Vet Centers. Final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as final an interim final rule that amends its medical regulation that governs Vet Center services. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (the 2013 Act) requires Vet Centers to provide readjustment counseling services to broader groups of veterans, members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, and family members of such veterans and members. This final rule adopts as final the regulatory criteria to conform to the 2013 Act, to include new and revised definitions.

Animals on VA property. Final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends its regulation concerning the presence of animals on VA property. This final rule expands the current VA regulation to authorize the presence of service animals consistent with applicable Federal law when these animals accompany individuals with disabilities seeking admittance to property owned or operated by VA.

Vet Centers. Interim final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is amending its medical regulation that governs Vet Center services. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (the 2013 Act) requires Vet Centers to provide readjustment counseling services to broader groups of veterans, members of the Armed Forces, including a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, and family members of such veterans and members. This interim final rule amends regulatory criteria to conform to the 2013 Act, to include new and revised definitions.

"They're going to die anyway": smoking shelters at veterans' facilities.

Military personnel and veterans are disadvantaged by inadequate tobacco control policies. We conducted a case study of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) effort to disallow smoking and tobacco sales in VA facilities. Despite strong VA support, the tobacco industry created a public relations-focused grassroots veterans' opposition group, eventually pushing the US Congress to pass a law requiring smoking areas in every VA health facility. Arguing that it would be unpatriotic to deny veterans this "freedom" they had ostensibly fought for and that banning smoking could even harm veterans' health, industry consultants exploited veterans' organizations to protect tobacco industry profits. Civilian public health advocates should collaborate with veterans to expose the industry's manipulation, reframe the debate, and repeal the law.

Drug and drug-related supply promotion by pharmaceutical company representatives at VA facilities. Final rule.

This final rule amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regulations regarding access to VA facilities by pharmaceutical company representatives. The purposes of the rule are to reduce or eliminate any potential for disruption in the patient care environment, manage activities and promotions at VA facilities, and provide pharmaceutical company representatives with a consistent standard of permissible business practice at VA facilities. The amendments will facilitate mutually beneficial relationships between VA and pharmaceutical company representatives.

The impact of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004 on VA physicians' salaries and retention.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act (the Act), which was designed to achieve VA physician salary parity with American Academy of Medical Colleges (AAMC) Associate Professors and enacted in 2006, had achieved its goal. METHODS: Using VA human resources datasets and data from the AAMC, we calculated mean VA physician salaries, with 95 percent confidence intervals, for 15 different medical specialties. For each specialty, we compared VA salaries to the median, 25th, and 75th percentile of AAMC Associate Professors' incomes. RESULTS: The Act's passage resulted in a $20,000 annual increase in VA physicians' salaries. VA primary care physicians, medical subspecialists, and psychiatrists had salaries that were comparable to their AAMC counterparts prior to and after enactment of the Act. However, VA surgical specialists', anesthesiologists', and radiologists' salaries lagged their AAMC counterparts both before and after the Act's enactment. Income increases were negatively correlated with full-time workforce changes. CONCLUSIONS: VA does not appear to provide comparable salaries for physicians necessary for surgical care. In certain cases, VA should consider outsourcing surgical services.

Who pays for providing spiritual care in healthcare settings? The ethical dilemma of taxpayers funding holistic healthcare and the first amendment requirement for separation of church and state.

All US governmental, public, and private healthcare facilities and their staff fall under some form of regulatory requirement to provide opportunities for spiritual health assessment and care as a component of holistic healthcare. As often the case with regulations, these facilities face the predicament of funding un-reimbursable care. However, chaplains and nurses who provide most patient spiritual care are paid using funds the facility obtains from patients, private, and public sources. Furthermore, Veteran healthcare services, under the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), are provided with taxpayer funds from local, state, and federal governments. With the recent legal action by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (FFRF) against the Veterans Administration, the ethical dilemma surfaces between taxpayers funding holistic healthcare and the first amendment requirement for separation of church and state.

Relationship between tort claims and patient incident reports in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration's patient incident reporting system was established to obtain comprehensive data on adverse events that affect patients and to act as a harbinger for risk management. It maintains a dataset of tort claims that are made against Veterans Administration's employees acting within the scope of employment. In an effort to understand the thoroughness of reporting, we examined the relationship between tort claims and patient incident reports (PIRs). METHODS: Using social security and record numbers, we matched 8260 tort claims and 32 207 PIRs from fiscal years 1993-2000. Tort claims and PIRs were considered to be related if the recorded dates of incident were within 1 month of each other. Descriptive statistics, odds ratios, and two sample t tests with unequal variances were used to determine the relationship between PIRs and tort claims. RESULTS: 4.15% of claims had a related PIR. Claim payment (either settlement or judgment for plaintiff) was more likely when associated with a PIR (OR 3.62; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.60). Payment was most likely for medication errors (OR 8.37; 95% CI 2.05 to 73.25) and least likely for suicides (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Although few tort claims had a related PIR, if a PIR was present the tort claim was more likely to result in a payment; moreover, the payment was likely to be higher. Underreporting of patient incidents that developed into tort claims was evident. Our findings suggest that, in the Veterans Health Administration, there is a higher propensity to both report and settle PIRs with bad outcomes.

HIV antibody testing: the gap between policy and practice.

In response to recent laws regulating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody testing practices in all federal hospitals, our university-affiliated Veterans Affairs Hospital instituted several interventions designed to increase appropriate testing. Specific hospital policy requiring restriction of testing to high-risk individuals, provision of pre- and posttest counseling, and documentation of written consent was instituted. In addition, an education campaign to inform physicians of hospital policy and training of counselors as physician extenders was undertaken. To determine the efficacy of these interventions, we reviewed all HIV antibody tests performed during a subsequent six-month period (n = 221). Only 14% of tests met all hospital policy requirements. The decision to test was prompted by identification of a risk factor or other acceptable reason for testing for only 31% of patients. Risk reduction counseling was provided for only 28% of patients. Written consent was documented for 62% of patients. Health care providers on surgical services were less likely than others to comply with hospital policy (p < 0.0001). We conclude that an interventional program including specific hospital policy mandates, physician education, and provision of trained counselors was not adequate to ensure optimal HIV antibody testing practices. If this gap between policy and practice is to be closed, additional interventions, or alternatively modification of policy guidelines, will be needed.

Formalities, good faith, and tissue donation.

After a patient died in a Veterans Administration hospital, a resident physician asked the next of kin to sign two identical autopsy forms, one of which was stamped "Eye Donor." The family signed, despite orally objecting to donation of tissue. Nevertheless, the patient's eyes were removed because other hospital staff were unaware of the objection. The family sued the hospital and eye bank. The Federal District Court in Minnesota dismissed the case before trial on the basis that both defendants were immune from liability because of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Clear policies communicated to staff and separate autopsy and donation forms can help to avoid confusion and legal difficulties.

The VA health care system: an unrecognized national safety net.

The dominance of local health care markets in conjunction with variable public funding results in a national patchwork of "safety nets" and beneficiaries in the United States rather than a uniform system. This DataWatch describes how the recently reorganized Department of Veterans Affairs serves as a coordinated, national safety-net provider and characterizes the veterans who are not supported by the market-based system.

A survey of sexual trauma treatment provided by VA medical centers.

In 1992 Congress mandated the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide treatment to veterans traumatized by sexual assault experienced during active military duty. A 1995 survey of how VA medical centers had responded to this mandate indicated that 51 percent of 136 centers had established a sexual trauma treatment team. Teams treated a mean+/-SD of 5.5+/-10 patients a week, and newly referred veterans waited a mean of 3.3+/-4 days for evaluation. Teams varied in the discipline mix of providers, training, organizational structure, services offered, and caseload. Medical centers without dedicated treatment teams offered nonspecialized services to sexually traumatized veterans or offered community referrals for sexual trauma treatment services.

Impact of VA bed closures on use of state psychiatric services.

This study examined whether inpatient bed reductions at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center increased VA patients' use of state mental health agency services. Veterans residing in two Connecticut cities who used VA psychiatric services during fiscal years 1993 through 1998 (n = 2,943) were identified from computerized files. Then their records were merged with state files. Coinciding with the time of VA bed closures, the proportion of VA patients who used any state services increased from 2.6%, 2.8%, and 2.7% from 1993 through 1995 to 3.6%, 3.5%, and 3.6% from 1996 through 1998 (p < .03). These changes reflect increased likelihood of state outpatient service use, but not inpatient services. No statistically significant changes occurred in the cost of state services used by VA patients. Bed closure impact may be reflected in increased cross-system service use, which may be a useful indicator of unmet needs resulting from system changes.

Medical; nonsubstantive miscellaneous changes--VA. Final rule.

This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs medical regulations in 38 CFR Part 17 by making a number of nonsubstantive changes. More specifically, section numbers are redesignated, redundant material is removed, restatements of statutory material are removed, certain position titles and organizational titles are changed to reflect current titles, authority citations are added, obsolete material is removed, and material inadvertently deleted is restored. These changes are made for clarity and accuracy.

Patients' rights--Veterans Administration. Final rule.

The Veterans Administration (VA) has amended its "Medical Series" of regulations concerning the "Protection of Patient Rights" to set forth, in part, specific minimum substantive and procedural rights to be uniformly afforded both involuntary and voluntary patients undergoing treatment in a VA medical center. Included are regulations which define and protect patients' rights in the areas of privacy, least restrictive treatment, exercise of legal rights, visitation, communication, restraint, seclusion, medication, dress, fund handling, general medical and psychiatric treatment, social interactions, exercise, and religion.

Informed consent for patient care--VA. Final rule.

This document amends VA medical regulations concerning informed consent for patient care. It describes the requirements for obtaining and documenting informed consent. It also describes the types of treatments or procedures for which the patient's or surrogate's signature on a VA-authorized form is required and establishes a list and priority of surrogates authorized to act on behalf of patients who lack decision-making capacity. Further, it establishes an internal decision-making process for patients who lack decision-making capacity and who have no authorized surrogate. This is intended to protect patient rights and ensure that the patient (or the patient's surrogate or representative) receives sufficient information to make an informed health-care decision. authorized form is required and establishes a list and priority of surrogates authorized to act on behalf of patients who lack decision-making capacity. Further, it establishes an internal decision-making process for patients who lack decision-making capacity and who have no authorized surrogate. This is intended to protect patients rights and ensure that the patient (or the patient's surrogate or representative) receives sufficient information to make an informed health-care decision.

Grants to states for construction or acquisition of state home facilities--VA. final rule.

This document amends the "Medical" regulations regarding applications for grants to States for the construction or acquisition of State home facilities. VA awards grants based on a priority ranking system. Usually, the higher priority applications deplete the available funding to the extent that the lowest ranking application to be offered funding is offered only a partial grant. This final rule provides that if the lowest ranking grant application receives only a partial grant in a fiscal year and if such grant award is partial solely because VA has insufficient funds for a full grant, the application would be placed at the top of the list within its priority group for the next fiscal year. Often applicants are hesitant to accept a partial grant because of the uncertainty of receiving an additional grant the next fiscal year. This final rule will encourage States to accept a partial grant by creating the likelihood that the State would receive an additional grant in the subsequent fiscal year. Accordingly, this will help ensure that VA would be able to award grants to higher priority applicants that might otherwise reject partial funding. Also, this final rule provides that the applicant receiving partial funding and receiving priority as a proposed will not be required to submit a second application for additional funds in the subsequent fiscal year, but could be required to update information already submitted. The first application would normally be adequate because the grant award in the second fiscal year would be for the same project which received the partial grant award. Further, the final rule provides that the total amount awarded for the application may not exceed 65 percent of the total cost of the project as determined at the time of the second grant award for that grant application. This is consistent with the statutory requirement that limits grant awards to no more than 65 percent of the estimated cost construction or acquisition.