Skip to Highlights
Highlights

What GAO Found

The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) plan for implementing a new disability appeals process while attending to appeals in the current process addresses most, but not all, elements required by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Act). VA's appeals plan addresses 17 of 22 required elements, partially addresses 4, and does not address 1. For example, not addressed is the required element to include the resources needed by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) to implement the new appeals process and address legacy appeals under the current process. VA needs this information to certify, as specified under the Act, that it has sufficient resources to implement appeals reform and make timely appeals decisions under the new and legacy processes.

VA's appeals plan reflects certain sound planning practices, but it could benefit from including important details in several key planning areas:

Performance measurement: VA's plan reflects steps taken to track performance, but could articulate a more complete and balanced set of goals and measures for monitoring and assessing performance on a range of dimensions of success. Specifically, the plan reports that VA is developing a process to track timeliness of the new and legacy processes. However, contrary to sound planning practices, the plan does not include timeliness goals for all five appeals options available to veterans, does not include goals or measures for additional aspects of performance (such as accuracy or cost), and does not explain how VA will monitor or assess the new process compared to the legacy process. Unless VA clearly articulates a complete and balanced set of goals and measures, it could inadvertently incentivize staff to focus on certain aspects of appeals performance over others or fail to improve overall service to veterans.

Project management: VA's plan includes a master schedule for implementing the new appeals plan. However, this schedule falls short of other sound practices for guiding implementation and establishing accountability, such as articulating interim goals and needed resources for, and interdependencies among, activities. Unless VA augments its master schedule to include all key activities and reflect sound practices, VA may be unable to provide reasonable assurance that it has the essential program management information needed for this complex and important effort.

Risk assessment: VA has taken steps to assess and mitigate some risks related to appeals reform by, for example, pilot testing two of the five appeals options through its Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP). However, as designed, RAMP does not include key features of a well-developed and documented pilot test. For example, VA has not articulated how it will assess RAMP before proceeding with full implementation. In addition, RAMP is not pilot testing three options and, as a result, VA will not have data on the extent to which veterans will appeal directly to the Board when given the option. Unless VA identifies and mitigates key risks associated with implementing a new process, VA is taking a chance that untested aspects will not perform as desired.

Why GAO Did This Study

VA's disability compensation program pays cash benefits to veterans with disabilities connected to their military service. In recent years, the number of appeals of VA's benefit decisions has been rising. For decisions made on appeal in fiscal year 2017, veterans waited an average of 3 years for resolution by either VBA or the Board, and 7 years for resolution by the Board. The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 makes changes to VA's current (legacy) appeals process, giving veterans new options to have their claims further reviewed by VBA or appeal directly to the Board. The Act requires VA to submit to Congress and GAO a plan for implementing a new appeals process, and includes a provision for GAO to assess VA's plan.

This report examines the extent to which VA's plan (1) addresses the required elements in the Act, and (2) reflects sound planning practices identified in prior GAO work. GAO reviewed and assessed VA's appeals plan and related documents against sound planning practices, and solicited VA's views on its assessments.

Skip to Recommendations

Recommendations

GAO recommends that VA (1) fully address all legally required elements in its appeals plan, (2) articulate how it will monitor and assess the new appeals process as compared to the legacy process, (3) augment its master schedule for implementation, and (4) address risk more fully. VA agreed with GAO's recommendations and outlined its planned actions to address them.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Veterans Affairs 1. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should address all of the required elements in the Act in VA's appeals plan to Congress--including delineating resources required for all VBA and Board appeals options--using sensitivity analyses and RAMP results, where appropriate and needed. (Recommendation 1)
Closed - Not Implemented
VA took some steps to address the required elements but not enough to fully address it before implementing the Appeals Modernization Act in February 2019. VA's updated plan added information related to the five required elements. And for two of the elements - monitoring the processing of legacy appeals, and projecting staff productivity - it described using sensitivity models and other analyses to monitor and forecast future VBA and Board workloads, production, and staffing requirements. However, as of February 2019 when the agency implemented reform, the agency only partially addressed three elements: 1) monitoring progress toward implementation of the new process, 2) delineating total resources, and 3) identifying personnel requirements. Regarding element 1, VA set various goals or metrics for appeal options but did not establish well-defined, measurable criteria (such as for the testing of the new appeals processes) against which it could have assessed readiness for implementing appeals reform. For element 2, VA's plan projected the number of needed VBA and Board personnel and added FTE information for other offices that help implement the appeals process and used a model to monitor resource needs. As of February 2019, however, the plan did not delineate the total resources required by VBA and the Board, such as resources related to fully implementing information technology, training, and onboarding new Board staff in FY20 and beyond. Regarding element 3, VBA and the Board used modeling to project personnel needs and identified solutions to scale back resources when it is no longer processing legacy appeals. However, as of February 2019, the Board had not provided similar details about how it would address future personnel needs; and neither VBA nor the Board provide projected staffing levels when VA is no longer processing any legacy appeals. Overall, we continue to believe that VA was missing information required by the Act prior to implementing appeals reform.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Priority Rec.
This is a priority recommendation.
2. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should clearly articulate in VA's appeals plan how VA will monitor and assess the new appeals process compared to the legacy process, including specifying a balanced set of goals and measures--such as timeliness goals for all VBA appeals options and Board dockets, and measures of accuracy, veteran satisfaction, and cost--and related baseline data. (Recommendation 2)
Open
VA initially concurred with this recommendation and, as of February 2021, reported a number of steps it took to monitor the new and legacy appeals process vis a vis various performance indicators. In its October 2020 action plan to address high-risk issues and a February 2021 progress report to Congress, VA reported on a range of performance metrics for both new and legacy appeals, including average days pending and to complete appeals and remand rates. VA also reported it has deployed surveys to assess the veteran experience with both the new and legacy appeals processes. Moreover, in April 2021, VA indicated it will establish timeliness goals for all options (lanes) of the new appeals process by the third quarter of 2021. However, VA has not reported - and it is not clear the extent to which VA tracks - complete performance metrics for timeliness, accuracy, productivity, and veterans' satisfaction that can be used to monitor and assess the new appeals process against the legacy appeals processes. In addition, in April 2021 VBA officials said they no longer agreed with the need to compare the legacy and new appeals processes. They stated that the new process is timelier than the legacy process, and comparing the two processes would provide no value and would be too difficult to assess because the processes are fundamentally different. We continue to believe that developing a methodology and assessing the relative efficacy of the new process is important to understand whether the new process is an improvement and meets veterans' needs. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA provides details on how it will draw comparisons using a balanced set of metrics that, at a minimum, include timeliness, accuracy, and veterans' satisfaction.
Department of Veterans Affairs 3. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should augment the master schedule for VA's appeals plan to reflect all activities--such as modifications to information technology (IT) systems--as well as assigned responsibilities, interdependencies, start and end dates for key activities for each workgroup, and resources, to establish accountability and reduce overall risk of implementation failures. (Recommendation 3)
Open
VA concurred with this recommendation. Since our report was issued, VA took significant action on its project plan and in February 2019, implemented the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. VA provided increasingly more details in updates to its plan about sub-activities related to processing legacy appeals, monitoring implementation, drafting Board policies, training, and testing of the new process. For example, VA added activities related to the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) test of the VBA-only options as well as the test of the new Board options. In spring and summer 2018, according to VA officials, VA set a baseline schedule for implementing appeals reform in response to the potential February 2019 implementation date established in the Act. In October 2018, VA provided us with lower-level schedules and other related information that allowed us to conduct a more detailed assessment of VA's IMS against applicable best practices criteria. However, as of December 2018, VA's schedule did not fully align with best practices. For example, VA's schedule did not contain a work breakdown structure that defines the work, activities, and resources necessary to accomplish implementation-details that would inform resources and time needed for the project. (For details on this assessment, see GAO-19-272T.) While VA fully implemented appeals reform in February 2019, incorporating such lessons learned into future project planning could help VA improve its project scheduling capabilities. Specifically, in February 2020 VA reported that Caseflow-VA's replacement system intended to support appeals reform-had "minimal functionality," with many functionalities yet to be implemented. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA has produced a more complete plan for-and that establishes accountability and reduces risk of failure related to-developing, implementing, and integrating remaining key functionality envisioned under Caseflow. We will also continue tracking whether the Board addresses long-term Caseflow planning under recommendation 2 in GAO-17-234.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Priority Rec.
This is a priority recommendation.
4. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the appeals plan more fully addresses risk associated with appeals reform--for example, by assessing risks against a balanced set of goals and measures, articulating success criteria and an assessment plan for RAMP, and testing or conducting sensitivity analyses of all appeals options--prior to fully implementing the new appeals process. (Recommendation 4)
Open
VA concurred with this recommendation and, as of February 2021 reported taking steps to reduce risks associated with veterans choosing more resource-intensive Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) Board options, such as those involving a hearing. For example, the Board is expanding virtual tele-hearing capacity and using models to monitor workloads. However, the AMA hearing option accounted for over 60 percent of the new appeals inventory, and this inventory will likely increase as VA continues to prioritize other workloads and address COVID-19-related slowdowns in hearings, according to VA. Moreover, in April 2021, VA also indicated it will establish timeliness goals for all options (lanes) of the new appeals process by the third quarter of 2021. Until VA sets timeliness goals for each appeals option, the Board cannot fully assess the impact of veterans using the tele-hearing option, or the risk associated with veterans not sufficiently doing so. For example, the Board has not identified the number of veterans needed to use tele-hearings to sufficiently mitigate this risk and address legacy and AMA hearings workloads. In addition, VA has yet to articulate other key goals and measures, such as accuracy of decisions or veteran's satisfaction, to create a balanced set of measures that would more fully inform VA's assessment of risk. These elements are largely missing from VA's October 2020 high-risk action plan provided to GAO and February 2021 progress report to Congress. The Board's ability to effectively manage appeals lies, in part, in planning ahead and in proactively identifying and addressing risks that may impact the Board's timeliness and quality of decisions and serving veterans. We will consider closing this recommendation when VA fully assesses risks against a balanced set of goals.

Full Report

GAO Contacts