The VA: Stop this contagion
Like a rapidly spreading contagion, mounting evidence shows the Department of Veterans Affairs dishonoring its sacred mission and evading accountability in multiple locations — a systemic ailment that requires a drastic cure.
VA health-care facilities' deadly Pittsburgh-area Legionella outbreak is but one symptom. Another, first alleged by a newly retired VA doctor who told CNN at least 40 veterans died awaiting care in Phoenix, is use of sham waiting lists to conceal months-long waits for doctor's appointments from VA officials in Washington.
After the House Veterans Affairs Committee chairman asked the VA to order evidence preserved in Phoenix, it waited eight days before doing so. Now, another Phoenix VA doctor, alleging evidence destruction, has provided sham-list records to the Arizona Republic.
An internal VA investigation has found another sham waiting list was used at a VA clinic in Fort Collins, Colo., USA Today reports. But that probe couldn't confirm resulting harm to veterans, and VA officials there — blaming confusion, not malfeasance — aren't disciplining anyone.
It's all too much for the American Legion, whose commander is calling for VA Secretary Eric Shinseki to step down. His resignation would be fitting, but the VA's systemic ills can't be treated solely at the top or bottom — and it can't be trusted to heal itself.
The VA desperately needs a thorough housecleaning at all levels — and Congress must ensure that happens.
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.