Billing Private Insurance Companies for the Treatment of Wounded Warriors

[piper17 1]

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment
Mon Mar 16, 5:49 pm ET

Contact: Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell


WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.


"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."


The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"


Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."


Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.


"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.


"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.


SOURCE The American Legion

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[pirana 0]

Agree with the Legion on this. Care for services related to serving in the military should not result in any out-of-pocket expenses at all.

They can shuffle funds around however they want, but that does not make any part of the bill go away, and there is no actual savings. Any burden placed on the patient is just wrong; and any portion shifted to a commercial carrier will just increase premiums.

Do they think that playing hide-the-pea actually makes the pea disappear?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Gawain 0]

Well, my gut told me something like this would be emerging from the new administration. I would like to know what Gen. Shinseki has to say about this.

So, President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas, spending bail-out money into black-holes, but can't preserve $500M...

Hmmm...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[idrankwhat 0]

I'm sure there's nothing to worry about if we just leave it to private market forces to sort it out.









[/stir pot]

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas,

What?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[dreamdancer 0]

a national health service for all would sort this problem out

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I'm sure there's nothing to worry about if we just leave it to private market forces to sort it out.



[/stir pot]

Actually the letter and press release is political pot-stirrring itself. And it seems to have worked done just that.

Budget options are being considered to reduce costs and to bring more vets into the VA system. From Fox News, "a summary of the proposed budget says the president wants to increase funding for VA by $25 billion over five years, and bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013."

No decisions have been made. The Veterans groups were invited into the planning and decision-making process. This is good, imo. Very good. It's also a more transparent and open process than previous budget planning efforts.


And yes, GEN Shinseki, USA (ret) was in the room with the same folks who drafted and circulated the letter sited in the OP and press releases. And yes, he has commented on the proposed budget *and* options being considered.

For the 'rest of the story' as one might say, from Military.com, "VA Budget: Praise and a Warning:"

"President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year. (Am not sure that some can acknowledge that?)

"No president before ever offered a VA spending plan that surpassed in size the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by major veterans groups. Obama seeks to fulfill several high-profile promises made to veterans during his presidential campaign including a big increase in VA healthcare budgets.

"But it was a new and unpopular proposal being studied by the administration that created uncomfortable moments for VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki when he made separate appearances Tuesday before the House and Senate veterans' affairs committees.

"Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget.

"'This is the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans,' Shinseki told lawmakers.

"The plan allows the VA health care system to enroll up to 550,000 new Priority Group 8 veterans by 2013. These are veterans who have no service-connected ailments and have incomes deemed adequate based on family size and geographic location. The total for new enrollees includes 266,000 Group 8 veterans already slated to enroll in VA health system starting this summer under a funding initiative Congress passed last fall.

"Obama's Defense and VA budgets also call for a gradual lifting of what remains of the ban on concurrent receipt of both military retirement and VA disability compensation for disabled retirees. The next step would occur in 2010 with concurrent receipt allowed for the most seriously disabled veterans forced to retire short of 20 years. Further details must await the full budget's release in April, Shinseki said.

"Shinseki received a warm welcome when he presented the budget outline to the Senate and House veterans' affairs committees. But he also got a string of strong warnings from committee members over a cost-saving proposal that Shinseki conceded is under study. The administration is considering charging veterans' health insurance plans earned through civilian employment for VA's costs in treating service-connected injuries or ailments.

"VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. VA expects to college $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.

"Shinseki emphasized that this is only 'a consideration' and not yet part of Obama's budget request. But members of the veterans' committees wanted Shinseki to know they won't support the proposal.

"'Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely,' said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, 'I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here.'"

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Well, my gut told me something like this would be emerging from the new administration. I would like to know what Gen. Shinseki has to say about this.

So, President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas, spending bail-out money into black-holes, but can't preserve $500M...

You're right he's not proposing preserving $500M, President Obama's proposed budget includes a $1.3B increase over what the Veterans Service Organizations requested for VA. As a fiscal conservative, are you supporting or opposed to that?

See what GEN Shinseki said in my response to Matt [idrankwhat].

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andy9o8 2]

Jeez. Even liberal Democrats like Sen. Patty Murray are saying this would be "dead in the water" if formally proposed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html

Classic "trial balloon": start talking up some out-there idea someone had during a brainstorming session, to see if it flies or crashes. Well, this one has crashed. Time to say, "Oops, never mind."

[DanG 1]

Marg,

Thanks for posting the rest of the story. There are clearly groups out there trying to mobilize military members and veterans against the administration using half-truths and selective coverage of important stories. It saddens me that people are so ready to believe these stories without digging even a little deeper.

And if they do remove the ban on concurrent receipt, drinks are on me.

- Dan G

[idrankwhat 0]

Thanks Marg. With the very little bit of research that I did I had found out that it was not as it was presented in the opinion piece. Thanks for the elucidation, it's much more useful than market forces vs. "socialism" stick poking that was my contribution.


I'm sure I'll do it again though. I'm weak.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Well, my gut told me something like this would be emerging from the new administration. I would like to know what Gen. Shinseki has to say about this.

So, President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas, spending bail-out money into black-holes, but can't preserve $500M...

Hmmm...

He is just making us aware of his priorities.

Big Business, Criminals as well as Governments with terrorist ties, before our nations Disabled Veterans.

He must feel that the vets should not be given what was promised, after all he does have to please his supporters.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So, President Obama has no problem sending $900M to Hamas,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090223/pl_nm/us_palestinians_clinton_4

Quote

U.S. plans "substantial" pledge at Gaza meeting
By Sue Pleming Sue Pleming
Mon Feb 23, 4:40 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States plans to offer more than $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after Israel's invasion and to strengthen the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, U.S. officials said on Monday.

The money, which needs U.S. congressional approval, will be distributed through U.N. and other bodies and not via the militant group Hamas, which rules Gaza, said one official.

"This money is for Gaza and to help strengthen the Palestinian Authority. It is not going to go to Hamas," said the official, who asked not to be named as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton planned to announce the funding at a donors' conference in Egypt next week.

[DanG 1]

Read the rest of the thread and comment again.

- Dan G

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Marg,

Thanks for posting the rest of the story. There are clearly groups out there trying to mobilize military members and veterans against the administration using half-truths and selective coverage of important stories. It saddens me that people are so ready to believe these stories without digging even a little deeper.

And if they do remove the ban on concurrent receipt, drinks are on me.

Are you kidding me? "half-truths" and "selective coverage"? That was just funny.... tell me what media outlet or group trying to fight for a particular side does not do this.... hell tell me what administration or politician doesn't do this... "it's sad"? Come on.... that response read like you were saying only the "evil right" would do such a thing.

I think they are working through this but that piece is crap and will never get through anyway... too many blue dog dems in office to actually allow that to happen. Overall we need to be watching the spending even though if I were to vote to increase spending anywhere it would be for our troops and vets!

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[DanG 1]

You're right. Since everyone does it that makes it okay.

Thanks for being such a moral beacon.

- Dan G

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Are you kidding me? "half-truths" and "selective coverage"? That was just funny.... tell me what media outlet or group trying to fight for a particular side does not do this....

The ones that aren't fighting for one side.

[lawrocket 3]

The problem is that it has not only been suggested, but apparently is being/has been seriously considered. It is the mere proposal that is worrisome.

It is an indication of the thought processes involved.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

You're right. Since everyone does it that makes it okay.

Thanks for being such a moral beacon.

Because you obviously are??? As I stated, your post read as though the "evil right" only does this. At least that is how I read it and if I did not read it how you intended I apologize. My point is that you seem to have this ideal that no one else does this.... it is the way of the world so don't act so shocked. Just know that whomever you support or think is so great does the exact same thing! I do tend to be more conservative but have no wool over my eyes when it comes to truths being slanted for gain in some way. That is a main reason I get so pissed with the GOP and the Dems and why I am a Libertarian..... sadly though.... if the people I love so much ever achieved enough political clout I am sure they would be doing the same thing.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Are you kidding me? "half-truths" and "selective coverage"? That was just funny.... tell me what media outlet or group trying to fight for a particular side does not do this....

The ones that aren't fighting for one side.

That does not exist.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The problem is that it has not only been suggested, but apparently is being/has been seriously considered. It is the mere proposal that is worrisome.

If you assert that as your position, then what do you say to those who are responsible for the current policy that already does that?
The discussion was to expand third party billing not to initiate it.

Quote

It is an indication of the thought processes involved. …

If the thought process you mean is transparency, I agree. A more transparent process is better for the Republic.

If the thought process you mean is placing fiscal conservatism above the obligation to wounded warriors, I agree that would be worrisome. If that was what the budget did, I agree it would be worrisome. It doesn't, that's a straw man argument. It also doesn't advance the discussion, but it does quite effectively polarize those who want to see such a scenario.

If the thought process you mean is ignoring facts to fit one’s political expectations, I too find that worrisome. Military.com is not a ‘left-wing’ news source; one could argue it’s a pro-military news source.

I heartily support the policy ADM Mullen outlined during his TRANSCOM visit in February.



An advocacy letter is an advocacy letter. There’s everything fine with that. They might even have a good point.

Imagine if the policies & decisions that led to the conditions encountereed by some, not all, soldiers at WRAMC had been more transparent and there had been public discussion? The ASD(HA) was fired allowed to resign over that.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DanG 1]

Quote

Because you obviously are??? As I stated, your post read as though the "evil right" only does this. At least that is how I read it and if I did not read it how you intended I apologize. My point is that you seem to have this ideal that no one else does this.... it is the way of the world so don't act so shocked. Just know that whomever you support or think is so great does the exact same thing! I do tend to be more conservative but have no wool over my eyes when it comes to truths being slanted for gain in some way. That is a main reason I get so pissed with the GOP and the Dems and why I am a Libertarian..... sadly though.... if the people I love so much ever achieved enough political clout I am sure they would be doing the same thing.

Yes, I'm Batman.

If you read my post I said that there are groups trying to polarize military members and veterans against the President. Yes, in fact that makes me sad. You read your own bias in and assumed that I meant that ONLY groups trying to polarize military members and veterans make me sad. The general state of political discourse in this country (and most especially this site) makes me sad. The fact that some people so badly want the President to be the boogeyman that Rush Limbaugh says he is that they'll jump on any anti-Obama bandwagon that happens by makes me sad.

And the fact that you're apparently resigned to receiving only half-truths and selective reporting as "the way of the world" makes me sad. Demand more and maybe you'll get it.

- Dan G

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Because you obviously are??? As I stated, your post read as though the "evil right" only does this. At least that is how I read it and if I did not read it how you intended I apologize. My point is that you seem to have this ideal that no one else does this.... it is the way of the world so don't act so shocked. Just know that whomever you support or think is so great does the exact same thing! I do tend to be more conservative but have no wool over my eyes when it comes to truths being slanted for gain in some way. That is a main reason I get so pissed with the GOP and the Dems and why I am a Libertarian..... sadly though.... if the people I love so much ever achieved enough political clout I am sure they would be doing the same thing.

Yes, I'm Batman.

If you read my post I said that there are groups trying to polarize military members and veterans against the President. Yes, in fact that makes me sad. You read your own bias in and assumed that I meant that ONLY groups trying to polarize military members and veterans make me sad. The general state of political discourse in this country (and most especially this site) makes me sad. The fact that some people so badly want the President to be the boogeyman that Rush Limbaugh says he is that they'll jump on any anti-Obama bandwagon that happens by makes me sad.

And the fact that you're apparently resigned to receiving only half-truths and selective reporting as "the way of the world" makes me sad. Demand more and maybe you'll get it.

ok batman

I do not resign to that fact and fight it everyday but I do accept that it happens in every aspect of life.

I do not think Obama is a boogeyman and do believe he has a good heart and a desire to help the country the way he thinks will work.... that being said I do disagree with him greatly. I will admit I read it with bias but on this site and anywhere else I am used to it. I apologize for that. It does make me sad the media is the way it is but I do believe it is human nature and as much as I expect more I fear I will always be let down.... yes I am jaded.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure there's nothing to worry about if we just leave it to private market forces to sort it out.



[/stir pot]

Actually the letter and press release is political pot-stirrring itself. And it seems to have worked done just that.

Budget options are being considered to reduce costs and to bring more vets into the VA system. From Fox News, "a summary of the proposed budget says the president wants to increase funding for VA by $25 billion over five years, and bring more than 500,000 eligible veterans of modest income into the VA health care system by 2013."

No decisions have been made. The Veterans groups were invited into the planning and decision-making process. This is good, imo. Very good. It's also a more transparent and open process than previous budget planning efforts.


And yes, GEN Shinseki, USA (ret) was in the room with the same folks who drafted and circulated the letter sited in the OP and press releases. And yes, he has commented on the proposed budget *and* options being considered.

For the 'rest of the story' as one might say, from Military.com, "VA Budget: Praise and a Warning:"

"President Obama is drawing high praise from veterans' service organizations for proposing a Department of Veterans Affairs budget that would exceed by $1.3 billion what even VSOs suggested be spent next year. (Am not sure that some can acknowledge that?)

"No president before ever offered a VA spending plan that surpassed in size the "Independent Budget" presented to Congress by major veterans groups. Obama seeks to fulfill several high-profile promises made to veterans during his presidential campaign including a big increase in VA healthcare budgets.

"But it was a new and unpopular proposal being studied by the administration that created uncomfortable moments for VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki when he made separate appearances Tuesday before the House and Senate veterans' affairs committees.

"Obama's VA budget outline, with full details promised by late April, would raise VA spending to $112.8 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That's an increase of $15 billion, or 15 percent, over the current budget.

"'This is the largest dollar and percentage increase ever requested by a President for veterans,' Shinseki told lawmakers.

"The plan allows the VA health care system to enroll up to 550,000 new Priority Group 8 veterans by 2013. These are veterans who have no service-connected ailments and have incomes deemed adequate based on family size and geographic location. The total for new enrollees includes 266,000 Group 8 veterans already slated to enroll in VA health system starting this summer under a funding initiative Congress passed last fall.

"Obama's Defense and VA budgets also call for a gradual lifting of what remains of the ban on concurrent receipt of both military retirement and VA disability compensation for disabled retirees. The next step would occur in 2010 with concurrent receipt allowed for the most seriously disabled veterans forced to retire short of 20 years. Further details must await the full budget's release in April, Shinseki said.

"Shinseki received a warm welcome when he presented the budget outline to the Senate and House veterans' affairs committees. But he also got a string of strong warnings from committee members over a cost-saving proposal that Shinseki conceded is under study. The administration is considering charging veterans' health insurance plans earned through civilian employment for VA's costs in treating service-connected injuries or ailments.

"VA already taps "third party" insurance plans for treatment of non-service-related conditions. Collections in fiscal 2008 totaled $2.4 billion. VA expects to college $2.5 billion this year. The total could jump to $3 billion next year if care of service-connected conditions are included.

"Shinseki emphasized that this is only 'a consideration' and not yet part of Obama's budget request. But members of the veterans' committees wanted Shinseki to know they won't support the proposal.

"'Veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line... We should take care of those injuries completely,' said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Though she recognized that no formal proposal had yet reached Congress, Murray told Shinseki, 'I can assure you it will be dead on arrival if it lands here.'"

/Marg

Marg, that's lots of great information about funding for the VA, not VA policy.

How do you think President Obama might justify such an increase in funding? Well, if the VA can recoup from private insurance companies (which do not often cover service related, injuries, combat, etc through exclusions by the way)...

The fact that President Obama entertains the idea shows how disconnected he is. An insurance company gets billed until a catastrophic cap is reached and the rest of the policy is not available to the family, etc.

This is the very thing the VA was desgiend, and mandated to do. Non-service-connected conditions are not a comparison.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If you assert that as your position, then what do you say to those who are responsible for the current policy that already does that?

My understanding is that existing policy billed third-party insurance for injuries or treatment that are not service-related. For example, if a veteran was injured in a car wreck, private insurance would pay for it. My understanding from this (I have, of course, been wrong in the past) is that the government is examining the idea that private insurance should pay for service-related treatments at the VA.

That is an expansion. The Iraq "War" can be seen merely as an "expansion" of the previously existing SASO operation where the rules of engagement were modified. Um - it's quite a bit more than that.

Quote

If the thought process you mean is transparency, I agree. A more transparent process is better for the Republic.

I concur.

Quote

If the thought process you mean is placing fiscal conservatism above the obligation to wounded warriors, I agree that would be worrisome.

"Fiscal conservatism" is like "Bush Doctrine." It can mean different things to different people. What I mean is the "if you broke it you fix it" principle. This means that a private company should not be indemnifying the government for injuries related to governmental actions unless the private indemnitor is paid for insuring the risk. This means that the private insurer would have actuaries review it, etc.

Of course, it would mean the government foisting pre-existing injuries onto a private insurer and private citizens. This is also a seizure.

Quote

If the thought process you mean is ignoring facts to fit one’s political expectations, I too find that worrisome.

I'm reacting to what I read. Despite my education and experience, I'm human. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the proposal, if enacted, would not require private insurers to indemnify war injuries.

Quote

I heartily support the policy ADM Mullen outlined during his TRANSCOM visit in February.

First - to show how outta the loop I've been, I didn't know about the move from my beloved Ft. Eustis.

But with regard to just releasing troops - yeah, I have always thought that is messed up. I've thought that they did some things right in the past - like troops on the way back from WWII were on a ship for a trip back together. Not just a plane ride that had them back in CONUS 12 hours later.

They had the opportunity to unwind together - as a unit. Their own little support group. While the private health care arena should be attuned to the issues of returning troops, it should not be private health care paying for the PTSD treatments. Private health care professional should, however, be aware of the incidence of MTBI and PTSD.

But should the private companies who had nothing to do with it pay for it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.