OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE BOB FILNER RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS - HEARING ON HEPATITIS C, H.R. 1020, H.R. 3816, H.R. 3998 AND H.R. 4131 April 13, 2000
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am an original co-sponsor and strong supporter of all the bills we are considering today. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak for bringing to our attention the serious impact on veterans and their families of failing to provide service-connection to Members of the Guard and Reserve when they suffer a heart attack or stroke while on inactive duty training. This is a wrong which must be righted. I thank Dr. Snyder for keeping our focus on the emerging issue of Hepatitis C. H.R. 1020 provides a presumption of service-connection recognizing the impossibility of proving the etiology of infection with the Hepatitis C virus. Veterans would, of course, still be required to establish that they were exposed to one of the listed risks during military service. This is, in itself a formidable task, since military records are often silent as to risk factors, even when hepatitis has been diagnosed in service. The bill also recognizes the impossibility of determining the source of an infection once an individual has developed Hepatitis C and can identify at least one recognized risk factor. The impossibility of determining which of multiple risk factors is responsible for an infection in an individual veteran was clearly stated by Dr. Thomas Holohan, VA’s Chief Patient Care Officer during a June, 1999 subcommittee hearing of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Despite VHA’s recognition of the impossibility of making a medical determination in an individual case, veterans are currently required to obtain just such a medical opinion. When it is not possible for medical science to provide an answer concerning whether a service-connected event is the cause of a veteran’s disability, the evidence should be considered equal and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the veteran. HR 1020, by presuming service-connection when certain risk factors recognized by the Veterans Health Administration are incurred in-service, would provide that veterans are to be given the benefit of the doubt. I am troubled by VBA’s testimony which suggests that the criteria used by VBA should not be Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) criteria, but epidemiological data from the Centers for Disease Control. Since VHA criteria focuses on the specific characterizations of Hepatitis C in veterans rather than the population in general, I believe that it is more appropriate for "One–VA" to use one set of criteria, based upon the unique factors applicable to veterans. I am also concerned that VBA now seems to be rejecting evidence of abnormal liver tests during military service (particularly for veterans whose military service predates the discovery of the Hepatitis C virus) as evidence of infection in service. Since the onset of this disease is so insidious, abnormal liver tests may be the only evidence available to a veteran in trying to establish a claim for service-connection. The Committee continues to hear from veterans who appear to warrant service-connection for Hepatitis C, but are facing serious bureaucratic barriers in receiving it. I welcome testimony recognizing the importance of special monthly compensation for veterans who have undergone a radical or modified radical mastectomy. As more and more women enter military service, they should understand that a disease which impacts them disproportionately will be compensated commensurate with those paid for conditions which impact male veterans. I firmly believe that we cannot allow the costs of inflation to eat away at the benefits earned by our disabled veterans and their survivors. HR 4131 will at least assure that compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation benefits will keep pace with the cost of living. I welcome the witnesses who will be testifying today and look forward to your testimony. Back to Witness List |