I was just discussing this story on another board and realized I hadn't seen it mentioned here.
Veterans' Affairs doctor tells staff to refrain from PTSD diagnoses
The VA has repudiated the memo, but outraged veterans see a reluctance from the government to support their disability.
From the Washington Post
May 16, 2008
WASHINGTON — The physician in charge of the post-traumatic stress disorder program at a medical facility for veterans in Texas told staff members to refrain from diagnosing PTSD because so many veterans were seeking government disability payments for the condition.
"Given that we are having more and more compensation seeking veterans, I'd like to suggest that you refrain from giving a diagnosis of PTSD straight out," Norma Perez wrote in a March 20 e-mail to mental health specialists and social workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Olin E. Teague Veterans' Center in Temple, Texas. Instead, she recommended that they "consider a diagnosis of adjustment disorder."
Adjustment disorder is a less severe reaction to stress than PTSD and has a shorter duration, usually no longer than six months, said Anthony Ng, a psychiatrist and member of Mental Health America, a nonprofit professional association.
Veterans diagnosed with PTSD can be eligible for disability compensation of up to $2,527 a month, depending on the severity of the condition, said Alison Aikele, a VA spokeswoman. Those found to have adjustment disorder generally are not offered such payments, but veterans can receive medical treatment for either condition.
Perez's e-mail was obtained and released Thursday by VoteVets.org, a veterans group that has been critical of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit government watchdog group.
"Many veterans believe that the government just doesn't want to pay out the disability that comes along with a PTSD diagnosis, and this revelation will not allay their concerns," Jon Soltz, VoteVets.org chairman and an Iraq war veteran, said in a statement.
Veterans Affairs Secretary James Peake said in a statement that Perez's e-mail was "inappropriate" and did not reflect VA policy. It had been "repudiated at the highest level of our healthcare organization," he said.
Peake said Perez had been "counseled" and was "extremely apologetic." Aikele said Perez remained in her job.
A Rand Corp. report released in April found that repeated exposure to combat stress in Iraq and Afghanistan was causing a disproportionately high psychological toll compared with physical injuries. About 300,000 U.S. military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are suffering from PTSD or major depression, the study found. The economic cost to the United States -- including medical care, forgone productivity and lives lost to suicide -- is expected to reach $4 billion to $6 billion over two years.
LINK
Full Version: VA DOCTOR URGES LESS EXPENSIVE DIAGNOSIS THAN PTSD
Really? Nothin', huh?
Must be the weekend quietude.
PTSD gets the afflicted a ticket home, Adjustment Disorder doesn't.
A friend of mine has diabetes due to agent orange but can't get anything for it. I read somewhere that over 50% of doctors now believe we need a universal, single payer health care system.
QUOTE (CWV @ May 18 2008, 02:38 PM) 
PTSD gets the afflicted a ticket home, Adjustment Disorder doesn't.
But you'll note this doctor is in Texas giving direction to docs at the VA there. So it won't GET them home, but PTSD could KEEP them home, this aside from the dramatic dollar savings in the AD diagnosis as described above.
It's just the same old "publicly love the soldiers while they're abroad, while secretly screwing them at home" tactic this administration has used since the beginning of Iraq.
I hate how this administration generally misuses our soldiers and sailors who have the grace to join the Army, Marines, Air Force, or NAVY because of their all-around love for America and would like to defend her from any threat that comes along. Only to get strung out, recycled, brought home broken men and women, only to be told that "hey, you lost a leg, but you can still go back to Iraq!" or "no, you don't have PTSD, you have Adjustment Disorder. So back to Iraq with you!"
Or, even worse, they're brought back home in a body bag to get paraded as a name on local and national TV.
I remember a few years ago when I read that they're sending soldiers back with prosthetic legs and such, and posted my extreme dislike of that on my home message board... I got told by a kid who bought the whole hollywood romance of the career soldier that it just lets them keep on being soldiers and was wondering why I was outraged.
The hollywood romance is asinine, most men and women in our forces would like to go back to their families. But, took on a challenge like serving in our Military for the reasons I stated above.
It also shows what those craptastic movies in the 80's, continuing on to today, have done to warp the mind set of the population into believing war is glamorous. Well, the media started even earlier than that but they didn't have as many special effects, then, as they do today.
I mean just look at all the vapid block filler crap they have going on nowadays, like John Cena(a ****ing "pro" wrestler for Gord's sake) and his movie "The Marine."
Sorry for the rant at the end, but it just peeves me to no end that some people buy into the media controlled romance of war, war heroes and etc. when we're talking about real human beings who could potentially lose life, limb, or sanity having to be GIs under an insane administration.
Oh, for those who haven't seen it, the documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated" has a whole section on how the military works closely with the movie industry. I suggest giving the documentary a watch because it shows how the ratings process works.
I hate how this administration generally misuses our soldiers and sailors who have the grace to join the Army, Marines, Air Force, or NAVY because of their all-around love for America and would like to defend her from any threat that comes along. Only to get strung out, recycled, brought home broken men and women, only to be told that "hey, you lost a leg, but you can still go back to Iraq!" or "no, you don't have PTSD, you have Adjustment Disorder. So back to Iraq with you!"
Or, even worse, they're brought back home in a body bag to get paraded as a name on local and national TV.
I remember a few years ago when I read that they're sending soldiers back with prosthetic legs and such, and posted my extreme dislike of that on my home message board... I got told by a kid who bought the whole hollywood romance of the career soldier that it just lets them keep on being soldiers and was wondering why I was outraged.
The hollywood romance is asinine, most men and women in our forces would like to go back to their families. But, took on a challenge like serving in our Military for the reasons I stated above.
It also shows what those craptastic movies in the 80's, continuing on to today, have done to warp the mind set of the population into believing war is glamorous. Well, the media started even earlier than that but they didn't have as many special effects, then, as they do today.
I mean just look at all the vapid block filler crap they have going on nowadays, like John Cena(a ****ing "pro" wrestler for Gord's sake) and his movie "The Marine."
Sorry for the rant at the end, but it just peeves me to no end that some people buy into the media controlled romance of war, war heroes and etc. when we're talking about real human beings who could potentially lose life, limb, or sanity having to be GIs under an insane administration.
Oh, for those who haven't seen it, the documentary "This Film is Not Yet Rated" has a whole section on how the military works closely with the movie industry. I suggest giving the documentary a watch because it shows how the ratings process works.
Penny Coleman gave some dramatic testimony on this subject:
video, transcripts here:
http://www.flashbackhome.com/hearing.html#video
video, transcripts here:
http://www.flashbackhome.com/hearing.html#video
QUOTE
It is more than 30 years since the war in Vietnam ended, and still no one has any idea how many Vietnam veterans have taken their own lives because no one has ever tried count them.
The 1990 National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, mandated by Congress and government funded, the study that proved the syndrome now called PTSD, but never even mentioned suicide, in spite of the fact that suicide was central to every study that preceded it, including those on which it was based. No data, no proof.
No proof, no problem.
The United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and by August, so many American soldiers had killed themselves that the Army sent a mental health advisory team to investigate. Their report confirmed a suicide rate three times greater than the statistical norm for the armed forces.
It also acknowledged that one third of the psychiatric casualties being evacuated had suicide-related behaviors as part of their clinical presentation. Nonetheless, the team's conclusion was that soldiers were killing themselves for the same reasons that soldiers "typically" kill themselves: personal problems.
A supplement to the report listed things that soldiers most often identified as "stressors:" seeing dead bodies or human remains, being attacked, or losing a friend, but the report itself only mentions marital problems, legal problems, financial problems, what they called "underdeveloped life coping skills.” Translation: soldiers are dying because they are managing their lives and their affairs badly.
Every year since 2003, the suicide rate has increased and another team of military psychiatrists has been dispatched. Their conclusions are always the same: insufficient life coping skills. As recently as August, Elspeth Ritchie of the Army Surgeon General’s office insisted that, in spite of a suicide rate that had reached a 26-year record high, Pentagon studies still haven't found a connection between soldier suicides and war.
The 1990 National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, mandated by Congress and government funded, the study that proved the syndrome now called PTSD, but never even mentioned suicide, in spite of the fact that suicide was central to every study that preceded it, including those on which it was based. No data, no proof.
No proof, no problem.
The United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and by August, so many American soldiers had killed themselves that the Army sent a mental health advisory team to investigate. Their report confirmed a suicide rate three times greater than the statistical norm for the armed forces.
It also acknowledged that one third of the psychiatric casualties being evacuated had suicide-related behaviors as part of their clinical presentation. Nonetheless, the team's conclusion was that soldiers were killing themselves for the same reasons that soldiers "typically" kill themselves: personal problems.
A supplement to the report listed things that soldiers most often identified as "stressors:" seeing dead bodies or human remains, being attacked, or losing a friend, but the report itself only mentions marital problems, legal problems, financial problems, what they called "underdeveloped life coping skills.” Translation: soldiers are dying because they are managing their lives and their affairs badly.
Every year since 2003, the suicide rate has increased and another team of military psychiatrists has been dispatched. Their conclusions are always the same: insufficient life coping skills. As recently as August, Elspeth Ritchie of the Army Surgeon General’s office insisted that, in spite of a suicide rate that had reached a 26-year record high, Pentagon studies still haven't found a connection between soldier suicides and war.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.