The U.S. government is reviewing 72,000 cases in which veterans have been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder, claiming that misdiagnosis and fraud have inflated the numbers. Outraged vets say the plan is a callous attempt to cut the costs of an increasingly expensive war.
- - - - - - - - - - - - By Mark Benjamin
Aug. 9, 2005 | Matt LaBranche has memories of Iraq that he does not want to have. He was a gunner who protected convoys for a National Guard company out of Bangor, Maine. Once, during his nine-month tour in Iraq, his truck got separated from a convoy headed to Tikrit. He couldn't raise anyone on the radio. Insurgents ambushed. He remembers tumbling out of the truck just as a roadside bomb went off, slamming him against the truck, breaking his coccyx and knocking loose an eye tooth. He remembers pulling the driver out of the truck and laying down fire with his M249 SAW machine gun until he thought the barrel would melt.
There are more memories he can't shake. Some are worse. Some include children. We agree that I won't print details, but he cries when he tells them to me. LaBranche, 41, also supports the war and has little patience for those who don't. click here
I first met LaBranche in the summer of 2004 when he was at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. He was clearly a troubled man. He spent a month in the lockdown psychiatric unit, Ward 54, and a year receiving outpatient treatment. He is still haunted.
"I dream about it every %$#&* night," he tells me in a telephone conversation from his home in Maine. "I am on so many drugs for nightmares. Sometimes days go by and I don't even know what day it is." LaBranche lives in a house in the woods with a lot of guns. He never suffered from mental illness before going to Iraq. But twice since returning, he says, he has put a gun barrel in his mouth or under his chin. Since the war, he has lost his house and his wife because of where his mind is at. He is not in close contact with his two sons. Once, in a rage, he almost killed a man. "There are some days," he says, "when I get up and think, What the &^$#? I lost my house, I lost my kids, everything I went over there to protect is gone."
After being discharged by Walter Reed late last year, LaBranche approached the Department of Veterans Affairs, which cares for soldiers after they leave the military and pays them disability payments if needed. He was diagnosed with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), a widely studied and validated psychiatric condition that can follow life-threatening experiences, with symptoms that include nightmares, flashbacks, insomnia and rage. The V.A. gave LaBranche a "100 percent PTSD rating." Although LaBranche didn't reveal how much money he received from the department, in most cases those diagnosed with a 100 percent rating get the maximum payout, a monthly check of about $2,000.
LaBranche, however, may have to prove to Veterans Affairs a second time what the war has done to his mind. In a recent move that has set off a firestorm among veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs has decided to go back and review more than 70,000 individual cases of vets who in the past five years are considered disabled and unemployable because of mental trauma. Veterans like LaBranche now stand to lose some or all of their monthly payments.
To outraged veterans groups, the review smacks of a convenient way to cut costs during an increasingly expensive war and reflects a reluctance by the department to take PTSD seriously. "The V.A. hopes to trim costs for existing war veterans and recently returning war veterans by targeting PTSD," says Steve Robinson, executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, a veterans advocacy organization in Silver Spring, Md. "This is a desperate and despicable move by an administration caught without a plan, the money, or the staff to care for our nation's wounded warriors."
The Department of Veterans Affairs decided to undertake the review after the department's inspector general issued a report last May, showing the agency had been inconsistent in granting a 100 percent PTSD rating to veterans. It found that the likelihood of a veteran's getting the maximum payment varied widely in regions across the country, calling into question the evaluation procedures. For example, in 2004, VA statistics show that an average of 8.9 percent of veterans in New Mexico, Maine, Arkansas, West Virginia, Oklahoma and Oregon received a 100 percent PTSD rating. On the other hand, an average of 2.8 percent of vets received the maximum payment in Indiana, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio, New Jersey and Illinois.
Once a soldier is out of the military, he can make a claim at the V.A. to receive compensation for wounds, illnesses or mental trauma from service. Doctors perform examinations and make recommendations to adjudicators, who use a ratings system to decide how much money, if any, a veteran will receive. To grant payments to a veteran for PTSD, the agency documents "stressors," the traumatic events that occurred. It examines military records, reviews combat awards like Purple Hearts, and in some cases interviews veterans' war buddies. The V.A. report found that in one out of four cases, agency staff may have failed to fully document the events that triggered trauma from veterans who later got full payments for PTSD. click here
The report expresses concern that the number of veterans receiving payments for PTSD is growing rapidly, from approximately 120,000 cases in 1999 to 216,000 in 2004. PTSD benefit payments, it notes, have soared from $1.7 billion in 1999 to $4.3 billion in 2004.
It also raises the specter that some veterans might be engaging in fraud, stating that 2.5 percent of cases where veterans were getting some money for PTSD were "potentially fraudulent." "We noted an abundance of Web sites providing advice to veterans filing PTSD claims or offering ways to compile less than truthful evidence to obtain approval," the report reads. It notes that one Web site sells a fake Purple Heart for $19.95.
Veterans groups, already enraged that the department might go back and take money from vets, have assailed the accusations of fraud. "It is like accusing somebody of sexual battery or a sexual offense," says Steve Smithson, deputy director for claims services at the American Legion. "Even if that person is later proven innocent, there is still going to be that shadow around him. They are trying to give people the impression that people are gaming the system."
Rick Weidman, director of government relations at Vietnam Veterans of America, says when the department briefed him on the inspector general report, agency officials used the word "fraud" seven times. "They used that as a pretext to find that the whole system was fraudulent and there was insufficient documentation of stressors," Weidman says. "It is outrageous. Say it is 2 percent? I'm willing to guess that the rate of fraud in travel and expenses among high-level V.A. officials is 2 percent. Let's investigate every one of them."
Veterans advocate Robinson, a retired Army Airborne Ranger, who served in the Gulf War, says that in all compensation systems there will always be some individuals who try to pull a fast one on the system. But in this case, he adds, the number of people unfairly being denied compensation "far outweighs" any losses from veterans involved in fraud.
PTSD is a particularly acute problem in Iraq because combat is marked by constant threats that can come from any direction at any time, and the line between civilians and insurgent enemies is blurry at best. A study by the Department of Psychiatric and Behavioral Sciences at Walter Reed Hospital, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2004, showed 17 percent of troops returning from duty in Iraq met the strict screening criteria for mental problems such as PTSD. Nearly 25,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have been diagnosed with mental-health disorders from war, including PTSD, the V.A. told Congress last month.
By comparison, studies show that up to 30 percent of Vietnam vets, given they were often engaged in guerrilla warfare in jungles, have experienced PTSD. A 1950 study of WW II showed that 10 percent of vets suffered from "traumatic war neurosis," the term that predated PTSD. In any event, the price tag for PTSD from Iraq is going to be steep and will continue to be for decades as veterans collect checks, in some cases for the rest of their lives.
Veterans Affairs says it wants to make sure that vets getting payments for mental wounds deserve the money. "We have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of the rating system and to ensure that hard-earned taxpayer dollars are going to those who deserve and have earned them," Daniel L. Cooper, the V.A.'s undersecretary for benefits, tells Salon in a written statement. He says the V.A. will look into 72,000 cases, dating from 1999 to 2004, where veterans received the maximum payment for mental trauma from war.
Cooper says the department will work hard to make sure that "the veteran is treated consistently and fairly" during the process. "There is no focus on fraud," Cooper writes. "The focus is on proper justification and consistency in all cases." But, he adds, "If there is fraud found, that case will be immediately referred to the [inspector general] for resolution." During the review, Cooper says the department will go through each case to make sure that stressors from war have been "properly validated" and proved.
What that boils down to, says Robinson, is that veterans caught in the V.A. review are going to have to prove they were hurt all over again. "If you had a claim granted during this time period, you better get out your [military records] and start calling your buddies for evidence of your combat exposure," he says.
Ironically, the inspector general report was instigated in response to a request from a slate of elected officials from Illinois, including Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who asked the department to look into payments to veterans in his state because they might be too low.
But the agency will focus this new review of 72,000 cases solely on veterans who are getting the maximum monthly payments for PTSD. It will obviously include soldiers with the most insidious mental problems following combat: homicidal rage, suicidal thoughts, nightmares, anxiety, sleeplessness, hallucinations and paranoia. click here
Weidman says the department's pursuit of vets with PTSD only exacerbates the stigma attached to mental trauma. "There is flat-out discrimination against PTSD on the part of many people, both in the military and it carries over to the V.A.," he says. He calls the V.A. review "a biased and bigoted view of neuropsychiatric wounds."
However, veterans groups say the V.A. simply has failed to train its own staff to evaluate PTSD consistently. They explain that this is one reason why the V.A. inspector general report in May showed that the department was so inconsistent in deciding under what conditions veterans should get maximum payments for mental trauma.
"The V.A. places the blame for these variances squarely on the veteran, with only minimal discussion about V.A. doctors not doing proper medical exams or unified claims rating processes across the nation," says Robinson. "If the V.A. really wants to solve this problem, then they should look at their systems for medical screening."
If the V.A. properly examines its medical screening practices, say veterans advocates, it is bound to find that many soldiers were wrongly denied medical benefits for PTSD in the first place. In fact, they say, that is a far more widespread and insidious problem. "They have never looked at their erroneous denials," says Smithson. "What is happening is they are looking at ways to save money. If they looked at denials, that would cost them money."
In a statement to Salon, Obama says it is "wrong for the V.A. to choose only to reevaluate cases where veterans received 100 percent PTSD ratings and not review the cases of those veterans who may have received a rating that was unfairly low or unjustly denied," he writes. "We shouldn't cut costs at the V.A. on the backs of these veterans -- it is our moral obligation to make sure each of them is being treated fairly." Obama recently drafted an amendment, passed by the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, that would require the V.A. to standardize procedures for assessing PTSD and better train staff.
Veterans groups say the Bush administration's sticker shock from the Iraq war is behind the review. To them, the review of 72,000 PTSD cases is part of the administration's larger strategy to manage a budget that is already making it harder for veterans to get benefits or healthcare.
Last month, the V.A. admitted that veterans healthcare will be $1 billion more this year and $2.6 billion more next year than the agency previously claimed. The department says it underestimated the number of troops coming back from war, but critics say the agency was trying to low-ball the V.A. budget. After beating back Democrats' efforts to give the agency more money, embarrassed Republicans quickly began moving $1.5 billion in emergency funds to the department. (Former House Veterans Affairs Committee chairman and New Jersey Republican Rep. Christopher H. Smith long sought more funds for the department. Veterans groups and Democrats think that the GOP removed him from that post in favor of Indiana Republican Rep. Steve Buyer, who might be more amenable to cost cuts.)
In June, the V.A. issued an order that would have made it more difficult to grant veterans 100 percent disability for PTSD by requiring further review of those cases before granting payments. It was rescinded a week later in the face of intense criticism from veterans groups, who wanted equal scrutiny on cases where the department decided to deny a PTSD claim.
"There are a lot of people out there who want to make some changes on the backs of veterans," says Smithson. "This is a really scary time."
It's increasingly scary for veterans who may have to prove their mental wounds to the government again. Robinson got to know LaBranche when he was at Walter Reed Hospital. He says it would be an insult if LaBranche, or soldiers like him, have to prove their war wounds to the V.A. twice. "I feel very strongly, in Matt's case, that making him go back to the V.A. to prove that he has combat stressors is going to be like saying they don't believe him," Robinson says. "It is a total letdown. It is incredibly insulting."
LaBranche himself is livid at the thought of being questioned again by Veterans Affairs and potentially having his monthly payment reduced. "Maybe the V.A. doesn't have enough money," he says. "But that's not my ^%$#*&^ problem."
-------------------- Robert Michael Roerich, M.D. Vice President National Gulf War Resource Center Posts: 964 | From: Steubenville, Ohio USA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The review of PTSD cases is hard enough as it is, mine has been a mess, not taking buddy letters seriously, blowing off civilian doctors letters, etc. etc. the gov't doesn't need to look at us for cost cutting measures, but need to take into account all those civilian corporations blind siding them for that extra dollar as they did a couple years ago, they're still doing it.
Posts: 193 | From: St Louis MO | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is a travesty. reason I am back and monitoring , because PTSD is real and if they change the rules , we will see an increase in homeless vets.
I am receiving e-mails from veteran advocates concerning the VA's review of thousands of PTSD claims awarded 70- 100% disability over the past few years.
Is there a double standard of government treatment of current military or recently returned compared to veterans in general?
comments on intensive mental health screening of all military returning from war, with initial and 3 month followup being done on all soldiers.
So on the one hand all is being done that can be done to prevent the tragedy of military sucides that was reported in the news last week, but on the other, those who are disabled from PTSD are having their cases reviewed for fraud?
With more mental health screening more cases of PTSD will be diagnosed.
Yet those already diagnosed and proven to be disabled from it will now be re-traumatized with these new reviews or investigations into their cases.
If a poll were to be conducted of the opinion of mental health professionals regarding this new PTSD review policy I believe that the majority would be opposed to this. Even a news interview on military suffering from the trauma of war opens up old wounds.
What can we expect from this new review policy?
America must take care of all who defended her freedom not question the injured of the unseen costs of war.
In community,
drbob
-------------------- Robert Michael Roerich, M.D. Vice President National Gulf War Resource Center Posts: 964 | From: Steubenville, Ohio USA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The trauma that may kill some of these folks will be the fact that survivors guilt may overwhelm them after being treeated in such a manner in a review , especially with the allusion to fraud. The VA has undertaken a very dangerous policy. This should never be happening.
Remember the crap we are going through with GWS having been in the papers across th eglobe as being a possible fraud, think about those who have PTSD being allluded to in the papers right now as being frauduent.
It is bad enough to have survivors guilt , knowing you survived combat and someone else didn't and then being told your trauma might be a fraud. DENIAL is the worst enemy of any illness.
and in this case many vets may kill themselves afraid they may not be able to undergo the intensive interview. No matter what you have done , no matter what you have seen , it doesn't matter , you never truly feel you have done enough . NO medal , or medal of honor can truly take away that feeling of never doing enough to earn it , due to the fact many others gave their last.
posted
I know there's gonna be a great deal more suicides, my claim for PTSD made me relive some experiences that I had put in the back of my mind and tried to forget, still going on. My big problem is trying to prove my stressors and that does nothing but bring back old memories one tries to forget. I guess this is another way the VA tries to clear up people on its roles recieving their just compensation.
Posts: 193 | From: St Louis MO | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
In my personal opinion, it is unconsciounable to hold the feet to the fire to those who have been burned by the fire of war. Cut pills in half to save money, cut pork projects, cut all that can be cut out, but don't cut the hearts of veterans out.
To deny that this review is having a re-traumatizing effect under suspicion of fraud is to not have a heart, not to have compassion, not to be an American.
Sometimes, here in America, there are more important things than saving money.
drbob
-------------------- Robert Michael Roerich, M.D. Vice President National Gulf War Resource Center Posts: 964 | From: Steubenville, Ohio USA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
(c) 1999-2005. INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO THEIR POSTINGS ON THIS BULLETIN BOARD WHERE COPYRIGHT IS NOT EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMED. (KANSAS CITY, MO.) *** Junior members, members, moderators, and administrators reserve common-law copyright privileges and rights to their own individual postings, unless expressly disclaimed. By using this bulletin board and in consideration for the privileges of such use, all guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators irrevocably agree to grant AGWVA permission and consent to use, store, retrieve, copy, distribute, and edit such message postings without limitation or exception, and irrevocably appoints AGWVA as agent for the purpose of execting any document or instrument necessary to effectuate this agreement. Furthermore, by using this bulletin board and in consideration therefor, all authorized or unauthorized guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators agree that the controlling jurisdiction over any dispute or controversy arising from the use or access of this bulletin board shall be governed under the laws of the State of Missouri and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. *** While we encourage private messages to be posted in private forums requiring special authorization to enter, some messages on this bulletin board are protected by attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, and/or priest-penitent privilege, and such messages are intended solely for the use of those posting those messages, the intended recipient of that message, and AGWVA Bulletin Board's management - any disclosure beyond these parties is unintentional. The voluntary provision of medical, regulatory services/VA-representation, or religious services to members of the AGWVA Bulletin Board shall be limited by the case-by-case circumstances of each situation and shall be provided or not provided at the sole discretion of the person providing such services with the understanding that such services may stop or be limited at any time. Voluntary provision of any such service does not guarantee or assure any person a future or further right to such services. *** For posting messages to or from this bulletin board, AGWVA's management (moderators and administrators) are not compensated, directly or indirectly. *** Unauthorized use, copying, or distribution of material posted to this bulletin board is prohibited. Unauthorized access to this bulletin board is illegal and AGWVA reserves the right to prosecute anyone attempting to illegally access this bulletin board. AGWVA has stated explicit rules of conduct for its members posting on this bulletin board and all such rules are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set out hereinbelow. ***
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
