"Millions of dollars for veterans sat unspent for three years — and now it may be too late"

2015-06-26T11:32:37-04:00

From: The Washington Post

For three years, more than $43 million the Department of Veterans Affairs had set aside to inform veterans about their benefits sat in an account, not a penny spent, until an agency financial manager happened to notice.

By then, it may have become too late for the cash-strapped agency to spend the money, a new report says.

The Inspector General’s office, in a report issued last week, cited a “breakdown of fiscal controls” and “lack of oversight” in concluding that VA officials had “no need” for the $43.1 million. At least not for the purpose they claimed, which was to print personalized handbooks that explain in detail what benefits a veteran is eligible for.

Acting Inspector General Richard Griffin’s audit comes as top VA officials prepare to tell House lawmakers Thursday that they’re facing a $2.6 billion budget shortfall that’s partly responsible for a new explosion in wait times for medical care. Senior leaders say they may have to start a hiring freeze or furlough employees unless funding is reallocated for the federal government’s second-largest agency.

Now comes $43.1 million that officials in the Veterans Health Administration “parked” at the Government Printing Office for three years. Investigators discovered that VHA, which runs the sprawling health-care system for veterans, had the money deposited by contracting officials to be “held” for some future use. VHA said the money was earmarked for handbooks, but auditors found no documents to that effect.

The money sat from fiscal 2011 through fiscal 2014 “with no designated purpose,” auditors found, and $2.3 million that eventually was spent did not produce handbooks but business cards, pamphlets and mailings about the Affordable Care Act, instead.

“A breakdown of VA fiscal controls and a lack of oversight led to the parking of funds for an excessively long period and the failure to detect and properly use and manage these funds,” auditors wrote in their June 17 report. They cited a “lack of supervisory review” to ensure that the money was spent properly.

The VHA, it turned out, had “no current need” for the money and wanted to save it for another year, a strategy that’s considered poor financial policy.

Money budgeted for one account is not supposed to be spent for other needs without congressional approval. In this case, the $43.1 million came from a fund designated for administrative support for veterans’ hospitals, including supplies, training, janitorial expenses.

Adding to the mismanagement, the contracting fund took $5.6 million in service fees from VHA, but no services were rendered, the inspector general found.

VA officials concurred with the watchdog’s account and said they are tightening their internal financial controls in response.

The biannual handbooks, an initiative of former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, provide each veteran with information about his or her health benefits and other services. They list contacts for the veteran’s preferred clinic, instructions on how to schedule appointments, information on the Affordable Care Act, any co-pays and other information. VA began sending the handbooks to millions of veterans last year.

The agency had plenty of money to produce the handbooks, with a $20.1 million balance in the handbook account when the $43.1 million showed up in 2011. During the three years it went unspent, the fund grew by $6.7 million, investigators said.

VA officials are now looking at whether they have any unpaid bills for fiscal 2011 they can use the money for. If not, it must be returned to the Treasury, auditors said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/06/25/millions-of-dollars-for-veterans-sat-unspent-for-three-years-and-now-it-may-be-too-late/

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 11:40 AM

2015-06-26T11:40:35-04:00

I get really tired of some arguments that we aren't informed of our benefits. How many briefs does one go through by our processing or other command briefs? Plus with all the technology venues there is no reason to not be informed. That money needs to go towards helping those that are in the system. Helping those that are waiting.

Response by SSG Izzy Abbass made Jun 26 at 2015 11:41 AM

2015-06-26T11:41:40-04:00

Not surprising. It's a big budget to manage. Why I don't think anyone would argue that there are management issues within the VA, we also cannot allow Congress to hold up decisions and delay hospital construction for instance. At the end of the day who really bears the burden for delays and changes? It's not the folks working at the VA. It certainly isn't Congress. It's the Veteran - pure and simple.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 26 at 2015 12:15 PM

2015-06-26T12:15:04-04:00

I'm not a bureaucrat so I won't claim to understand the reasoning but we see these issues locally as well, having to give back unspent money. Obviously there need to be regulations to prevent fraud waste and abuse (which people seem to get around anyways) of funds but why the time limit? If the organization is given the money isn't it theirs to use? This is when you wonder if organizations and companies are too big for their own good.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 26 at 2015 12:50 PM

2015-06-26T12:50:37-04:00

The way they earmark funds is based on the base budget from the previous year, the year before, etc. Every 3 years (typically) they will reorganize the total operating budget. Sounds like they were doing what most directors do best, hold on to their $$$ till the next review. Just because 1.21 gigawatts is available for something doesn't mean that it must be spent. Those books are frigging everywhere and online. The access to them online has created an abundance and they didn't need more. Also, If someone says cut the budget and that is when those really poor decisions can be made, programs scrapped, upgrades cancelled, and Kiowas being sent to the frigging boneyard. The blame for this is easily tracked down. The comptroller for forms & publications (for example) submits their proposed budget based on the previous year and says 'no change to the base budget.' This means x-dollars that was earmarked for that section from the previous year stays the same. NO ONE wants to give away funds from their operating budget. If you have excess funds and return them, they will scrutinize your department and cut the funding. That recoups the excess funds for the previous year, but then you are left to operate on a skeleton budget. The next year you need money for x,y,z but they already voted to cut your budget. It can take YEARS to get those funds turned back on. Most directors will do anything to avoid that nightmare.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 26 at 2015 2:22 PM

2015-06-26T14:22:12-04:00

Maybe this money could be earmarked for the over-budget hospital being built in Colorado?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2015 3:13 PM

2015-06-26T15:13:52-04:00

Probably ends up in someone else's pockets other than vets.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 26 at 2015 5:35 PM

2015-06-26T17:35:20-04:00

If the money was for the intended purpose allocate benefits for the veterans, then they should comply with the intended purpose. This can be a horrible way of directing funds within the VA.

Response by 1SG William Childress Sr. (Ret) made May 8 at 2019 11:55 PM

2019-05-08T23:55:54-04:00

Just another hit against the Obuma VA administration!!!!

Response by CPO Nate S. made May 30 at 2019 12:06 PM

2019-05-30T12:06:52-04:00

Imagine that mismanagement of resources for veterans. What next $150 billion more to terrorist vs siezing those assets to help our war fighters from every age. Is anyone surprised???