VA Service Dog Revisions
Return to main page
As discussed on the OTSD email list recently, there are major changes proposed by the VA to limit what the VA will recognise as a Service Dog, requirement for ID cards and certification and other restrictions. While you may not believe that this affects you directly, if these changes are permitted to go unchallenged, they may soon become a revised version of the ADA ... which will affect you.
Following is a letter -- created by Dailyah Rudek and Beth Wheeling (drbeth2000) and edited by Ben Ezzell -- which should be sent to both of your senators and your representative as well as the addresses noted at the end of the letter on the ADDITIONAL NOTES page. A word document copy (.doc) of this letter can be downloaded here or an open office copy (.odt) can be downloaded here:
* * * Text begins * * *
Dear __________________________
I am writing you because I understand that the VA is proposing some major rule changes regarding assistance dogs for our injured veterans.
First of all, they no longer plan to support psychiatric service dogs to aid veterans who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), severe anxiety, crippling depression or any of the other myriad of psychiatric illnesses many veterans have been diagnosed with as a direct result of their time in the military. How can you measure the comfort and support that a service dog can provide to an injured, or potentially suicidal, returning veteran? Service Dogs can be trained to provide a wide array of tasks to directly assist a person suffering from psychiatric illness. Considering that psychiatric service dogs have been recognized by the Department of Justice and are approved in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), why would the Veteran's Administration (VA) and the U.S. Military now say that the efficacy of dogs assisting the mentally ill is an unknown? If proved wrong when the results of a three-year study being about the usefulness of service dogs in the treatment and management of psychiatric illness, currently being performed by Congressional Mandate (2009), are published, the VA may reconsider the policy being put forth in the current round of proposed rule changes. Of course, we have no way of knowing which soldiers are going to injure or kill themselves or others. How can we say that we do not know that a well-trained dog might have created a healing bond with a depressed service man and brought him his medication during a time of incredible crisis...preventing a tragedy?
Specifically the proposed changes state: “In 2009, Congress authorized VA to provide service dogs for the aid of persons with mental illnesses by amending section 1714. Although VA welcomes the possibility that trained dogs may provide valuable services to veterans diagnosed with certain mental illness, at this time we do not have any scientific data to determine, from a purely clinical standpoint, whether or when service dogs are most appropriately provided to veterans with mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder.”
My friend, Dailyah Rudek put it this way: “Really, the VA is not as far in the dark-ages as this passage would lead us to believe. If the benefit of dogs working with veterans suffering from psychiatric illness is such an unknown to the Veteran's Administration, then why have they allowed Paws for Purple Hearts (for instance) into VA hospitals to work with veterans suffering from service-related mental illness? In 2009, Congress mandated a 3-year study to determine the efficacy of service dogs for mental illness. Further in, this document does say that when that study comes in, they may reconsider the current exclusion of SDs for mental illness, but REALLY??? I think that common sense trumps a short-term, VA, study. How can you know the long term efficacy of a service dog team in three years? A true, long-term, study would have to be done from the time of injury and acquisition of the dog to the veteran's rehabilitation or a decision of long term disability. Further, beyond simply looking at how well a service dog is (or isn't) helping any given veteran, to really understand the impact service dogs are having, shouldn't researchers and statisticians be examining things like suicide attempt rates among veterans diagnosed with similar psychiatric disorders – with one group having had service dogs for a number of years and one group who've gone without? A simple, three-year study is inadequate. While I appreciate the idea, let us not loose sight of the fact that such a study is unnecessary and a waste of tax dollars. Many, many studies have already been done that clearly demonstrate the benefits (both medical and social) of placing a highly-trained, working dog with a disabled person.”
The new, proposed rules, also are requiring that veterans who already have service dogs that comply with the ADA policies set by the Department of Justice further comply with a more restrictive VA Policy. The VA would allow those veterans to take their already federally accepted Service Dog and certify them with an organization that trains service dogs. They would have to do this in order to obtain ID cards which they would be required to show in order to use those dogs to assist them while on VA grounds and to receive VA benefits for their Service Dog. Why are we burdening our heroic veterans more than we burden any other citizen who needs a Service Dog during a time at which they are already making tremendous adjustments?
The ADA does not require certification or ID cards. They have very simple rules which have broadened access to Service dogs for disabled people who are not specifically blind. This act has given mobility and freedom to many disabled people who are able to train their dogs with the assistance of a trainer or by learning training on their own. More schools are being created to provide dogs to people with other disabilities, but they are usually cash-strapped and depend on charitable contributions to do their work. Member Programs of Assistance Dogs International and the International Guide Dog Federation, the very Programs that the VA's proposed new rules suggest that existing teams have certify their dogs, will not certify a dog that they did not train and place.
The VA does not have the resources itself to train these dogs, but can you imagine what a fiasco it would be to farm this out to charitable organizations?
Why is the Veteran's Administration, an Administration that purportedly exists to serve U.S. Military Veterans, trying to require that our injured vets jump through absurd hoops when the mechanisms are already exist within the Federal Government? Rules and regulations are already in place for all disabled Americans who require the assistance of a capable canine...and they are far less onerous than the rules and regulations being proposed by the VA...
Shouldn't the military and VA observe existing Federal Laws?
I can already see illegitimate businesses springing up offering to certify veterans' service dogs for a contracted price. Certainly the existing service dog schools could not handle this burden! These schools are largely non-profit organizations who are trying to serve a community in need without passing along hefty costs to their clients.
The proposed changes say: “We would allow veterans who obtained dogs through such non-accredited organizations up to 1 year after the effective date of this rule to obtain the required certification. Alternatively, the veteran and dog could obtain the certification from ADI or IGDF described under proposed paragraph (c)(1)....”
The proposed rule at Sec.17.148(c) requires the veteran to either (1) provide a certificate of completion from an ADI or IGDF-certified organization if the service dog is acquired by the veteran after the publication of the final rule; or (2) provide a certificate of completion from any then-existing guide or service dog organization if the dog is acquired prior to publication of the final rule.
I can understand the VA's feeling that they do not have the resources or expertise to train/provide/regulate dog qualities. What they DON'T seem to "get" is that there isn't an ADI or IGDF Accredited Program out there that will certify a dog they didn't train and place. So, this idea of theirs that if a veteran has a dog that's working well for them that the veteran can just go out, work with an ADI (IGDF) Program and get "certified" through that program will fly about about as well as a pig in space. It just doesn't work that way.
The VA's proposed new rules also say that the VA will pay for insurance for any of the dogs they're providing other benefits for. On the upside, they will not use an insurance company that's going to exclude someone if their dog has a pre-existing condition provided the condition does not affect the dog's ability to work. I wonder where they will find a private insurance company willing to take on this burden. Veterinarians don't bill insurance like doctors do with humans. Veterans would have to pay as much as $5,000 for a life-saving operation for their dog so it could return to work (or, at least, retire), directly out of their pockets, and then wait for an eventual reimbursement that these “pet insurance companies” have shown time-and-time again that they may not opt to pay.
This seems like a total scam job on the part of the pet insurance companies. They're looking to get some easy government dollars. I can appreciate that the VA is making some noises in the right directions and thinking about the health of the dogs, but it doesn't seem like they've investigated or given this a lot of thought. Setting aside money as an emergency vet care fund (as the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners has done), or even just going with the only insurance company that willingly handles issues like hip dysplasia and cancer (which are going to be absolutely rampant if the VA is only going with ADI/IGDF Program dogs - read: Labrador and Golden Retrievers), would seem to be a much more responsible and ethical use of tax-payer dollars. The Feds so frequently remind their employees to spend budgets wisely and telling them how they are entrusted with such responsibility as the stewards of Americans' tax dollars. We see these sorts of shady and poorly thought out proposed rule changes again and again and our Representatives seem to wonder why the citizenry is so upset.
Interestingly, the VA will not cover euthanasia unless the Assistance Dog becomes suddenly ill and is still working and therefore still eligible for benefits. I guess that Service dogs should die with their boots on...perhaps a long painful death. Or perhaps the disabled soldier is expected to use his sidearm to put their most loyal companion 'out of misery'?
The VA will not provide benefits for two dogs simultaneously, which is discussed in the introductory text of proposed paragraph (d), so VA must first terminate the coverage for the dog that is no longer performing its duties before it would cover the training of a new dog to perform such services for the veteran.
Situations are not always perfect. Sometimes one dog loses function and one does not always have anything resembling sufficient prior notice about such things. Does this mean that the veteran must formally retire (or shoot his old dog, if he cannot afford to keep him) and potentially wait two years or more for another dog to be trained?
Most disabled people wait 2-5 years for the opportunity to be partnered with a fully-trained service dog.
In another section the proposed rules say that euthanasia will be a covered medical expense. So, will they or won't they? Forgive my bluntness and cynical side, but are these proposed rules trying to tell our veterans that they have to off their current dog before getting benefits to apply for their successor dog? That's sure what it sounds like. At least the VA is proposing trying (via insurance) to cover the medical expenses of one dog, but these rules make them seem completely oblivious of how the Assistance Dog industry actually works. They're potentially putting disabled veterans in one heck of a catch-22.
So, let's consider how most ADI Programs work. When a service dog needs to retire, the client usually has the option to rehome their trusty partner with the dog's original puppyraisers or a school volunteer. Usually what happens, though, is that the handler will opt to keep the retired dog - including taking on the medical costs associated with end-of-life and get back on the wait list for a successor dog. (Please take a moment to think about this. Would you hand your best friend off to someone you don't know just because they've become old or ill? Your very best friend...a being who has never judged you in any way and who could, potentially, be credited with saving your life? Someone who has been the only one willing to listen and help you through one of the darkest periods of your life? When so many others washed their hands of you and walked away – even your commrades – this friend didn't. Could you wash you hands and walk away from the only individual who seemed to give a damn whether you lived or died? Think hard, because that's what these new rules appear to mandate.) Of course, as soon as the dog is deemed to need to retire by a veterinarian, the VA isn't going to pay for medical at that point anyway...not even eventual euthanasia, if I'm reading this correctly. In any case, handlers will inevitably left with this awful conundrum right at the point where they'd be needing the most help with medical bills on their first partner, but until they release dog #1 from work the VA will not be offering benefits to try to obtain dog #2. It's just not realistic. I hope you can see the lack of logic of these new policies.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. We believe that most service-dog providers that provide dogs to veterans are already accredited in accordance with the proposed rule. We do not believe that gaining accreditation should result in a significant financial burden, as the standards for approval by ADI and IGDF are reasonable thresholds that are generally expected and accepted within the industry. The approximate cost to be an accredited organization by IGDF is a one-time fee of $795, with an annual fee of $318 and a per unit fee of $39.45. The approximate cost to be an accredited organization by ADI is $1,000 every 5 years with annual fees of approximately $50. The vast majority of accredited programs do not provide dogs to veterans. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The name of this act and it's application to this situation are ironic. Most programs are on really tight budgets because they're trying desperately to keep costs down for their disabled clients. Not to mention that becoming an ADI/IGDF member program isn't just about simply paying a fee. There are about a zillion other requirements – requirements that DO create a "significant financial burden" for many smaller, but wonderful programs. ADI and IGDF are not under government control of any type, but they are highly regulatory and not terribly flexible. Indeed, there has been a lot of talk over the years among the smaller programs about creating one 'umbrella ADI member program' that they all could then be under specifically to help lower the costs involved for ADI membership...because the costs of membership are PROHIBITIVE. Forget about “a significant financial burden”. Significant might even be fine, were this going up for an open bid, but prohibitive is not fine – and 'giving the business' to ADI and IGDF programs isn't up for discussion. It seems to be a given. Why?
The statement that the vast majority of accredited programs do not train dogs for veterans is just wildly incorrect. ADI and IGDF member Programs have been placing dogs with veterans for half-past forever. They just weren't talking it up and beating the drums about placing with veterans until Sen. Franken's legislation got passed a few years back that said that the U.S. Government would now be paying these programs to place with veterans. Imagine that. We all like to think that the assistance dog industry is about wagging, puppy-dog, tails, rainbows and inspirational stories, but we are talking about BIG money...which means BIG (often ugly) politics.
The ultimate goal of this change is clearly to make owning a service dog more complex, perhaps even beyond the ability of someone with a serious physical or traumatic brain injury. The proposed new rules also offer nothing for our countless veterans suffering from psychiatric illness as a direct result of their military service. To deprive our veterans rights that are already clearly spelled out by Federal Law would be cruel. To do so by tightly restricting and narrowly defining the benefits they worked and, literally, fought for should be criminal. To spend money on hearings, debating ways to make the process so complex that assistance dogs are basically not allowed into VA hospitals onto military bases, is downright unAmerican.
The Department of Justice went to GREAT lengths when it developed the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act that went into effect in March of 2011. Why is the Veteran's Administration suddenly reinventing the wheel? And why are they doing so in such restrictive ways?
Regards,
__________________ <phone, address, zipcode>
* * * ADDITIONAL NOTES: * * *
Comments on the collection of information contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to:
The Office of Management and Budget
Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Washington, DC 20503,
… with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to:
Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG),
Department of Veterans Affairs,
810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068,
Washington, DC 20420;
… or fax to (202) 273-9026;
… or through http://www.Regulations.gov.
Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to ``RIN 2900-AN51,
Service Dogs.''
As most of you have already figured out, you can submit your comments by email, thanks, largely, to the Paperwork Reduction Act (lol) and they're trying to make it possible for everyone to comment regardless of any disabilities. (How thoughtful of them?) I will be making some phone calls in the next few days to some of the folks who have been involved in drafting the proposed new rules and faxing in my comments, but I cannot implore you enough to comment, comment, comment. They're expecting that they're going to hear primarily from veterans and their families, but I think the assistance dog community needs to send a strong message that we ALL care about what happens to our military veterans and the dogs who help them overcome disabilities (of ALL types!!!) that they're now dealing with because they've opted to selflessly serve our nation.
You should also send copies to your state senators and to your representative. If you are unsure of their names/addresses, these can be found at: http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html or by googling for "congressional addresses".