{"id":110002,"date":"2017-12-04T13:35:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-04T13:35:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T10:57:02","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T10:57:02","slug":"so-what-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/04\/so-what-story\/","title":{"rendered":"So, What&#39;s the Story?"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>Predictably, Congress has jumped into the middle of the growing scandal  at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. At least two  Congressional committees will launch hearings into the matter today; one  of the panels will actually meet on the grounds at Walter Reed, where  wounded veterans in an outpatient facility have endured sub-standard  living conditions, and bureaucratic snafus that delayed follow-up  treatment, sometimes for months. These problems were highlighted in  recent <em>Washington Post<\/em> reports, and the paper is continuing its investigation into veterans&#8217; health care.<\/p>\n<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2007\/03\/04\/AR2007030401394_pf.html\">today&#8217;s installment<\/a> in their series, <em>Post<\/em> reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull highlight problems at other  military heath care facilities around the country, including those run  by the Veterans Administration. Some of the problems reported at those  institutions sound similar to conditions at Walter Reed; over-crowded  billeting accomodations for wounded service members; poor living  conditions in some barracks or dormitories and mounds of red tape that  make it difficult to get needed treatment in a timely manner.<\/p>\n<p>There is one caveat to this most recent <em>Post<\/em> report&#8211;one that the paper doesn&#8217;t offer. Many of the complaints cited  by Priest and Hull were submitted to the paper by e-mail, or culled from  on-line military and veterans&#8217; forums. While I have no reason to dobut  the validity of these claims, there is no indication that anyone from  the Post has actually visited the military hospitals at Ft Knox and Ft  Campbell in Kentucky; Ft Dix, New Jersey, and Fort Irwin,  California&#8211;all run by the U.S. Army.<\/p>\n<p>Anyone see a pattern here?  Army health care is suffering for various reasons, including chronic  under-funding in the 1990s. As the service reduced the number of  soldiers on active duty, it made corresponding cuts in its military  heath-care system, with little regard for future conflicts and potential  casualties. If the first Gulf War was a template, then much of the  heavy lifting would be done by airpower, with ground forces waging a  short, decisive land campaign after the air component finished its job.  Under that sceanario, casualties among ground forces would be limited  and relatively light, allowing the Army to downsize its medical system.<\/p>\n<p>At  the same time, advances in military medicine were dramatically  improving survival prospects for troops wounded on the battlefield.  Injuries that proved fatal in the past were now survivable, thanks to  improvements in trauma care and the perfection of a medevac system that  delivers wounded soldiers to field hospitals within minutes, and to  major military medical centers in Germany or the U.S. within 24 hours of  the incident. With more troops surviving their wounds, that created the  potential for larger numbers of service personnel requiring months of  outpatient care and rehabilitation, but that scenario was not reflected  in Army budgets or programming priorities. Extended occupations of  hostile areas&#8211;with significant casualties&#8211;were simply not factored in  recent Army and Pentagon budgets.<\/p>\n<p>And the blame doesn&#8217;t end with  the Army. During the Vietnam War, there was a major expansion of the  military health care system and VA facilities, to accomodate large  numbers of wounded from those conflicts. When I entered the Air Force in  the early 1980s, even the smallest base hospitals could accomodate  combat casualties, and provide both short and medium-term care. A friend  of mine, who worked at an installation hospital in South Carolina, told  me that his facility could handle as many as 100 wounded troops, if  required, by opening up a vacant wing of the hospital, and squeezing  more beds into existing rooms. That may not sound like much, but  multiply that capacity by the number of Air Force installations with  &#8220;small&#8221; hospitals, and you&#8217;ll see that there was a significant &#8220;surge&#8221;  capacity.<\/p>\n<p>So, what happened to those extra beds? Eliminated in  budget cuts, beginning in the late 80s and stretching well into the next  decade. By that time, &#8220;outsourcing&#8221; had become the rule of thumb.  Military dependents were sent to civilian hospitals (to save money), and  many AF hospitals became little more than glorified clinics, performing  only minor surgery. Military patients requiring more complex procedures  were sent &#8220;downtown,&#8221; or flown to larger military medical facilities.<\/p>\n<p>But  the cutbacks weren&#8217;t limited to the smaller military hospitals. In the  early 1990s, I was stationed at Keesler AFB, on the Mississippi Gulf  Coast. Keesler is the second-largest hospital in the Air Force; only  Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio is larger. But even in that  era, Keesler was losing &#8220;capacity.&#8221; A hospital built to handle hundreds  of wounded in the Vietnam era could accomodate only a fraction of that  20 years later. I don&#8217;t have any current statistics for Keesler, or some  of the &#8220;other&#8221; major Air Force hospitals (Wright-Patterson, Andrews,  Travis, etc), but it would be interesting to know how the reduction in  their &#8220;surge&#8221; capacity has affected military health care in the GWOT.  Again, there was no malicious intent in these reductions; based on the  &#8220;perceived&#8221; threat environment, the military saw a chance to save money,  and downsized its health care network.<\/p>\n<p>Today&#8217;s <em>Post<\/em>  article also lists complaints about the VA medical system, where many  wounded vets seek treatment after being discharged. Anyone with even a  rudimentary knowledge of the agency and its workings knows that VA  health care has been &#8220;hard broke&#8221; for years. Veterans and retirees with  &#8220;other&#8221; health care options make it a point to avoid the system,  whenever possible. Large numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans  entering the VA network will only make the situation worse, and  certainly, our wounded warriors deserve better than that.<\/p>\n<p>But  wait a minute. Not long ago, the VA was being touted as model for the  nation, and (potentially) a blueprint for some sort of universal health  care system. This article from <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.time.com\/time\/magazine\/printout\/0,8816,1376238,00.html\">Time <\/a>(<\/em>27 August 2006<em>)<\/em> touts high-tech advances in the VA&#8217;s development of computerized  medical records and a high-tech system for quickly dispensing  prescriptions. That &#8220;state-of-the-art&#8221; system doesn&#8217;t exactly square  with the complaints listed in the most recent <em>Post<\/em> article.<\/p>\n<p>So,  what&#8217;s the real story? Behind that dilapadated building and those  bureaucratic snafus at Walter Reed, you&#8217;ll find a military health care  system was &#8220;downsized&#8221; and &#8220;outsourced&#8221; throughout the 1990s. And, many  of the decisions that produced the current scandal at Walter Reed were  made before 9-11; for example, the <em>Post<\/em> barely mentions that  the military has been trying to close Walter Reed for years, and  consolidate operations at Bethesda Naval Hospital outside  Washington&#8211;the facility where members of Congress are treated. Walter  Reed is slated for closing on the most recent BRAC list, making it a  lower priority for funding, despite the influx of wounded from Iraq and  Afghanistan.<\/p>\n<p>As for the VA, the system was never as good as <em>Time<\/em> advertised, but such articles did serve a political purpose, suggesting  that government-sponsored health care could be as good, or even better  than the private sector. And, it&#8217;s no coincidence that some of the  magazine&#8217;s favorite politicians (Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama come  to mind) are pushing national health care in their presidential  campaigns. The &#8220;real&#8221; VA is on display in that annecdote from today&#8217;s <em>Post<\/em> story, where staffers argue over who has to bathe a badly wounded  soldier from Iraq, and his parents discover that the young man was  burned because a nurse left him in a shower too long.<\/p>\n<p>Truth be  told, the problems in military health care (and the VA) began long  before Dana Priest stumbled into Building 18 at Walter Reed. And, they  will continue long after the Congressional hearings end, and the <em>Post <\/em>moves  on to its next scandal du jour. The real question is whether the  current problems at Walter Reed&#8211;and continuing difficulties in the VA  network&#8211;will be enough to prompt genuine change, and introduce  market-oriented solutions into the system. The military clearly needs to  develop a mechanism for increasing its surge capacity, perhaps leasing  space at underused civilian facilities, or (borrowing a page from the  Civil Reserve Air Fleet), paying part of the costs for building local  hospitals, in exchange for access to those institutions, as needs  warrant. Or, the answer might be as simply as reopening some of those  smaller, near-dormant base hospitals, and utilizing them to care for  wounded warriors.<\/p>\n<p>As for the VA, I think Congress had the right  idea in the early 90s, when key members advocated scrapping the system  altogether, and starting anew. Contrary to what the folks at <em>Time<\/em> might think<em>,<\/em> the VA health care network remains woefully inefficient, and it&#8217;s  hardly a model for the nation. If anything good comes out of the Walter  Reed scandal&#8211;other than improving care and accomodations for wounded  troops&#8211;it will be the needed &#8220;debunking&#8221; of recent myths involving the  VA and the supposed quality of its care.<\/p>\n<p>If the Post is genuinely  serious about this issue&#8211;and I have my doubts&#8211;they need to dig much  deeper on this issue, and examine the underlying causes. The Post  editorial board and a Democratic Congress will be tempted to dump this  scandal at the feet of the Bush Administration&#8211;and they are not without  blame. But some of the decisions that led to the problems at Walter  Reed (and within the VA) were made years ago, and those retired  officials and generals need to held accountable, too.<\/p>\n<p>***<\/p>\n<p>On  one of those talking head shows over the weekend, retired Army Major  General Bob Scales said the scandal at Walter Reed was evidence of a  service that was &#8220;underfunded&#8221; for the past decade. General Scales is  right&#8211;to a point. Certainly, the Army didn&#8217;t fare as well in the budget  wars as the Air Force or the Navy. Still, the service was the master of  the resources it received, and somewhere in the chain, the Army brass  decided to save money in its health care system, leading to some of the  conditions on display at Walter Reed. Unfortunately, Scales&#8217; comments  are merely the latest variation on the theme that &#8220;Don Rumsfeld screwed  the Army.&#8221; I reality, the service did a pretty fair job of screwing  itself, pouring billions into weapons systems that were later scrapped  (Comanche helicopter, the Crusader self-propelled howitzer), while  pinching pennies in other areas, including health care.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Predictably, Congress has jumped into the middle of the growing scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. At least two Congressional committees will launch hearings into the matter today; one of the panels will actually meet on the grounds at Walter Reed, where wounded veterans in an outpatient facility have endured sub-standard living [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110002"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110002"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110002\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110002"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110002"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110002"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}