Veterans Affairs
Soldiers’ emotional battle scars put doctors in dilemma
Jul 20th
The suicide of an Iraq war veteran in Eastern Washington has highlighted an ethical dilemma confronting the Department of Veterans Affairs and the military: how far to go in protecting patient confidentiality as troubled veterans are called back to front-line duty.
By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter
July 20, 2009
Tim Juneman went to a Department of Veterans Affairs psychiatrist in January 2008 to talk about his recurrent thoughts of suicide.
The 25-year-old Washington State University student was an Iraq war veteran who had survived a year of tough fighting that left him with a twin diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury.
His biggest worry, according to notes taken by the VA psychiatrist, was a looming call back to active duty by the Washington National Guard. The order would have sent the specialist back to Iraq.
A VA psychiatrist hospitalized Juneman but never notified the National Guard unit of his patient’s distress over redeployment. Juneman was released that month, then missed follow-up appointments.
In early March 2008, Juneman hanged himself in his Pullman apartment. His body was discovered some 20 days later, The Spokesman-Review newspaper reported.
His death underscores an unsettling new reality for VA health-care providers. Unlike in decades past, they now often treat veterans headed back to war. And this can pose an ethical challenge for VA doctors if they think PTSD, traumatic brain injury or other unhealed wounds could put a patient or others at greater risk on the front line.
Confidentiality rules generally prevent them from informing active-duty commanders of a veteran’s medical problems, unless the veteran signs a release.
In some instances, veterans may resist signing a release, even when they have serious cases of PTSD and traumatic injury.
These veterans might be floundering in civilian life and look forward to a return to combat, seeing that as a way of putting their lives back on track. Or their sense of duty makes them balk at opting out of service, even if they are reluctant to return to the war.
VA officials say they must comply with privacy rules and are not required to share a veteran’s health status with the Defense Department, according to a statement released by the VA in response to a Seattle Times inquiry.
But VA rules do allow disclosure under certain limited circumstances. These exceptions include “to assure the proper execution of a military mission,” according to a VA privacy statement. But VA officials define such exceptions narrowly, and the patient information typically is released only if the military requests it.
“It’s not broad brush; it’s a very rare thing,” said David Bayard, a VA spokesman.
Jacqueline Hergert, Juneman’s mother, says the VA should have contacted the National Guard about her son’s plight.
“In Tim’s case,” Hergert said, “he had already been placed under suicide watch, and somebody should have told his unit. Perhaps doing that would have saved my son. What he really needed was for the VA to be an advocate for him.”
As a growing number of combat veterans head back to war zones, the gaps in knowledge about the mental health of reservists are a concern to some National Guard leaders.
“The VA is very protective of this information, as they should be,” said Lt. Col. Carol Munsey, deputy state surgeon for the Washington Army National Guard. “But if you’re talking about a person who is not doing well, then the command needs to know about it.”
A different military
Young men drafted into past wars usually returned to civilian life free of obligations to continue serving in the Reserves or the National Guard.
But things have changed as an all-volunteer military, whose numbers represent less than 1 percent of the nation’s population, has become responsible for fighting two long-running wars.
Each enlistee typically has an eight-year service obligation. The active-duty portion might involve multiple tours in a war zone, and returning soldiers face more years of possible call-up to Reserve or National Guard units that remain a key part of the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That means soldiers’ medical care can be fragmented: VA doctors treat them when they return to civilian life; they’re back to Army doctors if they are called up again.
Army doctors and commanders generally do not have access to VA medical records that might help them assess whether a veteran should return to front-line duty.
Instead, it’s largely up to the veteran to decide what — if anything — should be disclosed to commanders.
At a VA Puget Sound counseling session last year for veterans with PTSD and traumatic brain injury, the topic aroused intense debate, said Mark McPherson, a Washington National Guard veteran from Seattle.
“I had a very strong discussion with one of these guys and told him he wasn’t doing any favors to himself or others by not disclosing,” McPherson said. “But he was a sergeant, and he wanted to go. For a lot of these guys, the only part of their identity that seems to make sense anymore is the one that fits into the uniform.”
For VA officials, confidentiality is an important part of their outreach effort to help persuade veterans to seek treatment.
A 2008 study by the Rand Corp. found that nearly 20 percent of men and women who served in combat reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Yet nearly half had not sought treatment, with many fearing that could harm their military careers, according to the study.
VA officials worry that number would rise even higher if confidentiality standards were loosened.
Munsey, the state’s deputy surgeon, says some Washington Guard veterans do volunteer to release VA information about PTSD and other health issues. The state Guard also has all soldiers headed for deployments fill out a health checklist.
When issues are disclosed, some soldiers still are able to deploy if doctors conclude they won’t put themselves or others at undue risk.
“It’s all self-reporting,” Munsey said. “All the soldiers are required to go through the process. But how do I know they are telling the truth?”
Planning new start
When Tim Juneman first sought help from the VA in early 2008, he was trying to leave the military behind and fashion a new career as a speech pathologist.
Serving with the Fort Lewis-based Stryker Brigade had put him into the thick of the Iraq war. His brigade was slammed by more than 1,380 roadside bombs during a year in Mosul, according to a brigade tally.
After four years in the Army, Juneman opted to finish his military commitment by serving in the Washington National Guard.
He thought the Guard would grant him at least two years stateside, according to his mother. In 2007, he enrolled at Washington State University. He struggled with headaches, insomnia and other problems, but his studies appeared to be going well.
Then, in the fall of 2007, he learned that his National Guard unit would be sent to Iraq the following summer.
“He was coping the best he could, but I think this overwhelmed him,” Hergert said. She said she was unaware of her son’s suicidal thoughts.
But Juneman apparently was forthright with the psychiatrist.
Juneman was having strong thoughts of suicide, which included a plan to hang himself, the psychiatrist wrote in notes from a Jan. 5, 2008, appointment obtained by Juneman’s family. Juneman said he learned of his deployment a couple of months ago and believed that was the trigger for the worsening of his depression, the psychiatrist wrote.
Hergert said copies of the notes were found in her son’s apartment. She wondered if he intended to show them to his commanding officers. She doesn’t know if he ever considered signing the form to allow his medical records released to the Guard.
Hergert said that would have been a difficult decision for her son who, despite his problems, felt a profound duty to serve.
At his National Guard unit in Spokane, no one had seemed aware of the depths of Juneman’s despair.
“It breaks our heart to lose somebody the way we lost that soldier,” said 1st Lt. Keith Kosik, a spokesman for the National Guard. “Had we had any indication that he was struggling with those kinds of things, we would have done everything we could have to get him help.”
Popularity: 12% [?]
Webb Calls on Veterans Affairs Department to Examine Reports of Misrepresentation of Military Service
Jul 17th
Letter Asks for Immediate Action to Root out Fraud and Abuse in VA System
Washington, DC – Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today asked Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki to “immediately and proactively” examine recurring allegations of misrepresentation of military service that may have resulted in the awarding of unearned veterans benefits and false recognition for service. This correspondence reiterates concerns laid out in a July 7 letter by Senators Webb and Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
Webb, a former Marine Officer and highly decorated Vietnam veteran, said he was “increasingly concerned” by numerous media reports of investigations and studies focusing on fraudulent practices resulting in widespread abuses.
“These allegations have been made in many forums, frequently by individuals whose integrity and respect for service cannot be questioned. I have no way at present to measure their validity, particularly as it relates to the conduct of your Department. But since they go to the very core of military service, I believe they should be examined immediately and proactively, with oversight at the top levels of the Department of Veterans Affairs,” wrote Webb.
Cited in the Senator’s letter were numerous allegations of fraudulent POW disability claims; the honoring of fraudulent or exaggerated service claims; fraudulent claims for various combat decorations, awards and campaign ribbons; lax security of pertinent records at VA Regional Offices; inadequate vetting of claimant documentation and official statements; and claimants directly or indirectly altering or registering fraudulent service claims in their official records.
Senator Webb’s letter to Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki follows.
July 13, 2009
The Honorable Eric Shinseki
Secretary
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Shinseki:
On July 7, 2009, Senator Akaka and I sent a letter to you and Secretary of Defense Gates, seeking clarification on allegations of numerous fraudulent POW disability claims, and an apparent disparity between your department’s list of POWs and the official POW registry maintained by the Department of Defense.
In addition, I have become increasingly concerned by media reports, recurring studies and continuing investigations that focus on the broader issue of misrepresentation of military service, in many cases causing unearned veterans benefits to be provided and in others giving false recognition for service in a manner that detracts from the actual sacrifices that so many have made on behalf of our country. Among the issues, findings and allegations:
- Fraudulent or exaggerated service claims resulting in the awarding of pensions, disability compensation, and other benefits;
- Fraudulent claims for various combat decorations, awards and campaign ribbons;
- Lax security of pertinent records at VA Regional Offices;
- Lax vetting of claimant documentation and official statements; and,
- Claimants directly or indirectly altering or registering fraudulent service claims in their official records.
These allegations have been made in many forums, frequently by individuals whose integrity and respect for service cannot be questioned. I have no way at present to measure their validity, particularly as it relates to the conduct of your Department. But since they go to the very core of military service, I believe they should be examined immediately and proactively, with oversight at the top levels of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I would further ask that members of my staff be comprehensively briefed as soon as possible by VA officials regarding this issue and the measures that are being taken by the Department to combat it. I may participate in this briefing, or follow-on briefings, as well.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb, United States Senator
Popularity: 3% [?]
Virginia Veteran’s Justin Brown to Testify on behalf of VFW
Jul 16th
Economic Opportunity Subcommittee (Chairman Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D.) of House Veterans’
Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on State Approving Agencies (SAA). Federal law requires that each state designate an SAA to be responsible for approving and supervising programs in educational institutions and training establishments, including all public and private schools and all establishments offering apprenticeship and other on-the-job training, that offer education and training to veterans and other eligible persons under provisions of the Veterans Education Assistance Program. These programs must have SAA approval before veterans and other eligible persons may receive educational benefits (GI Bill) from Department of Veterans Affairs.
Listen to it Live at 1 PM Eastern at http://vetaudio340.house.gov/340
Popularity: 11% [?]
VA Health Care for Women Veterans
Jul 15th
By Kayla Williams, U.S. Army Veteran
Kayla Williams testified Tuesday before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on VA Health Services for Women Veterans. The following is her testimony.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for hearing me speak today. On behalf of women veterans, I would like to thank you all for your commitment to meeting the changing needs of our nation’s veterans.
My name is Kayla Williams. As a Soldier with the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), I took part in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, and was there for approximately one year. As an Arabic linguist, I went on combat foot patrols with the Infantry in Baghdad. During the initial invasion, my team came under small arms fire. Later, in Mosul, we were mortared regularly. I served right alongside my male peers: with our flak vests on during missions, we were all truly Soldiers first.
However, it became was clear upon our return that most people did not understand what women in today’s military experience. I was asked whether as a woman I was allowed to carry a gun, and was also asked if I was in the Infantry. This confusion about what role women play in war today extends beyond the general public; even Veterans Affairs (VA) employees are still sometimes unclear on the nature of modern warfare, which presents challenges for women seeking care. For example, being in combat is linked to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but since women are supposedly barred from combat, they may face challenges proving that their PTSD is service-connected. One of my closest friends was told by a VA doctor that she could not possibly have PTSD for just this reason: he did not believe that she as a woman could have been in combat. It is vital that all VA employees, particularly health care providers, fully understand that women do see combat in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom so that they can better serve women veterans.
Many of the other problems that women face when seeking to get health care through the VA are by no means exclusive to women: the transition from DoD to VA remains imperfect, despite efforts to improve the process. Lost records and missing paperwork are frequent complaints. A woman I know who spent over twenty years in the Army Reserves was turned away from her local VA hospital because she never deployed to a combat zone; her paperwork was never even examined to determine if she is indeed eligible for care. Despite a growing number of community clinics and vet centers, many veterans face lengthy travel times to reach a VA facility – a particular burden during tough economic times.
Other barriers may disproportionately affect women. For example, since women are more likely to be the primary caregivers of small children, they may require help getting childcare in order to attend appointments at the VA. Currently, many VA facilities are not prepared to accommodate the presence of children; several friends have described having to change babies’ diapers on the floors of VA hospitals because the restrooms lacked changing facilities. Another friend, whose babysitter cancelled at the last minute, brought her infant and toddler to a VA appointment; the provider told her that was “not appropriate” and that she should not come in if she could not find childcare. Facilities in which to nurse and change babies, as well as childcare assistance or at least patience with the presence of small children, would ease burdens on all veterans with small children.
Women in the military are also far more likely to be married to other servicemembers; throughout the Department of Defense (DoD), 51.3% of married female enlisted active duty personnel reported being in dual-service marriages, compared to only 8.1% of their male counterparts. These women veterans must worry not only about their own readjustments, but also their husbands’ challenges. The VA must consider the dual role women veterans may be balancing as both givers and seekers of care. My husband sustained a penetrating Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in Iraq and was medically retired from the military. This impacted my decision not to reenlist, because he needed assistance that he simply was not getting. In addition, I was so focused on his recovery that I barely considered my own needs. It was years before I realized that as both a caregiver and a veteran I needed to not simply “suck it up and drive on,” as the Army taught, but rather had to reach out for help and support.
When struggling to cope with invisible wounds of war such as PTSD, or when simply facing challenges readjusting post-combat, peer support can be vital. However, there are things about my experience as a woman in a war zone that my male peers do not understand. They cannot truly know what it is like to fear not only the enemy, but also sexual assault from your brothers in arms. They may be aware of, but not be able to fully empathize with, the challenges of facing regular sexual harassment. And they certainly do not understand what it is like to feel invisible as a veteran, as many women veterans do. It is therefore vital that the VA provide times or places where women veterans, especially those who may have experienced military sexual trauma, can feel safe and comfortable seeking help in a community of their peers.
These are all challenges that I am confident every VA hospital can meet and overcome. In 2006, I went to the VA Medical Center in Washington, DC. My visit was uncoordinated, stressful, and confusing. The facility did not smell clean and was crowded with veterans who seemed to have poorly managed mental health concerns. I was not given clear information about what services were available to me. My husband also went to that VA in 2006; he was regularly told that he was in the “wrong clinic” and sent back and forth between multiple offices. Doctors gave him the impression that he and his issues were an inconvenience at best. My husband’s inability to schedule timely appointments that fit in with his schedule eventually made him give up on getting care from the VA at all. We both began relying exclusively on TriCare for all our medical and mental health needs, even though the civilian providers we saw were less familiar with combat injuries and post-traumatic stress.
My visit to the VA medical center in Martinsburg, West Virginia in June 2008, however, was a stark contrast to my own previous experience and the stories I have heard from veterans about some other facilities. There was a women’s restroom clearly visible in the lobby; it had a changing table. I was treated as a veteran at all times, asked about my combat experiences, and sensitively asked if I had experienced sexual harassment or assault in the military. Providers carefully coordinated my visit, ensured that I was aware of all available resources, and followed up both promptly and thoroughly. Their OEF/OIF Integrated Care Clinic and newly-opened Women’s Clinic are models worthy of emulation, and I truly believe that with continued advocacy and oversight, all facilities can provide the same standard of care.
In order to best meet the needs of all veterans, I also urge the development of enhanced relationships not only between the DoD and VA but also with those community organizations that are ready and willing to fill gaps in services. Public-private partnerships can allow all of us to come together to meet the needs of our veterans in innovative and exciting ways.
Popularity: 19% [?]
Report: VA putting patients at risk of overdose
Jul 11th
By KIMBERLY HEFLING
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Two years after an Iraq war veteran overdosed on medication at a Veterans Affairs facility, the problems blamed in his death have not been corrected at many of the VA’s residential treatment sites, a government study found.
The VA’s inspector general ordered the review as part of legislation passed to fix problems after the 2007 death of 27-year-old Justin Bailey in a Los Angeles residential facility.
Bailey, a Marine, had surgeries for a groin injury he sustained during the first part of the Iraq war and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
His father, Tony Bailey, later testified before Congress that the day before his son died, he was given five different prescriptions in doses covering 14, 15 and 30 days. The father also said that his son had been in the treatment facility for six weeks, but had yet to see a psychiatrist. He said his son was known to abuse prescription medications and had used illegal drugs.
The inspector general’s review says less than half of sites visited had appropriate policies to screen patients. It also says more than 10 percent of patients allowed to give themselves narcotics received more than a week’s supply.
“This report indicates what we and the Bailey family feared,” said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee.
Akaka, however, said he was pleased the administration has said it will implement improvements, and he will work to make sure that happens. The IG review said the VA agreed to changes it recommended.
The review was dated June 25, but was released this week.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Bill: Have VA pay old claims automatically
Jul 1st
By Rick Maze – Staff writer
Military Times
A North Carolina lawmaker proposes tackling the backlog of veterans’ disability claims by awarding benefits to veterans after 18 months if their claim hasn’t been processed.
Veterans Affairs Department officials have told Congress they are, on average, processing disability compensation claims within 162 days and have a goal of cutting the average to 120 days. But Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., is one of many lawmakers who think there is a limit to how patient veterans could be in waiting for money they are due.
“Backlogs are at the point where veterans must wait an average of six months for a decision on benefits claims and some veterans are waiting as long as four years,” Butterfield said in a statement. “Veterans deserve better than this.”
Butterfield introduced a bill on Friday, HR 3087, that would automatically approve a veteran’s claim if no decision is made by the VA within 18 months. The bill doesn’t say exactly how the VA would do this, but creates a task force to monitor VA to make sure the 18-month deadline isn’t met with an arbitrary denial just before the claim must be paid.
The bill comes as the number of unprocessed veterans claims exceeds 915,000 — a 100,000 jump since the beginning of the year. In testimony two weeks ago before a House committee, VA officials said the current 162 days is 17 days less than one year ago, a sign that they are beginning to make process.
Butterfield’s legislation, though, focuses on the estimated 20 percent of claims that are not easily resolved, usually because the claim involves a veteran claiming multiple disabilities from a variety of causes who is not able to provide documents that show a clear link to military service for all of the disabilities.
A deadline might help force the VA to move faster, Butterfield said. “The decision should be made within 180 days,” Butterfield said. “Providing a deadline gives the VA an added incentive to make a timely decision, and provides our veterans with an assurance against claims languishing for years.”
The bill was referred to the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee for consideration, a panel that has discussed the idea of having claims automatically approved if they languish. The VA and some veterans’ service organizations have opposed the idea, worried that a deadline encourages shortcuts by the VA — like quick denials — and also might lead some veterans to file extremely complicated and not well-documented claims in an effort to make the process drag out beyond the automatic payment deadline.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Simple, simplicity…
Jun 28th
Sometimes all it takes is a simple solution to remedy a complex problem.
Take the VBA’s claims processing system and the backlog of close to a million claims. Some experts assert that more Ratings Specialists are needed; the problem with that is it takes a good two-to-three years to train the person to competently rate claims. Others have argued the VA needs to look strictly to technology improvements to solve the backlog problem. While that indeed would be helpful, technology in and of itself isn’t the entire answer either (it certainly wouldn’t be beneficial if the VA continued to make the same mistakes, they’d simply be making those mistakes utilizing the technology).
While I believe more ratings specialists are needed, and I definitely agree that the VA needs to better utilize technology, I also maintain that the VA can find efficiencies by just “keeping it simple.”
Case in point, Jerry Manar, who is the VFW’s Assistant Director of National Veterans Service, often talks about VA regional office service center managers who encourage veteran service organizations to bring them “ready to rate” cases. While this practice works well in some offices, it is rarely utilized in others. As Jerry explains, this practice actually encourages service officers to bring complete and ready to rate claims to a designated person who ensures that routine development is bypassed and claim adjudication is expedited.
Sounds simple doesn’t it?
The benefit of “ready to rate” cases would be a reduction of the workload on VA staff, ensuring the backlog is not unnecessarily increased. As a matter of fact, to guarantee that the process would work on a larger scale, VA should require that regional office personnel, managers and veteran service officers are adequately trained to recognize a properly developed claim and understand that receipt of such a claim would trigger actions ensuring prompt adjudication.
In the final analysis, this practice alone won’t reduce the VA’s backlog of claims, but I am quite certain there are other simple practices the VA can adopt to make the claims process simpler and more efficient; for the VA and the veterans they serve.
Bob Jackson is the Assistant Director for National Veterans Service for the VFW. He continues to lobby Congress to improve the delivery of VA benefits and compensation to millions of our nation’s veterans.
Popularity: 9% [?]
The VA and brokering claims: Whack-a-Mole at the County Fair
Jun 26th
Have you ever played the game “Whack-a-Mole?”
It’s the game you may happen upon at a county fair or arcade that requires you to whack the head of the mole with a rubber mallet as it sticks its’ head out of the hole. The object is to whack as many moles as you can in a specified time limit. Nobody ever gets all of the moles; all you get are points, which, in the end, are worthless.
I would like to use the “Whack-a-Mole” analogy in explaining a practice the VA uses with its regional offices. It is simply called “brokering,” and it is having a debilitating effect on the VA claims process.
Here is how it works: Currently VBA replaces lost staffing in regional offices according to the office’s ability to process claims. Specifically, the more productive an office is, the more staff they receive. While this policy may encourage management at an underperforming office in the short run, over time it magnifies the deficiencies at the underperforming office, resulting in disproportionate backlogs and extended delays for the veterans served by that office.
This policy has existed for at least the past five years. While VBA attempts to compensate by shifting or “brokering” work to other offices, this does not solve the problems at the underperforming offices. Further, while brokering cases is an excellent temporary measure to deal with workload fluctuations, it has become routine for some offices. Continuous brokering of work takes on the trappings of “Whack-a-Mole”; as soon as you push down the workload at one location, it rises dramatically in another.
The fact is, the policy of starving certain offices is counterproductive, both for employees and for the veterans they serve. If VBA is unable to provide those offices with the leadership, resources and training to make them productive, then it needs to develop the corporate, institutional and political courage to change the mission of those offices to something other than claims processing.
Whacking the mole may get the VBA some points in the short term, but for veterans waiting for their claims to be processed, the long-term result could prove to be worthless.
Bob Jackson is the Assistant Director for National Veterans Service for the VFW. He continues to lobby Congress to improve the delivery of VA benefits and compensation to millions of our nation’s veterans.
Popularity: 15% [?]
At V.A. Hospital, a Rogue Cancer Unit
Jun 22nd
June 21, 2009For patients with prostate cancer, it is a common surgical procedure: a doctor implants dozens of radioactive seeds to attack the disease. But when Dr. Gary D. Kao treated one patient at the veterans’ hospital in Philadelphia, his aim was more than a little off.
Most of the seeds, 40 in all, landed in the patient’s healthy bladder, not the prostate.
It was a serious mistake, and under federal rules, regulators investigated. But Dr. Kao, with their consent, made his mistake all but disappear.
He simply rewrote his surgical plan to match the number of seeds in the prostate, investigators said.
The revision may have made Dr. Kao look better, but it did nothing for the patient, who had to undergo a second implant. It failed, too, resulting in an unintended dose to the rectum. Regulators knew nothing of this second mistake because no one reported it.
Two years later, in 2005, Dr. Kao rewrote another surgical plan after putting half the seeds in the wrong organ. Once again, regulators did not object.
Had the government responded more aggressively, it might have uncovered a rogue cancer unit at the hospital, one that operated with virtually no outside scrutiny and botched 92 of 116 cancer treatments over a span of more than six years — and then kept quiet about it, according to interviews with investigators, government officials and public records.
The team continued implants for a year even though the equipment that measured whether patients received the proper radiation dose was broken. The radiation safety committee at the Veterans Affairs hospital knew of this problem but took no action, records show.
One patient was the Rev. Ricardo Flippin, a 21-year veteran of the Air Force. “I couldn’t walk and I couldn’t stand,” he said, citing rectal pain so severe that he had to remain in bed for six months, losing his church job and his income.
Pastor Flippin first learned of what his doctors called a radiation injury not from the V.A., but from an Ohio hospital where he underwent rectal surgery in 2006 to treat the damage. “There are times when I don’t have control over my bowels,” he said one recent Sunday, after excusing himself during a service at a church in West Virginia where he now preaches.
The 92 implant errors resulted from a systemwide failure in which none of the safeguards that were supposed to protect veterans from poor medical care worked, an examination by The New York Times has found.
Peer review, a staple of every good hospital, in which colleagues examine one another’s work, did not exist in the unit. The V.A.’s radiation safety program; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the use of all nuclear materials; and the Joint Commission, a group that accredited the hospital, all failed to intervene; either their inspections had been limited or they had not acted decisively upon finding problems.
Over all, the implant program lacked a “safety culture,” the nuclear commission found. Dr. Kao and other members of his team, the commission said, were not properly supervised or trained in what constitutes a substandard implant and the need to report it. Dr. Kao declined to comment for this article.
Virtually none of the substandard implants in Philadelphia were reported to the nuclear commission, meaning errors went uninvestigated for weeks, months and sometimes years. During that time, many patients did not know that their cancer treatments were flawed.
Federal investigators are continuing to look into the flawed implants as well as those at other V.A. hospitals. The Philadelphia prostate unit was closed after problems began to surface in mid-2008, and it has yet to reopen. The V.A. has also suspended the implants, known as brachytherapy, at hospitals in Jackson, Miss., and Cincinnati, though neither had problems on a scale of Philadelphia’s.
The V.A. has yet to fully account for how these substandard implants affected veterans, though no one is believed to have died from them. No patient names have been made public. Veterans officials said Dr. Kao was no longer at the Philadelphia hospital and would not be allowed to return. The officials acknowledged that they had failed to supervise the unit.
A lawyer for Dr. Kao, Jack L. Gruenstein, said The Times’s account of the doctor’s role was “false,” but he declined to elaborate.
A nuclear commission consultant, Dr. Ronald E. Goans, reviewed about a quarter of the substandard implants and reported that “erratic seed placement caused a number of cases to have elevated doses to the rectum, bladder or perineum.” After learning of the problems, the V.A. flew seven patients treated in Philadelphia to its most experienced brachytherapy program in Seattle for additional implants.
“I’m not easily shaken,” Dr. Leon S. Malmud, chairman of a nuclear commission advisory committee, said last month after investigators briefed the panel on their findings in Philadelphia. “But this is a very anxiety-provoking story.”
Clues That All Is Not Right
The brachytherapy program at the Philadelphia V.A. hospital began in early 2002, giving veterans an option for treating prostate cancer without major surgery. In this procedure, metal seeds the size of a grain of rice are permanently inserted into the prostate through needles.
“The idea is to create a radioactive cloud that conforms to and treats the prostate,” said Dr. Louis Potters, department chairman of radiation medicine at North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System.
By using ultrasound in the operating room, Dr. Potters can assess how well radiation is being distributed. “So at the completion of the case,” he said, “I can go out and tell that patient’s wife or significant other that we did a very good implant.”
And good implants were what the Philadelphia V.A. expected when it staffed the new unit with outside contractors from an Ivy League institution, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
One contractor was Dr. Kao. In addition to his work as a cancer researcher, he had a medical degree from Johns Hopkins and a Ph.D. from Penn. He is also on a team from Penn that won a contract this year from a NASA-financed consortium to study radiation in space.
Although Dr. Kao was board certified in radiation oncology, he had limited experience in brachytherapy, according to the nuclear commission. Even so, the unit had no peer review.
“In every facility that I’ve ever practiced and seen, there is some form of peer review going on,” said Dr. James Welsh, a radiation oncologist and member of the nuclear commission’s advisory board.
It was not long before problems began to surface. In the first year, nine implants were substandard, including two on the same day, records show.
In early 2003, the V.A. and the nuclear commission got their first solid clue that all was not right in the cancer unit.
On Feb. 3, Dr. Kao mistakenly implanted more than half the seeds in a patient’s bladder. With the patient still under anesthesia, a urologist had to thread a small tube through the man’s penis to retrieve the 40 errant seeds. Because they were bloody and contaminated with urine, the seeds could not be reused, and no more were available.
As a carcinogen that can burn healthy tissue as well as kill cancerous cells, radiation is supposed to be closely monitored. The hospital’s radiation safety committee handles regulatory issues. The V.A.’s National Health Physics Program oversees radiation use in all veteran facilities.
But the chief regulator is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Serious accidents involving radioactive materials must be reported to that agency, which has the power to investigate and levy fines. Congress receives an annual list of those accidents.
After learning of Dr. Kao’s error, V.A. officials thought that because he had revised his surgical plan while still in the operating room, the mistake did not exist. The nuclear commission agreed, on the ground that doctors needed freedom to revise their surgical plan depending on what they found during surgery.
Yet this case did not involve a new diagnostic interpretation: it was an implant mistake, causing the patient to return for another procedure.
Dr. Charles M. Anderson, who heads the V.A.’s national radiation safety committee, said it was “not good medical practice” to have to redo surgery.
Asked whether Dr. Kao was trying to cover up a mistake, Dr. Anderson said, “I’m not going to look into this guy’s soul.”
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission lacked the authority to challenge Dr. Kao’s revisions, said Steven A. Reynolds, director of nuclear materials safety for the commission. “The N.R.C. isn’t in the business of practicing medicine,” Mr. Reynolds said.
The two incidents in Philadelphia have prompted the N.R.C. staff to propose allowing revisions to surgical plans only before an implant is done.
One Patient’s Case
When Pastor Flippin arrived for his implant in May 2005, he was unaware that brachytherapy errors at the Philadelphia V.A. were piling up.
He had traveled to Philadelphia from West Virginia to care for his elderly mother. “I felt I had been neglectful in my relationship with my mother,” said Pastor Flippin, 68. Now he wanted to make things right. “The best way to do that was to go back and be with her,” he said.
After learning that he had prostate cancer, Pastor Flippin picked brachytherapy rather than external beam radiation or surgery. The doctor’s words were especially comforting, he said.
“I remember him telling me that it was a relatively safe procedure that he had done — and I was impressed with this — he had done over 600 seed implants, that there was nothing to worry about,” Pastor Flippin said in an interview last month.
Pastor Flippin’s medical records show that he was counseled by the other doctor in the unit, Dr. Richard Whittington, then chief of radiation oncology at the Philadelphia V.A. and now a professor at Penn’s medical school, a V.A. official said.
But Dr. Kao did the implant, the records show. Investigators say he is responsible for all but a handful of the 92 substandard implants at the Philadelphia V.A. Dr. Whittington declined to be interviewed.
At first, Pastor Flippin’s implant seemed fine. But 10 months later, he said, he began experiencing bowel pain that worsened with time. Now back in West Virginia, Pastor Flippin sought treatment at a V.A. hospital in Huntington. Doctors there suspected constipation, hemorrhoids or gas.
“They gave me suppositories, they gave me flushings, they gave me a rinse where you sit in and everything else,” Pastor Flippin said. “I’m saying none of this is working.”
Doctors then prescribed narcotics. “It was just a succession of painkiller after painkiller after painkiller, and it got to the point where I said, ‘I don’t want any more morphine,’ ” Pastor Flippin said. His weight dropped to 109 pounds, a 20 percent loss. He had to quit his job coordinating after-school programs for a coalition of churches in Charleston, W.Va.
“This is not working,” he told his doctors. “I’m barely alive, I’m wasting away and you all are not doing anything.”
Increasingly desperate, Pastor Flippin sought help from the Ohio State University Medical Center, where a doctor finally made a diagnosis: “Radiation injury to anal canal,” he wrote. Surgery was performed to cover the damaged area with a tissue flap.
It would be another year and a half before a letter from the V.A. arrived, informing Pastor Flippin in August 2008 that he had received a flawed implant. “The treatment you received did not meet V.A.’s high standard of care,” the letter said.
At this point, it hardly mattered that the V.A. rendered Pastor Flippin’s first name wrong, calling him Richard, rather than Ricardo.
A Discovery Leads to Others
The substandard implants might never have been discovered were it not for a clerical error.
In the spring of 2008, a radiation safety official at the V.A. mistakenly ordered seeds of lower strength, and they were implanted.
After the error was discovered, according to the nuclear commission, the V.A.’s national radiation safety unit asked the hospital to examine 10 to 20 more cases to see if the problem had occurred before.
It had not. But investigators found something more troubling: four instances where seeds were implanted in the wrong places. As more cases were examined, more mistakes were found.
“Every once in a while you’re going to have a medical event because the seed will migrate, but when you see more than one or two at one place, we’re like: ‘What’s going on? Is this a pervasive problem?’ ” said Mr. Reynolds, the nuclear commission official.
The hospital suspended the brachytherapy program on June 11 last year. By then, 45 substandard implants had been found.
Two days later, the Joint Commission, which helps set standards in the hospital industry, surveyed the Philadelphia V.A. and on the next day accredited the hospital. “This organization is in full compliance with applicable standards,” the Joint Commission said.
The commission said that it had no indications of the problems in the brachytherapy program when it arrived at the hospital and that its surveys are not detailed enough to have uncovered the flawed implants.
Soon after, the N.R.C. sent its own inspectors to Philadelphia. And the more the inspectors looked, the more they found. All told, 57 of the implants delivered too little radiation to the prostate, either because the seeds missed the prostate or were not distributed properly inside the prostate. Thirty-five other cases involved overdoses to other parts of the body. An unspecified number of patients were both underdosed in the prostate and overdosed elsewhere.
From December 2006 to November 2007, the nuclear commission found, 16 patients received seed implants in Philadelphia even though computer interface problems prevented medical personnel from determining whether those treatments had been successful. The V.A.’s radiation officials knew of the problem but took no action, the nuclear commission charges.
Investigators said they did not know how the unit made so many mistakes or why Dr. Kao decided to rewrite only two surgical plans. The doctors, according to the nuclear commission, believed “that since the patients were not having complications, the implant quality must be acceptable.”
The V.A. put too much trust in the contractors, said Darrell G. Wiedeman, a senior health physicist for the nuclear commission. “They claim they hired experts, the best that money could buy from the local university, so therefore they didn’t require a lot of training and oversight,” Mr. Wiedeman said at a recent meeting of the nuclear commission’s advisory board.
Susan Phillips, a senior executive at Penn’s medical school and health system, said Dr. Kao had voluntarily given up his clinical privileges there, though he continues to do research on campus. Dr. Kao did an unspecified number of brachytherapy procedures at the campus hospital with no apparent problems. A check of state and federal records over the last decade in Pennsylvania turned up no malpractice or disciplinary actions against Dr. Kao.
Back in West Virginia, Pastor Flippin said he continued to try to build up his small church while dealing with the side effects of his implant. After 21 years of serving his country, he had hoped for a better ending.
“It’s not fair,” he said. “Any veteran should expect more than what we’re getting.”
Popularity: 1% [?]

