Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McClatchy: VA overstates record on wait times for appointments, report finds

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 08:21 PM
Original message
McClatchy: VA overstates record on wait times for appointments, report finds

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/17355165.htm

VA overstates record on wait times for appointments, report finds
By Stella M. Hopkins and Chris Adams
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Department of Veterans Affairs continues to significantly overstate its success in getting patients to see doctors for timely appointments, undercutting one of its key claims of success, according to a draft report obtained by McClatchy Newspapers.

While top VA officials told Congress earlier this year that 95 percent of appointments are scheduled within 30 days of a patient's requested date, the true number is about 75 percent, according to the analysis by the department's inspector general.

The report hasn't been released and is stamped "Draft - For Discussion Only." It's in the final stages of preparation and could be revised.

In a statement, VA spokesman Matt Smith said the department was reviewing the report and remains "committed to ensuring our veterans are seen in a timely manner." The VA said it will visit facilities in need of improvement and will hire a contractor to review the department's scheduling procedures.

Some medical centers performed far worse than average. In Columbia, S.C., and Chillicothe, Ohio, only 64 percent of VA appointments were within 30 days of a patient's request, the report said. The high score among centers studied was Detroit at 84 percent.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Elspeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why didn't the title use the word "Underestimates"?
That would have been less misleading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC