PDA

View Full Version : How VA Hospitals Became The Best



annihilation
09-05-2006, 01:35 PM
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1376238,00.html

How VA Hospitals Became The Best
No longer a nation's shame, veteran care is acing competitors
By DOUGLAS WALLER
Most private hospitals can only dream of the futuristic medicine Dr. Divya Shroff practices today. Outside an elderly patient's room, the attending physician gathers her residents around a wireless laptop propped on a mobile cart. Shroff accesses the patient's entire medical history--a stack of paper in most private hospitals. And instead of trekking to the radiology lab to view the latest X-ray, she brings it up on her computer screen. While Shroff is visiting the patient, a resident types in a request for pain medication, then punches the SEND button. Seconds later, the printer in the hospital pharmacy spits out the order. The druggist stuffs a plastic bag of pills into what looks like a tiny space capsule, then shoots it up to the ward in a vacuum tube. By the time Shroff wheels away her computer, a nurse walks up with the drugs.
Life in a big-name institution like the Mayo Clinic? Not hardly. Shroff, 31, a specialist in internal medicine, works at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Washington, where the vets who come for the cutting-edge treatment are mostly poor.
If you're surprised, that's understandable. Until the early 1990s, care at VA hospitals was so substandard that Congress considered shutting down the entire system and giving ex-G.I.s vouchers for treatment at private facilities. Today it's a very different story. The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. And by a number of measures, this government-managed health-care program--socialized medicine on a small scale--is beating the marketplace. For the sixth year in a row, VA hospitals last year scored higher than private facilities on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index, based on patient surveys on the quality of care received. The VA scored 83 out of 100; private institutions, 71. Males 65 years and older receiving VA care had about a 40% lower risk of death than those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, whose care is provided through private health plans or HMOs, according to a study published in the April edition of Medical Care. Harvard University just gave the VA its Innovations in American Government Award for the agency's work in computerizing patient records.
And all that was achieved at a relatively low cost. In the past 10 years, the number of veterans receiving treatment from the VA has more than doubled, from 2.5 million to 5.3 million, but the agency has cared for them with 10,000 fewer employees. The VA's cost per patient has remained steady during the past 10 years. The cost of private care has jumped about 40% in that same period.
Vets still gripe about wading through red tape for treatment. Some 11,000 have been waiting 30 days or more for their first appointment. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars could stress the system, although for the moment VA officials say the agency can accommodate the new patients. That's because older vets, especially those from the World War II and Korean War eras, are dying of natural causes at the rate of about 600,000 a year, whereas the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have so far created a little more than 550,000 new vets.
On the other hand, because advances in body armor and field medicine have enabled soldiers to survive battlefield injuries that in earlier conflicts meant death, many of the new patients are arriving at VA hospitals with severe wounds. In response, the VA has set up four polytrauma centers around the country. Dawn Halfaker, a former Army captain who lost her right arm in Iraq, says negotiating the bureaucracy to get treatment for all her medical needs has been frustrating at times. She had to wait eight months for an appointment at the Washington hospital to get her teeth cleaned. Even so, she says, the care "is not as bad as I thought it would be."
The roots of the VA's reformation go back to 1994, when Bill Clinton appointed Kenneth Kizer, a hard-charging doctor and former Navy diver, as the VA's under secretary for health. Kizer decentralized the VA's cumbersome health bureaucracy and held regional managers more accountable. Patient records were transferred to a system-wide computer network, which has made its way into only 3% of private hospitals. When a veteran is treated, the doctor has the vet's complete medical history on a laptop. In the private sector, 20% of all lab tests are needlessly repeated because the doctor doesn't have handy the results of the same test performed earlier, according to a 2004 report by the President's information technology advisory committee.
Another innovation at the VA was a bar-code system, as in the supermarket, for prescriptions--a system used in fewer than 5% of private hospitals. With a hand-held laser reader, a nurse scans the bar code on a patient's wristband, then the one on the bottle of pills. If the pills don't match the prescription the doctor typed into the computer, the laptop alerts the nurse. The Institute of Medicine estimates that 1.5 million patients are harmed each year by medication errors, but computer records and bar-code scanners have virtually eliminated those problems in VA hospitals.
Private hospitals, which make their money treating people who come to them sick, don't profit from heavy investments in preventive care, which keeps patients healthy. But the VA, which is funded by tax dollars, "has its patients for life," notes Kizer, who served in his post until 1999. So to keep government spending down, "it makes economic sense to keep them healthy and out of the hospital." Kizer eliminated more than half the system's 52,000 hospital beds and plowed the money saved into opening 300 new community clinics so vets could have easier access to family-practice-style doctors. He set strict performance standards that graded physicians on health promotion.
As the reforms produced results, veterans began "voting with their feet," says Dr. Jonathan Perlin, who just resigned as the VA's health under secretary. Hundreds of thousands abandoned private physicians and enrolled in the lower-cost and higher-quality VA care. But that created a new problem. The VA's budget from Congress (currently about $30 billion annually) couldn't cover the influx. By January 2003, with hundreds of thousands waiting six months or more for their first appointment, the VA began limiting access to only vets with service-related injuries or illness or those with low income.
Veterans' groups understandably want the health-care system expanded to accommodate vets with higher incomes and no service-related ailments. Tom Bock, commander of the American Legion, has another idea: allow elderly vets not in the system who are drawing Medicare payments to spend those benefits at a VA facility instead of going to a private doctor, as is now required by Medicare. "It's a win-win-win situation," he argues. Medicare, which pays more than $6,500 per patient annually for care by private doctors, could save with the VA's less expensive care, which costs about $5,000 per patient. The vets would receive better service at the VA's facilities, which could treat millions more patients with Medicare's cash infusion.
But conservatives fear such an arrangement would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector. Congress has no plans to enlarge the scope of veterans' health care--much less consider it a model for, say, a government-run system serving nonvets. But it's becoming more and more "ideologically inconvenient for some to have such a stellar health-delivery system being run by the government," says Margaret O'Kane, president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance, which rates health plans for businesses and individuals. If VA health care continues to be the industry leader, it may become more difficult to argue that the market can do better.

Laworkerbee
09-05-2006, 02:37 PM
Outstanding news I only wish the VA was in such good shape when my grandfather was still alive.

Ordie
09-05-2006, 02:40 PM
Thanks President Clinton!!!!

JVeld
09-05-2006, 02:43 PM
Thanks President Clinton!!!!
Damn right !!!

annihilation
09-05-2006, 02:56 PM
This is how all out vets should have been treated since day 1. There are a few more articles floating around the net that explain a few different things but the basics are the same. One had an interview with a doctor who worked in both the private sector and in the VA. With the new technology he was able to see the same amount of patients in a day in the private sector in a few hours in the VA place.

I do wish they increase funding for the VA so they can incorporate more vets willing to get into the program. Also hope congress keeps their fingers out of the program. God knows if it does to well and gets to publicized then they might just put an end to it.

mi35d
09-05-2006, 04:21 PM
So, Clinton puts one man in a new position but doesn't fund the VA to allow the changes to happen. Bush increases the budget to allow the changes to occur and Clinton is the hero?

ElHombre
09-05-2006, 04:35 PM
be sure to read the last paragraph...


But conservatives fear such an arrangement [allowing vets to spend medicare dollars at a VA facility instead of private doctors] would be a Trojan horse, setting up an even larger national health-care program and taking more business from the private sector. Congress has no plans to enlarge the scope of veterans' health care--much less consider it a model for, say, a government-run system serving nonvets. But it's becoming more and more "ideologically inconvenient for some to have such a stellar health-delivery system being run by the government," says Margaret O'Kane, president of the National Committee for Quality Assurance, which rates health plans for businesses and individuals. If VA health care continues to be the industry leader, it may become more difficult to argue that the market can do better.

congressional conservatives don't want it to happen because they're afrid it will actually work, which would violate their cherished principles. instead, vets have to waste their money.

remind me again why republicans are supposed to be better to our vets?

remo williams
09-05-2006, 05:22 PM
I'm kinda surprised at the article. I was under te impression that VA care was somewhat sh!tty, and dubious. Especially with some of the goings on that have been covered,such as giving vets experimental drugs which haven't been FDA approved, and short staffing. These are at least some issues I've seen in the local VA. I think is necessary to give these men the treatment needed to help them get on with life. more than that , it should be your right for having served and sacrificed your heath/well being. The fact that many certain high level officials are "worried" that this could work on a higher scale, just shows where their priorities lie. These men shouldn't have to deal with anymore BS, than is truly necessary.

annihilation
09-05-2006, 05:24 PM
So, Clinton puts one man in a new position but doesn't fund the VA to allow the changes to happen. Bush increases the budget to allow the changes to occur and Clinton is the hero?

Bush increased funding? Last time I read ( a while back) he was cutting funding for the VA while the war in Iraq was raging. Also this has nothing to do with money but a system that was setup of accountablity and technology that was setup before Bush even stepped into office. This implementation has been running for over a decade. This project was ran correctly compared to how medicare was handle (which is just welfare to the health industry). Bush gets no credit for this and the most Clinton gets for credit is picking the right man to do the job (which bush seems always have difficulty in doing).

ElHombre
09-05-2006, 05:35 PM
Bush gets no credit for this and the most Clinton gets for credit is picking the right man to do the job (which bush seems always have difficulty in doing).

putting the right person in charge of a job is half of a president's job (and holding them accountable is the other half). of course, bush can't do either one...

Laworkerbee
09-05-2006, 05:58 PM
I'd like to hear MP.net member HOLLiS's views on this subject, I believe he is a disabled Vietnam vet who could shed much more light on this thread on the kind of care he recieved.

annihilation
09-05-2006, 06:07 PM
I'd like to hear MP.net member HOLLiS's views on this subject, I believe he is a disabled Vietnam vet who could shed much more light on this thread on the kind of care he recieved.

Definitly would be a great idea to hear from those who have had or use the service. I knew a few years back (mid 90's) of a few people working at the VA hospital, seeing how they were and cared about vets gave me a negative view of the place.

c62
09-05-2006, 06:26 PM
Bush increased funding? Last time I read ( a while back) he was cutting funding for the VA while the war in Iraq was raging. Also this has nothing to do with money but a system that was setup of accountablity and technology that was setup before Bush even stepped into office. This implementation has been running for over a decade. This project was ran correctly compared to how medicare was handle (which is just welfare to the health industry). Bush gets no credit for this and the most Clinton gets for credit is picking the right man to do the job (which bush seems always have difficulty in doing).

&


putting the right person in charge of a job is half of a president's job (and holding them accountable is the other half). of course, bush can't do either one...

I like how you both took a positive story and turned it into a Bush crapfest.


The VA seems to be working well on a smaller scale with the military related people, but I don't think it will scale to large numbers with the general population. Even saving $1500 per person the VA does is going to be extremely expensive once people relalize we're talking about treating 10s of millions of patients. One of the reasons national healthcare works(more or less) in Europe is the smaller population of each country running it's own system, applying the national health care model here won't work.

Ordie
09-05-2006, 06:32 PM
I visited VA Palo Alto a few months ago. I must say it is an impressive modern facility more customer friendly than the standard HMO Hospitals. The hospital is outfitted with more clinics and social workers focusing on preventive care. There is a good canteen with free coffee & donuts for the vets. The place has become so popular that it has become a de-facto American Legion / VFW hall. Many vets tend to hang out at the Va Hospital for no reason other than to hang out with other vets. The hospital does not mind because it contributes to the overall well being of the Veteran.

I've heard medical professionals are considering working at the VA than the HMO's because there is less paperwork, stress, and more stability. They can remain focus on medical matters rather than being dictated what the HMO wants.

ElHombre
09-05-2006, 06:41 PM
The VA seems to be working well on a smaller scale with the military related people, but I don't think it will scale to large numbers with the general population.

how's that. it's already working to a good degreee. far better than the private health system in use now as far less money is wasted on overhead and duplication in the gov't system.


Even saving $1500 per person the VA does is going to be extremely expensive once people relalize we're talking about treating 10s of millions of patients.

i'm having trouble figuring out your math. we save $1500 per person yet if there are more people, we lose money?


One of the reasons national healthcare works(more or less) in Europe is the smaller population of each country running it's own system, applying the national health care model here won't work.

it's not a matter of population, it's a matter of efficiency. the american system causes its citizens (if they're lucky enough to even have insurance) to pay the most of any western country and yet get the least out of it. yet the VA uses practices that increase efficiency and decrease costs, practices that the private sector doesn't use (after all, it does help drive up the profit margin when a patient has to get the same test repeatedly).

XShipRider
09-05-2006, 07:27 PM
it's not a matter of population, it's a matter of efficiency. the american system causes its citizens (if they're lucky enough to even have insurance) to pay the most of any western country and yet get the least out of it. yet the VA uses practices that increase efficiency and decrease costs, practices that the private sector doesn't use (after all, it does help drive up the profit margin when a patient has to get the same test repeatedly).

You can't compare private hospitals with the VA system of hospitals.
The VA doesn't have to show a profit, or even break even for that matter,
unlike their private counterparts.

As for the repeated tests -- think lawsuit. Then those repeated tests
start to make sense from the doctor or provider perspective. Even
the VA has to perform repeated tests to avoid lawsuits with the
potential for multi-million dollar awards [sic]. There's no deeper
pockets than the government and juries love a deep set of pockets.

I applaud the VA for increasing 'efficiency' while reducing wait time
for veterans. It scares me to think where the VA system would be
if not for the 60 Minutes piece of a couple of years ago exposing
the near complete lack of care in many areas. I can't stand the
show but understand it went a long way to opening the eyes of
many to the plight of VA hospitals nationwide.

annihilation
09-05-2006, 09:00 PM
You can't compare private hospitals with the VA system of hospitals.
The VA doesn't have to show a profit, or even break even for that matter,
unlike their private counterparts.



True you can not compare the two but some of the functions of the VA can be adapted by the private industries. Like the bar code and the standard electronic record keeping.

The preventive care part of the VA would not work with the private industry as they are not in the business of keeping people healthy and have no incentive and reducing peoples time in hospitals.

But thats what you get when you turn your health into a business.

XShipRider
09-05-2006, 09:22 PM
But thats what you get when you turn your health into a business.
True. I guess the doctor doesn't take a chicken, pig, dozen eggs or
a good homecooked meal for payment these days.:)

mi35d
09-05-2006, 10:34 PM
Bush increased funding? Last time I read ( a while back) he was cutting funding for the VA while the war in Iraq was raging

Actually, quite the opposite. He has increased funding every year since becoming president. The news reports that came out earlier this year about his "draconian" cuts were concerning his 2008 PROPOSED budget that would reduce the INCREASE in funding by 11%. So, after 7 years of increases his last year in power would have a minor decrease and this was reported as "massive cuts".

The UPI reporter where the story was originally presented had about seven paragraphs. The first two talked about MASSIVE DRACONIAN CUTS!!! and then the next five mentioned that the president had increased the budget. The last restated that he was a bastard for cutting the budget. It was a clear example of the standard rule that most people will read the first two and the last paragraphs of a long story. TIME and NEWSWEEK often do this on a greater scale of course.

Stuck in an admin meeting...will try and pull my copy of the article in question.

Hollis
09-05-2006, 10:35 PM
I have been in the VA system for about 36 years. Today I went to Portland VA, to have a root canal finished. The Dentist did a excellent Job. Problem, the tooth cracked sense I was in and had to yarded out.

VA hospital in Portland Oregon is Excellent, I spent some time as a patient there.

I spent several months at the VA Hosptial in Long Beach, Calif in the the early 70's. Excellent staff.

I have no arguement that the VA has gotten better.

Problem I had was with the VA appeals and administration. In the 70's it was antagonistic to RVN Vets.

Biggest problem now is the usual Budget issue. The staff are excellent people but the VA is under staffed.

Understaff means long waits. I Get full medical from the VA because I am 100% P&T. My gripe would be the drive (about a hour and half one way). I have only received excellent care in those two facilities.

One problem I noticed with the VA hospital in Portland, Oregon, was that last year there was 38,000 no shows for appointments. That does not help.

One problem with the wait is people waiting for Disability hearings or decisions. My longest was about 6 years, it was for back dating a condition. One can get treatment to day for a service connected injury, but compensation can get a long time. It is all back dated, but hard to eat on future pay check today.

As far as president, remember he is not alone there is congress.

annihilation
09-05-2006, 10:39 PM
Bush increased funding? Last time I read ( a while back) he was cutting funding for the VA while the war in Iraq was raging

Actually, quite the opposite. He has increased funding every year since becoming president. The news reports that came out earlier this year about his "draconian" cuts were concerning his 2008 PROPOSED budget that would reduce the INCREASE in funding by 11%. So, after 7 years of increases his last year in power would have a minor decrease and this was reported as "massive cuts".

The UPI reporter where the story was originally presented had about seven paragraphs. The first two talked about MASSIVE DRACONIAN CUTS!!! and then the next five mentioned that the president had increased the budget. The last restated that he was a bastard for cutting the budget. It was a clear example of the standard rule that most people will read the first two and the last paragraphs of a long story. TIME and NEWSWEEK often do this on a greater scale of course.

Stuck in an admin meeting...will try and pull my copy of the article in question.

Cool I would be interested in seeing the article, I just remember reading an article talking about cuts or lack of funding for troops coming back from Iraq.

annihilation
09-05-2006, 10:43 PM
I have been in the VA system for about 36 years. Today I went to Portland VA, to have a root canal finished. The Dentist did a excellent Job. Problem, the tooth cracked sense I was in and had to yarded out.

VA hospital in Portland Oregon is Excellent, I spent some time as a patient there.

I spent several months at the VA Hosptial in Long Beach, Calif in the the early 70's. Excellent staff.

I have no arguement that the VA has gotten better.

Problem I had was with the VA appeals and administration. In the 70's it was antagonistic to RVN Vets.

Biggest problem now is the usual Budget issue. The staff are excellent people but the VA is under staffed.

Understaff means long waits. I Get full medical from the VA because I am 100% P&T. My gripe would be the drive (about a hour and half one way). I have only received excellent care in those two facilities.

One problem I noticed with the VA hospital in Portland, Oregon, was that last year there was 38,000 no shows for appointments. That does not help.

One problem with the wait is people waiting for Disability hearings or decisions. My longest was about 6 years, it was for back dating a condition. One can get treatment to day for a service connected injury, but compensation can get a long time. It is all back dated, but hard to eat on future pay check today.

As far as president, remember he is not alone there is congress.

Thanks for the input. Have you used private health care? If so how would you compare the two overall?

Hollis
09-05-2006, 10:59 PM
Thanks for the input. Have you used private health care? If so how would you compare the two overall?


Yes I have, very difficult to compare. I had a crappy private dentist once that was in for all the insurance company would pay (wife had full insurance).
I have had emergency care in hopsital twice and both were great service, for as far as hospital to Hosptial both were great.

Could have been because of the VA hospital and Private were both good to begin with.

mattnwnc03
09-06-2006, 09:50 AM
it didnt say anything about the va losing veteran personal info? i remember going there in 92 after i got back from the gulf war. they drug their feet on everything. one day they couldnt see me, the next they would screw my info up. i went in to get seen and they wanted to know who i was, i said my name and they said my age in the records was 87 yrs old. gave me a taste of what i was in for.i quit going after awhile, it was an all day ordeal to get seen. get there at 8 oclock a.m. and finally leave there after 1 oclock pm. but they might have got their sh*t together since then. it seems to me it would be more crowded now since iraqi freedom.
my dad was a veteran, served in the navy and air force. he was having a heart attack , my mom took him there. big mistake, they told him to wait in the waitng room. he almost died there. my mom couldnt find anybody to help him, she ended up taking him to mission hospital down the road.

Hollis
09-06-2006, 07:58 PM
it didnt say anything about the va losing veteran personal info? i remember going there in 92 after i got back from the gulf war. they drug their feet on everything. one day they couldnt see me, the next they would screw my info up. i went in to get seen and they wanted to know who i was, i said my name and they said my age in the records was 87 yrs old. gave me a taste of what i was in for.i quit going after awhile, it was an all day ordeal to get seen. get there at 8 oclock a.m. and finally leave there after 1 oclock pm. but they might have got their sh*t together since then. it seems to me it would be more crowded now since iraqi freedom.
my dad was a veteran, served in the navy and air force. he was having a heart attack , my mom took him there. big mistake, they told him to wait in the waitng room. he almost died there. my mom couldnt find anybody to help him, she ended up taking him to mission hospital down the road.


It would be interesting to give the name of the Hospital, I have been to two on the West coast. I can not speak for any others, I have heard stories..... but

About 5 weeks ago I was at the Emergency room of the VA hopsital, they Triage partience depending on needs, as with any hospital.

I use to have a first responder card so I do know a little about emergnecy medicene. It can vary on areas as to quality of service. I know the VA has problems with funding and that means problems for patients.

My family is on CHAMPVA, and they have less of a problem getting basic care than I do.

ElHombre
09-06-2006, 08:34 PM
Yes I have, very difficult to compare. I had a crappy private dentist once that was in for all the insurance company would pay (wife had full insurance).
I have had emergency care in hopsital twice and both were great service, for as far as hospital to Hosptial both were great.

Could have been because of the VA hospital and Private were both good to begin with.

repeating anni, thanks for the input.

i'll note that although care in both those hospitals were similar, the cost was likely less in the VA hospital.