ShareThis Page
VA health-care woes: Shulkin must do better |

VA health-care woes: Shulkin must do better

The Associated Press
| Friday, April 21, 2017 8:57 p.m
Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin addresses a House Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington. Shulkin has pledged a top-down review at the D.C. VA medical center after an urgent watchdog report warned that patients were being put at risk due to poor inventory practices. (AP Photo)

The Pittsburgh Veterans Affairs Healthcare System’s University Drive campus has more progress to make regarding patient wait times. Meanwhile, conditions at the VA’s D.C. Medical Center are “so troubling that the agency’s inspector general released a rare interim report,” according to The Washington Post. He “did not want to wait for (the full report’s) completion to warn the public.”

In D.C., lack of supplies has halted dialysis and surgical operations, and sterile items have been left in dirty, cluttered rooms. “They have no inventory system,” IG Michael J. Missal told The Post. “They don’t know what they have or what they are going to need.”

On University Drive, new VA data show the second-longest average wait times for return visits in February among Pennsylvania’s 41 VA hospitals and clinics — eight days. New patients waited 22 days. Its group practice manager, noting that University Drive handles the state’s most complex VA cases, says it offers same-day appointments for urgent needs and has made other improvements since long VA wait times made headlines nationally in 2014.

Still, University Drive can and must do better. So must the D.C. facility. Thankfully, its director already has been replaced. Now, Dr. David Shulkin, President Trump’s new VA secretary, must meet that challenge here, there and nationwide.

Those who sacrificed to serve America deserve nothing less than the best care the VA can provide — which it too often has failed to deliver.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.