I BELIEVE THIS PILOT PROGRAM SHOULD BE MADE PERMANENT, AND I HOPE MY BILL, OR LEGISLATION INCLUDING IT, IS SPEEDILY REPORTED OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE VA DOES HAVE A WAYS TO GO IN ITS OVERALL TREATMENT OF THOSE SUFFERING FROM ALCOHOL OR DRUG ADDITION. I AM REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO ITS CONTINUED RESISTANCE TO DELIMITING DATE EXTENSIONS WHEN A VETERAN HAS LOST EDUCATIONAL OR VOCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BECAUSE OF AN ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY RECOVERS. THE VA TREATS NEARLY 100,000 VETERANS EACH YEAR FOR ALCOHOLISM RELATED PROBLEMS - SECOND ONLY IN NUMBER TO HEART DISEASE PATIENTS. I WANT TO KNOW WHY, IF THE VA IS WILLING AND ABLE RIGHTFULLY SO TO PROVIDE MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO THESE CHEMICALLY DEPENDENT VETS; IT IS EQUALLY WILLING TO IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT ONE EXCELLENT WAY OF IMPROVING THE AND I HOPE THIS COMMITTEE CAN ONCE AGAIN TAKE THE LEAD IN AN To revise and clarify the eligibility of certain disabled veterans for automobile adaptive equipment. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 23), 1984 Mr. SIMPSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs A BILL To revise and clarify the eligibility of certain disabled veterans for automobile adaptive equipment. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That section 1903(c) of title 38, United States Code, is 4 amended to read as follows: 5 "(c) An eligible person shall not be entitled to adaptive 6 equipment under this chapter for more than one automobile 7 or other conveyance in a three-year period, except where the 8 Administrator determines, according to standards which the 9 Administrator shall prescribe, that exigent circumstances jus10 tify early vehicle replacement.". I am pleased to respond to your request for the views of the Veterans Administration (VA) on S. 2210, 98th Congress, a bill "to revise and clarify the eligibility of certain disabled veterans for automobile adaptive equipment." service-incurred Section 1902 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes VA to provide automobile adaptive equipment to certain veterans and servicepersons who suffer from se ve re disabilities to enable them to safely operate an automobile or other conveyance. Currently, under 38 U.S.C. $ 1903(c), VA may not provide an eligible person adaptive equipment for more than one automobile or other conveyance at any one time. Thus, a veteran who has transferred title to an adapted vehicle but continues to have the use of that vehicle would not be eligible for VA reimbursement for adaptive equipment on a new vehicle. But currently there is no statutory limitation on how frequently such persons may purchase a new vehicle and obtain new adaptive equipment at VA expense. S. 2210 would remove the bar to transferability and impose a limitation on the frequency with which the VA would reimburse a veteran for adaptive equipment. VA's current policy permits reimbursement for adaptive equipment on up to three vehicles in two years. S. 2210 would amend section 1903(c) to provide that an eligible person may not be provided adaptive equipment for more than one automobile or other conveyance in a threeyear period except when exigent circumstances justify early vehicle replacement. We In commenting on this provision, we would stress that very few veterans seek reimbursement for adaptive equipment from the VA on so frequent a basis that it could be termed "abusive." estimate that most of the eligible veterans do not seek reimbursement more than once in a three-year period, with the average utilization for the last three fiscal years being approximately one vehicle each 6.4 years. Moreover, it is important to note that many of the veterans who trade vehicles more frequently are severely disabled and feel the need for extremely dependable transportation because of the severity of their disabilities. 2. Honorable Alan K. Simpson Nevertheless audits and program evaluations have revealed a few instances where veterans have sought reimbursement for adaptive equipment more frequently than may have been essential. Some of the previously existing excesses in program utilization have already been corrected with the issuance of a DM&S circular, providing guidelines with respect to the administration of the adaptive equipment program. However, in light of the potential for abuse that may still exist in this program, we have no objection to the enactment of S. 2210, but we strongly recommend that it be amended to impose a one-vehicle-in-two-year rather than a one-vehicle-in-three-year restriction. Such a limitation would be somewhat more restrictive than our current guidelines, but would still allow reimbursement on a frequent enough basis to assure dependability in the vehicles used by these extremely handicapped veterans. Even such a restriction, however, would need a provision whereby the Administrator could make exceptions under specific factual circumstances, where true need exists. The VA estimates that enactment of S. 2210 would result in relatively insignificant cost savings. We have enclosed information as to how we computed the estimated cost savings. Advice has been received from the Office of Management and Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this report on S. 2210 from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Harry HARRY N. WALTERS Enclosures SUPPORTING DATA COST ESTIMATE I. Potential Eligible Veterans - Report of Prosthetic Activities (RCS 10-64) Section III, Cumulative Inventory of Active Prosthetic Disabilities, 9/30/83. II. Veterans Who Avail Themselves of the Benefit We believe that more veterans will avail themselves of the benefit in the next few years and that utilization will be closer to the average for the years FY'77 thru FY'80. We base this assumption on the improving economy and recent increases in sales in the automobile industry. |