Bill Overview
Title: VET PFAS Act
Description: This bill provides eligibility for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital care and medical services to veterans and their family members (including those in utero) who have specified conditions and resided at a military installation where individuals were exposed to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS. PFAS are man-made and may have adverse human health effects. Hospital care and medical services may not be furnished for a condition that is found to have resulted from a cause other than the exposure to PFAS at a military installation. The VA may provide reimbursement for hospital care or medical services provided to a family member only after the family member or provider has exhausted all claims and remedies otherwise available for payment of such care. For disability compensation purposes, the bill establishes a presumption of service-connection for specified conditions in veterans who served at a military installation at which individuals were exposed to PFAS. Under a presumption of service-connection, specific conditions diagnosed in certain veterans are presumed to have been caused by the circumstances of their military service. Health care benefits and disability compensation may then be awarded.
Sponsors: Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5]
Target Audience
Population: Veterans and family members residing at military bases with PFAS exposure conditions
Estimated Size: 800000
- The legislation specifically targets veterans and their family members who resided at military installations where there was exposure to PFAS.
- PFAS exposure at military installations has been a documented issue affecting service members in several countries, especially due to fire-fighting foams used extensively in military operations.
- Millions of veterans have served in the military over the years, though not all would have been stationed at locations with PFAS contamination.
- The conditions covered are only those specified by the bill and linked to PFAS exposure, potentially limiting the scope of impacted individuals.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy is primarily veterans and their family members who lived or were born at military installations with documented PFAS exposure. This includes many individuals given the widespread use of PFAS, particularly in fire-fighting foams on military bases.
- The impact of this policy will vary based on the health conditions specified to be related to PFAS exposure. Not all individuals who lived at these installations will have health issues or conditions covered by this policy.
- The policy budget may restrict its reach, as only those with conditions directly linked to PFAS exposure can benefit. Moreover, funding constraints will impact service expansion and covering associated costs for all conditions presumed to be service-connected.
- There is some uncertainty regarding how many veterans and family members will ultimately be affected, but it is anticipated that this number could be significant, potentially reaching hundreds of thousands.
- Given that the US has thousands of military installations, this could potentially affect many US citizens who served or lived on these bases.
Simulated Interviews
construction worker (North Carolina)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see recognition of the impact of PFAS on service members.
- The support will help cover medical bills that have been a burden.
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 | 4 |
nurse (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the act covers as many conditions as possible.
- The compensation could be life-changing for my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
retired (Texas)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad help is available, though I might not qualify.
- More attention should be paid to older veterans as well.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
teacher (Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for families to get the care they need.
- Hope the process is smooth for all affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
student (Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important to raise awareness about PFAS risks.
- I feel reassured knowing there's a safety net.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
mechanic (Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good the government takes responsibility.
- Others might benefit more from the policy.
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 |
software engineer (New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could drastically improve our situation.
- We need quick and efficient implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
retired naval officer (Hawaii)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Support is long overdue for PFAS victims.
- Access to appropriate care is crucial.
- It will alleviate some of my financial burdens.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
civil servant (Colorado)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- International bases should also be considered.
- I'd like to see more outreach to impacted families worldwide.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
unemployed (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could really help people like my dad.
- Clarification on covered conditions is necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $275000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $330000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)
Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $420000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $560000000, High: $840000000)
Key Considerations
- The difficulty in precisely identifying and validating PFAS-related conditions could influence the cost.
- Variability in medical costs and treatment options could lead to fluctuating estimates.
- The growing public and scientific scrutiny over PFAS may affect future policy adjustments or expansions.