They're completely lost...in a maze of bureaucracy.
First there was VAC, then the Bureau of Pensions Advocates to deal with VAC mismanagement (it's sad that the appeal process has become an expected part of the disability claim process), now there's to be an Ombudsman to watch over the entire mess.
There are many people receiving money and earning wages on the backs and suffering of wounded soldiers- it's just not the soldiers themselves.
When you have watchdogs guarding your watchdogs, you just know that something is wrong.
And, IMHO, it's just starting- the problems with the New Charter are just beginning to crop up.
For example- with the lump sum award- how are they going to figure things out if a disabiity worsens over time. Under the old system, the amount of disability income could increase or decrease according to the extent of the disability at any given time. This, of course, never happened- nothing is ever easy with VAC- but, with a monthly payment, it was expected that there could be temporary high assessments and changes in payouts based on changes in levels of disability.
How will this happen with the lump sum awards? VAC has already recognized the problem, I think, because many people are now being told that, while their claims have been accepted, the award entitlements will not be granted until their conditions have stabilized and
treatment is complete.
Sounds fair, except that, in many cases, this may not happen for years. A lot of financial damage and debt can be incurred while military personnel are waiting for VAC to determine if it is the right time for the money to be awarded.
One other thing I've noticed in my dealings with others is that it sometimes seems that the most disabled are getting the lowest payouts from VAC. Those who have had their LTD benefits extended past the normal 24 months upon release- indicating a high level of disability as the insurance company won't easily extend benefits past the 24 months (being an insurance company and all)- are coming back with disability assessments from VAC in the very low range- 10% or less.
Anybody else dealing with this seeming paradox? SISIP assesses you as totally disabled, and VAC as %10 or minimally disabled?
It seems quite odd.
I have noticed that these low assessments tend to occur with cases that deal with neurological problems-brain damage, nerve damage etc, and assessments for these things have always been difficult- there are (were I should maybe say, they seem to be improving) fewer VAC guidelines and standards for assessing neurological problems than for the more common muscle and joint problems that occur in the military.
However, I have begun to wonder if the low assessments have anything to do with the fact that VAC knows that SISIP is paying for the care of these veterans, and simply does not want to offer disability money that they know, with the clawback policy as it currently is, will simply go straight into the coffers of the insurance company.
Is that a little bit too much of a conspiracy theory? Just my ramblings...but it's something to think about.
Bren
First there was VAC, then the Bureau of Pensions Advocates to deal with VAC mismanagement (it's sad that the appeal process has become an expected part of the disability claim process), now there's to be an Ombudsman to watch over the entire mess.
There are many people receiving money and earning wages on the backs and suffering of wounded soldiers- it's just not the soldiers themselves.
When you have watchdogs guarding your watchdogs, you just know that something is wrong.
And, IMHO, it's just starting- the problems with the New Charter are just beginning to crop up.
For example- with the lump sum award- how are they going to figure things out if a disabiity worsens over time. Under the old system, the amount of disability income could increase or decrease according to the extent of the disability at any given time. This, of course, never happened- nothing is ever easy with VAC- but, with a monthly payment, it was expected that there could be temporary high assessments and changes in payouts based on changes in levels of disability.
How will this happen with the lump sum awards? VAC has already recognized the problem, I think, because many people are now being told that, while their claims have been accepted, the award entitlements will not be granted until their conditions have stabilized and
treatment is complete.
Sounds fair, except that, in many cases, this may not happen for years. A lot of financial damage and debt can be incurred while military personnel are waiting for VAC to determine if it is the right time for the money to be awarded.
One other thing I've noticed in my dealings with others is that it sometimes seems that the most disabled are getting the lowest payouts from VAC. Those who have had their LTD benefits extended past the normal 24 months upon release- indicating a high level of disability as the insurance company won't easily extend benefits past the 24 months (being an insurance company and all)- are coming back with disability assessments from VAC in the very low range- 10% or less.
Anybody else dealing with this seeming paradox? SISIP assesses you as totally disabled, and VAC as %10 or minimally disabled?
It seems quite odd.
I have noticed that these low assessments tend to occur with cases that deal with neurological problems-brain damage, nerve damage etc, and assessments for these things have always been difficult- there are (were I should maybe say, they seem to be improving) fewer VAC guidelines and standards for assessing neurological problems than for the more common muscle and joint problems that occur in the military.
However, I have begun to wonder if the low assessments have anything to do with the fact that VAC knows that SISIP is paying for the care of these veterans, and simply does not want to offer disability money that they know, with the clawback policy as it currently is, will simply go straight into the coffers of the insurance company.
Is that a little bit too much of a conspiracy theory? Just my ramblings...but it's something to think about.
Bren
