Injured military veterans and private insurance

[AKA_Monet]

From what the clinicians told me is there is just not enough trained and licensed staff at the VA to treat the array of combat-related injuries. There are more privately trained and licensed clinicians to treat the series of injuries.

This sounds like a case of HMO's trying to get into the game. But I am sorry, Kaiser does not have triage care that VA is accustomed to. Since you have to be military to be a part of the VA, then the number of people paying into the system is not as high as say an mass HMO system like Kaiser, Regence Blue Shield, etc.

While I do think ALL service personnel EARNED appropriate medical care and we should pay for it, the question is how? There just are not enough studies as to how this will work--the aftercare, etc. I do know there is a study are few years ago that was published in NEJM of how triage care improved in Iraq and how the clinicians trained for it from LA County Hospital, but, I have not seen the progression course of aftercare for combat-related injuries outside of intention to treat SOP's...

My guess, if the injury is not loss of limb, and starts with PTSD, if minimally treated like HMO's do, the stress becomes overwhelming to the point that something in the body actually does become afflicted early than later--assuming combat duty is an inexplicable, unexplainable overwhelming trauma...

I would like to see what the IAVA has to say about it.

[UGAalum94]

This issue is not who is treating the combat injured vets: it's who is paying for it. I agree that the VA system has problems, but I'm not that shifting the cost of care to the private insurers is the way to go.

Apparently, in some instances, the VA treats the vets and then bill the private insurers for say, flu shots or some other non combat related issue. (Quote from linked article: "Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.")

The proposal, which now I'm pretty sure was dead, was that the VA was going to bill the private insurers for the cost of treating issues related to combat injuries as well.

So the Vets would get all the crappy care associated with the VA, but private insurers would pay for it. If we were talking about getting private care and private insurance paid for it, it might still create problems for vets with serious injuries seeking private insurance (pre-existing conditions and all that crap), but it makes some sort of sense. Getting VA treatment for combat injuries and billing a private insurer makes zero sense to me.

It seems to be a total lose-lose to me.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

This issue is not who is treating the combat injured vets: it's who is paying for it. I agree that the VA system has problems, but I'm not that shifting the cost of care to the private insurers is the way to got.

When you don't have enough licensed trained clinicians, how many patients are treated per day? If less patients are treated, less pay is in returned. The way health insurance is done these days is by patient volume. However, the quality of care goes down precipitously...

The clinicians at the VA is are really good, there is just not enough of them to treat all the personnel that need to be seen in due course...

Private or civilian clinics are more abundant and could be reimbursed for treatment options. But, people have varying views. Sure, someone will get seen at the VA, but that may be awhile, opposed to a high volume location that sees a constant barrage of patients daily...

It's not like I am for this bill, I just question the feasibility of one plan over another.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

When you don't have enough licensed trained clinicians, how many patients are treated per day? If less patients are treated, less pay is in returned. The way health insurance is done these days is by patient volume. However, the quality of care goes down precipitously...

The clinicians at the VA is are really good, there is just not enough of them to treat all the personnel that need to be seen in due course...

Private or civilian clinics are more abundant and could be reimbursed for treatment options. But, people have varying views. Sure, someone will get seen at the VA, but that may be awhile, opposed to a high volume location that sees a constant barrage of patients daily...

It's not like I am for this bill, I just question the feasibility of one plan over another.

But the thing is, as I understand it, the proposal didn't really address private treatment, just who would get billed for who the VA treated.

It wouldn't do anything to address the number of clinicians or the quality of care they could provide.

ETA: I grew up as a military dependent and my experiences and those of my family are the principle reason that I don't think a single payer system or even a heavily governmentally run system will result in a net gain in the area of health care for most people. I think we may need to subsidize care for more people at the bottom end of income, and we may need to pass laws that require private insurers to cover more people or laws that require people to purchase insurance, a la Romney. But we don't need a general private system that functions like the military system. (Or like the English system if you saw the news reports this week about one of their facilities that patients described as "third world".)

If the Obama policy had instead said that the VA would pay for private treatment of combat injuries, I probably would have entirely celebrated that.

[Thetagirl218]

I agree that the VA has a many shortcomings, but I think it can also provide health care opportunities that many vets don't have with private insurance.

I live minutes away from the second largest VA hospital complex in the country and I have many friends and family who have either worked there or received care of the years. My grandmother was a charge nurse there for over 30 years. Many families move down here for the care offered at the facility.
They have struggled since the start of the Iraq War to keep up with the demand for clinical psychologists who can treat trauma injuries, but they have seen progress.
One of my sister's friends had an older brother come back from the war who could not even speak or function due to things he had seen, and the doctors at Bay Pines have helped him to re-build his life although he still has social difficulty.

I just have a strong belief that the government should care for its vets, no matter the price. It is important to note though that some vets already use private insruance, my grandfather does....

[UGAalum94]

Yes, I agree that it's a fundamental government responsibility to provide for the medical care of veterans wounded during their service. It's just one of the costs of providing for a common defense.

I think that the government should also honor the committments that it made to those who served to provide health care according to the terms that were in place when the person served. It's pretty interesting to compare the current level of service older veterans may be getting vs. what they were told them could expect, just in terms of general care.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

I agree that the VA has a many shortcomings, but I think it can also provide health care opportunities that many vets don't have with private insurance.

They have struggled since the start of the Iraq War to keep up with the demand for clinical psychologists who can treat trauma injuries, but they have seen progress.

It is important to note though that some vets already use private insruance...

I have seen Public Health research papers to corroborate your observation of VA vs. civilian insurance. Most of the clinicians are military trained. And while they themselves might be suffering from military issues themselves, they somehow find away to be superior clinicians...

The other issue is the VA has not been well funded for the last upteen years. To find that funding, is owed and due to all veterans and their families. I think most people agree with that.

As far as the psychologists, I know for a fact mental health care is just plan missing at most VA. The IAVA has some really good ideas how to help veterans with some issues. There is just not enough licensed clinicians to see clients, intake them, keep up the appointments, steer them to one on one or groups, and possibly prescribe appropriate affordable meds, if needed. Then there is the issue of patient adherence. Most of the vets I speak to are waiting until there is a mental emergency before they actually see someone. By the time it gets to that point, there are so many layers that have to be honed through, that full psychiatric hospitalization is required, but cannot be enforced until a law is broken... Which is sadly, the case...

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But the thing is, as I understand it, the proposal didn't really address private treatment, just who would get billed for who the VA treated.

It wouldn't do anything to address the number of clinicians or the quality of care they could provide.

So, my suspicion, from the vets I know who have told me what is happening, is that the course of most PTSD cases from a medical pathology perspective, eventually turns into a Panic disorder that really feels like a heart attack. It does really register like one, like the EKG is fine and unfortunately it is not an "instant" kind of thing, it can occur years later, when some patients fit into the age risk of having a heart attack... When it happens, the first instinct is to go to the ER and get treated. When the clinicians there say, "whoop, no problem with your EKG" if the patients are veterans (which actually takes an an astute clinician team to know this these days), the actual psych work up, by both psychiatrist and psychologist is pretty much long... If you have a nonadherent patient who is also a veteran, they leave untreated for the real pathology affecting them, all to be solved by meds and behavioral therapy...

I am saying all veterans and their families DESERVE the best treatment. The fact is what does that treatment look like these days?

My uncle went to Vietnam twice in the Marines. Now while he smoked probably to quell "the nightmares", he did get mesothelioma that looks like it came from the Agent Orange use. This occurred some 30 years later... Now while he could have pursued the VA, the amount of benefit they were giving for treatment, was piss poor compared to Emory's plan... This is outrageous!

I am sure we all have anecdotal stories of loved one or ourselves who are maneuvering through this health care system and but, when a health incident occurs, I personally think Veterans deserves to choose wherever they can get the best care.