Capt Hank
02-10-2005, 15:58
Administration Proposes Fees for VA Health Care.
They're back. The administration's FY2006 budget request once again proposes a $250 usage fee for about 2.3 million priority 7 and 8 veterans enrolled in VA care. Priority 7 and 8 veterans are those with no compensable disabilities, and who have incomes above a geographically adjusted means-test level.
The administration is also reviving its proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments from $7 to $15 for priority 7 and 8 veterans. Disabled, indigent, and special needs veterans, (priorities 2-6) would be exempt from increased drug co-payments. Only severely disabled veterans (category 1) are exempt from all drug co-payments.
Last year, the administration sought similar $250 "enrollment" fees and drug co-pay increases from category 7 and 8 veterans. Congress quickly rejected both proposals.
Some have criticized the new VA budget request as "smoke and mirrors" because it masks the continuing funding vs. caseload mismatch in VA health care that has caused lengthy waiting lists in recent years. The President's own VA health care Task Force report recommended in May 2003 that the VA system should be fully funded to meet the needs of all veterans enrolled in priorities 1-7, but administration budget officials seem to have ignored that message. Instead, they again propose charging some veterans to fund improvements for others.
MOAA fully supports initiatives that free disabled and indigent veterans from some cost-shares including the budget's plan to cover enrolled veterans' out-of-pocket expenses for emergency care obtained outside the VA system and to exempt VA hospice care from co-payments.
Those are good things, for sure. However, this budget says the government doesn't want to pay for the care of the veterans it already has agreed to treat. Rather than stepping up to that funding obligation, it would prefer to make them wait months for access and selectively impose usage fees and co-pays in the hope that this will drive an estimated 213,000 veterans away from the system.
We'd rather see the government step up to meet its own funding obligations than resort to "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
They're back. The administration's FY2006 budget request once again proposes a $250 usage fee for about 2.3 million priority 7 and 8 veterans enrolled in VA care. Priority 7 and 8 veterans are those with no compensable disabilities, and who have incomes above a geographically adjusted means-test level.
The administration is also reviving its proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments from $7 to $15 for priority 7 and 8 veterans. Disabled, indigent, and special needs veterans, (priorities 2-6) would be exempt from increased drug co-payments. Only severely disabled veterans (category 1) are exempt from all drug co-payments.
Last year, the administration sought similar $250 "enrollment" fees and drug co-pay increases from category 7 and 8 veterans. Congress quickly rejected both proposals.
Some have criticized the new VA budget request as "smoke and mirrors" because it masks the continuing funding vs. caseload mismatch in VA health care that has caused lengthy waiting lists in recent years. The President's own VA health care Task Force report recommended in May 2003 that the VA system should be fully funded to meet the needs of all veterans enrolled in priorities 1-7, but administration budget officials seem to have ignored that message. Instead, they again propose charging some veterans to fund improvements for others.
MOAA fully supports initiatives that free disabled and indigent veterans from some cost-shares including the budget's plan to cover enrolled veterans' out-of-pocket expenses for emergency care obtained outside the VA system and to exempt VA hospice care from co-payments.
Those are good things, for sure. However, this budget says the government doesn't want to pay for the care of the veterans it already has agreed to treat. Rather than stepping up to that funding obligation, it would prefer to make them wait months for access and selectively impose usage fees and co-pays in the hope that this will drive an estimated 213,000 veterans away from the system.
We'd rather see the government step up to meet its own funding obligations than resort to "robbing Peter to pay Paul."