In August of 2014, the Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") released a report regarding the trends and policy options as it relates to providing veterans with their benefits.
In general, the report describes an (unsurprising) surge in veterans who are receiving disability compensation benefits - nearly $54 billion worth in 2013, or about 70% of the Veterans Benefits Administration's ("VBA") total mandatory spending.
In total,16% of all veterans in 2013 received VA disability compensation.
These figures represent a 55% increase in veterans receiving benefits from 2000 to 2013.
Because of the economic burden this creates, the CBO report identifies options for changing the disability compensation program.
These options fall under either modifying the VA's processes for identifying service-connected disabilities; or revising compensation by changing payment amounts, changing coordination with other federal benefits, or changing the tax treatment of payments.
The end goal is clear: reduce the burden to Uncle Sam.
Some of these options are as follow: Option #1: Institute a time limit on initial applications.
As a veterans advocate who got her start in this field with her father's VA disability claim - over thirty years after his service - I am completely opposed to this.
VA disability compensation is an entitlement, not a privilege, and if a veteran wants to wait ten years to apply for his benefits (which would result in the VA not having to pay him for ten years), that's his right.
Option #2: Require the VA to expand its use of reexaminations.
When it comes to temporary ratings, these reexaminations are used to ensure that a veteran's disability rating truly reflects the degree of disability.
The CBO notes that these reexaminations are not often scheduled or performed as is required.
Option #3: Change the positive-association standard for declaring presumptive conditions.
By presuming that certain medical conditions are caused by medical service, this removes from the veteran the burden of establishing the connection between their military service and the onset of a medical condition.
However, the issue is that these presumptions are established only after a lengthy process involving medical studies, findings, and regulatory changes that can take years.
Doesn't this mean that this is a safe presumption to make? By requiring veterans to present other factors to establish the presumption that a condition is service-connected, this potentially creates unnecessary paperwork.
And multiply that additional paperwork by the number of veterans this affects...
Option #4: Restrict individual unemployability benefits to veteran who are younger than the full retirement age for social security.
Under this option, the VA would no longer make IU payments to veterans who were past the Social Security's full retirement age.
However, the VA and the Social Security Administration (SSA) are two entirely different federal departments that award compensation based on different sets of criteria.
You do not have to be service-disabled in order to received SSA benefits, but this option essentially cuts off benefits for anyone who is service-disabled by virtue of them becoming eligible to receive a different type of benefit from the SSA.
Again, I reiterate - disability compensation because you are wounded in service is an entitlement.
Option #5: Supplement payments to veterans who have mental disorders.
The rationale here is that because payments to veterans with mental disorders may not adequately make up for lost earnings, these veterans should be eligible for more money.
I am completely on board with this - mental disorders affect veterans much more significantly than veterans with physical disorders (I know of several 100% physically-disabled veterans who can still work, while this is not the case with 100% mentally-disabled veterans).
This group of veterans is struggling, and additional compensation would help.
Option #6: Tax VA benefits.
If VA benefits were treated as income for purposes of individual tax returns, there's no questioning that a significant chunk of money will be paid back into the system.
However, for those veterans barely getting by on their VA disability compensation benefits, this type of change could create a catastrophic effect.
For those who are TDIU, for example, it's the equivalent of getting a 30% pay cut.
These aren't the only options covered by the CBO report.
You can access it in its entirety at: http://www.
cbo.
gov/publication/45615.
In general, the report describes an (unsurprising) surge in veterans who are receiving disability compensation benefits - nearly $54 billion worth in 2013, or about 70% of the Veterans Benefits Administration's ("VBA") total mandatory spending.
In total,16% of all veterans in 2013 received VA disability compensation.
These figures represent a 55% increase in veterans receiving benefits from 2000 to 2013.
Because of the economic burden this creates, the CBO report identifies options for changing the disability compensation program.
These options fall under either modifying the VA's processes for identifying service-connected disabilities; or revising compensation by changing payment amounts, changing coordination with other federal benefits, or changing the tax treatment of payments.
The end goal is clear: reduce the burden to Uncle Sam.
Some of these options are as follow: Option #1: Institute a time limit on initial applications.
As a veterans advocate who got her start in this field with her father's VA disability claim - over thirty years after his service - I am completely opposed to this.
VA disability compensation is an entitlement, not a privilege, and if a veteran wants to wait ten years to apply for his benefits (which would result in the VA not having to pay him for ten years), that's his right.
Option #2: Require the VA to expand its use of reexaminations.
When it comes to temporary ratings, these reexaminations are used to ensure that a veteran's disability rating truly reflects the degree of disability.
The CBO notes that these reexaminations are not often scheduled or performed as is required.
Option #3: Change the positive-association standard for declaring presumptive conditions.
By presuming that certain medical conditions are caused by medical service, this removes from the veteran the burden of establishing the connection between their military service and the onset of a medical condition.
However, the issue is that these presumptions are established only after a lengthy process involving medical studies, findings, and regulatory changes that can take years.
Doesn't this mean that this is a safe presumption to make? By requiring veterans to present other factors to establish the presumption that a condition is service-connected, this potentially creates unnecessary paperwork.
And multiply that additional paperwork by the number of veterans this affects...
Option #4: Restrict individual unemployability benefits to veteran who are younger than the full retirement age for social security.
Under this option, the VA would no longer make IU payments to veterans who were past the Social Security's full retirement age.
However, the VA and the Social Security Administration (SSA) are two entirely different federal departments that award compensation based on different sets of criteria.
You do not have to be service-disabled in order to received SSA benefits, but this option essentially cuts off benefits for anyone who is service-disabled by virtue of them becoming eligible to receive a different type of benefit from the SSA.
Again, I reiterate - disability compensation because you are wounded in service is an entitlement.
Option #5: Supplement payments to veterans who have mental disorders.
The rationale here is that because payments to veterans with mental disorders may not adequately make up for lost earnings, these veterans should be eligible for more money.
I am completely on board with this - mental disorders affect veterans much more significantly than veterans with physical disorders (I know of several 100% physically-disabled veterans who can still work, while this is not the case with 100% mentally-disabled veterans).
This group of veterans is struggling, and additional compensation would help.
Option #6: Tax VA benefits.
If VA benefits were treated as income for purposes of individual tax returns, there's no questioning that a significant chunk of money will be paid back into the system.
However, for those veterans barely getting by on their VA disability compensation benefits, this type of change could create a catastrophic effect.
For those who are TDIU, for example, it's the equivalent of getting a 30% pay cut.
These aren't the only options covered by the CBO report.
You can access it in its entirety at: http://www.
cbo.
gov/publication/45615.
SHARE
