The Act also includes a provision for GAO to assess the plan within 90  days after VA submits it. In  its appeals plan, VA reported its decision to pilot test two of the five new  options by allowing veterans with pending appeals in the legacy process  (known as legacy appeals) to elect the VBA supplemental claim or the  higher-level review options beginning in November 2017. VA’s Plan Addresses Most of the Act’s Required Elements for the New and Legacy Disability Appeals Processes

VA’s appeals plan addresses 17 of the Act’s 22 required elements,  partially addresses 4 related to monitoring implementation and workforce  planning, and does not address 1 element related to identifying total  resources. Further, as discussed below,  addressing required elements through a more comprehensive plan and  underlying analysis is consistent with sound planning practices and would  better position VA to implement the new appeals process while attending  to legacy appeals; for example, a plan that provides for carefully  monitoring the new and legacy appeals processes against balanced goals  and metrics, and clearly articulates resources, milestones and other  information needed for effective program management. VA’s Appeals Plan Reflects Certain Sound Planning Practices, but Could Improve on Others

VA’s appeals plan reflects certain sound planning practices, such as  convening a working group on performance tracking; however, the plan  could benefit from including important details related to three key planning  areas:  1.  articulating a balanced set of goals and related measures to  monitor and assess the performance of the new appeals process,  in conjunction with the legacy process;  2.  developing a high-quality and reliable implementation schedule to  manage key steps and activities of the project; and  3.  assessing key risks in a comprehensive manner, including  respective mitigation strategies, and articulating clear criteria and  an assessment plan for RAMP, and more fully testing or analyzing  all appeal options. VA’s Appeals Plan Indicates Steps to Assess Process Changes, but Should Also Include Goals and Measures to Provide Full Picture of Success

VA’s appeals plan reflects steps taken to track performance, but it could  improve its planning practices related to monitoring and assessing  performance on a range of key dimensions of success. VA’s plan does not reflect how it will establish baseline data:  VA’s approach for evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the  implementation of the new appeals process falls short of sound  practices for using baseline data to assess performance. Specifically:
Key activities and their duration are not included: VA’s master  schedule does not capture the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program  (RAMP) activities, even though this pilot test is occurring at the same  time VA is preparing for full implementation of appeals options at VBA  and the Board. For example, VA’s  appeals plan references several required IT modifications that do not  appear in its master schedule. Until VA has a robust integrated master schedule, supported  by detailed project plans that adhere to sound practices, VA’s appeals  plan does not provide reasonable assurance that decision makers have  the essential program management information needed for this complex  and important effort. However, as designed, RAMP does not include features that—consistent  with a well-developed and documented pilot test program—would provide  VA with an opportunity to evaluate fully the soundness of new processes  and practices on a smaller scale. VA’s plan does not articulate how it will assess RAMP before  proceeding with full implementation: Although VA’s appeals plan  describes a “close-out” phase in which VA intends to assess the  results of RAMP, it does not detail the conditions that would have to  be met (or not met) to trigger changes. However, RAMP was not designed to test how  many veterans would choose to appeal directly to the Board and,  therefore, it will not provide comparable information on the Board  appeals options. As a result, VA will lack data  on scenarios in which veterans may overwhelmingly choose options  available at the Board over those at VBA when the appeals plan is  fully implemented. By pursuing an approach that does not identify or mitigate significant risks  associated with implementing a new process, VA is taking a chance that  untested aspects will not perform as desired. At  the same time, the plan partially addresses or does not address five of  the required elements called for by the Act, such as delineating the total  resources required by VBA and the Board to implement and administer  the new appeals process and address legacy appeals. clearly articulate in VA’s appeals plan how VA will monitor and assess  the new appeals process compared to the legacy process, including  specifying a balanced set of goals and measures—such as timeliness  goals for all VBA appeals options and Board dockets, and measures  of accuracy, veteran satisfaction, and cost—and related baseline  data. Appendix I: Our Assessment of VA’s Appeals Plan Against Required Elements in the Act

To assess the extent to which VA’s appeals plan addresses the required  elements in the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of  2017 (the Act), we first identified and developed a checklist reflecting  each required element for VA’s appeals plan (including sub-parts) under  section 3(a) and (b) of the Act.
Why GAO Did This Study

VA's disability compensation program pays cash benefits to veterans with disabilities connected to their military service. In recent years, the number of appeals of VA's benefit decisions has been rising. For decisions made on appeal in fiscal year 2017, veterans waited an average of 3 years for resolution by either VBA or the Board, and 7 years for resolution by the Board. The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 makes changes to VA's current (legacy) appeals process, giving veterans new options to have their claims further reviewed by VBA or appeal directly to the Board. The Act requires VA to submit to Congress and GAO a plan for implementing a new appeals process, and includes a provision for GAO to assess VA's plan.
This testimony focuses on the extent to which VA's plan: (1) addresses the required elements in the Act, and (2) reflects sound planning practices identified in prior GAO work. GAO's work entailed reviewing and assessing VA's appeals plan and related documents against sound planning practices, and soliciting VA's views on GAO's assessments.

What GAO Found

The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) plan for implementing a new disability appeals process while attending to appeals in the current process addresses most, but not all, elements required by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Act). VA's appeals plan addresses 17 of 22 required elements, partially addresses 4, and does not address 1. For example, not addressed is the required element to include the resources needed by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) to implement the new appeals process and address legacy appeals under the current process. VA needs this information to certify, as specified under the Act, that it has sufficient resources to implement appeals reform and make timely appeals decisions under the new and legacy processes.
VA's appeals plan reflects certain sound planning practices, but it could benefit from including important details in several key planning areas:
Performance measurement : VA's plan reflects steps taken to track performance, but could articulate a more complete and balanced set of goals and measures for monitoring and assessing performance on a range of dimensions of success. Specifically, the plan reports that VA is developing a process to track timeliness of the new and legacy processes. However, contrary to sound planning practices, the plan does not include timeliness goals for all five appeals options available to veterans, does not include goals or measures for additional aspects of performance (such as accuracy or cost), and does not explain how VA will monitor or assess the new process compared to the legacy process. Unless VA clearly articulates a complete and balanced set of goals and measures, it could inadvertently incentivize staff to focus on certain aspects of appeals performance over others or fail to improve overall service to veterans.
Project management : VA's plan includes a master schedule for implementing the new appeals plan; however, this schedule falls short of sound practices because it does not include key planned activities—such as its pilot test of two of the five appeals options. In addition, the schedule does not reflect other sound practices for guiding implementation and establishing accountability—such as articulating interim goals and needed resources for, and interdependencies among, activities. Unless VA augments its master schedule to include all key activities and reflect sound practices, VA may be unable to provide reasonable assurance that it has the essential program management information needed for this complex and important effort.
Risk assessment : VA has taken steps to assess and mitigate some risks related to appeals reform by, for example, pilot testing two of the five appeals options through its Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP). However, as designed, RAMP does not include key features of a well-developed and documented pilot test. For example, VA has not articulated how it will assess RAMP before proceeding with full implementation. In addition, RAMP is not pilot testing three options and, as a result, VA will not have data on the extent to which veterans will appeal directly to the Board when given the option. Unless VA identifies and mitigates key risks associated with implementing a new process, VA is taking a chance that untested aspects will not perform as desired.

What GAO Recommends

In its forthcoming report, GAO is considering recommending that VA: fully address all legally required elements in its appeals plan, articulate how it will monitor and assess the new appeals process as compared to the legacy process, augment its master schedule for implementation, and more fully address risk.