About that Scary VA Funding Email Going Around. . .

by: Brandon Friedman

Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 12:52:16 PM EST

A new report from the Congressional Budget Office shows why some military retirees and veterans could face higher out-of-pocket costs if the Obama administration and Congress take bold moves to reform the U.S. health system and to make federal health programs more efficient.

Among 115 "options" presented, though not endorsed, in the CBO report, several focus on raising Tricare out-of-pocket costs for retirees and one targets families.  Others would tighten access to VA hospitals and clinics, or raise VA health fees, for veterans with no service-connected conditions.

Throughout the piece, Philpott raises red flags about the Obama administration and how he suspects that Peter Orszag, White House Director of the Office of Management and Budget (who formerly worked at the CBO), is conniving to raise costs for America's veterans.  And now, this piece is making its way through the anti-Obama email grapevine, as administration opponents key on it as "proof" that the administration doesn't support vets.  I'm getting the standard "Is this email true?" questions.  

So let's take a closer look.

The problem here is that Philpott is basing all his assumptions on a single CBO report that provided a wide range of options--some of which raise costs for veterans, some of which lower them.  Now, first of all, the idea that Philpott would tie this to Obama is a little off.  The Congressional Budget Office works for Congress, not the President.  Second, the CBO comes out with reports all the time, some of which have good policy ideas and some of which are crazy.  But to focus on a few "options" in a single Congressional report, and then to use the words "retirees," "veterans," "higher out-of-pocket costs," and "Obama" all in the same initial sentence is a little much.  Especially when there's no evidence at all that this will come to pass.

The fact is, no one is 100 percent certain what next year's budget will or won't cover yet.  So in trying to divine the answers, veterans have a couple of options: They can rely on Philpott's theorizing and liberal use of the word "could," or they could visit the White House's web page for the 2010 budget which includes information for each department.  For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the first item highlighted for the Obama budget reads:

Increases funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by $25 billion above baseline over the next five years.

And the second sentence reads:

Dramatically increases funding for veterans health care.

To go along with that commitment, White House spokesperson Nick Shapiro had this to say on the topic yesterday via email:

The details of specific proposals will be transmitted with the full submission in April. The President has made it clear that meeting the needs of veterans is one of his priorities, and as a result has requested an 11 percent increase in discretionary funding for 2010 and the Administration is actively working with the Veterans community to ensure we get the details of this budget right.

So, the bottom line is that if you get forwarded one of these emails parroting Philpott's piece, just realize that it's based conjecture and speculation, and not on anything coming from the White House with regard to how veterans will be treated by this administration.  The White House is, in fact, working with veterans groups, and there's no reason to think they won't get this right.