WaPo: At Walter Reed, 'We're Going to Fix It'

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022101179.html

At Walter Reed, 'We're Going to Fix It'
General Says He Will Oversee Repair of Soldiers' Lodging

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 22, 2007; Page A06

A top Army general vowed yesterday to personally oversee the upgrading of Walter Reed Army Medical Center's Building 18, a dilapidated former hotel that houses wounded soldiers as outpatients.

Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army vice chief of staff, used terminology similar to that of a military campaign to describe his plan to overhaul the broken building, including giving it a more "appropriate" name, and the sluggish bureaucracy for outpatient care.

"We own that building, and we're going to take charge of it," Cody said at the Pentagon. "The senior Army leadership takes full responsibility for the lack of quality of life at Building 18, and we're going to fix it."

Cody blamed "a breakdown in leadership" for the troubling conditions but said no one has been fired or relieved of command. He did point to lower-ranking officers and noncommissioned officers lacking "the right experience and the authority to be able to execute some of the missions."

"That's what we're correcting right now," he said.

Cody and William Winkenwerder Jr., the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said at a news conference that they frequently visit Walter Reed and were surprised and disappointed by the living conditions and the fact that they had learned about them from media reports. The Washington Post reported Sunday and Monday on the challenges facing outpatients at Walter Reed.

"We get concerns all the time directed to us. But we never got a concern sent our way about this issue, which is a little surprising. I'm not sure why that is," Winkenwerder said.

more...

[saltpoint]

1. Am I wrong to suggest that the American people own that building?

Set me straight on the facts if I have this wrong. But I thought taxpayer bucks built that hospital.

It took negative publicity to bring pressure to bear on these folks to "fix it" ?

Jesus.

Plenty of time for a troop surge but you can't place our veterans in a safe, clean room?

This administration is the pits.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. From what I understood, Building 18 is formerly a hotel

that they purchased and the one that highlight conditions. What I don't get is why the military, with all of its "standards" didn't have regular monthly facility inspection. Maybe they outsourced it to Halliburton/KBR and the contract somehow got buried when Rummy was "sifting" through things.

[saltpoint]

5. Hi, Norquist Nemesis. Thanks for that info on the purchase of the

building.

And I agree -- if they did have this facility, why weren't regular inspections conducted.

VERY good question.

[rock]

2. Why is it that

the bad things that conservatives do are in the past (which they don't want to dwell on) and the good things they do are in the future?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. can it be true? a person in a position of power TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

and still be a part of the Bush DOD?

this is amazing.

Of course, had he done his job in the first place, this never would have occured. Hell, every commander, general and administrator takes a surprise walkthrough his/her company, buildings, etc, just to see what is going on. It is his personal failure. At least the WaPo pointed out the problems, while his officers did not.

[newburgh]

6. The real reason is that they're stretched by budget restraints but

they're not allowed to say something like that. Leadership is one thing. Giving the un-political military leadership the benefit of the doubt, I'll bet that's the entire reason. Wonder if any real journalists out there will pursue this angle too... it's quite obvious when you look at all the money misspent and lost in Iraq.

[babylonsister]

10. If true, that could explain why I've heard numerous times

from military officers involved w/the upkeep of Walter Reed that lack of money isn't the issue/obstacle. They, to a man, repeat that mantra, so it makes me skeptical. Up is down, black is white, etc.:crazy:

[Monkeyman]

11. Hey Kiddo

Read the Major's Jim's and my Blog

http://www.veteransforamerica.org

All can read in the Community Blog

[babylonsister]

15. Hi, Monkeyman. What's Jim's last name? I'm having a

tough time finding the specific blog you're referencing.

[Monkeyman]

16. Jim last name is Starowicz

The Major is Robert Hanafin the other post Dale Peters all about Walter Reed

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. The testimony from the House VA Cmte in May 2006 is interesting...

http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/schedule109/may06/5-11-06/DennisCullinan.html

"Further, because maintenance comes out the medical care account, not the construction budget, much of the funding for the last few years has been used to provide medical care. VA needs to cover deferred maintenance. In fact, according to VA’s own assessment, which is conducted on three-year cycles, the investment necessary to bring all facilities currently rated “D” or “F” up to an acceptable level is $4.9 billion. There should not be a choice between fixing a roof and buying medical supplies. It is Congress’ job to allocate properly funding for both.

Funding for maintenance is allocated to the VISN level using the VERA methodology. While this moves the money to the growing demand for veterans’ health care, it tends to move the money away from the oldest capital structures, which need the most maintenance. It also increases the tendency in some VISNs to use maintenance money to address shortfalls in medical care funding.

It is also important that VA recapitalize their infrastructure beyond nonrecurring maintenance. Properly reinvesting in facilities extends their useable life, and saves costs over the long run. Both Price-Waterhouse and the American Society of Hospital Engineers say that a 35 to 50-year recapitalization rate is required for VA facilities. Of note, most hospitals rely on a 25-year or less rate of recapitalization. VA traditionally has a historically low rate of recapitalization. From FY 1996-2001, for example, it was just a paltry 0.64% of VA’s total plant replacement value. To overcome this shortfall, a minimum of 5-8% investment of plant replacement value is necessary to maintain a healthy infrastructure. If not improved, veterans could be receiving care in potentially unsafe, dysfunctional settings. Congress must ensure that VA has adequate funding to ensure the life of its infrastructure.?

[Monkeyman]

9. Remember This is DOD not VA

Right Now orders have gone out to all VVA members watch and report all abuse.

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. Yes, I guess my point is that the "problem" is compounded

and those being treated will be moving into the VA. Bottom line, Bushetals/Cons treatment of the soldiers and marines doesn't match their rhetoric.

[Monkeyman]

8. I will say this again

This is not over. I would watch two hearings. Armed Services and the Veterans Committees I will tell you . (Fireworks) . We Who Have Served Demand Better

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. Everyone has forgotten the brouhaha from last September

No one is mentioning how Patty Murray went to the floor and took a stand for several days about the VA suddenly facing a $3,000,000,000 (that's BILLION dollars) shortfall. It was due to inadequate WH budgets. The kicker is that, as far as I can tell, funding for infrastructure comes out of the service budget, not the construction budget.

Murray's full remarks: http://vawatchdog.org/senatecvademsnews/senatecvademsnews09-29-06.htm

excerpt:
"GAO Report Found that the Bush Administration Misled Us

Next Mr. President, I want to turn to the facts of the GAO report that I requested. This report -- prepared by independent, credible government investigators -- tells us what's really happening. All of us care about the facts and we all care about getting this right, and that's why we should all take this report to heart. Unless we learn from our mistakes, we're never going to do any better for America's veterans.

GAO's 4 Findings

In that spirit, I want to focus on four findings. First, the GAO found that the VA knew it had serious problems with its budget, but failed to notify us in Congress. Even worse, it misled us.

The report suggests that the VA could still be sending us inaccurate information in its quarterly reports.

Second, the GAO found that the VA was basing its budgets on "unrealistic assumptions, errors in estimation, and insufficient data."

Third, the Pentagon failed to give the VA up-to-date information about how many service members would be coming down the pipeline into the VA.

Finally, the GAO found that the VA did not adequately plan for the impact of service members from Iraq and Afghanistan.

VA Misled Congress

For me, I think one of the most disturbing findings is that the VA kept assuring us in Congress that everything was fine – while inside the VA it was clear that shortfalls were growing.

The VA became aware it would have problems in October 2004 – but didn't admit those problems until June of 2005. Veterans were telling me of long lines and delays in care.

For months, I tried to give the VA more money, but the Administration fought me every step of the way. And who paid the price for the VA's deceptions? America's veterans, and that's just wrong."

[babylonsister]

14. This needs its own thread, N N, if only to remind people how long

the realities have been swept under the rug despite Dems trying to get the facts into the light of day.