Youre watching live coverage on cspan. And that really speaks more towards we have the right performance standards, making sure that we have the right training tools. Mr. Burke making sure as we create new reports for managers to manage both workload and employee performance that we bring them together, get on the same page and provide some consistency that wasnt there prior to n. W. Q. Thank you for that. In terms of vacancies, mr. Murphy, did i understand you to say were losing we lose approximately 40 employees per pay period . Mr. Murphy thats correct. Prior to the hiring freeze we lost between 55 and 61 per pay period. There were a good percentage moving to other agencies. That number would reduce down to 40. That would leave the federal government. Ms. Brownley is it advancement or is it theyre leaving . Mr. Murphy this is not turnover, moving to another job. These are people leaving the agency and thats actually a very low number. I come from a sector where we ran 25 , 28 . We typically run in the low Single Digits percentage as an agency. So 40 with a population base of 22,000, thats just normal retirements and ive take and have taken another opportunity someplace else. Ms. Brownley back in 2013 i think when we were first discussing this transition, and i really believe this transition has been is certainly there are plenty indications its been successful so i want to congratulate you all in that endeavor. Obviously i agree there is still more work to be done here. One of the things we talked about was the fact for those people who are doing this processing that what could emerge from the system is are people who are experts across the country in a particular type of claim. And perhaps with that expertise that that in and of itself would streamline and make the system more efficient. Has that is that happening . Do you see that kind of trend . Mr. Murphy we have the data to give us that kind of trend. We havent taken any action on it yet to actually physically realign. The concept youre talking about is lets say st. Paul, minnesota, becomes experts at ptsd. So we route ptsd cases to that rating board because theyre really good at that product. We do that at a lower level now with camp lejeune contaminated claims and we do that in pockets to concentrate low density things. What youre talking about is a center of excellence where we can concentrate high volumes of work. We got the data to do it now but its not an action we have taken yet. Its certainly on the table for future improvements. Ms. Brownley so i think in this weeks monday morning workload report, the los angeles Regional Office, which serves my veterans, the average days pending is 105 while its only 81 days in fargo, north dakota. I presume that the v. B. A. Is tracking these numbers, but are you adding more people and resources in areas where you know there are going they are going to and you can anticipate there are going to e more claims . Yes, maam. We are. D i recall going back, i oversaw the region of which l. A. Was one of those offices and there was a point in time that the average claim was well over six months. The clerk so one of the things mr. Clark so one of the things we did previously, we would pick cases up physically and move them via you p. S. Or we would just ship cases and now with n. W. Q. , this is why we are able to do things electronically. So only aggregate, our average days pending and average days complete have lowered significantly. We do keep track of all of our claims that are pending and one of the great things about n. W. Q. Is we can just target our send that work to places where we have capacity. So sometimes proportionately maybe certain claims or certain amount of radiation claims or what have you may be pending in a particular area. On average we are sending cases where we need work and where capacity thats where it goes and it goes every day at 4 00 a. M. Mr. Burke and his team of folks move that work around. Ms. Brownley thank you very much. I apologize. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, ms. Brownley. And mr. Coffman is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Coffman thank you. Mr. Murphy, out of the claims backlog, what percentage would ou just say are ptsd only . Mr. Murphy id have to go back and detail you a number. I dont want to venture a guess. Mr. Coffman is it the largest right now in terms of pending claims . Mr. Murphy in isolation, no. In combination with others, yes. Mr. Coffman and then what are some of the im concerned that were not focused enough on our combat veterans in terms of the claims process. What can you give me again, very rough breakdown of just what i would call agerelated issues in terms of the claims process that whether its hearing loss, its not necessarily associated with in terms of being around explosions or around Aviation Assets and things like that . Mr. Murphy i can tell what you we have in terms of the top five to seven conditions, the ones we see most frequently. Ptsd is high on the list. Traumatic brain injury is high on the list. Much more common than that is tinnitus, hearing loss and muscular dejen tiff for the knees, back. Those are the most frequently occurring conditions. Mr. Coffman what and how well tell me about your shift to a more Electronic System . And i know its somewhat controversial. I know some of the v. S. O. s have fought to retain a paper system because its simply easier for some of the veterans to that arent sophisticated in terms of Electronic Communications to be able to utilize but where are we at in that whole process . Mr. Murphy we dont work cases in paper any longer. There is a small fraction of the percentage thats existing in paper still. Its all a paperless environment. Last year we emptied philadelphia. There is no paper left in philadelphia. We have a team in st. Petersburg right now. In a couple of weeks there will be no paper left in that office. Then were moving across the nation. By end of the fiscal year we will have most of them. By the end of next fiscal year we will be done with paper in all Regional Offices. Mr. Coffman are you down to 18,000 what is the claims backlog right now . Mr. Murphy claims backlog as of this morning is 200 99,000. Mr. Coffman 99,000. Tell me where you want to be a year from now . Mr. Murphy id like it to be as close to zero as we can get. Thats probably, i dont know, 25,000, 30,000, 40,000 depending on the work flow. There are be some cases not under 125 days because you are shortchanging veterans. Radiation claims, Long Research history, exposure, etc. Its an injustice into a veteran to force it under a 125day process. For us to get to zero its not going to happen. Its certainly not it can be smaller. Any system you got no matter how good it is can get better, ours included. Mr. Coffman in pushing these claims to the appeals process, in other words, they are taking them upstairs by trying to expedite and shrink the volume in terms of the claims backlog . Mr. Murphy no, sir. It creates more problems for me later. We are on an eightyear upward sludge, steady growth. In the last three months we have turned it and started reducing the appeals process. The reason for that five months ago i locked in the appeals people and just made them an isolated, nobody could work on anything other than appeals if you are assigned to appeals. So that dedicated work force, 1,495 people work only appeals on their primetime, on their overtime, any time they are working. And then that focus, along with just a little bit extra pressure and few modifications in change in process has resulted in us flattening and starting to bring down the overall number of appeals. Now, inside of that, the number of appeals sitting at the board of veterans appeals is growing because were producing them faster and pushing them across the board of veterans appeals which leads us into the legislation pending in congress now about appeals and reform. Mr. Coffman ok. R. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Walsh, you are reaked. Mr. Walsh thank you, mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. Mr. Murphy, a special thank you to you. I know youve been through this whole process as the claims reached the peak, as we addressed it. You adjusted fired and reduced them as we were hoping would happen. I for one am grateful you chose not to take your talents elsewhere would you could get paid for. Mr. Murphy its a passion. Mr. Walz its a passion and thats what our veterans deserve. I watched you come here on numerous occasions through this but always with a goal on that end of working together. Im appreciative of that. Just a couple things and this is coming from our v. S. O. s who i know you are a good partner with. I truly know and a special thank you to your employees too. I literally watched those folks out at the st. Paul r. O. Burn the midnight oil on numerous occasions during the backlog and they brokered in a lot through them. I agree with you, we were paying a lot for overtime that needed to be done but i think to smooth this and keep this going, that does make sense. When we talk about accountability, we talk about hiring freezes, we do need to talk about in the long run hiring and retaining really good people cannot only do the right thing for veterans, it can save us money in the long run. I appreciate you on that. Just a couple. Our v. S. O. s expressed their concern they cant get that Contact Information when they need to reach out to an employee to correct an error. How does that happen or how do you respond to them when they say that . Mr. Murphy i would give the details to mr. Burke on that one. Mr. Burke sir, thank you. We tried to ensure no degradation of service or relationship between our v. S. O. s at the local Regional Offices and the staff there. To that end we are learning in that process. We are adjusting fire, as you referenced. But we have designated personnel in each Regional Office. The same Regional Office that the v. S. O. Resides in that have been put on kind of an ancillary role, if you will, that they can serve as a directly ason between that v. S. O. In that office no matter where the claim is. They have a peer to reach out to facilitate those discussions. Immediately its a process we need to improve on. I think were really, really good in some areas and some we get a reminder from our partners it may not be working as intended. So we want to make sure theres that local flavor, both high technology, high touch type thing that was referenced earlier today. But certainly an area that well continue to improve on. Mr. Walz no, i appreciate that. I appreciate the spirit. These are your partners and they are good at it. Thats a force multiplier for all of us. Im grateful for that. I just end with one and you brought it up, mr. Murphy, with camp lejeune and were coming up on the 14th. Having and i said this in hearings at the time. I continue to say it a lot of the backlog came out of the nemur claims which i am glad it was approved, that we were there and i feel like i added a lot of work for you by pushing that through. When the secretary added, i understand that. And i dont think we gave you the necessary upfront resources once the numur claims went through. Not an excuse but its certainly a reason. Are we going to be ok this time we are not going to see that . I know the numbers are probably far less but not certain of that and how that will be handled. Mr. Murphy are we talking specifically about the camp lejeune cases . Mr. Walz on the 14th, right, march 14 . Mr. Murphy the difference what got us bogged down last time was the unique of the nemur claim and the fact you had to do a page 1 review literally decades old. That doesnt apply in this case. This is claims that we filed since the notice. Its point forward. Completely different type of work. And the fact we put the presumptive in there, yes, its going to bring more volume in the floor but the presumptive speeds the prosuss up. Mr. Walz will you handle that in the normal process or one r. O. . Mr. Murphy we want to keep them in the one r. O. If they cant handle the volume, we have to expand it. We have to keep a close eye on that. Mr. Walz youre concerned, focusing on it, youre ready to adjust to it but you dont anticipate anything near the disruption that the nemur claims mr. Murphy no, that was a tidal wave and this will be a small one in comparison. Mr. Walz again, im grateful. I appreciate you being here. Its about service to those veterans and its clear as i said of watching you over the last half decade or so that youve done youve done what you were expected to do. I yield back. Mr. Murphy thank you, sir. Mr. Roe we want to thank you for your testimony. We appreciate you being here today. If we have any followup questions we will be sending those your way. I thank you for being here and for what you do and hopefully we can improve on this but we need to well move on to our next panel if thats all right. And if the second panel will come to the witness table. Welcome to everyone and thank you for coming today. Our second Panel Includes mr. Zachary hearn, the Department Director of claims of the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division of the American Legion. Ms. Kelly yoon, the director of Veterans Benefits of the Vietnam Veterans of america. Mr. Boast and mr. Ryan galluci , the duty director of the National Veteran services for the veterans of foreign wars. And first, well hear from mr. Hearn of the American Legion. Mr. Hearn, youre now recognized for five minutes. Mr. Hearn thank you. American legion Pass National commander Ronald Conley initiated a sear sees of visits to v. A. Facilities in 2003. They said v. A. Was a system worth saving. This truth remains. The American Legion knows v. A. s system is worth saving. Good morning chairman bost, Ranking Memberesty and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the National Commander charles e. Schmidt and the 2. 2 million members of the American Legion we will speak to you upon the adjudication of claims. Secretary David Shulkin we believe v. A. s a system worth saving. We need v. A. To listen to us. We need v. A. To work with us to ensure management success. The American Legion has over 3,200 accredited representatives with representatives in each of v. A. s Regional Offices. This level of assistance and expertise by these individuals led the American Legion to represent over 408,000 veterans in the last fiscal year. Many view are representatives for veterans. We could be a fleet of advocates for v. A. But they need to not only listen to us but implement it. The system are intertweend. N. W. Q. Is not viable without a properly functioning vbns that has the advocacy of Service Officers. They briefed n. W. Q. It was designed to maximize its work force and adjudicate claims in a more expeditious manner. Routing to v. A. Offices based on availability. We recognized the potential for the program but problems exist regarding execution. The advocacy and adjudication has been a local venture. A veteran residing in a jurisdiction could reasonable expect a claim to be adjudicated at the local v. A. Office. Much of claims advocacy is built on internal and n. W. Q. Would sever some of those. We they would serve as the first filter where the claims are adjudicated. In some offices its untrue. The claims of veterans from minnesota from 99 to 30 over the course of two years. A major complaint received by our Service Officers is the fact that vbns has not the ability to alert local representatives of claims development. V. A. Has established a 48hour window to review claims claims. However, v. A. Has removed a case prior to the close of allotted period of time. The American LegionHost DepartmentOfficers School biannually and during the last school in 2016 Service Officers working in Regional Offices were asked to raise their hands. They asked to lower their hand if they saw a case removed prior to the 48hour window. Not one hand was raised. These concerns have been raised to v. A. , yet the problem continues to linger. Even if the local representative where the claim was adjudicated were notified it would be of little assistance. The local representative is not familiar with the veteran or claim. They are employed by state agencies funded by local tax dollars. Those employees are working to assist veterans in their given state. They help veterans residing outside their jurisdiction. The American Legion conducts quality review visits. Last year we discussed to impact of n. W. Q. Some welcomed n. W. Q. However, some had concerns. These concerns existed from line employees to Senior Leadership. The v. A. Employees noticed a disconnect exist. A developer at one location may not develop a claim required at another location causing added delays in the process. Another complaint involved n. W. Q. Pulling cases into the virtue queue and redistributing after substantial development occurred at the local Regional Office. The Regional Office does not receive the credit. One Senior Leader said its disheartening for an employee to complete the bulk of the work while another location gets the credit. In a production environment this could hurt morale. V. A. Has taken Great Strides in reducing the backlog of claim from the peak in 2013. The fully implement of claims and vbns has allowed them to enter the 21st century. They need to make sure they are a fleet of advocates to improve their products. They simply need to listen. Chairman bost, Ranking Memberesty on behalf of the nations largest veteran organization, we thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about this issue this morning and we welcome any questions you may have. Mr. Bost thank you. Mr. Galluci, youre recognized for five minutes. Mr. Galluci thank you. Chairman bost, Ranking Memberesty, and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 1. 3 million americans of the v. F. W. And auxiliary, i want to thank you for testifying on this issue. I know with the National Work queue looks quire but i want to say we support n. W. Q. And this is how v. A. Can maximize efficiency using every resource at its disposal to deliver quality, timely, and rack late benefits to veterans. Our concerns rest with the final step in the process for veterans represented by accredited v. S. O. s like the v. F. W. Unfortunately, this issue is so complex we saw prudent to articulate every way we believe this affects v. A. s ability to deliver a quality product to veterans and our ability as advocates to provide Quality Customer service to our veteran clients. By decades old policy, v. A. Allows v. S. O. s 48 hours to perform a final quality review on proposed rating decisions, allowing us to identify any potential errors and get them corrected before it is sent to the veterans. V. S. O. s ensures that v. A. Gets it right on the first the first time. We find errors in one out of every 10 claims we process and we can usually work with them to dfer before the veteran knows. On grand scale, if v. S. O. s can perform quality reviews on the ratings and complain the decision to the veterans, we build confidence. V. S. O. s become stronger advocates. V. A. Staffs become better raters and veterans receive accurate and timely benefits. While this is supported by v. A. Management, the v. F. W. Has seen examples where Regional Offices reacting to pressures on productivity will finalize ratings before the 48 hours expired. We have seen n. W. Q. Pull ratings out of offices while they are still in the 48 hours meaning our representatives lose optics on them while the clock ticks. We have also seen brokered work stations immediately finalize Rating Systems under their jurisdiction if no v. S. O. Representative is in the office in accordance to the m211. This makes it impossible for the v. S. O. Representatives to track their work regardless of the filtering work around by v. A. By vbns. We appreciate that they have offered these workareas like sdemrip code filters. These work areas do not solve the overall problem. Our objective as accredited v. S. O. Is to serve as a public facing advocate to help them navigate the complex v. A. System. As such we align our Resources Community of the like we see in north dakota. When they take the veteran someplacing his or her trust in the v. F. W. To serve as a quality advocate no just just filing for v. A. Benefits but assuring every awarded benefit is accurate. We must properly advocate for veterans. When our advocates do not have the opportunity to review the work for their clients, everybody suffers. At first it may look good. They were able to send their rating decision to the veteran but its no good if its inaccurate. We have lost localed a vow cassy. The v. F. W. s asked on n. W. Q. Is threefold. First, return proposed rating stations to the station of origination so those most familiar with the claim can conduct a proper review. Second, lock the 48hour clock in vbns so the staff cannot pull back the rating he system before the 48 hour lapses. Third, allow v. S. O. s to mark it as queried in vbns so they can hold staff accountable for addressing any potential errors. The v. F. W. Believes the infrastructure already exists to address these steps and it is better than building a new filtering option. The v. F. W. And our partners have asked for these since n. W. Q. Was first proposed. We worry these requests have been pushed aside. Now we understand that v. A. Has its objectives to improve its work product but our purpose today is to demonstrate to this subcommittee and to v. A. That the v. S. O. s priorities are also v. A. s priorities. The v. F. W. Believes in n. W. Q. And we work to work with v. A. And the subcommittee to make this successful. If v. A. Can execute these deliverables, we will believe we have advanced in our mission to providing timely, consistent benefits to our veterans. Chairman bost, Ranking Memberesty, this concludes my system and i am happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Bost thank you, mr. Demruchey. And ms. Yoon, we want to recognize you just for purposes of boston, bost. Everybody does it. Go ahead and go ahead it so everyone knows. Ms. Yoon. Ms. Yoon thank you. Good morning, chairman bost, Ranking Memberesty and other representatives of this distinguished subcommittee. Thank you for inviting v. B. A. To testify about the National Work queues impact on claims processing. V. B. A. Is supportive of using technology to use beater claim system, however, not at the expense of accuracy, transparency or a proveteran claims process. Currently it is easier to track a fedex package than a v. A. Claim. They have sidelined v. S. O. s during the development and implementation of the National Work queue by not prioritizing the crucial role of Service Representatives. Consequently, the proveteran claims process has suffered to the detriment of the veteran. V. B. A. Is left concluded that v. A. s only interest is to use the National Work queue as the tool to eliminate the backlog and nothing else. V. B. A. s strongly opposes the expansion of the National Work queue to appeals and nonreading minimum the at a three things we put forth are fully implemented. Id like to take this time to discuss three barriers to the claims process that v. V. A. Currently experiences as a direct result of the work queue. First, v. S. O. s are unable to track accurately its claims that need review before a final decision is made in vbns. If a Service Officer files a claim in washington, that claim could be kicked to atlanta. That Service Officer is unable to track that claim to its rating decision being issued. V. V. A. Believes when our Service Officers are unable to review the claims they filed, v. A. Is depriving veterans their right to accurate representation. For more than two years, v. V. A. Has stressed the importance of a station of origin search rilter in vbns but they have gave it zero priority. Adding a station of origin search feature will permit officers to competently assist their veterans to the entire claims process regardless if the claim is adjudicated in another station. The second barrier, assuming the v. S. O. Is able to identify which r. O. The claim has been sent to, v. A. Has yet to provide accurate Contact Information for each station. Often, the email address is outdated or incorrect not letting them know who to contact. This is extremely important when we are trying to contact during the 48hour review period. And finally, the third barrier, even if we have the correct Contact Information for the station, it is difficult to receive a timely response if we get one at all. Since implementation of the National Work queue, Service Representatives are further distanced from the claims process and in some instances blocked out entirely. Consequently, v. B. A. Has v. V. A. Has been forced to appeal more claims which adds to the backlog. This is did not happen preNational Work queue because they developed working relationships with v. A. Raters at their home station and all claims were adjudicated in the same state where the veteran resides. The Veterans Benefits claims process is unique is a unique system. It seeks to be nonadversarial and pro veteran. V. V. A. Urges v. A. To prioritize the recommendations made in our written statement so the veterans and their representatives are again included in the claims process. Thank you for this opportunity for v. V. A. To share our thoughts on this issue and im happy to answer any questions. Mr. Bost thank you. Ill go with the first five minutes of questioning. Mr. Hearn, our number of backlog claims when we started this project was about 76,000. Ow its about 101,000 or thereabouts. Do you think the n. W. Q. Is actually has improved the situation or not . Mr. Hearn the American Legion has noted there has been an increase in the backlog of claims during this period of time as far as if it contributes to the backlog, i couldnt say. But it certainly hasnt been it certainly hasnt decreased it as the numbers would bear. Mr. Bost what suggestions would what suggestions would you have to improve this . Mr. Hearn i think, again, a lot of it when we go through and we look at how these claims are being adjudicated or theyre being processed in the system, theres a lot of back and forth thats going on between the v. S. R. And the raters. In one lets say you take a poor performing Regional Office and that developer meets you know, cuts the muster as far as they are concerned there, then it goes to rater where they wouldnt accept it as being the Necessary Development so the rater kicks it back and here it starts slowing this process down. Had this been in the same office, the person could have walked across the Service Center and said, hey, look, you need to fix this. We need to schedule an exam. We need to do this level of development. Some of these issues are probably contributing to a certain extent. Mr. Bost ok. That kind of leads to this question. Right now i just asked you specifically what input you would have through your organization. So im going to ask this of all three members. Has the v. A. Asked each one of you what they could do to improve this and what has been the response . Mr. Hearn they have asked. We have offered solutions and we continue to we continue to ask for those same those same asks keep getting asked over and over again over the last six months to a year, i would say. Mr. Bost mr. Galluci. Mr. Galluci so thank you, mr. Chairman. I do want to reiterate what mr. Hearn said because that was really an overarching theme in our testimony as well is that we persistently make requests of v. A. On things they need to prioritize in changing their business processes. But we dont know where those stand on their list of overall priorities. What were trying to convey to v. A. Is that our priorities arent just the priorities of v. V. A. , American Legion and v. F. W. They are the priorities of the veterans we serve and we face these. These men and women walk into our offices, call our offices. They develop interpersonal relationships with our representatives, and so we need to be able to provide that personal advocacy for them. It also becomes a problem not to get on too much of a tangent where these different processes happen in different offices. We heard antidotally there are sometimes duplicate things happening. They might order an exam that is not needed. Or as mr. Hearn said it will kick back into the process someplace where it doesnt need to be. I think my recommendations would likely echo the American Legions in improving the business flow in those Regional Offices. Its good that v. A. Wants about 50 of the work to stay at the original office of jurisdiction, but, again, i dont know if thats going to solve their problem. Automation has the potential to improve this process. Mr. Bost ms. Yoon. Ms. Yoon yeah. I would also concur with mr. Hearn and mr. Galluci. V. V. A. Has continually, as i stated earlier, for years been working with the v. A. To try to explain what we need in order to assist the claims process. And like i mentioned, because of our inability to properly track and assist claims with the original Service Officer who worked on it, it forces us to appeal claims we wouldnt have had to appeal preNational Work queue thereby adding to the backlog. I would emphasize that, again, as mr. Galluci said, we are all on the same team. Were trying to do the same thing and achieve final and just decision at the lowest level possible. And the recommendations that we put forth seek to achieve that. Mr. Bost let me tell you, i think this committee is on the same team with you as well. In your original testimony, you actually brought up the fact quite often the Communications Come with the wrong email address . Ms. Yoon yes. So as was earlier stated, the v. A. Has provided a Contact Person or generic mailbox at each r. O. So if we dont know who to contact at that r. O. , if we dont know the rater, were instructed to email this email address. Its either a personal email address, name someones namath va. Gov or a corporate email. Those are often wrong and the response if we get a response which is common not to get a response youre contacting the wrong person. I dont do this. So the request that we made in our written statement is that v. A. Publish on its website an updated list. You certainly understand theres turnover and that person of contact switched but they need to be able to provide that real time updated to Service Organizations so we know who to contact at that point. Mr. Bost thank you. I will turn it over to the Ranking Member. Ms. Esty thank you, mr. Chairman. And i take it i think we are all on the same page and i think its going to be up to us in congress to prioritize these issues to better serve veterans. Part of what weve done now, theres been a lot of folks on backlog so the v. A. Is focusing on backlog. If we want these quality measures and transparency and accountability in place, we need to prioritize that and we need to be pushing v. A. And thats why we are thanking you for your partnership with us in ensuring that happens. Again, i have no doubt v. A. Wants this, too, but if its not prioritized from somebody who can assist or not and shine some light on it may not happen. Is it a 50 goal enough . We heard from mr. Murphy that their goal is now to return 50 or leave 50 in the r. O. Any thoughts from the three of you on whether we think thats an appropriate goal . Mr. Hearn first of all, thank you, representativesty. You may have seen in my written testimony in talking about some of these solutions, to the v. F. W. They seem like work areas. Gloich an objective to have 50 of the work in the station of origination sounds good. Its better than 30 , dont get me wrong. Having a station of origination work filter in vbns is also better. But i dont think its 100 solution for some of the reasons that i pointed out before. The manual allows v. A. To immediately promulgate decisions if we have no v. S. O. Representative in that office. Just for little bit of background, the way our resources are alound at the v. F. W. , sometimes we do have turnover in those offices. The example i had in my written testimony was a Regional Office that had a vacancy at the moment. We at our headquarters were tracking a claimant that we were hoping to review that rating when it was posted for the 48hour review period. That 48hour review period never happened because they were proming gaiting that decision. It wouldnt have helped us in the situation with that veteran. Whats interesting about the ecific case is that v. A. Failed to evaluate one of the claims and it resulted in an eightmonth ordeal with the veteran and for the v. F. W. The filter to us, the 50 station of origination work doesnt really solve the problem. Thats why i mean really our testimony was more of a wish list. If we had an optimal situation, what wed want is return it to the s. O. O. , return it to the s. Omple o. , freeze the clock so they cant pull it back into the National Work queue and then allow us to mark ratings as queried in vbns as opposed to just reviewed or lapsed. Ms. Esty thank you. Thats helpful. We had some of those cases in my office. We were thinking we managed to crack the code in immigration cases, a coding system that they used that allowed us to actually track, ms. Yoon, as you mentioned, who is handling the case, how its been coded and i think thats something we want to explore in more detail. Could we do better coding so you would know who was in charge so if that person is no longer there you would be able to go and look at that r. O. Site and say, 132 is not there so we need to figure out who is taking over those cases. It seems like the technology ought to be able to offer us that transparency and accountability, but we may need to push v. A. To say you need to prioritize in coding that allows us to let us know who to contact and get realtime information. I dont know if youve done any work on that. Maybe, mr. Chairman, we can look at utilizing exactly this technology to say, ok, if were going to use it, lets use it for the benefits of veterans, not just reduce the backlog but to have that accountability and that touch. As we move forward id welcome your thoughts on whether we can use the technology to help solve this problem. Mr. Bost Ranking Memberesty, if you mind, id like to followup on that. Mr. Galluci there was another point about the list of points of contact that kelsey made in the Regional Offices. This becomes problematic because it takes reporting of errors outside of that digital environment. So vbms is a Digital Claims management, how v. A. Is tracking all their work. Mr. Murphy articulated they have been able to glean so much data on there that theyve been able to hold individual employees accountable. For rating review, if we find errors theres no such opportunity. By having to send a separate email to a random v. A. Staffer or corporate inbox theres no accountability for reporting those errors. And i know when we click reviewed or let the 48 hours lapse so it will say expired, theres then no accountability on the back end for v. S. O. s to say, look, we found an error. It wasnt addressed in a timely manner. Thats one of the reasons were asking them to mark them as queried in vbms. Ms. Esty thats great to figure out how to embed that. Thats a great point. If we are getting incomplete i wouldnt say inaccurate incomplete data about the error rate, thats important how to code that and i think we should continue on. Thank you very much. Mr. Bost thank you. First of all, thanks to all you do for the veterans. The veterans Service Organizations vary in their scope. Vary if some of the populationes that they serve. Im hoping for all of you that you are working very hard to encourage those veterans to whether they join the American Legion, the v. F. W. , the Vietnam Veterans of america, we need to know whats going on amongst the youngsters that have served so honorably. Mr. Bergman to all of you, the v. A. Has claimed that the n. W. Q. Could improve on rating consistency and accuracy from the perspective of you, the v. S. O. s, have you noticed improvement in these areas . Mr. Hearn the American Legion conducts quality review visits every year. We just did return from san juan last week, and to their credit, to san juans credit, they are vastly improved from where they were 18 to 24 months ago. However, i would still contend and the American Legion has historically differed in what the definition of error is with v. A. Nd a static aplate rate or a declining appealate rate is not better. It means less people has appealed. Typically 20 to 30 of error rate is what we see. What we determine as error rate, there was something done wrong in the development process. Not just strictly a yes or no or grant or denial of the benefits. So i wouldnt say it certainly isnt the panacea to v. A. s problems as far as the error rate is concerned. Mr. Galluci general bergman, thank you for that question. Its tough to draw a conclusion at this point. National work queue is a very new business process which is one of the reasons why we wanted to get out in front of this and really appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on this issue today is because from the v. F. W. s perspective, we think moving work efficiently in a Digital Space around v. A. Has potential to improve accuracy. I dont think were there yet. Based on our own review of rating decisions we find one in 10 has an error. Thats been fairly consistent. Two months ago we were getting close to two in 10 where we were identifying errors. Whether thats because of National Work queue its tough to say because looking at v. A. s selfreported data on claimsbased accuracy, thats a number thats also been decreasing over the past few years. When they break down claimsbased accuracy, it also is directly correlated to the number of issues that a veteran claim. So one to two issue per claim are more likely to be accurate than if you have seven to 12 issues in that claim. And that become a problem because veterans are claiming more issues as they become more aware to the benefit to which they are entitled. I think, at least from the v. F. W. s perspective, its too soon to tell. One of our objectiveses is to get in front of us and provide us the tools they need to hold them accountable for any errors and to fix them before they go out the door. Ms. Yoon i dont have too much to add. I concur with both statementses already made. I would just emphasize that i do agree that it is too early to determine whether its helping. I do agree there is potential with the Additional Data we can get from the National Work queue. However, i would also emphasize that if we continue long the pathway that we are without including the v. S. O. s into the process of the claims process, then it could potentially have very negative impact on the accuracy of decisions. Mr. Bergman thank you. Mr. Hearn, how do you feel v. A. Handled the rollout of n. W. Q. . Mr. Hearn its kind of interesting because when v. A. Was testifying, the statement had been made they are just now hearing that cases arent being adjudicated at the local level as much as the v. S. O. s would like. When it was rolled out, we were initially told that the essentially the right of first refusal was local Regional Office. When you drop from 90plus percent down to 30 in minnesota, thats not even the majority. And so that has been a big problem with us. Its not only that but its also dealing with the issues of claims development, not getting our mail. Thats the mantra were hearing from our Service Officers is we want our mail back. In other words, if something happens along the claims process as far as development is concerned, unless the v. S. O. Or Service Organization is specifically putting that veterans claim number in, theres no way for the representative to know so we need this type of information as well. R. Bergman thank you. Mr. Bost ms. Brownley. Ms. Brownley thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. It seems to me this is, you know, a Pretty Simple problem to resolve. And there should be ways in which it can be resolved. You know, i would just ask the chairman and the Ranking Member if, you know, we dont have the v. A. Here now and so we cant ask them that question but we need to ask the question, you know, when are you going to take these recommendations and when are you going to have a response to them . We believe its a priority, and we want to make it a priority for you. When will that happen and when can they report back to us on it to make sure that it does indeed happen . I mean, it is you know, within the v. A. Sent out a fact sheet when this process was going to be incorporated and they made a strong commitment that the relationship between v. S. O. s and the r. O. Managers will not change as a result of this new process, n. Wrment q. Clearly youre making it very clear to all of us that is not the case. So timeliness of these benefit claims are clearly important, but the quality of those claims and the role that you play and the relationship to the veteran at home is equally is equally as important. I hope that we can clear this up sooner rather than later. Just wanted to ask, can the veterans check the status of their claims through their e benefit accounts . Mr. Hearn yes, they can. But its veterans check the status not l you know they are putting the cheese on the pizza. Sometimes theyre putting the sauce. Its not a good reporting structure. And ms. Brownley its not a good reporting structure because mr. Hearn nornse, from the input in other words, from the input ill get calls from veterans in my office. They are saying this. Its not matching up exactly. So i have raised this issue before with v. B. A. Going back years and i said, again, using dominos as an example. If they can figure this out as far as where theyre what toppings theyre putting on the pizza, why cant v. A. Use Similar Technology . I have never gotten a good response on that. To me that would be an easy solution like you were talking about. Ms. Brownley ok. Well, i guess i really dont have any more questions. It seals the problems have been laid out pretty clearly. And i think the to resolve it seems to be Pretty Simple. I will yield back. Mr. Bost mr. Coffman. Mr. Coffman thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me ask each of you first. Do you think that the claims when its switched to the new system, were the claims processors up to speed and ready to go . Were they trained up for this . Mr. Hearn, lets start with you. Mr. Hearn by claims process do you mean on v. A. Side or our representatives . Mr. Coffman v. A. s side . Mr. Hearn anytime you implement a new system there are going to be problems, i think. At large i would say they were trained on how to do it. I think one of the things we need to caution with, everything is getting more electronic. Theyre leaning all this gleaning all this out of the system. No baseball umpire is a computer. We need the Human Element to this. Theres too much reliance on the network when they say if the computer shows this could be potentially an error, to avoid a quality review hit, they wont they wont override that. And that sometimes has been some of the problem we noted. As far as their understanding of the system, its been my experience when working with the employees that theyve been properly trained. Mr. Coffman mr. Galluci. Mr. Galluci i would tend to agree that there was proper training prior to implementation. However, because this was such a complex overhaul, i think the unforeseen consequences made it much more problematic. At least on our end as v. S. O. s. Whether just how much work was moving around. I think even and i pointed out in my testimony they had moved work for the predischarge program, delivery claims. There were hiccups all up and down the v. A. System. Our review specialist in winstonsalem identified a number of claims that disappeared before the 48hour queue. When we reported it to v. A. They didnt think it was happening at first. It took about two days of back and forth and then providing claim numbers and a hard count of the claims that were pulled back from winstonsalem pending rating review, they were in the cloud, 499 for the National Work queue, they didnt believe us at first. They almost didnt recognize this was happening within their own business process. I think there were a lot of unforeseen complications with the rollout of National Work queue. Again, one of the reasons we wanted to come here today and articulate this not to take too many shots at v. A. , but we want to be a constructive partner on this. We hope they will be responsive to the needs of our clients, the veterans we serve. Mr. Coffman ms. Yoon. Ms. Yoon thank you for the question. We are leaving the hearing to take you live to the house as they get ready to gavel in. You can continue watching the hearing live online at cspan. Org. Just go to the homepage. Theres lang directly to the hearing there. Theres a link directly to the hearing there. The house getting ready to gavel back in considering rules on a number of bills today, including one to define the red river boundary between texas and oklahoma. And another disapproving Obama Administration rules in allowing states greater flexibility in drug testing people who collect unemployment. Theyre expected to complete the red river bill today and finish the labor rule bill tomorrow. You can find live house coverage right here on cspan. The speaker pro tempore the house will be in order. The prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. Chaplain conroy let us pray. Loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. Our fervent prayer, o god, is that people will learn to live together in reconciliation and respect. So that the terrors of war and of dictatorial abuse will be no more