Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations
Abstract : The President submitted his FY2009 appropriations request to Congress on February 4, 2008, including $115.3 billion for programs covered in this appropriations bill: $24.4 billion for Title I (military construction and family housing), $90.8 billion for Title II (veterans affairs), and $183 million for Title III (related agencies). Compared with funding thus far appropriated for FY2008 (emergency supplemental appropriations are pending), this represents increases for Title I of $3.8 billion (18.3%), for Title II of $3.2 billion (3.6%), and for Title III of $16.7 million (10.1%). The overall increase in appropriations between that requested for FY2009 and enacted for FY2008 is $7.0 billion (6.4%). The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reported their versions of the FY2009 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies appropriations bill on June 24 (H.R. 6559) and July 22 (S. 3301), 2008, respectively. The bill's legislative path is laid out in detail in the "Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriations" section of this report. The House committee recommended appropriating $118.7 billion in new budget authority, $3.4 billion above the President's request. This included $24.8 billion for Title I, $400 million above the request and $4.2 billion above the FY2008 enactment. The Senate committee recommended $119.8 billion, including $24.7 billion for Title I. The Continuing Appropriations Act appropriated $119.6 billion, including $25.0 billion for Title I. In the area of veterans nonmedical benefits, mandatory spending is increasing as claims for disability compensation, pension, and readjustment benefits increase due to a combination of several factors, including the aging of the veterans population and the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of medical care afforded to veterans, the Administration has included several cost-sharing proposals, including an increase in pharmacy copayments and enrollment fees for lower priority veterans.
Disability Evaluation of Military Servicemembers
Abstract : On February 18, 2007, the Washington Post published the first in a series of articles describing problems with outpatient medical care and other services provided at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC). The series noted, among other things, concerns about the processes used to evaluate disability in injured military servicemembers. Both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) conduct disability evaluations and assign disability ratings to servicemembers or veterans under their respective authorities. An individual's disability rating, from either department, affects the scope of pay and benefits for which he or she is eligible, and the cost to the respective department of providing such benefits. There are significant differences between the disability evaluations performed by DOD and VA, as well as civilian disability evaluations conducted by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and workers compensation programs. Most notably, the DOD disability evaluation is focused on the effect of any disabling condition on the performance of the servicemember s duties in the military, while the other three systems evaluate the impact of a disability on gainful employment in the civilian economy. Congress has followed recent news reports with interest, and several legislative initiatives are under consideration. For example, H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007, passed unanimously in the House on March 28, 2007. The Senate version of H.R. 1538, the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 25, 2007. The bills included numerous provisions to improve or streamline medical care and benefits processing for returning injured servicemembers. Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (H.R. 4986, P.L. 110-181), contains provisions from both versions of H.R. 1538 related to the care and transition of injured servicemembers.
Evaluation of Analgesic Effect of Caudal Epidural Tramadol, Tramadol-Lidocaine, and Lidocaine in Water Buffalo Calves (Bubalus bubalis)
Aim of this study was to compare the analgesic effect of tramadol and a combination of tramadol-lidocaine with that produced by lidocaine administration in the epidural space in buffalo calves. In a prospective randomized crossover study, ten male buffalo calves were used to compare the epidural analgesic effect of tramadol (1 mg/kg) and tramadol-lidocaine combination (0.5 mg/kg and 0.11 mg/kg, resp.) with that produced by 2% lidocaine (0.22 mg/kg). Loss of sensation was examined by pin-prick test. Onset time, duration, and degree of analgesia and ataxia were recorded after each treatment. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), rectal temperature, and haematobiochemical parameters were recorded after all treatments. Time to onset and duration of analgesia, respectively, were as follows: tramadol 11 ± 2 min and 208 ± 15 min; tramadol-lidocaine 6 ± 2 min and 168 ± 9 min; lidocaine 4 ± 1 min and 67 ± 13 min. Onset time and duration were significantly longer with tramadol than the other treatments. Duration was significantly longer with tramadol-lidocaine than lidocaine. Ataxia was mildly observed in tramadol-lidocaine and was moderate in lidocaine. HR, RR, and rectal temperature did not differ significantly from baseline after any treatment. Haematobiochemical parameters returned to basal levels by 24 h after all treatments. This combination might be clinically useful to provide analgesia in buffalo for long-duration surgical procedures.