VA Disability Benefits:

Additional Planning Would Enhance Efforts to Improve the Timeliness of Appeals Decisions

GAO-17-234: Published: Mar 23, 2017. Publicly Released: Mar 23, 2017.

Additional Materials:


Daniel Bertoni
(202) 512-7215


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

What GAO Found

The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) is taking steps to improve the timeliness of its benefit compensation appeals process, in which veterans who are dissatisfied with claims decisions by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) can appeal first to VBA, and then to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board). VA has taken actions related to increasing staff, reforming the process, and updating information technology (IT), which are consistent with relevant sound planning practices. However, gaps in planning exist, thereby reducing the agency's ability to ensure that these actions will improve the timeliness of disability appeals decisions.

Increase staff: VA determined that staff resources have not sufficiently kept pace with increased pending appeals, and concluded that additional staff are needed, particularly at the Board, to improve timeliness and reduce its appeals inventory. The Board received approval to hire more staff in fiscal year 2017, and expects to need an additional hiring surge beginning in fiscal year 2018. As of October 2016, officials estimated that if the agency does not take any action, such as increasing staff in 2018, veterans may have to wait an average of 8.5 years by fiscal year 2026 to have their appeals resolved.

Consistent with sound workforce planning practices, VA modeled different options for increasing staff levels to support its conclusion that staff increases in conjunction with process change would reduce the appeals inventory sooner. However, contrary to sound practices, VA often used fixed estimates for key variables in its models—such as staff productivity—rather than a range of estimates (sensitivity analysis) to understand the effect variation in these key variables could have on staffing needs. Also, VA's written workforce plans—which cover recruiting, hiring and training—did not include detailed steps, time frames, and mitigation strategies consistent with sound workforce planning practices. For example, while VA has established a center for excellence in hiring to focus on recruitment and hiring the agency has not finalized training or telework plans or otherwise mitigated space constraints that it encountered for hiring staff in fiscal year 2017. Without a timely, detailed workforce plan, VA risks delays in hiring and preparing staff to help manage workloads as soon as possible.

Reform process: VA determined that new evidence—which a veteran can submit at any point during his or her appeal—inefficiently causes an additional round of reviews, and thus delays appeals decisions, and in response it proposed legislation (not enacted) to streamline the process. Consistent with sound practices for process redesign, VA worked with veterans service organizations (VSO) and other key stakeholders in developing the proposal, and continued to update VSOs about the development of its implementation plans.

VA's proposed reform is promising, but there are several gaps in its implementation plans. In particular, VA plans to fully implement appeals process reform at the Board as well as at VBA regional offices across the country while it concurrently manages the existing appeals inventory, a hiring surge, and planned system changes discussed below. However, VA's plans run counter to sound redesign practices that suggest pilot testing the process changes in a more limited fashion before full implementation, in order to manage risks and help ensure successful implementation of significant institutional change. VA officials told GAO that pilot testing—which would require legislation to implement—will prolong a process that is fundamentally broken and delay urgently needed repairs. However, without pilot testing VA may experience challenges and setbacks on a broader scale, which could undermine planned efficiencies and other intended outcomes. In addition, VA has not sufficiently identified how it will monitor progress, evaluate efficiency and effectiveness, identify trouble spots, and otherwise know whether implementation of its proposed process change is on track and meeting expectations. The absence of a robust monitoring plan with success criteria is inconsistent with sound planning practices for redesign and places the agency at risk of not being able to quickly identify and address setbacks. In addition, the timeliness measures that VA currently plans to report to Congress and the public lack transparency because they focus on individual parts of the agency and pieces of the new process rather than overall appeals resolution time from the veterans' perspective. Without a strategy for assessing the proposed new process that includes comprehensive measures, VA, the public, and Congress cannot know the extent to which the proposed process represents an improvement over the old process.

Update technology: VA determined that the computer system supporting its appeals process is outdated, prone to failures, and does not adequately support electronic claims processing. VA proposed a new IT system to reduce delays in appeals to the Board, and better integrate data from other systems. Consistent with sound practices, VA clearly laid out the scope and purpose of IT upgrades, and identified risks and strategies to mitigate them. However, the agency's plan lacks details for how and when its new system will be implemented, as suggested by sound planning practices for implementing new technology. Without a detailed schedule, VA risks not having new systems aligned with potential changes in the appeals process when they are implemented.

Why GAO Did This Study

VA compensates veterans for disabling conditions incurred in or aggravated by military service. Veterans can appeal VBA's decisions on their compensation claims, first to VBA and then to the Board, a separate agency within VA. In fiscal year 2015, more than 427,000 appeals were pending and veterans waited over 3 years on average for decisions. Of this total, about 81,000 were pending at the Board and the average cumulative time veterans waited for a decision by the Board in 2015 was almost 5 years.

This report examines VA's approaches to address challenges it identified as contributing to lengthy appeals processing times, and the extent to which those approaches are consistent with sound planning practices.

GAO focused mainly on the Board, which experienced an increase in workload of about 20 percent from fiscal year 2014 to 2015. GAO reviewed VA's proposed plans and actions and compared them to sound practices relevant to workforce planning and implementing process redesign and new information technology identified in federal guidance, such as internal control standards, and prior GAO work. GAO also analyzed VA's data for fiscal years 2011-2015 (the most recent available) on appeals decision timeliness and workloads; reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and planning documents; and interviewed VA officials and veterans service organizations.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making five recommendations to VA and one matter for congressional consideration. VA should: apply sensitivity analyses when projecting staff needs, develop a more timely and detailed workforce plan, develop a robust plan for monitoring process reform, develop a strategy for assessing process reform, and create a schedule for IT improvements that takes into account plans for potential process reform. VA concurred in principle with the five recommendations, but believes it has met the intent of those recommendations and does not need to take additional action. GAO disagrees and—while recognizing VA's ongoing efforts—believes further action is needed on all five recommendations to improve VA's ability to successfully implement reforms, as discussed in the report.

VA disagreed with an additional draft recommendation that it incorporate pilot testing of its proposed appeals process into implementation plans and pursue necessary legislative authority. VA cited its perspective that the appeals process is broken and that piloting a new process would result in further delays to veterans appealing their disability decisions. GAO maintains that the benefits of pilot testing—which provides an opportunity to resolve implementation challenges and make refinements to the process on a smaller scale—outweigh the potentially negative consequences of delaying full implementation. Therefore, GAO removed the recommendation and added a matter for congressional consideration stating that Congress should consider requiring that appeals process reform be subject to a pilot test.

For more information, contact Daniel Bertoni at (202) 512-7215 or

Matter for Congressional Consideration

  1. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: In August 2017, Congress enacted the Veteran Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act (P.L. 115-55). This legislation grants the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the ability to carry out such programs as the Secretary considers appropriate to test any assumptions relied upon in developing the comprehensive plan required by section 3(a) of the Act and to test the feasibility and advisability of any facet of the new appeals system.

    Matter: To improve VA's ability to successfully implement appeals process reform, Congress should consider requiring that reforms of the VA disability appeals process be subject to a pilot test. To aid in the development of such a pilot test, Congress could require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to propose options that would allow the agency the flexibility to test and refine the new process in a cost-effective and efficient manner, while ensuring pre-established interim goals and success criteria are being met prior to full implementation.

Recommendations for Executive Action

  1. Status: Open

    Comments: VA took additional steps to recruit, hire, manage space and train additional FTEs to address appeals workloads. However, detailed workforce plans would help ensure timely hiring and proper supports and training. We will close this recommendation when VA provides documentation of its actions and related guidance in several areas: agency telework plan; case adjudication in an virtual environment; status of hiring for FY17; hiring goals for FY18; space management plan indicating how FY17 and FY18 hiring will be accommodated; and plans for ongoing training for remote teleworkers.

    Recommendation: To further align efforts to address appeals workload and improve timeliness of decisions, and reduce the risk that efforts will not go as planned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits; the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals; and the Chief Information Officer, as appropriate, to ensure development of a timely, detailed workforce plan for recruiting, hiring and training new hires. In particular, this plan should: (1) include detailed steps and timetables for updating training curriculum (such as preparing decisions in a virtual environment) and ensuring office space (such as telework guidance); and (2) incorporate risk mitigation strategies that consider how the timing of recruitment and training dovetails with uncertain time frames for implementing a new appeals process.

    Agency Affected: Department of Veterans Affairs

  2. Status: Open

    Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation. In July 2017, VA reported its latest actions to address this recommendation, including documentation of the 6-month road map. However, we continue to believe that while the agile process can help mitigate risks and avoid cost overruns and delays, VA should define schedules beyond 6 months. Such planning allows VA to take additional steps to consider the scope of potential changes required by a new appeals process and have a broad plan in place to ensure that all aspects of the new process are adequately supported by Caseflow.

    Recommendation: To further align efforts to address appeals workload and improve timeliness of decisions, and reduce the risk that efforts will not go as planned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits; the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals; and the Chief Information Officer, as appropriate, to develop a schedule for IT updates that explicitly addresses when and how any process reform will be integrated into new systems and when Caseflow will be ready to support a potential streamlined appeals process at its onset.

    Agency Affected: Department of Veterans Affairs

  3. Status: Closed - Implemented

    Comments: As of May 2018, VA developed a new forecast model that allows it to change assumptions related to key variables-both individually and in conjunction with one another. Variables include rates that veterans with pending appeals opt out of the legacy process into the new one, refile rates (in cases where veteran agrees with appeal decision under new system), Board remand rates under new and legacy process, annual number of VBA claim decisions and claim disagreement rates (appeals), productivity under new and legacy processes, percent of appeals under various options in the new process, and staff assigned to work in various VBA review options and Board appeal dockets. Among other things, VA anticipates that this model will allow the agency to project potential budget needs and staffing requirements and more accurately predict resolution of legacy appeals given certain assumptions. Further, VA anticipates using the model to determine an efficient distribution of resources, and quickly react to changes in its pending legacy and new appeals processes, as well as changes in claimant behavior and other trends. While VA's actions taken to date address this recommendation, we will continue monitoring VA's application of this forecast model to inform decision making related to implementing appeals reform, pursuant to recommendation 4 in GAO-18-352.

    Recommendation: To further align efforts to address appeals workload and improve timeliness of decisions, and reduce the risk that efforts will not go as planned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits; the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals; and the Chief Information Officer, as appropriate, to conduct additional sensitivity analyses based on the assumptions used in projection models to more accurately estimate future appeals inventories and timeliness. In doing so, consider running additional analyses on how these factors, in conjunction with one another, may affect the timeliness and cost of deciding pending appeals.

    Agency Affected: Department of Veterans Affairs

  4. Status: Open

    Comments: VA agreed in principle with this recommendation. However, to fully implement it, VA needs to develop a monitoring plan with metrics and interim goals for implementing appeal process reform. Although VA agreed that developing such a plan is valuable for monitoring the implementation of process reform, VA also stated that it considered this recommendation complete and noted that preparing such a detailed plan depends on appeals reform legislation being enacted. While we recognize that VA cannot assume to know the exact provisions that may be included in future enacted legislation, we consider having a more robust monitoring plan - for example, that includes metrics and interim goals to help track implementation progress, evaluate efficiency and effectiveness of the reformed process, and identify trouble spots - to be essential to the successful implementation of a new appeals process.

    Recommendation: To further align efforts to address appeals workload and improve timeliness of decisions, and reduce the risk that efforts will not go as planned, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits; the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals; and the Chief Information Officer, as appropriate, to develop a more robust plan for closely monitoring implementation of process reform that includes metrics and interim goals to help track progress, evaluate efficiency and effectiveness, and identify trouble spots.

    Agency Affected: Department of Veterans Affairs

  5. Status: Open

    Comments: VA concurred in principle with this recommendation and reported on its plans to measure veteran wait times as well as use customer satisfaction surveys to measure the success of the new appeals process. However, while we agree that metrics based on the different options could be valuable for VA, the Congress, and the public, we disagree that VA's focus on measuring timeliness by option is in the best interest of the veteran. Because veterans may pursue more than one option under VBA, the Board or both, we believe that VA's approach does not take into account the veteran's perspective of how long it took for them to receive a final appeal decision. Metrics from the veterans' overall perspective would complement, not replace, metrics for VBA, the Board, and each option. The absence of such metrics raises questions as to how the agency will ensure appropriate resources are devoted to managing appeals under the new versus old process, or intended results are achieved as the new process is implemented. Further, while the legislation requires VA to report a number of metrics, the agency still needs to implement the legislation. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA develops a plan for collecting metrics consistent with this recommendation.

    Recommendation: To better understand whether appeals process reform, in conjunction with other efforts, has improved timeliness, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Under Secretary for Benefits; the Chairman, Board of Veterans' Appeals; and the Chief Information Officer, as appropriate to develop a strategy for assessing process reform--relative to the current process--that ensures transparency in reporting to Congress and the public on the extent to which VA is improving veterans' experiences with its disability appeals process.

    Agency Affected: Department of Veterans Affairs


Explore the full database of GAO's Open Recommendations »

Sep 13, 2018

Sep 5, 2018

Sep 4, 2018

Jul 31, 2018

Jul 24, 2018

Jul 19, 2018

Jun 26, 2018

Jun 21, 2018

Jun 4, 2018

May 7, 2018

Looking for more? Browse all our products here