Cutbacks Hurt Our Military Health System. Is The VA Next?
On March 4, Christopher Syrek, the Chief of Staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), informed his senior colleagues of a DOGE-devised plan for large-scale cutbacks at the agency that provides health care and other vital services to millions of veterans. The following day, the Associated Press cited an internal memo that indicates that 80,000 jobs - roughly 15% of the VA's workforce - are slated for elimination. More than 25% of VA employees are veterans.
On March 6, VA Secretary Doug Collins asserted that the plan is a 'pragmatic and disciplined approach to eliminating waste and bureaucracy, increasing efficiency and improving health care, benefits, and services to veterans.' He promised to 'accomplish this without making cuts to health care or benefits to veterans and VA beneficiaries.' His remarks were published in The Hill.
Recently, Russell Lernie and Suzanne Gordon, two senior policy analysts with the nonpartisan Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute, disputed Collins' depiction of VA healthcare. 'That's just not true,' they wrote in Military.com. 'VHA [Veterans Health Administration]
As I pondered the potential impact of the VA's plan, I recalled how in Trump's first term, cutbacks and outsourcing hurt our military health system. Is the VA next?
During the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, military medicine devised and swiftly deployed a stunning series of innovations that cut the death rate from severe battlefield wounds in half, to the lowest level in the history of warfare. It is one of the most remarkable achievements in the history of American Medicine.
Unfortunately, when the conflicts wound down, this success did not protect the MHS.
Critics alleged that stateside military treatment facilities (MTFs) cost too much, deliver care of uneven quality, and do not attract enough complex cases to maintain the skills of military doctors and nurses between deployments. They urged the Department of Defense (DoD) to outsource more care to the private sector. Three months after Trump took office in 2017, I published a commentary in Health Affairs Forefront that cited strong evidence of the MHS's quality, efficiency and value. Instead of rethinking their assumptions, DoD advocates of outsourcing plowed ahead.
Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon directed military retirees and the families of servicemembers, two large groups of beneficiaries who had long valued care in the MHS, to go elsewhere for treatment. As visits and admissions to military treatment facilities declined, the DoD downsized or closed a number of military clinics and hospitals and reduced military health manpower by thousands of positions. As purchased care costs climbed, additional money was pulled from military hospitals and staff. This left once-busy MTFs like Walter Reed National Military Medical Center half empty and understaffed.
As the impact of outsourcing mounted, the Joint Chiefs of Staff worried that it was degrading the MHS's ability to meet its wartime mission. In a Dec 6, 2023 memo to DoD leadership entitled, 'Stabilizing and Improving the Military Health System,' Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks ordered a change in course. 'Realignment of medical personnel, coupled with a challenging health care economy and ambitious private sector care capacity assumptions, led to chronically understaffed [hospitals and clinics] that at times cannot deliver timely care to beneficiaries or ensure sufficient workload to maintain and sustain clinical skills" She wrote. "As a result, beneficiaries are routinely referred to the private sector for services that [the MHS] should be able to deliver, with the Military Departments increasingly turning to the private sector for clinical skills sustainment opportunities for uniformed medical personnel. This has resulted in increasing overall health care costs for the Department and missing readiness opportunities for the Force.'
To rebuild the MHS, DEPSEC Hicks directed that actions be taken to 'reattract beneficiaries' to MTFs and increase staffing to '…support the National Defense Strategy, increase clinical readiness, mitigate risks to [military]
VA healthcare has formidable strengths. Thirteen years ago, I wrote: 'Early on, it embraced many of the attributes that characterize our nation's top-performing private healthcare systems: It was an early adopter of an interoperable electronic health record; it has strong affiliations with the nation's top medical schools; it regularly measures and applies quality data, and it has a salaried medical staff that is well-aligned with the agency's mission.'
Korea and Vietman War Veterans
getty
The VA generally delivers care that is safer and less costly than private-sector healthcare. That's because private-sector doctors tend to over-test and over-treat to boost clinical revenue. In their commentary, Lernie and Hall observed that the 'The private sector performs more 'guideline discordant,' 'questionable' and 'low-value' tests than the VHA, which then lead to more unnecessary services downstream, higher health-care costs and potential harm to the patient.' This happens, they explained, because 'With lax oversight, private-sector, fee-for-service incentives drive overtreatment and profit-seeking that isn't permitted in the VHA.'
Pushing more vets into private-sector care, which already costs the VA $36 billion per year, doesn't make much sense. What supporters of outsourcing government healthcare fail to understand is that private healthcare in the U.S. is not a 'system,' it's a thicket. Navigating it is a challenge, even for well-connected physicians seeking care for themselves or their families. In recent years, many independent practices have been bought by venture capitalists whose focus is on maximizing profits, not high-quality care.
I'm sure Secretary Collins wants the best for veterans. At the Tucson VA last week, he described the planned 15% reduction as a 'goal, not a guarantee," according to the Arizona Daily Star. Hopefully, veterans advocacy groups and their allies in Congress can convince the Trump administration to rethink its plans. It will not only help vets—a powerful constituency that holds a special place in the hearts of most Americans—it will help American healthcare. Each year, large numbers of medical and nursing students, resident physicians and other health professionals-in-training get valuable clinical training in VA Medical Centers.
The VA's motto is "To fulfill President Lincoln's promise to care for those who have served in our nation's military and for their families, caregivers, and survivors.'' May it always be so.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
VA Marks Benefits Milestone For Veterans
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that its mobile app has now accumulated more than 3 million downloads since its launch in 2021. The Health and Benefits app, which has 1.4 million active users, provides veterans access to information on health care and benefits. It allows users to refill and track VA prescriptions, review appointments, review claims and appeals status, submit evidence for claims and appeals, review VA payment and direct deposit information, locate the closest VA facilities, access the Veterans Crisis Line and show proof of Veteran status. VA Acting Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology and Acting Chief Information Officer Eddie Pool said: "VA's Health and Benefits app gives Veterans fast and convenient access to a host of important information, from appointments to prescriptions and benefits. We encourage all VA-enrolled Veterans to stay connected and informed by downloading the app." This story will be updated. Related Articles How Veteran's Benefits Are Impacted by Trump's Tax Bill: What to KnowHegseth Joins Veterans in Normandy to Mark 81st Anniversary of D-DayList of Cities Hosting 50501 Protests on June 6Harvey Milk Navy Ship To Be Renamed-Vets Call It 'Insult to LGBTQ Troops' 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH employees publish ‘Bethesda Declaration' in dissent of Trump administration policies
In October 2020, two months before Covid-19 vaccines would become available in the US, Stanford health policy professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and two colleagues published an open letter calling for a contrarian approach to managing the risks of the pandemic: protecting the most vulnerable while allowing others largely to resume normal life, aiming to obtain herd immunity through infection with the virus. They called it the Great Barrington Declaration, for the Massachusetts town where they signed it. Backlash to it was swift, with the director-general of the World Health Organization calling the idea of allowing a dangerous new virus to sweep through unprotected populations 'unethical.' Bhattacharya later testified before Congress that it – and he – immediately became targets of suppression and censorship by those leading scientific agencies. Now, Bhattacharya is the one in charge, and staffers at the agency he leads, the US National Institutes of Health, published their own letter of dissent, taking issue with what they see as the politicization of research and destruction of scientific progress under the Trump administration. They called it the Bethesda Declaration, for the location of the NIH. 'We hope you will welcome this dissent, which we modeled after your Great Barrington Declaration,' the staffers wrote. The letter was signed by more than 300 employees across the biomedical research agency, according to the non-profit organization Stand Up for Science, which also posted it; while many employees signed anonymously because of fears of retaliation, nearly 100 - from graduate students to division chiefs - signed by name. It comes the day before Bhattacharya is due to testify before Congress once more, in a budget hearing to be held Tuesday by the Senate appropriations committee. It's just the latest sign of strife from inside the NIH, where some staff last month staged a walkout of a townhall with Bhattacharya to protest working conditions and an inability to discuss them with the director. 'If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe,' said Dr. Jenna Norton, a program officer at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a lead organizer of the Declaration, in a news release from Stand Up for Science. She emphasized she was speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the NIH. The letter, which the staffers said they also sent to US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, urged Bhattacharya to 'restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue,' citing work in areas including health disparities, Covid-19, health impacts of climate change and others. They cited findings by two scientists that said about 2,100 NIH grants for about $9.5 billion have been terminated since the second Trump administration began. The NIH budget had been about $48 billion annually, and the Trump administration has proposed cutting it next year by about 40%. The research terminations 'throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars,' the NIH staffers wrote. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million.' They also urged Bhattacharya to reverse a policy that aims to implement a new, and lower, flat 15% rate for paying for indirect costs of research at universities, which supports shared lab space, buildings, instruments and other infrastructure, as well as the firing of essential NIH staff. Those who wrote the Bethesda Declaration were joined Monday by outside supporters, in a second letter posted by Stand Up for Science and signed by members of the public, including more than a dozen Nobel Prize-winning scientists. 'We urge NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership to work with NIH staff to return the NIH to its mission and to abandon the strategy of using NIH as a tool for achieving political goals unrelated to that mission,' they wrote. The letter called for the grant-making process to be conducted by scientifically trained NIH staff, guided by rigorous peer review, not by 'anonymous individuals outside of NIH.' It also challenged assertions put forward by Kennedy, who often compares today's health outcomes with those around the time his uncle John F. Kennedy was president, in the early 1960s. 'Since 1960, the death rate due to heart disease has been cut in half, going from 560 deaths per 100,000 people to approximately 230 deaths per 100,000 today,' they wrote. 'From 1960 to the present day, the five-year survival rate for childhood leukemia has increased nearly 10-fold, to over 90% for some forms. In 1960, the rate of measles infection was approximately 250 cases per 100,000 people compared with a near zero rate now (at least until recently).' They acknowledged there's still much work to do, including addressing obesity, diabetes and opioid dependency, 'but,' they wrote, 'glamorizing a mythical past while ignoring important progress made through biomedical research does not enhance the health of the American people.' Support from the NIH, they argued, made the US 'the internationally recognized hub for biomedical research and training,' leading to major advances in improving human health. 'I've never heard anybody say, 'I'm just so frustrated that the government is spending so much money on cancer research, or trying to address Alzheimer's,' ' said Dr. Jeremy Berg, who organized the letter of outside support and previously served as director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH. 'Health concerns are a universal human concern,' Berg told CNN. 'The NIH system is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but has been unbelievably productive in terms of generating progress on specific diseases.'
