.078; 95% CI, 0.004-0.060).
- Primary care visits showed no significant changes for either group after the policy implementation (OTH: change in slope, −0.12; 95% CI, −0.65-0.42; honorable/general: change in slope, 0.20;
95% CI, −0.13-0.53).
IN PRACTICE:“Expanding HUD-VASH eligibility increased access to housing and social support for OTH veterans without disrupting services for those with honorable discharges,” the authors reported. “Efforts should focus on improving access to connecting OTH veterans with clinical services outside of HUD-VASH.”
SOURCE:The study was led by Thomas F. Nubong, MD, Center of Innovation for Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Providence. It was published online on August 5 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially affecting results. Additionally, staff training on the policy change varied across US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites, introducing implementation inconsistencies. The single-group interrupted time series design, while effective for tracking temporal trends, limited formal comparisons between discharge groups.
DISCLOSURES: The analyses were conducted under the VA Homeless Programs Office with operational funding support. Jack Tsai, PhD, and Eric Jutkowitz, PhD, reported being principal investigators of a VA Merit study on the Impact of COVID-19 for the HUD-VASH program. James L. Rudolph, MD, reported receiving grants from Icosavax outside the submitted work and being a United States government employee.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE:Expanding United States Department of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) eligibility to veterans with other-than-honorable (OTH) discharge significantly increased their program enrollments without impacting services for those with honorable discharge. Emergency department visits increased for honorable discharge veterans while hospitalizations rose for both groups.
METHODOLOGY:
- A quality improvement study following SQUIRE 2.0 reporting guidelines analyzed data from 129,873 veterans enrolled in HUD-VASH between June 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021.
- Analysis included 127,876 veterans (98.5%) with honorable/general discharge and 1997 veterans (1.5%) with OTH discharge, with a mean age of 53.7 years.
- Researchers utilized an interrupted time series design to compare program enrollments and healthcare utilization before (June 2019-December 2020) and after (January 2021-September 2021) policy implementation.
- Data linkage between the Homeless Operations and Management Evaluation System database and VA Corporate Data Warehouse enabled tracking of emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and primary care visits.
TAKEAWAY:
- Monthly HUD-VASH enrollments showed a significant increase for OTH veterans after the policy change (difference in slopes, 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-2.52), while honorable/general veterans experienced a non-significant increase (difference in slopes, 9.23; 95% CI, −20.35-38.79).
- Emergency department visits demonstrated a significant increase for honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.35) but not for OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.08;
95% CI, −0.12-0.28). - Hospitalizations significantly increased for both OTH veterans (change in slope, 0.098; 95% CI, 0.009-0.170) and honorable/general veterans (change in slope, 0.078; 95% CI, 0.004-0.060).
- Primary care visits showed no significant changes for either group after the policy implementation (OTH: change in slope, −0.12; 95% CI, −0.65-0.42; honorable/general: change in slope, 0.20;
95% CI, −0.13-0.53).
IN PRACTICE:“Expanding HUD-VASH eligibility increased access to housing and social support for OTH veterans without disrupting services for those with honorable discharges,” the authors reported. “Efforts should focus on improving access to connecting OTH veterans with clinical services outside of HUD-VASH.”
SOURCE:The study was led by Thomas F. Nubong, MD, Center of Innovation for Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Providence. It was published online on August 5 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially affecting results. Additionally, staff training on the policy change varied across US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites, introducing implementation inconsistencies. The single-group interrupted time series design, while effective for tracking temporal trends, limited formal comparisons between discharge groups.
DISCLOSURES: The analyses were conducted under the VA Homeless Programs Office with operational funding support. Jack Tsai, PhD, and Eric Jutkowitz, PhD, reported being principal investigators of a VA Merit study on the Impact of COVID-19 for the HUD-VASH program. James L. Rudolph, MD, reported receiving grants from Icosavax outside the submitted work and being a United States government employee.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Critical Access for Veterans Bill Would Undermine VA Care
The Critical Access for Veterans Care Act, S.1868, introduced in May by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT), would fundamentally reshape how veterans living in rural communities access private health care. The legislation establishes a new paradigm impacting veterans enrolled in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care who reside within 35 miles of any Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-designated Critical Access Hospital (CAH) or affiliated clinic. The bill would allow veterans unprecedented autonomy to self-refer directly to these facilities.
However, despite its seemingly straightforward title, the bill will not expedite care delivery, reduce travel burdens, or enhance network critical care capacity for veterans living in rural areas. Instead, the bill would further privatize veteran health care delivery by permitting veterans within this geographic radius to independently pursue care at CAHs and clinics without prior authorization. The legislation would establish a parallel referral system that erodes the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) eligibility determinations that were meticulously developed under the VA MISSION Act of 2018.
Some lawmakers have repeatedly pushed to eliminate VA's authorization role in the past 6 years, seeking to grant unrestricted private sector access to various veteran populations, particularly those requiring mental health services. Sponsors of the current bill are explicitly pursuing this same objective, characterizing VA authorization as an “unnecessary roadblock” that should be removed. However, this characterization misrepresents the actual function and value of the authorization process.
Over the past 6 years, provisions in the VA MISSION Act and other laws for predetermining veteran eligibility for private care have provided veterans with broad access while maintaining oversight and accountability. Enrolled veterans may receive comprehensive emergency medical and psychiatric care at any health care facility, including CAHs. They are guaranteed unrestricted walk-in urgent care access anywhere in the country. Veterans can also obtain outpatient and inpatient services through VCCP clinicians when they meet the following established access criteria: VA facilities exceed 30-minute travel times for primary and mental health services or 60 minutes for specialty care, or when appointment wait times surpass 20 days for primary/mental health care or 28 days for specialty services. Nearly half of covered veterans used this option in FY2023.
This bill does more than upend the established paradigm of VCCP eligibility requirements: it also eliminates the critical function of utilization review and accountability. Its passage would establish a dangerous precedent. By eliminating drive time and wait time eligibility standards and simultaneously removing VA’s ability to manage use, the bill generates powerful political momentum to extend identical provisions to all enrolled veterans. Furthermore, this legislation could specifically precipitate the downsizing or closure of VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in areas served by CAHs. North Dakota, for example, operates 5 CBOCs that could be affected. Veterans who live in rural areas within the standard 30- to 60-minute drive time of a CBOC and can secure appointments within the established 20- to 28-day timeframes would no longer be subject to the same eligibility criteria that govern all covered veterans.
The Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) has serious reservations about legislation that eliminates VA's indispensable authorization and referral functions for supplemental private care. Founded in 2016, the VHPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to analyzing health care, disability compensation, and benefits for US veterans and their families. It provides fact-based research to educate the public and improve care quality both within and outside the VA.
New initiatives threaten to drastically reduce veterans' health and disability benefits through staff cuts and service reductions that will limit access to earned benefits and life-sustaining health care. Attacks against the VA also threaten to erode the training that produces new cohorts of health professionals, dramatically exacerbating the nation’s already dire shortages of physicians, nurses, psychologists and social workers.
VHPI’s coverage of Veterans Health Administration downsizing within rural health care provides important context. Starting with a comprehensive 15-page white paper published in 2024, VHPI has consistently highlighted how veterans living in rural communities face the same health care access challenges as all rural Americans—living in regions with severe shortages of health care facilities, professionals, and support staff. Lawmakers who assume veterans living in rural areas will experience shorter wait times and drive distances through private sector care fundamentally misunderstand these systemic issues
VHPI is committed to rigorously scrutinize policies that may compromise high quality care for veterans, especially those living in rural areas. The organization recently examined the flawed assumptions underlying these misguided policies. On August 12, VHPI released an in-depth analysis of private sector clinicians’ capacity to care for veterans in across all 50 states titled “Veterans’ Health Care Choice—Myth or Reality? A State- by- State Reality Check of the False Promise of VA Privatization.” This analysis revealed that, in most states, and in all rural states, the private sector system was struggling to meet even the basic needs of non-veterans. As one long time VA expert stated, to imagine that the system could absorb an influx of millions of veterans – particularly when new cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare funding are implemented, is “delusional.”
Russell Lemle and Suzanne Gordon are senior policy analysts at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. Suzanne Gordon is author of Wounds of War.
The Critical Access for Veterans Care Act, S.1868, introduced in May by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT), would fundamentally reshape how veterans living in rural communities access private health care. The legislation establishes a new paradigm impacting veterans enrolled in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care who reside within 35 miles of any Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-designated Critical Access Hospital (CAH) or affiliated clinic. The bill would allow veterans unprecedented autonomy to self-refer directly to these facilities.
However, despite its seemingly straightforward title, the bill will not expedite care delivery, reduce travel burdens, or enhance network critical care capacity for veterans living in rural areas. Instead, the bill would further privatize veteran health care delivery by permitting veterans within this geographic radius to independently pursue care at CAHs and clinics without prior authorization. The legislation would establish a parallel referral system that erodes the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) eligibility determinations that were meticulously developed under the VA MISSION Act of 2018.
Some lawmakers have repeatedly pushed to eliminate VA's authorization role in the past 6 years, seeking to grant unrestricted private sector access to various veteran populations, particularly those requiring mental health services. Sponsors of the current bill are explicitly pursuing this same objective, characterizing VA authorization as an “unnecessary roadblock” that should be removed. However, this characterization misrepresents the actual function and value of the authorization process.
Over the past 6 years, provisions in the VA MISSION Act and other laws for predetermining veteran eligibility for private care have provided veterans with broad access while maintaining oversight and accountability. Enrolled veterans may receive comprehensive emergency medical and psychiatric care at any health care facility, including CAHs. They are guaranteed unrestricted walk-in urgent care access anywhere in the country. Veterans can also obtain outpatient and inpatient services through VCCP clinicians when they meet the following established access criteria: VA facilities exceed 30-minute travel times for primary and mental health services or 60 minutes for specialty care, or when appointment wait times surpass 20 days for primary/mental health care or 28 days for specialty services. Nearly half of covered veterans used this option in FY2023.
This bill does more than upend the established paradigm of VCCP eligibility requirements: it also eliminates the critical function of utilization review and accountability. Its passage would establish a dangerous precedent. By eliminating drive time and wait time eligibility standards and simultaneously removing VA’s ability to manage use, the bill generates powerful political momentum to extend identical provisions to all enrolled veterans. Furthermore, this legislation could specifically precipitate the downsizing or closure of VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in areas served by CAHs. North Dakota, for example, operates 5 CBOCs that could be affected. Veterans who live in rural areas within the standard 30- to 60-minute drive time of a CBOC and can secure appointments within the established 20- to 28-day timeframes would no longer be subject to the same eligibility criteria that govern all covered veterans.
The Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) has serious reservations about legislation that eliminates VA's indispensable authorization and referral functions for supplemental private care. Founded in 2016, the VHPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to analyzing health care, disability compensation, and benefits for US veterans and their families. It provides fact-based research to educate the public and improve care quality both within and outside the VA.
New initiatives threaten to drastically reduce veterans' health and disability benefits through staff cuts and service reductions that will limit access to earned benefits and life-sustaining health care. Attacks against the VA also threaten to erode the training that produces new cohorts of health professionals, dramatically exacerbating the nation’s already dire shortages of physicians, nurses, psychologists and social workers.
VHPI’s coverage of Veterans Health Administration downsizing within rural health care provides important context. Starting with a comprehensive 15-page white paper published in 2024, VHPI has consistently highlighted how veterans living in rural communities face the same health care access challenges as all rural Americans—living in regions with severe shortages of health care facilities, professionals, and support staff. Lawmakers who assume veterans living in rural areas will experience shorter wait times and drive distances through private sector care fundamentally misunderstand these systemic issues
VHPI is committed to rigorously scrutinize policies that may compromise high quality care for veterans, especially those living in rural areas. The organization recently examined the flawed assumptions underlying these misguided policies. On August 12, VHPI released an in-depth analysis of private sector clinicians’ capacity to care for veterans in across all 50 states titled “Veterans’ Health Care Choice—Myth or Reality? A State- by- State Reality Check of the False Promise of VA Privatization.” This analysis revealed that, in most states, and in all rural states, the private sector system was struggling to meet even the basic needs of non-veterans. As one long time VA expert stated, to imagine that the system could absorb an influx of millions of veterans – particularly when new cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare funding are implemented, is “delusional.”
Russell Lemle and Suzanne Gordon are senior policy analysts at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. Suzanne Gordon is author of Wounds of War.
The Critical Access for Veterans Care Act, S.1868, introduced in May by Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Tim Sheehy (R-MT), would fundamentally reshape how veterans living in rural communities access private health care. The legislation establishes a new paradigm impacting veterans enrolled in US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care who reside within 35 miles of any Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-designated Critical Access Hospital (CAH) or affiliated clinic. The bill would allow veterans unprecedented autonomy to self-refer directly to these facilities.
However, despite its seemingly straightforward title, the bill will not expedite care delivery, reduce travel burdens, or enhance network critical care capacity for veterans living in rural areas. Instead, the bill would further privatize veteran health care delivery by permitting veterans within this geographic radius to independently pursue care at CAHs and clinics without prior authorization. The legislation would establish a parallel referral system that erodes the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) eligibility determinations that were meticulously developed under the VA MISSION Act of 2018.
Some lawmakers have repeatedly pushed to eliminate VA's authorization role in the past 6 years, seeking to grant unrestricted private sector access to various veteran populations, particularly those requiring mental health services. Sponsors of the current bill are explicitly pursuing this same objective, characterizing VA authorization as an “unnecessary roadblock” that should be removed. However, this characterization misrepresents the actual function and value of the authorization process.
Over the past 6 years, provisions in the VA MISSION Act and other laws for predetermining veteran eligibility for private care have provided veterans with broad access while maintaining oversight and accountability. Enrolled veterans may receive comprehensive emergency medical and psychiatric care at any health care facility, including CAHs. They are guaranteed unrestricted walk-in urgent care access anywhere in the country. Veterans can also obtain outpatient and inpatient services through VCCP clinicians when they meet the following established access criteria: VA facilities exceed 30-minute travel times for primary and mental health services or 60 minutes for specialty care, or when appointment wait times surpass 20 days for primary/mental health care or 28 days for specialty services. Nearly half of covered veterans used this option in FY2023.
This bill does more than upend the established paradigm of VCCP eligibility requirements: it also eliminates the critical function of utilization review and accountability. Its passage would establish a dangerous precedent. By eliminating drive time and wait time eligibility standards and simultaneously removing VA’s ability to manage use, the bill generates powerful political momentum to extend identical provisions to all enrolled veterans. Furthermore, this legislation could specifically precipitate the downsizing or closure of VA community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) in areas served by CAHs. North Dakota, for example, operates 5 CBOCs that could be affected. Veterans who live in rural areas within the standard 30- to 60-minute drive time of a CBOC and can secure appointments within the established 20- to 28-day timeframes would no longer be subject to the same eligibility criteria that govern all covered veterans.
The Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute (VHPI) has serious reservations about legislation that eliminates VA's indispensable authorization and referral functions for supplemental private care. Founded in 2016, the VHPI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to analyzing health care, disability compensation, and benefits for US veterans and their families. It provides fact-based research to educate the public and improve care quality both within and outside the VA.
New initiatives threaten to drastically reduce veterans' health and disability benefits through staff cuts and service reductions that will limit access to earned benefits and life-sustaining health care. Attacks against the VA also threaten to erode the training that produces new cohorts of health professionals, dramatically exacerbating the nation’s already dire shortages of physicians, nurses, psychologists and social workers.
VHPI’s coverage of Veterans Health Administration downsizing within rural health care provides important context. Starting with a comprehensive 15-page white paper published in 2024, VHPI has consistently highlighted how veterans living in rural communities face the same health care access challenges as all rural Americans—living in regions with severe shortages of health care facilities, professionals, and support staff. Lawmakers who assume veterans living in rural areas will experience shorter wait times and drive distances through private sector care fundamentally misunderstand these systemic issues
VHPI is committed to rigorously scrutinize policies that may compromise high quality care for veterans, especially those living in rural areas. The organization recently examined the flawed assumptions underlying these misguided policies. On August 12, VHPI released an in-depth analysis of private sector clinicians’ capacity to care for veterans in across all 50 states titled “Veterans’ Health Care Choice—Myth or Reality? A State- by- State Reality Check of the False Promise of VA Privatization.” This analysis revealed that, in most states, and in all rural states, the private sector system was struggling to meet even the basic needs of non-veterans. As one long time VA expert stated, to imagine that the system could absorb an influx of millions of veterans – particularly when new cuts to Medicaid and other healthcare funding are implemented, is “delusional.”
Russell Lemle and Suzanne Gordon are senior policy analysts at the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute. Suzanne Gordon is author of Wounds of War.