NAVAPD Signs Statement For The Record Regarding The RECOVER Act
NAVAPD along with 6 other professional organizations (The Association of VA Anesthesiologists, Association of VA Nurse Anesthesiologists, Association of VA Psychologists, Association of VA Social Workers, Nurses Organization of VA and the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute) were signatories on a STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs – Health Subcommittee for the Legislative Hearing held on January 13, 2026
The organizations made comments to address five of the seven bills under consideration at the hearing. A summary of the submitted comments in the Statement for the Record is included below:
H.R. 2283 — RECOVER Act (Recognizing Community Organizations for Veteran Engagement and Recovery)
Primary Concerns:
Creates a parallel system outside VA/VCCP: Bypasses VA authorization, introducing competing eligibility rules and undermining the MISSION Act’s goal of a single, coordinated program.
Duplicates services: Unlike Fox Grants (which fund services that are unavailable at VA), the bill funds mental health care already provided by VA and the VCCP.
Erodes coordination and oversight: Removes VA’s role as care coordinator; does not require providers to share health records with VA.
Weakens quality standards: Minimal training requirements for community care providers, unlike VA providers where training is mandatory annually. The bill also neglects to mandate suicide‑prevention training requirements.
No timeliness safeguards: Establishes no wait‑time standards; veterans could have longer waits than at VA.
Pays twice: Allows VCCP facilities to receive grants without increasing capacity, risking double payment.
Lacks accountability: No accreditation (Joint Commission/CARF), peer review, utilization review, outcomes reporting, or appointment limits.
Undermines Vet Centers: Risks duplicating or diverting use of the 300+ Vet Centers and 80 Mobile Vet Centers designed for veterans wary of VA facilities.
Recommendation: The organizations oppose the bill as written. We recommend that Congress strengthen VA’s mental health workforce and preserve VA’s care coordinating role. Congress needs to continue to leverage community resources within the VA/VCCP framework rather than creating a parallel system with lower standards and limited oversight. We oppose shifting VA from provider of care to payer for care.
Veterans Health Desert Reform Act of 2025
Primary Concerns:
Removes authorization safeguards: Permits VA‑paid care at selected hospitals without VA authorization, eliminating protections against unnecessary or non‑evidence‑based care and exposing taxpayers to fraud risk.
Duplicates existing access pathways: May overlap with VA/VCCP in the same geographies; no requirement that sites be >60 minutes from VA/VCCP facilities.
Breaks care continuity: No requirement to share health records with VA, fragmenting treatment.
Accelerates privatization: Pilot could scale, shifting patients and funds from VA, triggering program reductions and undermining specialized VA services.
Positive Provision: Aligns reimbursement rates for veterans with non‑veteran rates—an appropriate equity measure.
Recommendation: Preserve VA’s authorization and coordination role; pursue reimbursement parity and rural access solutions within the VCCP. Incentivize non‑participating facilities to join VCCP rather than building competing networks.
H.R. 2426 — Veterans Mental Health and Addiction Therapy Quality of Care Act
Primary Concerns
No TPA contract requirements: Without revising Third‑Party Administrator contracts, community providers lack incentive to collect outcomes, yielding a one‑sided evaluation by VA only.
Insufficient data access: The bill must explicitly require VCCP providers to submit complete health records and measurement data to VA (following the Fox Grant model) and not rely on ad hoc record forwarding.
Ambiguous study cohorts: Must compare veterans treated at VA vs. veterans treated via VCCP—not VA patients vs. non‑veterans.
Measurement standards absent: The bill should require validated measurement tools such as PTSD Checklist (PCL‑5), PHQ‑9 for depression, and Brief Addiction Monitor for SUD.
Missing quality indicators: the bill needs to include provider training specific to treated conditions, data capture/completion rates, peer review, and time to treatment initiation.
Governance and rigor: Designate an independent scientific body (e.g., National Academies) to oversee design, methods, and analysis of data.
Evidence‑based references: Anchor “evidence‑based practices” in VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guidelines rather than ASAM criteria for this context.
Recommendation: The signatory organizations recommend the bill be amended to mandate data access, standardized outcomes, rigorous study design, provider quality metrics, and independent oversight to produce actionable, comparable information for veterans.
Veterans TBI BEACON Act of 2025
(Breakthrough Exploration of Adaptive Care Opportunities Nationwide)
Primary Concerns:
Duplicates and fragments existing VA capacity: Circumvents established clinical pathways and undercuts VA’s TBI research and care infrastructure, including TRACTS.
Risks promoting unvalidated interventions: Encourages peer‑based models outside rigorous scientific validation and established VA channels.
Dilutes accountability: Moving grant administration outside VA adds organizational fragmentation.
Recommendation:
The organizations recommend that the bill strengthen and fund VA’s TBI ecosystem (e.g., TRACTS) and integrate any new research within existing, validated pathways rather than creating parallel tracks.
Data Driven Suicide Prevention and Outreach Act of 2025
Primary Concerns:
Duplicates proven VA analytics: REACH VET already identifies the top 0.1% highest‑risk patients using population‑scale VA data and integrates clinical follow‑up.
Lower predictive value: Smaller external datasets will be less accurate than VA’s enterprise‑level data.
Fragmentation risk: Parallel algorithms divert resources and complicate clinical integration.
Recommendation: The bill should invest in expanding and refining REACH VET and related VA analytics and clinical integration—rather than funding parallel models that duplicate effort and weaken coordination.
Conclusion
Bills to reform VA or VCCP should enhance, not undermine, VA’s integrated care model. The most effective path is to strengthen VA’s workforce, strengthen data access, and care coordination, leverage community resources within the VCCP, and maintain rigorous standards and oversight across all settings.