Bill Overview
Title: Elimination of the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review (AIR) Commission Act of 2022
Description: This bill repeals the VA Asset and Infrastructure Review Act of 2018, which established the independent Asset and Infrastructure Review Commission and prescribes directives related to the development and assessment of recommendations for modernizing or realigning Veterans Health Administration facilities.
Sponsors: Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]
Target Audience
Population: Veterans using Veterans Health Administration facilities
Estimated Size: 19000000
- The original VA AIR Commission was set to review and recommend changes to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities.
- Modifications may have included the realignment or modernization of facilities, possibly affecting the availability of care for veterans.
- By repealing this, veterans who rely on VHA facilities for healthcare could be impacted as potential improvements or realignments will not occur.
- VHA serves millions of veterans annually across the United States, indicating a large potential impact of the bill's repeal.
Reasoning
- The surveyed population primarily consists of veterans using the VHA facilities whose wellbeing could be directly affected by the absence of potential improvements in facilities.
- The elimination of the VA AIR Commission will particularly impact those veterans who rely on VHA facilities for ongoing medical treatments and services.
- While some veterans may not perceive an immediate effect, over time lack of improvements could lead to dissatisfaction with the services provided.
- Economic constraints limit extensive changes and improvements to VHA facilities, meaning some veterans might see decline or stagnation of healthcare services.
- Veterans in rural areas more reliant on specific VHA facilities might experience more pronounced impacts compared to veterans in urban areas with more alternatives.
- Commonness scores reflect the proportional representation within the veteran community accessing VHA facilities based on age, location, and service usage.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Engineer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The repeal is worrisome because the VHA facilities often feel outdated.
- I depend on these facilities for regular checkups and treatments, and I was hoping for upgrades.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 8 |
Software Developer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the repeal may slow down progress, but my current needs are being met well through telehealth.
- If facility changes had helped with expanding online services, I would have supported keeping the Act.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't needed much from the VHA services lately, so I don't see this repeal affecting me much now.
- Long-term, it might mean fewer opportunities to upgrade our local facilities if I need them in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 8 |
Nurse (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m concerned that repealing the Act means we won’t see the badly needed infrastructural upgrades in our facility.
- This also affects my colleagues and the quality of care we can provide.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 9 |
Retired Farmer (Topeka, KS)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the facilities need an upgrade, they’re all we have out here.
- Without improvements, care might get worse over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 7 |
Public Relations Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The VHA facilities seem well-managed here in the city, but I suspect rural areas might suffer more.
- The potential improvements are necessary to keep up with the latest healthcare standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Artist (Rural CO)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our local facilities are already under strain and outdated.
- Not modernizing them is a concern for our community’s health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 9 |
Security Analyst (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don’t use VHA services much, I feel ongoing improvements are essential for maintaining service standards.
- This repeal may mean putting off much-needed upgrades.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 9 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since I mostly use mental health services, physical facility changes might not affect me much immediately.
- However, improved facilities could mean better overall service delivery.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Retired Police Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m very active in supporting VHA improvements but am concerned this repeal indicates a loss of progress.
- Every veteran deserves access to improved services, and losing this focus is a setback.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $-5000000 (Low: $-8000000, High: $-2000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The immediate cost savings from eliminating the AIR Commission are primarily administrative and operational.
- While short-term savings are anticipated, long-term costs could arise due to older infrastructure maintenance and potential inefficiencies.
- The absence of a systematic review might lead to delayed modernization, affecting service quality for veterans.
- The direct GDP impact and tax revenue impact are considered minimal in the short term.