One potential place to search for better ways to structure the veterans benefits system is to look at other countries. Comparative veterans law could be an interesting topic, but I am aware of only one published article that touches on the subject: Jeffrey Lubbers & Michael Asimow, The Merits of “Merits” Review: A Comparative Look at the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 28, No. 2 (2010). They examined the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Australia, and suggested that the United States consider adopting a similar federal benefits tribunal of generalized jurisdiction. Although they touched upon veterans claims, the bulk of their analysis focused on the Social Security administrative law judge system and not the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA).
For me, the most striking aspect of their article was the resource allocation described. Asimow and Lubbers noted in passing that the Australian system spends over $30,000 per appeal (assuming the recent average conversion rate of nearly one U.S. dollar to one Australian dollar), and that Australian administrative law judges who handle disability claims decide approximately 100 to 150 cases a year (per full-time equivalent, depending upon the rate of production of part-time judges). Compare that to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which decides 800 appeals per judge, while spending less than $1,700 per appeal. I imagine that if we started spending $30,000 per appeal and slashed caseloads by 80% or more, delays would plummet and satisfaction with the work product would likely skyrocket. Given the massive differential in investment, though, I doubt that importing Australian institutions or procedures alone would produce better outcomes.
However, are there other options? My sense is the veterans benefits systems in Europe are much less elaborate, perhaps due either to the fact that countries were in such disarray at the end of WWII or to the broader scope of their general social programs. However, Great Britain adopted a new veterans benefits system less than a decade ago that deserves careful scrutiny. (In fact, some of the procedures used in our current system were adopted in the 1950s after an examination of the British system at the time.) The new British system seems to be a hybrid of a workers compensation system and a traditional disability benefits system. Benefits for mild and moderate injuries must be claimed promptly, and result in lump sum payments with no further administrative overhead. Severe injuries still result in long-term payments, but reevaluations are more difficult than in our current system. How is this working and how much overhead does this save? Those are answers that are very much worth explaining.
I think there is a lot that might be learned through comparative veterans law. However, this is an endeavor that is harder than it first appears. Substance, procedure, and investment in administrative overhead are all important ingredients of any legal system. A good comparative study must look at all three elements to fully assess the costs and benefits of different options.
Comments