The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > Culture > Military History

SGT. SHAFT: New law covers more care costs

By | Thursday, November 13, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

The Sarge got this follow-up letter to the case of Stephen Brady.

As readers know, the Department of Veterans Affairs declined to pay Mr. Brady's $100,000 emergency-room bill because his state-mandated auto insurance came with a small $10,000 medical benefit. VA ruled that this auto insurance meant Mr. Brady had medical insurance and was ineligible to have the VA cover non-service-related stays in non-VA hospitals.

Dear Sgt. Shaft:

The American Legion has been aware of a number of cases similar to Mr. Brady's in which VA, because of the limitations set forth in 38 U.S.C. 1725, as a result of the Millennium Health Care Act, has been prohibited from reimbursing private hospitals for emergency medical treatment of some veterans.

Legislation supported by the American Legion and enacted recently provides a partial remedy. PL 110-387, signed into law Oct. 10, authorizes payment to private facilities by VA for emergency treatment of certain service-connected conditions, non-service-connected disabilities associated with and held to be aggravating a service-connected disability, any disability of a veteran if the veteran has a total disability permanent in nature from a service-connected disability and in some other instances.

We're going to take a close look at the situation as it exists with this amendment and see what, if any, additional legislative remedy may be needed.

As for Mr. Brady's appeal, it may be helpful for him to contact his accredited representative, if he has appointed one, to check the status of his claim. That at least should give him a general idea of when the case may be decided.

Sgt. Shaft, thanks for your continued efforts to provide assistance to veterans and their families.

John F. Sommer

Executive director

Continue reading 123Next

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Clinton urged Obama to talk tough on Iran
  2. Rep. Kaptur gets $3.5 billion sweetener in climate bill
  3. EDITORIAL: Toss your ticket
  4. PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice
  5. Why stagflation is coming
  6. Conyers supported project linked to wife
  7. U.S.-Afghan push targets Taliban haven

Most Shared

  1. Powell airs doubts on Obama agenda
  2. PRUDEN: Ol' Stupid begins to notice things
  3. U.S. 'ready' for N. Korean missile
  4. PAUL: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice
  5. Why stagflation is coming
  6. Energy job losers could get windfall
  7. American exceptionalism . . .
  8. The Al Franken shtick
  9. Obama stands with tyrants
  10. EDITORIAL: July 4 tea parties

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

Will you be traveling this 4th of July weekend?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.