Vipers Vietnam Veteran Message Board: Re: Veterans denied VA violation of 1722a claim

[ Post a Response | Vipers Vietnam Veteran Message Board ]

Re: Veterans denied VA violation of 1722a claim

Posted by Haiki on 7/25/2007, 5:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Veterans denied VA violation of 1722a claim"
172.167.7.210

Several veterans asked previously, if they can help. Yes, you can. This is every veterans claim. If you are being over-charged as claimed, therefore, in the event, I am unable to not pursue this claim, for what-ever reason, all you will need to carry on, is the principle of law, applied by the BVA, as explained below.
VA medication good news, a foregone conclusion
Regarding VA violation of 38 USC 1722a.
The Board of Veterans' Appeals, denial, Conclusion of Law, states, "The appellant is obligated to pay VA copayment for each 30-day or less supply of medication provided by VA on an outpatient basis. 38 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1722a; 38 C.F.R. Sec. 17.110 (2006)."
Finally, after the Criteria and Analysis, and references to other law statutes, the Board, in concluding states, “38 USCA 1722a clearly pertains to VA’s cost in dispensing the medication, not the cost to the appellant... The Federal register of July 16th, 2001; Also under U.S.C. 1722A, VA may not require a veteran to pay an amount in excess of the actual cost of medication and pharmacy administrative costs related to the dispensing of the medication. VHA conducted a study...and found that the VA incurred a cost of $7.28 to dispense an outpatient medication....under these circumstances, we believe that a $7 copayment would not exceed VA’s cost.”
Clearly, dispensing of medication is the key to the Board’s argument, as well as mine.
The VA pharmacy dispenses a supply of 30 pills, the copay cost, whether the amount is 15, 30, 60, or 90 pills the copay is $8. A 30 pill prescription may require that the supply be split. Now becoming a 2 month supply. VA’s copayment charge is $16.
A supply of 30 pills carries the maximum copayment charge of $8, for a 30-day supply, and a veteran is not required to pay an amount in excess of the cost to the Secretary, as described in 38 USC 1722a paragraph 2, and noted in the Decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals reference. The Board citing the Federal register, 12/6/2001. “The VA incurred a cost of $7.28 to dispense an outpatient medication..” (rounded out to $8). Why is it, that a veteran is charged $16 for the exact same $8 prescription, 30 pill supply?
The BVA in denying the appeal, they cite, “.. 1722a clearly pertains to VA‘s cost in dispensing the medication...,The VA incurred a cost...to dispense medication..”, providing the answer to their apperception. Dispensing! The VA charges the veteran twice, or double, as claimed, for the same dispensing cost required to dispense the exact same, one(1) 30-day, $8 supply. Exceeding the cost a veteran is not required to pay. I, like the Board, I am, “..unable to find any authority allowing for a deviation from the standard copayment.” As well, “The Board has no authority to act outside the constraints of the statutory and regulatory criteria.”

--Previous Message--
: 38 USC 1722a Vacated and remanded.
:
: Regarding my claim, VA violation of 1722a, I
: have been advised......
:
: In the United States Court of Appeals for
: Veterans Claims. 7/11/2007. "James
: Nicholson Secretary of veterans Affairs
: respectfully moves the Court to vacate and
: remand the march 13, 2007 decision of the
: Board of veterans Appeals..."
:
: "The file was not received or logged at
: the Hines VA Medical facility and moreover,
: was not returned to the VA Madison medical
: facility. Upon discovering the file was
: lost, the file was re-built by the VA
: medical facility...Appellant's file was lost
: and has been re-built, as such, the evidence
: necessary for effective judicial review...is
: now only available in the re-built
: file...the original file relied upon by the
: Board [CAVC] in rendering the decision on
: appeal is no longer available for the
: parties and the court,....the Secretary
: cannot use the re-built file because the
: Board [BVA] did not rely on that file in
: rendering it's March 13, 1007,
: decision."
:
: "Therefore, the Secretary respectfully
: moves the Court to vacate and remand the
: March 13, 2007, decision, in order to allow
: the Board [BVA] to re-adjudicate Appellant's
: case with the re-built file."
:
: Now, the good news part of all this, as
: advised by legal counsel handling veterans‘
: claims, “I have to admit, this is unique, in
: a good sense for you.,, The VA has asked the
: Court to remand your appeal to the BVA to
: make a new decision regarding the
: co-payments. This, in effect, is a win,
: although ...The only remedy the court
: issues, with only a rare exception, is a
: remand. Reversals (an outright win for the
: appellant) can be counted on one hand on an
: annual basis. So this is what we believe
: would happen anyway, only it would be a year
: or so down the line.”
:
: So, I say to all that have been following
: this 1722a issue, is, let’s go with the good
: news feeling that I got out of this.
: Although, while we wait this out, illegal
: co-payment over-charges will continue for
: thousands, upon thousands, of veterans. I
: will keep you advised.
:
:
: