The Veterans Health Administration asked RAND's National Defense Research Institute to undertake a quantitative analysis of the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation System (VERA). VERA was instituted in 1997 and was designed to improve the allocation of the congressionally appropriated medical care budget to the 22 regional service networks that composed the Veterans Administration (VA) health system. The modeling approach used in this analysis provides a tool that VA policymakers can use for making resource allocation decisions. This tool can also be used for a wide range of simulations as well as for facility-level allocations. The study concludes that the current VERA system for allocating resources to Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) does not account for a number of measurable factors that affect patient care costs, including patient and facility characteristics that vary systematically across VISNs and that are largely beyond VISN directors' control. Alternative methods for allocating resources to VISNs, based on the principles that guide VERA but that better account for these factors, may produce a more equitable allocation system.
Table of Contents
All Prefatory Materials
Data Sources and Methods
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Key Formulas and Data in the FY 2002 VERA
VERA Patient Classes
VISN-Level Patient Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the FY 2000 VHA Patient Population
Supplemental Regression and Simulation Model Results
The research described in this report was sponsored by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). The research was conducted jointly by the RAND Health Center for Military Health Policy Research and the Forces and Resources Policy Center of RAND's National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Monograph report series. The monograph/report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.