Bill Overview
Title: Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act
Description: This bill updates policies and procedures related to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care and benefits for veterans who have been exposed to toxic substances. Specifically, the bill extends the eligibility period for VA hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care for combat veterans who served after September 11, 2001, and were exposed to toxic substances, radiation, or other conditions, including those who did not enroll to receive VA care during the eligibility period. The VA must incorporate into its existing health care screening a screening to help determine potential exposures to toxic substances during military service. Among other requirements, the VA must also provide annual training to health care and benefits personnel with respect to veterans who were exposed to toxic substances; analyze total and respiratory disease mortality in veterans who served in specified locations on specified dates; conduct an epidemiological study on the health trends of veterans who served in the Armed Forces after September 11, 2001; conduct a study to determine trends in the rates of the incidence of cancer in veterans; publish a list of VA resources for veterans who were exposed to toxic substances, families and caregivers of such veterans, and survivors of such veterans who are receiving death benefits; and report on the data quality of the Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record and its usefulness in supporting veterans in receiving VA health care and benefits.
Sponsors: Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]
Target Audience
Population: Veterans exposed to toxic substances during military service post-9/11
Estimated Size: 3000000
- Since the bill specifies veterans who have been exposed to toxic substances after September 11, 2001, it targets a subset of the veteran population serving in locations and conditions where exposure was likely.
- The bill's provisions for healthcare and benefits will particularly affect veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where burn pits have been commonly used.
- The inclusion of healthcare screening, training for VA personnel, and epidemiological studies means the bill's impact will be broad, affecting current and future health evaluations and benefits for these veterans.
- Veterans who did not previously enroll for VA care but are now eligible under the extended period mentioned in the bill are also impacted.
- Families and caregivers of affected veterans will have access to new resources, which implies indirect effects on them as well.
Reasoning
- The bill specifically targets veterans exposed to toxic substances post-9/11, particularly impacting those who served in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan.
- The policy's benefits extend to previously ineligible veterans, opening new healthcare access.
- The budget constraints of $450 million in the first year necessitate efficient allocation, focusing on high-impact areas such as healthcare screening and personnel training.
- Not all veterans will experience the bill's benefits equally; those without previous healthcare enrollment might experience a significant improvement.
- Veterans who already have VA care may experience marginal improvements in service through better-trained personnel and comprehensive screenings.
- The policy indirectly benefits families and caregivers by providing additional resources and support.
- The training and epidemiological studies are investments in future service improvements for veterans, not immediate changes.
Simulated Interviews
retired military (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this bill will finally let me access necessary healthcare without financial strain.
- I worry about how quickly the VA can start implementing these changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Veterans Affairs coordinator (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a big step in the right direction for veterans' health.
- We need to see more funding and efficient usage of the resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
IT specialist (Boise, ID)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I might not need these services now, knowing they are available is reassuring.
- My main concern is how this bill will change my access to quick services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
nurse (San Diego, CA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill brings some comfort knowing my brother will get the care he needs.
- Continued monitoring of the policy's effectiveness is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired (Columbus, OH)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't personally benefit from such policies, but I'm glad the younger generations will.
- There's always worry about whether these will translate into real, sustained benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
construction project manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need more information to understand how this policy will specifically help me.
- What matters is if the promised improvements in care actually happen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
policy analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill is needed but requires tracking to ensure it achieves its goals.
- There are many logistical hurdles to overcome in implementing such a policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
entrepreneur (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy shows promise for families seeking assistance.
- Our main hope is that this is the first of many supportive measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
retired nurse (New York, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have seen firsthand how needed such policies are, though skepticism remains about execution.
- Hopeful for improvements but mindful of possible bureaucratic delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
student (Boston, MA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing this policy's development is educational in understanding veteran health challenges.
- This bill could be a model for further specialized healthcare approaches.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $450000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $460000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $510000000)
Year 3: $470000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $520000000)
Year 5: $490000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $540000000)
Year 10: $540000000 (Low: $490000000, High: $590000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $750000000)
Key Considerations
- This policy will improve healthcare access for a large number of veterans who might have previously been ineligible.
- The administrative capacity of the VA will need to be increased to handle the additional workload and reporting requirements.
- Long-term health and economic benefits from improved veteran health outcomes may offset initial costs.
- Potential legal and compliance issues related to integrating new eligibility standards and screenings need consideration.