Gates supports Walter Reed closing

[Macfanforever]

Gates supports Walter Reed closing

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours, 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the aging hospital heavily criticized for inadequate care of wounded war veterans, should be closed as planned, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.


Gates' conclusion, following a review of Walter Reed by an independent advisory group, runs counter to the recommendation of some in Congress who have called recently for the
Pentagon to reverse its 2005 decision to close the facility.

The review group, which presented a summary of its conclusions at a Pentagon news conference with Gates, recommended that Walter Reed remain on a list of military facilities to be closed. It also urged that a plan to move the hospital's capabilities to an expanded National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Md., be accelerated.

The review group's central finding, released last month, was that money woes and Pentagon neglect were mainly to blame for shoddy outpatient conditions and bureaucratic delays at Walter Reed, the Army's premier medical center.

Citing lapses in leadership and oversight as main reasons for the problems, the nine-member independent group concluded that the Defense Department was, or should have been, aware of the widespread problems but neglected them because they knew Walter Reed was scheduled for eventual closure.

Gates indicated to reporters that he saw little wisdom in pouring money into Walter Reed to keep it open indefinitely.

"Far better to make an investment in brand-new, 21st-century facilities," he said, referring to the plan announced in 2005 to expand the Bethesda medical center and to build a new medical center at Fort Belvoir, Va.

"And how can we accelerate getting those facilities in place? And how can you keep high-quality staff at Walter Reed, right up until the day that people transfer to one of the other hospitals?" Gates added.

He said that based on currently available information it would make sense to go ahead with the plan to close Walter Reed in 2011.

"But we ought to have the flexibility to make sure that it stays open until Bethesda and Fort Belvoir are completely ready to take on the responsibilities of the patients and the staff that are at Walter Reed now. Walter Reed should not be closed unless those other facilities are ready to go, in my opinion," he added.

Gates also announced the formation of a committee of senior military and civilian officials to make sure that recommendations of the review group and those of a presidential commission are promptly implemented and coordinated.

Appearing with Gates at the news conference were the two chairmen of the independent review group: John O. "Jack" Marsh, Army secretary during the Reagan administration, and Togo D. West, secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs under
President Clinton.

Asked why it took the Army so long to recognize the problems at Walter Reed that came to light earlier this year in a series of Washington Post reports, March said: "There was a breakdown in a system or methodology of reporting complaints and concerns. There were some soldiers who had indicated that they tried to complain about it, but nobody listened."

[irishgrl]

what a sad state of affairs....but how typical

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

what a sad state of affairs....but how typical

VA Hospitals are notoriously horrible and it has been that way since my first experience with them in 1992 or so. Government employees indeed

[irishgrl]

Insult? meet Injury:

AP: Senior VA officials get big bonuses

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Thu May 3, 6:32 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Months after a politically embarrassing $1 billion shortfall that put veterans' health care in peril, Veterans Affairs officials involved in the foul-up got hefty bonuses ranging up to $33,000.
ADVERTISEMENT

The list of bonuses to senior career officials at the Veterans Affairs Department in 2006, obtained by The Associated Press, documents a generous package of more than $3.8 million in payments by a financially strapped agency straining to help care for thousands of injured veterans returning home from
Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Among those receiving payments were a deputy assistant secretary and several regional directors who crafted the VA's flawed budget for 2005 based on misleading accounting. They received performance payments up to $33,000 each, a figure equal to about 20 percent of their annual salaries.

Also receiving a top bonus was the deputy undersecretary for benefits, who helps manage a disability claims system that has a backlog of cases and delays averaging 177 days in getting benefits to injured veterans.

The bonuses were awarded even after government investigators had determined the VA repeatedly miscalculated — if not deliberately misled taxpayers — with questionable methods used to justify Bush administration cuts to health care amid a burgeoning Iraq war.

Annual bonuses to senior VA officials now average more than $16,000 — the most lucrative in government.

The VA said the payments are necessary to retain hardworking career officials.

Several watchdog groups questioned the practice. They cited short-staffing and underfunding at VA clinics that have become particularly evident after recent disclosures of shoddy outpatient treatment of injured troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.

"Hundreds of thousands of our veterans remain homeless every day and hundreds of thousands more veterans wait six months or more for VA disability claim decisions," said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense. "The lavish amounts of VA bonus cash would be better spent on a robust plan to cut VA red tape."

Sen. Daniel Akaka (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said the payments pointed to an improper "entitlement for the most centrally placed or well-connected staff."

Seeking an explanation from Secretary Jim Nicholson, Akaka also asked the department to outline steps to address disparities in which Washington-based senior officials got higher payments than their counterparts elsewhere.

"Awards should be determined according to performance," said Akaka, D-Hawaii. "I am concerned by this generous pat on the back for those who failed to ensure that their budget requests accurately reflected VA's needs."

A VA spokesman, Matt Burns, said the department was reviewing Akaka's request. Burns contended that many of the senior officials had been with the department for years, with an expertise that could not be replicated immediately if they were to leave for the more profitable private sector.

"Rewarding knowledgeable and professional career public servants is entirely appropriate," he said. "The importance of retaining committed career leaders in any government organization cannot be overstated."

In 2006, the VA officials receiving top bonuses included Rita Reed, the deputy assistant secretary for budget, and William Feeley, a former VA network director who is now deputy undersecretary for health for operations and management.

Also receiving $33,000 was Ronald Aument, the deputy undersecretary for benefits, who helps oversee the strained and backlogged claims system that Nicholson now says is unacceptable.

The bonuses are determined by the heads of the VA's various divisions, based in part on performance evaluations. All requests are submitted to Nicholson for final approval.

In July 2005, the VA stunned Congress by suddenly announcing it faced a $1 billion shortfall after failing to take into account the additional cost of caring for veterans injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The admission, months after the department insisted it was operating within its means and did not need additional money, drew harsh criticism from both parties and some calls for Nicholson's resignation.

The investigative arm of Congress, the
Government Accountability Office, determined the VA had used misleading accounting methods and claimed false savings of more than $1.3 billion, apparently because
President Bush was not willing, at the time, to ask Congress for more money.

According to the White House Office of Personnel Management, roughly three of every four senior officials at the VA have received some kind of bonus each year. In recent years, the payment amount has steadily increased from being one of the lowest in government — $8,120 in 2002 — to the most generous — $16,713 in 2005.

In contrast, just over half the senior officials at the Energy Department in 2005 received an average bonus of $9,064. Across all government agencies, about two-thirds of employees received bonuses, which averaged $13,814 in 2005, the most recent data available.

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the VA bonuses appeared to reflect a trend in government where performance bonuses were increasingly used to reward loyal associates and longtime employees.

Put in place shortly after the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, executive bonuses were designed to increase accountability in government by tying raises more closely to performance. But while bonuses can help retain key employees, damage can be done when payments turn into an automatic handout regardless of performance, Ellis said.

"Simply put, people who nearly shortchanged our veterans shouldn't get a bonus check at the end of the year," he said.

Joe Davis, spokesman for Veterans of Foreign Wars, one of the nation's largest veterans groups, agreed. His organization is awaiting Nicholson's explanation, saying that the budget shortfall was partly to blame for backlogs and other problems today.

"No one joins the government to get rich, and the bonus may be used as a retention tool to keep the best and the brightest, but it must be performance-based in award to be fair and impartial," Davis said. "Anything else could be viewed as favoritism. (<--Gee? ya think?)"

___

On the Net:

Veterans Affairs Department: http://www.va.gov/

Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee: http://veterans.senate.gov

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

VA Hospitals are notoriously horrible and it has been that way since my first experience with them in 1992 or so. Government employees indeed

Hmmm, was that directed at me or yourself?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Hmmm, was that directed at me or yourself?

If you were implying that WRH suddenly got bad under W and was blissful prior to that - then it was aimed at you

Seriously, the VA health care system in this country has been pathetic for decades and W is just as much to blame as every other a$$hole in office for the last 30 or so years.

Here is a sample article - one of many a google search will reveal

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com...omplaints.html

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If you were implying that WRH suddenly got bad under W and was blissful prior to that - then it was aimed at you

Seriously, the VA health care system in this country has been pathetic for decades and W is just as much to blame as every other a$$hole in office for the last 30 or so years.

Here is a sample article - one of many a google search will reveal

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com...omplaints.html

I wasnt implying any such thing
However this:

Months after a politically embarrassing $1 billion shortfall that put veterans' health care in peril, Veterans Affairs officials involved in the foul-up got hefty bonuses ranging up to $33,000

is happening under Monkey Boy's watch and I notice a deafening silence coming from the White House about this heinous act.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . is happening under Monkey Boy's watch and I notice a deafening silence coming from the White House about this heinous act.

He is at fault - but the problem did not suddenly appear with him. Thus, I lay blame at every Pres. since like Vietnam - though it goes back further than that, though IMO not as much.