The grants would be administered by the Department of Justice in consultation with the Department of Veterans Affairs. To be eligible for funding the veteran’s treatment court or drug court serving veterans must effectively integrate substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, mandatory drug testing, sanctions and incentives, and transitional services in a judicially supervised court setting with jurisdiction over nonviolent, substance-abusing offenders that have served in the United States military. Also included is the authorization for the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI). The NDCI is a bipartisan supported organization that conducts national, comprehensive training programs for State and local communities for the purpose of improving the professional skills of drug court practitioners and enhancing the ability of State and local communities to expand drug courts to reach all addicted citizens in need

“These treatment courts will address the specific challenges with drugs and alcohol too many veterans face when returning home from their honorable service overseas,” said Senator John Kerry. “For those who have given so much for our country, we should address the serious issues of drug and alcohol addiction in an appropriate forum that recognizes that some veterans fall victim to substance abuse as a way to handle post-traumatic stress. It’s well past time we offered our veterans services worthy of their sacrifice.” Sen. Murkowski said, “Some of the brave men and women who have served our country fall victim to alcohol and drug addiction and end up in our criminal justice system. Drug courts are an effective way to break this cycle of abuse and help these veterans re-enter society. The Alaska Court System already has successful drug courts in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Bethel, Juneau and Ketchikan, and there is a Veterans Court in Anchorage. This bill would provide additional funding for some of Alaska’s existing therapeutic court programs and would allow more nonviolent-offender programs to be developed across the state. The SERV Act is particularly important for Alaska, which has one of the highest veterans’ per capita rates in the nation.” [Source: Military.com AP article 1 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

Though the task force still has not taken a stand on the value of screening in younger men, the shift is certain to re-ignite the debate about the appropriateness of prostate cancer screening at any age. Screening for prostate cancer is typically performed with a blood test measuring prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, levels. Because it is not clear precisely what PSA level signals the presence of cancer, many men experience stressful false alarms that lead to unnecessary surgical biopsies to make a definitive diagnosis, which can be painful and in rare cases can cause serious complications. Widespread PSA testing has led to high rates of prostate cancer detection. Last year, more than 218,000 men in the United States were found to have the disease. About 28,000 die of it, making it the most common cancer and second-leading cancer killer among men.

Various studies suggest the disease is “over-diagnosed” - that is, detected at a point when the disease probably would not affect life expectancy - in 29 to 44% of cases. Prostate cancer often progresses very slowly, and a large number of these cancers discovered through screening probably will never cause symptoms during the patient’s lifetime, particularly if that patient is older. At the same time, aggressive treatment of prostate cancer can greatly reduce a patient’s quality of life, resulting in complications like impotence and incontinence. Past task force guidelines noted that there was no benefit to prostate cancer screening in men with less than 10 years left to live. Since it can be difficult to assess life expectancy, it was an informal recommendation that had limited impact on screening practices. The new guidelines take a more definitive stand; however, stating that the age of 75 is clearly the point at which screening is no longer appropriate. The task force was created by Congress to analyze current medical research and to make recommendations about preventive care for healthy people. Its guidelines are viewed as highly credible and often are relied on by practicing physicians in making decisions about patient care. It is estimated that one out of every three American men 75 and older is now screened for prostate cancer. [Source: International Herald tribune Tara Parker-Pope article 5 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

For Vietnam vet James McKasson, who participated in the study, the findings are a reminder that no one exposed to Agent Orange should delay prostate-cancer testing. McKasson, 62, a retired auto mechanic, said he’s doing well after being diagnosed with prostate cancer last year – 40 years after he helped load Agent Orange onto planes in the 1960s. He worked with both liquid and powdered forms of the chemical, and “this stuff would slop around; it would drip on you,” he recalled. “You’d walk through it and get it on your shoes, on your clothes, on your hands. … They didn’t give us any protective clothing at all.” For decades, McKasson didn’t worry much about studies that linked exposure to diseases ranging from diabetes to soft-tissue cancer to birth defects in veterans’ children. “I’m an advocate now,” he said, telling his “stubborn” friends to have regular checks for prostate cancer.

The chemical was used widely during the Vietnam War to defoliate jungle areas where U.S. forces believed enemies were hiding. It also was used around U.S. military facilities at home and abroad as early as the 1950s, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. About 375,000 men nationwide are on the military’s Agent Orange registry of those exposed, and roughly one-third can be expected to develop prostate cancer, Chaime said. “This has huge implications for men, especially in the VA,” but also for those treated by private insurance, whose primary care doctors and urologists may not have seen the latest data, he added. Of the 13,000 men followed by the study, just under half had been exposed to Agent Orange. Among the 6,214 exposed, 239 were diagnosed with prostate cancer over eight years, compared with 124 of 6,930 unexposed veterans. [Source: The Sacramento Bee Carrie Peyton Dahlberg article 5 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

It is vital, therefore, that ULSG members and constituents also rely on the relevant provisions of the Veterans’ Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. § 5301, which provides that payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, a beneficiary shall be … exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. Congress recently amended the VBA and this applicable provision Id. § 5301(a)(1). , to clarify that, in any case where a beneficiary entitled to compensation, pension, or dependency and indemnity compensation enters into an agreement with another person under which agreement such other person acquires for consideration the right to receive such benefit by payment of such compensation, pension or dependency and indemnity compensation, as the case may be … such agreement shall be deemed to be an assignment and is prohibited. Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-183, § 702, 117 Stat. 2651, Dec. 16, 2003, codified at § 5301(a)(3)(A).

ULSG members finding themselves in litigation on questions related to this advisory should instruct their lawyers to brief and argue – from the very beginning of the case, and at every opportunity thereafter – the  Veterans Benefits Act (VBA) issue, in support of their position.  While ULSG, LLC cannot provide individualized legal advice to its members and constituents, or answer individual queries, ULSG leadership believes that this is a prudent course to follow in cases such as this. ULSG would appreciate hearing reports on this issue from those concerned. They can be reached at Leadership@ulsg.org or by mail to ULSG, LLC, 20770 US Hwy 281, Ste 108-12, San Antonio, Texas 78258-7500. [Source: ULSG Advisory 5 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

Eakle said the current review studied whether the comparability formula is adequate. “Basically, what we wanted to do is create something which would give military members a better means of assessing how their pay stacked up in comparison to civilians,” she said. Regular military compensation was the measure used in previous QRMCs. This included basic pay, subsistence, housing and a measure of savings on federal income tax. “But there’s a lot more to military compensation,” she said. The new system begins with regular military compensation and adds state and FICA tax advantages. Military personnel also do not pay out-of-pocket health care costs, such as co-pays, she explained, and all these folded into the panel’s calculations. The new measurement is called military annual compensation, and it sets the 80th percentile as the standard for military compensation comparability with the private sector. Pay for enlisted personnel and officers meets this standard, Eakle said. Congress revamped the special incentive pay categories from more than 60 to eight, Eakle said. “That, in fact, was a recommendation of this QRMC, and it was enacted before the publication of this document, Eakle said. “And so now it’s up to the department to begin the process of drafting out the instructions to adopt this.” The review recommended increasing the size of the special and incentive pay budget. “Today we have an S&I budget that, quite frankly, is rather small in comparison to the size of the other pay accounts,” she said. “And because of that, it doesn’t give the service as much flexibility for arranging pay.”

The review examined the basic allowance for housing and a previous recommendation to do away with the without-dependent housing rate. The review also proposed changes to the partial-BAH program. Because some single servicemembers are making as little as 52% of the pay their peers who have families receive, the QRMC recommends raising that floor to no less than 75% at first, and to 95% over time. But the gap between married and single BAH should not disappear, Eakle said. The review did recommend changes for singles living on post or aboard ships. The proposal is a new variable, partial BAH based on the value of the quarters the servicemembers occupy. The DoD standard is a one-plus-one dormitory — meaning each individual having a bedroom and a shared cooking facility and bathroom. For those living with three roommates, the review believes they are overpaying for their accommodations by forfeiting their entire housing allowance, and “we would recommend that they get a rebate on their BAH.” “The range we are talking about is going from zero for people in the one-plus-one dormitories, up to a 25% rebate for those who are living in ships with hot-bunk arrangements,” she said. “So you’d be able to give people something in recognition of the fact that housing is not at the DoD standard.”

The review also recommended staying with time-in-service pay tables. A previous commission, the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation, recommended replacing the time-in-service pay table with a time-in-grade pay table. This would reward pay for performance, the commission members believed. “We looked very seriously at this recommendation, but we’ve chosen not to accept it and are not going to endorse the change,” Eakle said. She said it would exacerbate pay differentials, adding: “We don’t think that’s in keeping with our spirit of being fair and equitable to all members.”

A panel looking at military compensation has recommended dramatic changes in the military retirement system. The recommendations are part of the second volume put out by the 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation. The first volume — released in March — looked at cash compensation. Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Jan D. “Denny” Eakle was director of the panel, and she briefed the press during a Pentagon news conference 5 AUG. Eakle said critics of the current military retirement system say it is not equitable, it is not flexible, and it is not efficient. “There is a perception that the system we have today is inequitable because only 15% of all enlisted personnel and less than half of officers will ever receive anything in the system,” she said. Reserve-component personnel also believe the current system discriminates against them, especially at a time when reserve forces are being called on more, she said.

The retirement proposal would offer a defined benefit, defined contributions, “gate” pays and separation pays. The defined benefit would be 2.5% of the average basic pay for the highest 36 months of the individual’s career multiplied by the number of years of service, with servicemembers vested at 10 years of service. Payments to retirees would begin at age 60 for those with less than 20 years of service and at age 57 for those with 20 years of service or more. Servicemembers could opt for an immediate annuity, but the payout would follow the Federal Employee Retirement System methodology — a 5% penalty per year for early withdrawal. The defined contribution portion would be an automatic government-funded Thrift Savings Plan. Servicemembers would not have to match any government payment. The government would not put any money in for the first year, but would put in 2% of base pay for two years of service, 3% for three and four years of service, and 5% for five and more years of service. Again, this would be vested after 10 years of service.

The military also would make “gate pays” to servicemembers who reach specific years of service. These would vary by years of service and skills, Eakle said. “This is a payment made for achieving a particular year of service,” she explained. “And within the services, they would have the flexibility to vary this by year of service as well as by skill. That way, they could begin to shape the skills by dragging people further into their career by offering them an incentive.” Finally, the system would include separation pays to servicemembers that would also vary by years of service and skills. “The separation payments would be made available by the service to members that they wished to entice to leave,” Eakle said. This would be a permanent tool services would have available, she added.

The panel used a Rand Corporation computer model to test the recommendations, but Eakle said the panel members would like a large-scale test in the Defense Department. “Therefore, the recommendation of this QRMC is that the Department of Defense conducts a multi-year test of this system. The way the test would work is this: All four services would be asked to identify some skills that have different types of retention patterns — some that stay not very long, some that stay longer periods of time — and ones they wish to influence. The test would offer people in those skills in the first eight years of service an opportunity to volunteer. If someone was selected for the test, they would be paid all of the TSP that they should have earned up until that point, and it will be put in their TSP account for them. The program’s vesting rules would in fact apply to all those individuals. So should they achieve 10 years of service while they are in the test, they would fully own it. At the end of the test period, people who are in the new system who wish to revert to the original retirement system would be allowed to do so.” she said. Any change in the retirement system would require action by Congress. DoD officials said they will carefully examine the panel’s recommendations and then decide if they should move forward. The study will take at least six to 12 months, so any decision would be made by the next administration, DoD officials added. [Source: AFPS Jim Garamone article 5 Aug 08 ++]

The Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation has recommended fee changes to Tricare, the military’s health care system. The recommendations would mostly affect retirees and will not affect active-duty servicemembers or their dependents, retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Jan D. “Denny” Eakle, the director of the study, said in a Pentagon briefing today. “Retiree fees ought to relate to how much the plan is worth. The … higher-value plans should have higher premiums associated with them. The panel believes fees need to be fair to all retired military members. They ought to reflect how much income an individual has, so that if they make more money and are therefore better able to pay for a system, they should do so,” she said. One problem is the fee structure for Tricare has not changed in 13 years. In 1995, servicemembers paid 27% of their health care cost. Today that share is less than 12%. Over-65 military retirees — those using the “Tricare for Life” program — have been paying the Medicare Part B program fee of 25%, but this is due to rise. “Essentially what this says to you is that we are asking our older retirees, who are in fact the least likely to hold jobs and therefore have the lowest incomes, to pay the most for their system,” Eakle said.

But Tricare for Life is a much more generous program than Tricare Prime. Eakle said, “We believe we need to get some parity between our older and our younger retirees. The panel wants to redress some of this imbalance. We believe that the under-65 retirees should begin paying 40% of the Medicare Part B premium using the same fee structure that is laid on by the Medicare system, adding that this should bring the system into a semblance of parity. In addition, we believe that the under-65 retirees … who elect to use Tricare Standard and Extra need to pay a small fee for that. And we would suggest to the department that that fee be set at 15% of the Medicare Part B. We think the family rate should be set at double the individual rate and that the premium increase needs to be phased in over four years.” Other recommendations include using the Medicare deductible rate — $135 per person in 2008 — for Tricare. The panel also recommended to the department that all co-pays and co-insurance for any preventative service be provided at no cost to all members and retirees who have access to Tricare. The final panel recommendation to DoD is to establish an open enrollment period for Tricare, Eakle said. [Source: AFPS Jim Garamone article 5 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

Annie Laurie Gaylor, the group’s co-president, criticized the ruling but said an appeal to the Supreme Court was unlikely. She said the group would look for VA patients who object to their treatment to be potential plaintiffs but said such a case would still be difficult to win. “The courts are moving to the position where government can fund religious activities and endorse religion without restraint,” she said. “It’s really very disturbing.” The appeals court decision is the latest in a string of similar rulings since the Supreme Court decision, George Washington University law professor Ira Lupu said. Federal courts have dismissed cases challenging legislative prayer in Indiana and the placement of children in religious foster homes in Kentucky and North Dakota, he said. “There’s quite a powerful trend here in the courts to take the Supreme Court’s decision and really run with it,” he said. “I have not yet seen one case where people have brought up this standing issue where the government has lost and the taxpayers have won. Every single one has been thrown out. This is really quite significant.”

Veterans Affairs lawyers did not challenge the group’s ability to sue before the Supreme Court decision, and U.S. District Judge John Shabaz dismissed the case on its merits last year. He ruled the VA’s programs integrate religion and spirituality but are legal because they are voluntary and serve valid secular purposes such as helping patients. The foundation appealed, and government lawyers challenged its ability to sue after the Supreme Court decision came down. The veterans agency, which treated 5.3 million people at its facilities in 2005, says it believes spirituality should be integrated into care, but it allows patients to decide whether that involves religion. Its spiritual assessments ask patients a series of questions about their faith, such as how often they attend church and how important religion is in their lives. Agency officials say the assessments help them determine patients’ needs. [Source: Chicago Tribune AP Ryan J. Foley article 6 Aug 08 ++]

Bookmark TO:

The Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act protects family and medical leave rights of reservists and guardsmen. Under the Act any person called up for military service has certain rights in the civilian workplace. Every employer, from the biggest of corporations to small businesses, must comply. The act covers people who’ve been absent from work because of:

Active duty.

Active duty for training.

Inactive duty training.

Full-time National G