Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Wounded Troops Overwhelming Healthcare System

By Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor. Posted October 23, 2007.


The current means of caring for returning vets is antiquated and inadequate, adding to concerns over the long-term cost of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Brad Knickerbocker

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Six years into the "global war on terror," the Bush administration, Congress, and federal agencies are scrambling to address the health needs of battlefield veterans back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush acknowledges that the current means of caring for wounded and traumatized vets is "an antiquated system that needs to be changed." A bipartisan commission says the need for fundamental improvements in care management and the disability system "requires a sense of urgency and strong leadership."

As a result, Mr. Bush has proposed administrative action and legislation that would streamline the system for providing postwar medical services and disability compensation to wounded veterans and their families.

The numbers are daunting:

  • Of the more than 1.4 million service men and women who have served in the two war zones, nearly 700,000 have become eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical care, of whom about 230,000 have sought such care since 2002.
  • Depending on future force deployments, VA medical costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan could total between $7 billion and $9 billion over the next decade, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections. Disability compensation and survivors' benefits could add another $3 billion to $4 billion.
  • A total of about 30,000 troops have been wounded in action. The survival rate of those wounded is higher than it was in Vietnam and much higher than World War II, due to body armor, advances in battlefield medical procedures, and more rapid evacuation.

Put another way, this means the number of those killed is a relatively smaller portion of overall casualties. It also means concern is growing about injuries and ailments that have come to mark this war: amputations, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), and the mental and emotional shock of combat.

"Of the [Iraq/Afghanistan] veterans who sought care from VA, about 38 percent have received at least a preliminary diagnosis of a mental health condition, and 18 percent have received a preliminary diagnosis for PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], making it the most common, but by no means, the only mental health condition related to the stress of deployment," Michael Kussman, undersecretary of the Veterans Health Administration, told a House Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing last week.

According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2003 and 2007 about 60,000 troops were diagnosed with either PTSD or TBI.

The VA is one of the largest federal bureaucracies, operating more than 1,500 facilities providing help for veterans and their families and employing about 200,000 people, including some 13,000 doctors and nearly 55,000 nurses.

Despite this, one concern is the growing need for medical specialists to help war veterans.

In recent congressional testimony, Joseph Wilson of the American Legion cited federal studies showing that by 2020, projected retirements will create a shortage of about 24,000 physicians and almost 1 million nurses nationwide.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, healthcare, afghanistan

Brad Knickerbocker is a staff writer at the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
How reassuring that Bush expressed concern
Posted by: LMNOP on Oct 23, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure Bush is sincere in his concern for these soldiers and will get right on to addressing their needs, right? Either that, or he's lying again. Let's wait and see which before we snap to judgment. Just kidding.

They haven't even begun seeing the problems associated with living for a few years in a country littered in depleted uranium, namely, leukemia and other cancers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cost of war?
Posted by: grethart on Oct 23, 2007 6:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"They" wanted this war, and more dollars have been appropriated to continue this war abroad.....
....War makes money for some and for a nation....
...and "they" have allocated more billions for the war effort....But NONE for our returning troops....the injured, maimed, traumatized, those in need of help....
what a crock of S***.

We still have Viet Nam vets damaged for the rest of their lives that deserve compensation and medical care; not to mention those that are still alive from WWII and Korea and the "gulf war" and whatever.

We MUST demand appropriated funds for the intense and extended care of these surviving vets....billions would be appropriate, do you suppose?

And what about the traumatized families of the non-survivors?

We are not paying these war bills (for our returning troops), and not including this care in the 'cost of war' and the dollars appropriated for same. We send the troops 'over there', and don't care what happens to them when they return.

We MUST demand action of behalf of these vets and survivors. Funds must be appropriated to include these costs of war.

GOD Bless America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cost of war? Posted by: Maryanne
I have been to a vet hospital
Posted by: Ellie1 on Oct 25, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with my 87 year old father, a ww2 vet. I have sat with him for hours waiting to be seen by doctors-although when we were finally seen the care was excellent. The doctors and nurses are dedicated professionals, but they are overwhelmed. In my mind I cannot forget the sight of a 20 something year old curled up in a fetus position in the waiting room. George Bushit and Dickshit Cheney are both murderers and deserve a bullet in their heads-I would say their hearts,but neither of them have one. It is very hard to put into words how much I hate them and their party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not new - just more vicious now
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Oct 25, 2007 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have nerve damage and, because the VA ignored the condition for over a decade, that and the pain is permanent. After almost ten years of correct and decent treatment, I have been forced (under threat of losing all treatment) to see a "Pain Management Specialist" who is not. He is an authoritarian who plays dominance games and does not listen, and constantly interrupts. He's using a new standard (that is still in draft stage according to its authors) that declares the amount of opiates that made me functional again to a "toxic dose". Also, he says, the patch my last doctor talked me into trying is "too expensive, and the VA doesn't like to use it if they can use something else."

Long and short: he's reducing and altering my meds, making me sicker and sicker, trying to force me to use dangerous trash like neurotonin (I have and will continue to refuse it), I sleep an hour or two at a time if I'm lucky, and it's getting harder and harder to move enough to get anything done. The fact that I am alone in caring for a wife in end-stage COPD who is almost bedridden, forcing me to be far more active than I should be even at the best of times, is "not [his] problem." He also says I'm welcome to go elsewhere. In the middle of Oregon in a town of a few thousand, with a car that won't make it out of town, there IS nowhere else, which he's well aware of. Oh, he's also referring me to specialists I don't need to see who are four hours away, and demanding my presence in the clinic where he works often. I have a 74 year old friend who can sometimes give me a ride. There's more, but no need. He's trying hard to get rid of me. It's working, too. If I cancel the appointments, fail to show, etc, I'm not just an "uncooperative patient", I'm a "drug-seeker".

That last is defined as: anything I say or don't say, anything I do or don't do. Like making phone calls trying to fix an error in a prescription, reschedule an appointment, and so on. What really angers me is that this damage to my ability to function is harming my wife as well.

I have to wonder how many other veterans are running into something like this.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gee
Posted by: donl51 on Oct 26, 2007 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a fucking surprise!...bringback any memories? same ole' shit,different day

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're laboring under a misapprehension
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Oct 30, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"they'd rather have me on opiates, which are highly addictive and do much more damage to the body."

They aren't "highly addictive"; there's the propaganda at work. Addiction is a psychological pathology. Opiates cause physical dependence, yes, but a propensity for addiction is what causes addiction, not the meds - no more than alcohol causes alcoholism. The percentage is the same, too: in one test, there were something like five or six people out of 12,000 who had addiction problems, and most of those had had such trouble before. Opiates are, used correctly, safe, effective, and with minimal side-effects. They can literally give a sufferer his/her life back, returning functionality and the ability to fell a little joy once in a while. They also don't get people loaded if they're used for pain instead of recreation.

No, doctors, due to the government's use of them to grab more money and more power, would often rather see you on NSAIDs and other drugs, bleeding out through your GI system, melting your liver, and mutilating yourself or committing suicide rather than have you use some of the safest and most effective drugs known to medicine.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]