Share This Page

VA chief orders nationwide audit of care

| Thursday, May 8, 2014, 9:03 p.m.

WASHINGTON — A House committee voted on Thursday to subpoena records relating to the Phoenix veterans hospital's waiting list.

Meanwhile, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki has ordered a nationwide audit of access to care that the agency provides. He brushed aside calls for his resignation and got an unexpected political lifeline from House Speaker John Boehner.

“I'm not ready to join the chorus of people calling on him to step down,” Boehner said, although there is a “systemic management issue throughout the VA that needs to be addressed.”

The American Legion and some in Congress have called for Shinseki's ouster based on allegations that 40 patients died when they didn't get care in time at the Phoenix VA hospital and that the hospital hid the delays.

The House Veterans Affairs Committee voted unanimously to subpoena all records in which VA officials might have discussed destruction of a hospital “wait list.”

A top VA official told congressional staff last month that a “secret list” referred to in news reports might have been the hospital's “interim list.”

Shinseki answered in a letter on Wednesday that VA employees used “transitory or interim notes ... for reference purposes” as they were moving information to the new electronic waitlist system. Regulations require that such notes be destroyed when they are no longer needed for reference.

Dissatisfied with his response, the committee subpoenaed all records on the destruction and gave Shinseki until 9 a.m. May 19 to produce them.

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.