Military.com has a very good article in yesterday's paper, called "PTSD Payments Vary from State to State." Please take the time to read it. It's one of those few articles where every word in it is worth knowing, and relevant to our topic. The McClatchy Newspapers chain did some extensive independent research here. According to the article, they took a look at "3 million disability compensation-claims records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, as well as separate documents that the VA provided. The analysis is the first to examine the issue of state-to-state variations in compensation for those young veterans who have left the military since the war in Afghanistan began in 2001."
Okay -- and what did they find? They found that payments for PTSD disability vary widely from state to state, with no obvious reason why -- nothing deeper or more significant than how disability from PTSD is likely rated by your local VA. So it turns out if you live in New Mexico, you're like to do better than say if you live in Montana. There's a certain amount of complexity to this system that is worth learning. A higher disability rating means a higher payment, but whatever you start getting paid at is what you get locked in being paid at, over time, so it's crucial to start with higher numbers, essentially, if you're young and are likely going to be relying on this check for life. And the payments are not that high to start with. The top of the scale, total disability, runs around $2500 a month -- and that's now -- not potentially 50 years from now, when you might still be relying on that payment. Why VA benefits don't adjust for cost of living or inflation over time is beyond me -- seems like another thing veteran rights organizations need to take up with Congress -- congressional salaries certainly have that perk. But nevertheless, where you start on the scale ends up being vitally important over time, and some states seemed skewed to give better results than others. Again -- read the article, it's full of good information, and it'd be bad practice to quote the whole thing just to get that point across. But here's some other good information from it:
The VA workers who decide PTSD cases determine whether a veteran's ability to function at work is limited a little, a lot or somewhere in between. They examine the frequency of panic attacks and the level of memory loss. The process is subjective, and veterans are placed on a scale that gives them scores - or "ratings" - of zero, 10, 30, 50, 70 or 100.
McClatchy's analysis found that some regional offices are far more likely to give veterans scores of 50 or 70 while others are far more likely to stick with scores of 10 or 30.
Consider the New Mexico and Montana offices, where there are big differences up and down the scale.
In Montana, more than three-quarters of veterans have ratings of zero, 10 or 30. In New Mexico, a majority of the veterans have ratings of 50 or 70.
On top of that, 6 percent of New Mexico veterans had the highest rating possible - 100, worth $2,527 a month - compared with just 1 percent of Montana veterans.
Because payments are loaded toward the highest end of the scale - the difference between the highest rating and the next-highest rating is more than $1,000 a month - the gap in ratings has a significant impact on how much the VA is paying, on average, to veterans in different states.
Factoring in all mental and physical disabilities, the average payment for recent veterans ranges from a high of $734 a month in the Little Rock, Ark., office to a low of $435 a month in Honolulu. In Roanoke, the average was $538.
And while we're on the subject -- the average payment is $435 a month to $734 a month? Is anyone able to actually live on this money?
Editor's Note: Congratulations to the McClatchy Newspapers for doing independent research on this subject. It's another case to me of journalism serving to move society forward. In future years, getting the VA system of disparate compensation cleaned up will owe much to articles based on research like this, that showed there was a problem in the first place. Thank you...
