Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

The VA wrangle

Why does new facility have to be a stand-alone hospital?

Rocky Mountain News

Published July 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

America owes its veterans a debt that can't be repaid. The very least we can do is ensure that those vets - some of whom come back from war with debilitating injuries or illnesses - receive the highest quality medical care.

No one in the dispute over the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' plans for the the Denver area would take issue with those statements. The disagreement is over how to deliver the best medical care, and whether the most expensive way is also the only way.

On one hand, there is a $1.1 billion plan to construct a stand-alone veterans hospital at the Fitzsimons medical complex in Aurora - championed by Sen. Ken Salazar and Rep. Ed Perlmutter, both Democrats, who have accused the administration of dragging its feet on the project and shelving a $4.5 million master plan for the campus in a stealth effort to cut costs.

On the other hand is the secretary of Veterans Affairs, who told the lawmakers in a July 18 letter that the final billion-dollar estimate far exceeded the $769 million previously submitted to Congress. "We therefore stopped further development of this schematic design and began exploring alternatives to satisfy the full program requirement within the (total estimated cost)," wrote James Peake.

Peake added that evolving medical practices and the location of many of the veterans themselves - spread out across the Rocky Mountain region - also argued for a different approach than a large, centralized facility. Mulling solutions that would put care closer to veterans' doorsteps, Peake sent the project back for review.

There are few things more frustrating than the pace of bureaucracy. Vets who brought shovels to Civic Center on Sunday feel that frustration, as talk about a new veterans hospital at Fitzsimons was first hatched 13 years ago. As the timeline distributed by Salazar and Perlmutter notes, the Fitzsimons site was pegged as a priority project in 2004, with agreement reached on the land price two years later.

But just because the VA, after its pricey review, suggests a tweak in the plans doesn't mean its new path should automatically be discounted.

And just because there are savings to be had doesn't necessarily mean that veterans won't get top-notch care.

Peake is still proposing a new building similar in size to the aging Clermont Street VA medical center, which would include outpatient surgical facilities, 22 nursing-home beds and 18 beds for those suffering from spinal injuries. Overnight patients would stay on floors leased from the University of Colorado Hospital, where veterans would have an exclusive entrance and additional spinal-injury beds. Peake estimates $500 million in savings on construction, which could then fund outpatient surgical centers - including one in Colorado Springs - and increased services in locations such as Grand Junction.

"We and Colorado's veterans want to work with the VA to find a reasonable and fiscally responsible way of getting the project done, but the fact is that we have an obligation to serve those who have served us," Salazar said at Sunday's press conference.

Absolutely. But could veterans receive top-notch care in facilities that are ready faster and cost less than the billion-dollar stand-alone hospital? The notion is definitely worth a second look.

Comments

  • July 22, 2008

    7:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    This country has let Vets down. I went through the alcohol treatment at the Cheyenne VA center 24 years ago. I have been a productive citizen since, Income and taxes paid soared since. But, the treatment at that time was in patient, now, it's out patient. The Government shoots itself in the foot by changing such things, I paid for the treatment 30 times over by paying more taxes. The ads to join the Military aims at patriotism yet they cut programs and benefits. We will never have a Military that is as strong as it should be if we continue, some of these kids are getting smarter, dead end venture to join.

  • July 22, 2008

    8:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dilligaf writes:

    I don't know what is like now but when I got out in 1972 medical care was only given to lifers (retired). See that was a tool they used back then and probably now for reenlisting. For not reenlisting that was your punishment. YOUR ON YOUR OWN!!!
    Notice I didn't blame either party? That's because the whole government in general is to blame.

  • July 22, 2008

    10:30 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    raysmom writes:

    Our gov't has gotten so big that nothing gets done in quick order- nothing good, that is. Except maybe pork projects- like the last minute extension of reparations that will DOUBLE the 300 BILLION $$$ Farm Bill boondoggle to rich landowners. Bush threatened to veto, but special interests won out again- bi-partisan interests that give these worthless bureucrats their cushy, high paid desk jobs. And now another 300 BILLION to bail out irresponsible lenders and homeowners- what's another 250 MILLION over budget on this project matter?

    I see both sides of this- the Dems like to spend other people's $$$ as a way of life, but who do we owe more to than our Veterans? And the Republicans are trying to be frugal and sensible, but since they have been spending like drunken whores the last 6 years, their "concerns" ring hollow. I don't know how we can get our country back from big gov't, but I certainly would like to- our $$$ would be better spent at a local level.

  • July 22, 2008

    11:29 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    paulasarlls writes:

    The entire CO congressional delegation has worked very diligently on this issue for several years and cooperated with the Veteran leadership every step of the way. The problem with this comes from a very high level within the VA and the administration in DC.

    Not only do we need a stand alone, superior hospital for our veterans, but with nearly 500,000 veterans in CO and 30% of Aurora being veterans, we need it quickly. A complete "Women's Center" is also needed within this facility as the female % of veterans is growing daily.

    I urge everyone to write to Sec Peake and to the President to express your concerns.

  • July 22, 2008

    12:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    StraightTalk writes:

    I am a Vet and currently use the VA Hospital. In fact I have Oncology and Physical Therapy appointments there tomorrow. I've experienced first-hand many of the things the VA Hospital offers. I think that it would be more cost effective for them to stay where they currently are, and maybe, take over part of the former University of Colorado Hospital, which (I assume) is largely unused.

    My main criticism of the VA Hospital is that many of the doctors consider the VA as a temporary step on their way to working at a "real hospital." All the care I have gotten (and continue to get) has been extremely good.

    Since I am a man, I'm not aware of how well the needs of women are currently being met (I'm referring to paulasarlis's post). It's possible that part of University of Colorado Hospital could be purchased to fill this (and other) needs.

  • July 22, 2008

    1:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BikerChick writes:

    ..
    The Biker Chick is a military vet.
    ..
    We had a great opportunity.

    Dr. Shore (C U) did his best to make it happen.

    It failed.

    Why ? LAZY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS - WHO THINK STRATEGIC PLANNING IS FOUND AT THE END OF YOUR NOSE.

    Too little, too late. The Colorado Congressional delegation refused to get their act together when the opportunity was ripe.

    To cover their posteriors, they screamed and yelled when it was too late.

    Every sitting Member of the U S Congress (Colorado folks) deserves to be dumped on their ear. No exceptions. Too little, too late.
    ..

  • July 23, 2008

    6:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    hogarm writes:

    Vietnam vet here. Have used VA for healthcare a lot of years.
    The VA healthcare system is the closest thing to “socialized medicine” we have in this country. Government owned facilities and government hired healthcare workers.
    Business Week magazine a couple of years ago investigated. (Goggle can find it for you.) By most outcome-based measures, VA does a better job than private plans. Has a high level of user satisfaction. Oh, yea, we do a lot of grousing! Started in that first chow line and we’re still at it. But deep down, most of us love our providers.
    In cost per patient, VA is more economical than private insurances, Medicare and Medicaid.
    In short, VA does a better job for less money.
    VA is every thing that the RMN thinks “socialized medicine” would not be.
    How can we give any credibility whatsoever to the RMN’s opinion on this subject when we are aware of its biases?

  • July 27, 2008

    5:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Frank25 writes:

    Served 26 years and retired in 1977. Volunteered through veteran organizations and sat in on briefings over the year. Many returning veterans of middle east wars have spinal cord injuries and the down-sized version offered in April, May, and July split Spinal Cord Injury beds in 2 parts. 12 beds in one building and 18 in another location. SCI center requires 30 beds minimum in one location to hire a specialized director, doctors and nurses. The veterans you see in wheel chairs needing more specialized care now, must be transported to Albuquerque, Portland, or Seattle. For these veterans time and transport safety is imperative. To suggestion of VAMC remaining on Clermont St, those buildings are 55 years old, and do not meet needs of some equipment needing higher ceilings, or space and are very inefficient for doctor-patient time. 21st century care has doctor seeing one patient, while another is undressing as needed in another room, and one just seen getting dressed to depart. Doctor can see more patients during duty time, and veterans do not have to sit in waiting room, hallways, or in office waiting. VA care today is much more efficient (but also more costly to provide) than 24 years ago. And for the vet who got out in 1972, VA care was not for "lifers". It was for "service-connected" veterans only. Category 7 and 8 did not come into existence until 2001. In the military "a griping soldier was a good soldier" and that continues. But it would help if you joined those of us in our 70s, 80s, and 90s, who have worked veteran issues through the years to maintain and to get new and better benefits into law. We are getting tired, and need relief. One last note: I see both sides of discussion as stated yesterday by Senator Salazar, and Dr.(Lt. Gen. Army, ret) Peake, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. VA is top rated by all the peer medical centers and reported in US News and World Reports. Many VA doctors are also University of Colorado Hospital Doctors, same as when co-located at Clermont and Colorado Blvd. UH, Childrens, Lions, and other providers moved to Fitzsimons Campus to work in newer and more efficient facilities, same as VAMC need now.

  • July 27, 2008

    6:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Frank25 writes:

    Biker Chick- You oversimplify the problem. Colorado delegation has supported our needs from 2002 to present. Legislation was introduced at proper levels, passed and moved on. But 3 secretaries in 7 years, 3 different plans, have changed dynamics from the beginning. Cost of building has gone up astronomically, just as healthcare increased. There has been a bit of skull-duggery within house and senate from other states who want their facility built or expanded before ours, so don't discount that either. Join veterans organization and get involved, and come to the briefings and help us "pull the wagon". Too many are riding in that wagon. We need help, moral support, and younger advocates. And as Paula wrote- contact your legislators and let them know how you feel. This VAMC will be built (?) to support all veterans, not just the 21st century warriors as some groups label themselves.