Thursday, May 11, 2006

CW3: on QTC

Dear Mr. Cox -I listened with an acute attentiveness to the testimony you provided to the congressional investigators which I downloaded from: HDC_interview_House_Subcommittee_vetAffairs_5Kbps_2006_05_04.wma . However, I do not believe the responses you provided were recorded in context to the question that was posed. Perhaps you would be kind enough to publish a complete transcript of your recording or provide a URL site so that the transcript could be obtained if it were placed into the Congressional Record.I also note that the QTC Management Inc has put out a press release trying to beatify the former VA Secretary as the Patron Saint of Veterans and Lost Causes. The information is available at: .I must admit that I had a strong sense of reading a non-denial denial of the charges and note with some alarm that they are boasting of attaining a quality level of 92 percent with the VA but there is no mention of how this numerical value was obtained or what standards were used in determining this accomplished metering. Nor does it indicate what if any actions were taken to remediate any failures to do the job correctly.I also find it completely disingenuous for the QTC people to say they do not have any part in the adjudication process. The examining physicians must be fully cognizant of what will result when selecting the use of one word over another and the effects that it will have upon a claim. The very nature of their job is to provide a "layman" with an understandable portrayal of the effects that a disability has upon a veteran. So they not only have a large part in the adjudication process, they are indeed the key point in the entire process which determines how much if any a veteran will receive. It is also critical to point out that in the examination procedure, the physician is actually requested to state the levels of probability that there is in fact a service connection to the disability being evaluated.Please continue helping veterans and do not hesitate to force the budget thieves to face up to the obvious disingenuous nature of the lies that are presented in the non-denial denial that they have published. The issue of "apples to oranges comparison" obviously misses the fundamental point of comparisons which is the "bottom line."Sincerely,

No comments: