Bill Overview
Title: To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the quality assurance program of the Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Description: This bill implements oversight procedures related to quality assurance in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Specifically, the bill requires the VA to implement a plan to strengthen oversight of the quality assurance program in the VBA. The VA must monitor the plan to address any deficiencies. The VBA must annually compile a list of common recurring deficiencies and action items relating to disability compensation identified in its ongoing reviews of the functions of each of its principal organizational elements. Additionally, the VBA must develop and carry out a plan to address the recurring deficiencies and action items. The Government Accountability Office must conduct a feasibility study of the VA entering a contract with a nongovernmental entity to carry out the quality assurance program in the VBA.
Sponsors: Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27]
Target Audience
Population: Veterans and their beneficiaries receiving benefits from the VBA
Estimated Size: 19000000
- The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for administering benefits to veterans, including disability compensation affecting a significant number of people.
- The bill aims at improving quality assurance in VBA, influencing the accuracy and reliability of benefit determinations.
- There are over 19 million veterans in the United States, many of whom receive benefits through the Veterans Administration.
- The bill’s focus on quality assurance and addressing deficiencies means that virtually all individuals receiving or eligible for benefits from the VBA could be impacted.
- Any improvements in the quality assurance processes could enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of claims processing, thereby directly impacting those applying for benefits.
Reasoning
- Given the scale of the U.S. veteran population, which stands at approximately 19 million, the policy might not reach every single veteran due to budget constraints, but it could have a significant impact on the quality of services encountered by a substantial number.
- The impact on Cantril wellbeing scores will likely vary based on direct engagement with VBA services, perceived improvements in service quality, and how often recipients interface with the system (more frequent interactions mean potential for noticing improvements).
- Disabled veterans and those frequently dealing with VBA for claims and compensations represent a common and directly impacted group.
- Spouses and family members that assist in navigating these benefits might see indirect impacts reflected in general satisfaction or reduced stress from fewer administrative errors and smoother claims processes.
- Veterans who are currently experiencing significant waiting times or claim issues may see greater improvements, thus a potentially medium to high impact, while those outside these problem areas might see none or low impact.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having dealt with a lot of red tape, anything that makes the claims process smoother is a positive for us.
- If the policy succeeds in reducing deficiencies, it might take less time to get through evaluations.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Nurse (San Diego, California)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in processing can help reduce stress for families involved in multiple claims.
- Seeing fewer errors in benefit determinations would save a lot of time.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rarely deal with the VBA, so this policy seems like it would affect others more.
- If it improves processes, that's good for those in need.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Managing claims has been challenging without my husband, so improvements would really help.
- Appropriate oversight could speed up processing times—definitely needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Developer (New York, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy will affect me directly unless I need to use those services in the future.
- Improved services are crucial, but not personally impactful right now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 73 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's difficult managing all the paperwork and seeing the deserving veterans wait so long.
- Any effort to streamline and correct system flaws is a blessing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Elementary School Teacher (Charleston, South Carolina)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigating the bureaucracy can be exhausting, any reduction in deficiencies is a step forward.
- Decreased errors mean fewer headaches dealing with VBA.
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 | 7 | 5 |
IT Manager (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The hang-ups in the system have been challenging for me and my family, so solutions are desperately needed.
- I feel a positive change can come from having stricter oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Accountant (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced oversight could lead to better handling of benefits.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about the proposed improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Government Employee (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having spent time waiting for claims, I know how critical oversight is.
- Betterment of services is dearly needed in our community.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 10: $35000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $45000000)
Year 100: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill focuses on procedural improvements, not direct benefit enhancements, thus primary changes are internal with potential long-term efficiency gains.
- The feasibility study by the Government Accountability Office could lead to further actions, influencing longer-term costs or savings.
- Implementation may vary based on existing infrastructure and resources within the Department of Veterans Affairs.
- Potential cost savings are contingent upon the successful identification and mitigation of recurring deficiencies.