Another Veterans Administration outrage: Sheer arrogance
Published: Thursday, June 20, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
Two high-ranking officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs say they support recently introduced legislation requiring hospitals to disclose Legionnaires' and other infectious diseases to state and local officials. But they want to be exempt from paying fines for failing to do so and, oh, yes, they want the mandate to be “voluntary.”
Robert L. Jesse, the VA's deputy undersecretary for health, told a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee on Wednesday that the agency “is committed” to better reporting. Jane Clare Joyner, the VA's assistant general counsel, says fines would be better spent on patient care.
Well, isn't that special. The same VA that appears to have worked overtime to escape accountability — and, dare we say it, gone to great lengths to hide years and years of repeated Legionella bacterial outbreaks at its Pittsburgh-area hospitals that killed people and sickened others — now wants a special dispensation.
Talk about arrogance.
Congress should not budge one fraction of an inch in demanding rigorous infectious disease reporting to all levels of government. And VA officials, especially those overseeing Pittsburgh operations, should feign no surprise should the Justice Department bring criminal charges for such reprehensibly lax, if not reckless, conduct.
Supporters of the reporting requirement call the fines a “compliance motivator.” Given the VA's consistent behavior, we can think of no better “compliance motivator” than an indictment and the threat of prison time.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Detroit’s bankruptcy: An object lesson
- ‘China City’