Independent Study Raises Alarm About Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma at Malmstrom Air Force Base
A new independent academic study examining a form of blood cancer among those who served at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, has found that service members were diagnosed at younger ages compared to the wider population, a notable revelation as that community fears their cancers and illnesses could be tied to their service.
The findings were published in a research paper this month by a doctoral candidate and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who did statistical analysis into self-reported cancer data from the Torchlight Initiative -- a grassroots nonprofit involving current and former service members who worked with America's intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The research analyzed 18 cases within the nonprofit's registration. The main illness examined was cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer known as NHL that starts in white blood cells and can affect the immune system.
Read Next: 48 Hours with Marines and Soldiers on the US Southern Border
"The results demonstrate a statistically significant increase in NHL diagnoses among missileers in the later decades, with observed rates surpassing expected benchmarks," according to the research paper. "The study also finds that the median age of diagnosis is significantly younger for the study population compared to national averages."
The independent academic research comes as the Air Force continues to pursue its own wide-ranging health study into cancer concerns among service members who worked at America's intercontinental ballistic missile bases. Many advocates for that community are fighting for increased attention to illnesses and cancers, and are calling for extended benefits coverage under the PACT Act, a 2022 law that mostly covered veterans sickened by toxic exposure in war zones.
"The ICBM community is taking casualties. Now, we have the mathematical evidence to back it up," Alex Ruiz, the co-director of the Torchlight Initiative, told Military.com in a statement, adding that the findings "should drive immediate mitigation of environmental risks, discussion of including the ICBM community in the PACT Act, and education amongst the exposed individuals."
In a Military.com investigative series last year, it was revealed that prior studies and warnings into cancer cases among missileers two decades ago went ignored, making it harder for many to diagnose their illnesses later in life and seek medical benefits connected to their service.
The new study acknowledges the media attention put on the health issue.
"The analysis was motivated by reports of elevated cancer diagnoses within the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) community, specifically targeting NHL cases due to initial media focus and data collection through the Torchlight Initiative," according to the study.
In July, the Torchlight Initiative shared an early, pre-published study with Military.com from the same researchers in the latest study. Those findings, shortly after being shared, were taken off the nonprofit's website because the research had not gone through a proper security and policy review with the Air Force prior to being publicized.
That July pre-published report strongly "underscored the exceptionally low likelihood of such events occurring purely by chance," citing a probability of 2.1 in 1,000 trillion. Notably, the published version detailed the "limitations such as small sample size and estimation uncertainty" had on results, detailing a much smaller increase of expected NHL cases but still identifies the risks facing the missileer community.
"With a conservative approach, to include a conservative correction factor, we nonetheless found statistical significance and temporal trends within the overall analysis," the April research paper detailed. "Ultimately, these results suggest potential underlying risk factors or exposures unique to this population, particularly those entering in later decades, and necessitates further epidemiological scrutiny."
Spokespeople for Air Force Global Strike Command declined to comment on the latest independent study findings.
While initial results in the Air Force's widespread study showed potentially elevated rates of breast cancer and prostate cancer, the latest findings incorporate data from the National Death Index, a centralized database of death records, that "did not identify statistically elevated mortality" among the missile community.
The next step the Air Force is taking is to examine state cancer registries and a larger pool of data from across the country. Some changes have happened since the start of the study, including more routine workplace inspections, increased tracking of workplace exposures, and new contaminant cleanup contracts.
Additionally, one widow of an Air Force missileer who lost her spouse to cancer finally succeeded in securing Department of Veterans Affairs benefits related to his death after a yearslong fight.
As Military.com detailed in its investigation last year, past Air Force reports highlighted possible exposures missileer faced, ranging from diesel fuels, polychlorinated biphenyls known as PCBs, sewage backup, standing water, recycled air, pesticides and even burning paper crypto-tapes within their enclosed launch control centers underground.
Acknowledging illnesses tied to open-air waste disposal burn pits in certain war zones was one of the major achievements of the PACT Act in 2022. The American Cancer Society said that "military personnel and contractors who have spent time near burn pits likely had high levels of exposure to air pollution," with several past studies acknowledging known carcinogens in some chemicals set ablaze in those pits.
Many missileers fear that the recycled air partnered with burning crypto-tape inside their enclosed launch capsules, as well as other contaminants, could have also put them at heightened risk for similar illnesses.
Ruiz said in his statement that April's research paper is "a starting point for future research," and that there's more to be examined at other bases and likely specific toxic exposures that deserve more scrutiny.
Related: Air Force, Congressional Focus Grows in Ongoing Missileer Cancer Study

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Forecast Report 2025-2034: Patient Population, Unmet Needs, Disease Risk and Burden
The Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Forecast Report 2025-2034 offers extensive analysis on prevalence trends and demographic influences of ischemic stroke globally. Covering eight key markets, it details risk factors, treatment options, and forecasts trends influenced by age, gender, and geography, optimizing understanding and intervention strategies. Dublin, June 11, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Forecast 2025-2034" report has been added to the United States, over 795,000 individuals experience a stroke annually. Of these, approximately 87% are ischemic strokes, which occur when blood flow to the brain is obstructed. The likelihood of having an ischemic stroke varies across different racial and ethnic groups and rises with Stroke Epidemiology Forecast Report CoverageThis report delivers a comprehensive analysis of the condition's prevalence and associated demographic factors. It projects future incidence and prevalence trends across diverse population groups, considering key variables such as age, gender, and ischemic stroke type. The report highlights change in prevalence over time and offers data-driven forecasts based on influencing factors. Additionally, it provides an in-depth overview of the disease, along with historical and projected epidemiological data for eight key markets:The United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan, and OverviewThe epidemiology section of ischemic stroke provides insights into the patient pool, ranging from historical data to projected trends across eight major markets. The Research examines both current and future trends for ischemic stroke, referencing various studies. The report includes detailed data on the diagnosed patient pool, broken down by age groups and specific categories. Ischemic strokes, responsible for about 87% of all strokes, occur when blood flow to the brain is blocked. In 2020, the global prevalence of acute ischemic stroke was 68.16 million. Risk factors such as high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, high cholesterol, and smoking contribute significantly to ischemic strokes. Additionally, disparities in stroke incidence and outcomes are observed across racial and ethnic groups, with non-Hispanic Black and Pacific Islander adults experiencing the highest stroke-related mortality rates. Treatment OverviewIschemic stroke is a medical emergency that requires immediate intervention to restore blood flow to the brain and prevent further damage. The main goals of treatment are to minimize brain injury, improve functional recovery, and prevent complications. The approach typically involves a combination of medications, surgical interventions, and rehabilitation strategies.1. ThrombolysisThrombolytic therapy, such as tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), is used to dissolve the blood clot obstructing blood flow. When administered within 3-4.5 hours of symptom onset, it can significantly improve outcomes by restoring blood flow and minimizing brain damage. However, it is not suitable for all patients due to potential risks, including bleeding.2. Mechanical ThrombectomyFor patients with large vessel occlusions, mechanical thrombectomy is a procedure used to physically remove the clot. Performed within 6-24 hours of symptom onset, it can restore blood flow to the brain and significantly improve outcomes. This treatment is often combined with thrombolysis for optimal results.3. Antiplatelet TherapyFollowing an ischemic stroke, antiplatelet drugs like aspirin are prescribed to prevent further clots from forming. These medications reduce the risk of recurrent strokes by inhibiting platelet aggregation and helping to maintain normal blood flow. Long-term antiplatelet therapy is commonly recommended after an initial stroke event.4. AnticoagulantsFor certain patients, particularly those with atrial fibrillation or other heart conditions, anticoagulants like warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed to prevent the formation of new clots. These medications work by inhibiting clotting factors in the blood, thus lowering the risk of further ischemic events.5. Rehabilitation TherapyPost-stroke rehabilitation is critical for restoring lost functions and improving the quality of life. Depending on the severity of the stroke, therapy may include physical, occupational, and speech therapy. These therapies help patients regain mobility, improve speech and cognitive function, and enhance independence in daily AnalysisIschemic stroke is a leading cause of disability and death worldwide, significantly affecting the quality of life for survivors. The physical, emotional, and cognitive impairments following a stroke can be profound, with many individuals experiencing long-term disabilities, such as paralysis, speech difficulties, and memory loss. These impairments not only affect the individual's ability to perform daily tasks but also place a heavy burden on caregivers and healthcare systems. The financial costs of rehabilitation, ongoing medical care, and loss of productivity further exacerbate the societal impact, making ischemic stroke a major public health concern Epidemiology TrendsThe epidemiology of ischemic stroke has evolved over the years, with several notable trends emerging in different populations globally. These trends are shaped by factors such as age, lifestyle, and healthcare access, and are crucial for understanding the growing burden of this condition. As ischemic stroke remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, tracking its epidemiological patterns is vital for timely interventions and preventive measures. Below are five significant trends in the epidemiology of ischemic stroke:1. Rising Incidence in Older Adults One prominent trend is the increasing incidence of ischemic stroke in older populations. With advancing age, the risk factors for ischemic stroke - such as hypertension, diabetes, and atrial fibrillation - become more prevalent. As life expectancy increases globally, the number of elderly individuals at risk of ischemic stroke also rises. This trend is particularly notable in developed countries, where aging populations present challenges for healthcare systems. The incidence of ischemic stroke in those aged 65 and older is projected to continue to rise, contributing to the growing burden of the disease.2. Higher Stroke Incidence in Low- and Middle-Income Countries There is a marked rise in the incidence of ischemic stroke in low- and middle-income countries, driven by the transition to urban lifestyles and the increasing prevalence of risk factors such as obesity, smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle. Poor access to healthcare, limited awareness, and inadequate stroke prevention programs further exacerbate the situation. These regions are experiencing a double burden, where traditional infectious diseases coexist with a surge in non-communicable diseases like ischemic stroke. This rising incidence underscores the need for improved public health strategies focused on prevention and early intervention.3. Gender Disparities in Ischemic Stroke Gender plays a critical role in the epidemiology of ischemic stroke, with distinct differences in incidence, outcomes, and risk factors between men and women. Women, particularly those over 55, are at higher risk of ischemic stroke compared to men, with factors such as hormonal changes, pregnancy-related complications, and the use of oral contraceptives contributing to this disparity. Additionally, women tend to experience worse outcomes, including greater disability and a higher risk of recurrent strokes. Understanding these gender differences is essential for tailoring prevention and treatment strategies to different populations.4. Growing Prevalence of Risk Factors The prevalence of major risk factors for ischemic stroke, such as hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol, continues to rise globally. As urbanization and lifestyle changes lead to more sedentary habits and poorer diets, the number of individuals with these risk factors is steadily increasing. A significant trend is the growing awareness of hypertension as a key modifiable risk factor for ischemic stroke. However, despite awareness efforts, managing and controlling hypertension remains a challenge, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The rising prevalence of these risk factors is directly contributing to the increased incidence of ischemic stroke worldwide.5. Technological Advances and Improved Survival Rates Advances in medical technology and treatment options have led to improved survival rates following ischemic strokes. The use of thrombolytic therapy (clot-busting drugs) and mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke has revolutionized stroke management, significantly reducing mortality and disability in some patients. However, access to these advanced treatments remains limited in certain regions, leading to disparities in outcomes. As healthcare systems worldwide invest in stroke care infrastructure, it is expected that survival rates will continue to improve, though challenges in accessibility will persist in underserved by RegionThe epidemiology of ischemic stroke varies across countries and regions due to differences in healthcare infrastructure, socioeconomic factors, cultural attitudes towards pain, and access to pain management therapies. Understanding these variations is essential for developing targeted interventions and improving patient regions include: The United States Germany France Italy Spain The United Kingdom Japan India These regions exhibit distinct epidemiological trends, reflecting the unique challenges and opportunities within their healthcare epidemiology of ischemic stroke differs greatly across countries, influenced by factors such as the prevalence of risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and high cholesterol), healthcare infrastructure, lifestyle habits, and socioeconomic status. In the United Kingdom, approximately 100,000 people experience a stroke annually, with an estimated 85% of these cases being ischemic Questions Answered How do socioeconomic factors influence the prevalence and outcomes of ischemic strokes across different regions? What is the impact of genetic predisposition on the incidence of fibrocystic breast condition in various populations? How does access to healthcare services affect the early diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia in low-income countries? What role do environmental factors, such as air pollution, play in the rising rates of respiratory diseases like pneumonia? How does the aging population contribute to the increasing burden of ischemic stroke, particularly in developed nations? What differences in treatment outcomes are observed between patients with ischemic strokes from urban versus rural areas? How do lifestyle changes, such as diet and exercise, impact the incidence of conditions like ischemic stroke in different ethnic groups? What are the key demographic and epidemiological trends shaping the rise in chronic respiratory diseases worldwide? How does climate change influence the spread of infectious diseases like pneumonia, especially in vulnerable populations? What strategies have proven most effective in reducing the incidence of seasonal influenza in high-risk populations? Scope of the Report The report covers a detailed analysis of signs and symptoms, causes, risk factors, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment options, and classification/types of ischemic stroke based on several factors. The ischemic stroke epidemiology forecast report covers data for the eight major markets (the US, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Japan, and India) The report helps to identify the patient population, the unmet needs of ischemic stroke are highlighted along with an assessment of the disease's risk and burden. Key Topics Covered1 Preface1.1 Introduction1.2 Objectives of the Study1.3 Research Methodology and Assumptions2 Executive Summary3 Ischemic Stroke Market Overview - 8 MM3.1 Ischemic Stroke Market Historical Value (2018-2024)3.2 Ischemic Stroke Market Forecast Value (2025-2034)4 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Overview - 8 MM4.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario (2018-2024)4.2 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Forecast5 Disease Overview5.1 Signs and Symptoms5.2 Causes5.3 Risk Factors5.4 Guidelines and Stages5.5 Pathophysiology5.6 Screening and Diagnosis5.7 Types of Ischemic Stroke6 Patient Profile6.1 Patient Profile Overview6.2 Patient Psychology and Emotional Impact Factors7 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast - 8 MM7.1 Key Findings7.2 Assumptions and Rationale7.3 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario in 8MM (2018-2034)8 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: United States8.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in The United States (2018-2034)9 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: United Kingdom9.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in United Kingdom (2018-2034)10 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: Germany10.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in Germany (2018-2034)11 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: France11.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in France12 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: Italy12.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in Italy (2018-2034)13 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: Spain13.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in Spain (2018-2034)14 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: Japan14.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in Japan (2018-2034)15 Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast: India15.1 Ischemic Stroke Epidemiology Scenario and Forecast in India (2018-2034)16 Patient Journey17 Treatment Challenges and Unmet Needs18 Key Opinion Leaders (KOL) InsightsFor more information about this report visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dairy Council of California Joins Forces to Fuel Summer Learning, Nutrition and Fun Across California
June 3 Summer Meals Program Kickoff SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- School may be out, but healthy meals and learning resources are in full swing this summer. As part of its ongoing cause to support the health of children and families, Dairy Council of California is partnering with school districts and local agencies to promote access to nutritious meals through USDA's Summer Nutrition Programs for Kids (SUN Meals) and Non-Congregate Summer Meal Program events. These programs play a critical role in supporting food security for children during the summer months. Dairy Council of California is honored to play a role in the upcoming SUN Meals To-Go event hosted by Lodi Unified School District on June 17 at Lockeford Elementary School, part of a Community Day of Action. This signature event supports the USDA Non-Congregate Summer Meals Program, which provides grab-and-go meals to help ensure children receive nutritious food even when traditional meal sites aren't accessible in rural communities. Dairy Council staff will be onsite volunteering and supporting the day's activities. For more details, visit the Lodi USD Summer Grab & Go School Meals event page or go to 'We see spikes in child hunger in the summer and summer nutrition programs are a lifeline for many families. Our involvement helps ensure these events support not only access to food, but also opportunities to promote lifelong healthy eating patterns and learning,' said Amy DeLisio, CEO of Dairy Council of California. 'June is Dairy Month, making it the perfect time to highlight the vital role milk and dairy foods play in children's health. As a primary source of calcium, milk helps build strong bones and teeth, and it also delivers protein, key vitamins and minerals that support muscle function —building strong bodies and fueling fun all summer long.' Dairy Council of California has already supported summer meal kickoffs in communities across California, including Fontana, Hesperia, Riverside, Rialto, Redlands, Lodi, and Val Verde Unified School Districts, with more events continuing throughout the season. Dairy Council's popular live cow assembly, has appeared at multiple Summer Meal kickoff events, giving students a chance to connect directly with agriculture while learning about where milk comes from and how it supports good health. Each participating summer meal site provides free meals to all children and teens 18 and under. Every meal includes milk, delivering essential nutrition to support children's growth and development. To find a summer meal site nearby, visit the USDA Summer Meals Site Finder at, You may also visit for an overview of all summer meals. To learn more about Dairy Council of California, visit About Dairy Council of California Since 1919, Dairy Council of California has been a trusted nutrition organization committed to elevating the health of children and communities. Through education, advocacy, and multisector collaboration, the organization promotes lifelong healthy eating patterns and advances the role of milk and dairy foods in improving nutrition security and supporting sustainable food systems. With more than a century of experience, Dairy Council of California continues to lead with evidence-based nutrition science, education and strategic partnerships to build healthier communities. Contact: Malynda ParsonsEmail: mparsons@ Phone: 916-633-7533 A photo accompanying this announcement is available at in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tricking Veterans: Using Suicide and Mental Health Struggles as a Guise for Privatizing the VA
The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of If you would like to submit your own commentary, please send your article to opinions@ for consideration. While attention remains focused on the looming crisis of Department of Veterans Affairs employees facing termination, an even more ominous threat to veterans' health care advances unnoticed through the halls of Congress. Three pieces of legislation are gaining momentum, each crafted to systematically dismantle VA-delivered care under the guise of sympathy for veteran suicide and mental health struggles. These bills could deliver the decisive blow in a long-standing campaign by proponents determined to privatize VA health care, collapsing the system by pulling funding it needs to care for veterans. Despite promises of greater "freedom," "autonomy" and "choice," unfettered private-sector funding threatens to narrow -- rather than expand -- veterans' actual options. As resources steadily drain from VA facilities and units disappear, millions of veterans who rely on VA services -- particularly those with service-connected conditions -- will lose access to the system they prefer. Instead, those funds will go into the coffers of private health care companies. Lawmakers have repeatedly introduced legislation to grant veterans unrestricted access to privatized care, known as the Veterans Community Care Program, or VCCP. A particular emphasis has been on mental health care, where legislation has aimed to eliminate VA referral requirements entirely. None of these potential laws has made it very far, until now. Three bills are proceeding through Congress. One, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act, secured House approval last month. The Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs (SVAC) is actively weighing whether to follow suit. Should it do so, or if the other bills gain traction, the foundational structure of the VA system could crack. Even without legislation, we're seeing a shift underway. In the VA secretary's new budget, VA medical care funding would be cut by 17% while VCCP private-sector resources would receive a 50% boost. Veterans genuinely appreciate the convenience of community care referrals close to home, but they remain largely unaware of the devastating long-term consequences these legislative changes could bring. If veterans truly grasped the scope of what's being planned, they'd likely reject them. When the Veterans of Foreign Wars surveyed 10,000 members, an overwhelming 92% wanted the VA preserved as the primary health care source -- not dismantled in favor of insurance cards for private providers. A Common Defense poll last week found that two-thirds of veterans oppose downsizing the VA. The Disabled American Veterans is so alarmed by the prospect of unchecked outsourcing that it published a 2023 report with the stark warning title, "A Broken Promise: What if the Veterans Health Administration Goes Away?" That question cuts right to the core. If the VA does not remain the sole authorizer of care, and receive sufficient funding to meet patient demand, the system -- which research consistently shows equals or exceeds community care in critical quality and outcome measures -- faces dismantlement. The VA will likely end up instead as a sprawling assortment of outpatient clinics. If that sounds familiar, it's the plan envisioned in the Project 2025 blueprint. The ripple effects will also reach into America's broader health care landscape. The VA serves as the primary training ground for the nation's health care workforce. Furthermore, VA research -- for countless mental and physical conditions that help both veteran and civilian populations -- would suffer crushing consequences. The VA's role as the nation's health care safety net during public health emergencies would also be severely compromised. The drive for privatization -- shifting governmental responsibilities and funding to private-sector entities -- has deep roots in anti-government politics. Over the past decade, libertarian advocates have forged a powerful alliance with health care corporations seeking lucrative access to billions of taxpayer dollars, joined by veterans' organizations positioning themselves as preferable alternatives to VA care. The strategy crystallized at a June 2014 gathering of conservative activists, where Concerned Veterans for America, backed by the Koch brothers, unveiled a plan to discredit and steadily privatize VA health care. This vision gained legislative traction two months later when Congress enacted the VA Choice Act, expanding private-sector use. The VA Mission Act of 2018 accelerated this shift through the Veterans Community Care Program, which has experienced explosive growth of 15% to 20% annually and already accounts for 40% of all VA-funded patient care. Despite these legislative changes, one essential safeguard against large-scale VA privatization has remained intact: Veterans must still receive authorization from VA staff to obtain private care. This gatekeeping function serves an indispensable purpose, ensuring the VA can allocate resources efficiently and continue investing in high-quality, innovative care within its own system. Community options are unquestionably an essential backup for veterans living far away or facing lengthy waits for VA appointments. However, excessive private-sector use risks destabilizing the VA system and jeopardizing its viability. A "Red Team" of independent health care experts concluded last year that the metastasizing growth of private-sector referrals placed the system in an "existential crisis." These allocations are draining resources from VA facilities, threatening to eliminate services and close facilities. This precarious situation is already evident under current eligibility requirements. Further statutory expansions of veterans' eligibility -- especially unfettered access -- for private-sector care would be financially unsustainable for VA direct care. Champions of privatization have introduced numerous bills designed to eliminate the requirement for VA authorization before veterans can access private care. These advocates have strategically seized upon veteran suicide and mental health crises as leverage points, exploiting the genuine sympathy these urgent issues generate to advance their broader privatization agenda that bears little connection to improving veterans' mental health. The underlying statistics certainly warrant concern: Veteran demand for mental health services has continued to climb relentlessly for years, outstripping the VA's funded capacity, while the veteran suicide rate remains persistently entrenched at levels approximately 50% higher than that of the general population. However, the proposed solutions reveal an inconvenient contradiction. Expanding outsourced mental health care would move veterans away from higher-quality, more timely treatment toward a fragmented private system ill-equipped to address their needs. The VA is widely considered the gold standard for treating psychological wounds. Compared to VA mental health clinicians, VCCP providers are far less likely to utilize evidence-based psychotherapies, receive mandatory training in military sexual trauma and suicide prevention, or seamlessly integrate mental and physical health care. Even the VA Mission Act recognized this disparity, citing VA mental health providers as possessing unique "special expertise" that distinguishes them from their civilian counterparts. Similarly, the VA's suicide prevention initiatives exceed private-sector efforts. Each of the VA's 170 medical centers employs dedicated suicide prevention coordinators who collaborate with VA clinicians to oversee suicide risk screening, expedited mental health appointments, follow-up after missed appointments, safety planning, and medical record flagging. Annual suicide prevention and lethal means safety training is mandatory for all VA providers. Veterans receiving all their care through community programs experience higher suicide rates than those treated exclusively within VA facilities. The privatization push also wasn't driven by the private sector's capacity to deliver care more quickly. Most American counties lack a single psychiatrist, while 45% of rural counties have no psychologist. Veterans wait longer for mental health appointments through the VCCP than within the VA system itself. The VA system still has plenty more work to get done. Veterans currently wait an average of 17 days for a mental health appointment, while those requiring more intensive care face a 16-day delay from initial screening to admission into residential rehabilitation programs. In 2017, Jeff Miller, the recently departed chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs (HVAC), began working as a lobbyist for billionaire Steven Cohen, founder of the Cohen Veterans Network mental health clinic chain. Cohen objected to the VA's policy requiring prior authorization before reimbursing for private care. He sought to eliminate this regulation, allowing veterans to walk into his clinics, receive services, and send the VA the bill afterward -- no approval needed. Miller and Cohen Network representatives met with HVAC committee members and drafted legislation abolishing the VA's authorization requirement for mental health care. These efforts gained movement when then-Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., agreed to introduce their bill. The legislation faced immediate and unified opposition from major veterans service organizations. These groups recognized that the bill would undermine not only the VA's mental health services but also threaten the integrated health care system's overall structure. Faced with this resistance, the bill was quickly withdrawn. Talking to ProPublica, a former VA official presciently warned at the time, "If you start trying to carve into government money in veterans' care to feed things like the Cohen Veterans Network, that's actually privatization. It's going to be death by a thousand cuts." In 2019, veteran suicide statistics seemed to portray a devastating picture. Despite a decade of well-conceived efforts, the numbers simply weren't budging. Twenty veterans took their lives each day, 14 of whom were not using the VA for services. The unyielding problem begged for fresh approaches. This recognition sparked genuine bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. In the Senate, John Boozman, R-Ariz., and Mark Warner, D-Va., joined forces, while Representatives Jack Bergman, R-Mich., and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., did the same in the House. Together, they crafted the IMPROVE (Incorporating Measurements and Providing Resources for Outreach to Veterans Everywhere) Wellbeing for Veterans Act -- a three-year pilot program to provide federal grants to community organizations already working on the ground to identify at-risk veterans disconnected from VA health care and furnish preventive services before suicidal crises emerged. What made the Improve Act truly unprecedented wasn't just its community-leveraging framework, but its insistence that renewed funding be based on demonstrated improvements. The bill's architects mandated capturing comprehensive outcome data at multiple points to distinguish which community programs enhanced veterans' mental resiliency over a long-term period and thereby reduced suicide risk. Meanwhile, Sen. John Tester, D-Mont., SVAC ranking member, was constructing his own comprehensive veterans' mental health bill. During negotiations, he agreed to include Improve Act language in the package, later renamed the Staff Sergeant Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program after a 25-year-old Army sniper instructor who'd recently died by suicide. Tester's bill sailed through Congress, and the pilot Fox Grant Program began funding grantees in late 2022. The 18-month Fox Program review revealed a bleak picture of widespread ineffectiveness. Organizations were supposed to track participants' suicidal ideation, financial stability, mental health status and social supports before and after providing services, but most didn't do so. Out of all participating entities, only 295 people completed services and filled out at least one of the five required questionnaires. That's roughly, on average, four people per grantee -- a shockingly minuscule number. Even worse, the report failed to break down results by individual organization, making it impossible to determine whether they were helping improve veterans' well-being. As the three-year pilot approached the time for reauthorization in 2024, House and Senate committees held hearings to chart the program's future. However, applying the original renewal criteria for grantees would create a problem: If grant money was truly reserved for community programs that demonstrated improvement, many grantees would surely lose funding. The solution emerged as a sham workaround -- ensure private-sector money continued flowing by ignoring the requirement that grantees measure outcomes. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, adopted this hands-off approach with her No Wrong Door for Veterans Act. It mandates a one-time initial screening while making no mention of pre and post assessment instruments designed to evaluate program outcomes and inform renewal decisions -- an omission that implicitly renders such evaluations voluntary. The potential abandonment of required pre and post comparative data troubled several lawmakers. House Democrats offered amendments to ensure continuation of outcomes tracking, but these were swiftly rejected. The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act contained two additional provisions that will accelerate privatization. One compressed VA access standards, the time limit the VA has to schedule, from 20 days to an unrealistic 3-day window for mental health referrals -- virtually guaranteeing automatic referrals to non-VA providers. Then, once Fox Grant recipients secure this expedited community care pathway, political pressure would inevitably mount to extend identical leeway to all enrolled veterans, draining more resources from VA facilities. Another provision posed an equally grave threat: The bill expands eligible grant recipients to include "mental health care entities" and permits them to offer non-emergency direct mental health treatment. This expanded scope would duplicate the mental health care provided at nearby VA and VCCP facilities, undermining the very agency it is intended to complement. A pair of other veterans' mental health bills have entered the legislative pipeline, each creating broad avenues for veterans to access private-sector services independently of VA involvement. One is the Veterans Health Act, introduced in 2023 by Jerry Moran, R-Kan., then the SVAC ranking member. The legislation includes a pilot program designed to expand access for veterans experiencing mental health and substance use disorders. Under this framework, veterans could schedule appointments directly with community providers, circumventing VA referral systems. Despite its pilot designation, the bill contains a mandate to expand this model across all health conditions throughout the entire VA system after three years. Moran reintroduced the pilot in March 2025 as part of the Veterans Access Act, which is slated for consideration this summer. The second bill -- the Recover Act -- introduced last fall by HVAC Chairman Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., would allocate grants to facilities for mental health services. This Cohen Veterans Network-backed legislation would create a parallel care system beyond services already available through the VA and the VCCP. This proposed arrangement raises troubling concerns about accountability. The VA would lose ability to oversee treatment furnished through these grants, while recipient facilities would face no requirement to share health records with VA providers -- a fundamental breakdown in care coordination that could leave veterans' treatment fragmented and potentially compromised. We've reached a critical juncture. The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act cleared the House in late May, leaving the Senate to make a pivotal choice: Advance this legislation or pursue legislation that retains accountability. Both the Veterans Health Act and the Recover Act are teed up for further attention. By the time America celebrates Veterans Day this fall, Washington may have delivered a mortal blow to the system uniquely designed to serve those who answered their country's call. -- Russell Lemle is a senior policy analyst with the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute.