LETTERS: HUD policy a problem for veterans

To the editor:

The editorial on homeless veterans correctly pointed out that local organizations such as Veterans Village are far better at eradicating homelessness in our veteran population than bureaucratic solutions from the federal government (“Local solutions better for homeless veterans,” June 5 Review-Journal). The best way to decrease the homelessness of veterans is to do everything we can to prevent veterans from becoming homeless in the first place.

However, a Department of Housing and Urban Development policy actually puts our most vulnerable veterans at greater risk of becoming homeless, a fact likely omitted from HUD Secretary Julian Castro’s recent remarks.

HUD currently counts a benefit specifically reserved for low-income, severely disabled veterans — called aid and attendance — as regular income, incorrectly inflating that veteran’s income amount.

That inflation then results in HUD unfairly reducing the housing assistance available to low-income, disabled veterans. This, of course, puts them at great risk of losing their home or apartment. This is wrong and must be changed.

Legislation I introduced, the Vulnerable Veterans Housing Reform Act of 2015, would end this unfair practice. The bill passed the House last month by unanimous voice vote. The Senate should take action on this bill so that we can keep our most vulnerable veterans in their homes.

JOE HECK

HENDERSON

The writer, a Republican, is the U.S. representative for Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District.

Electronic health records

To the editor:

I read Charles Krauthammer’s column about the electronic health records mandate with great interest and uncommon insight (“Doctors despair over ‘degraded medicine,’” May 31 Review-Journal). As a recently retired physician, I couldn’t disagree more with his opinion about electronic health records.

I got my first exposure to EHR in the 1990s as a physician working in the Veterans Affairs system. At that time, we had EHR rammed down our throats, and we all moaned about it because of the time and effort it took to learn the new system, and the effort it took for data entry. At the time, the system was fairly primitive compared with what is available today. The time lost was immediately obvious, but the benefits much less so. And the efforts were much more onerous to older physicians (probably in the age bracket of the doctors Mr. Krauthammer met with at his 40th class reunion).

The reality turned out to be that data entry efforts decreased with increased knowledge of the system. And the benefits became even more obvious as time passed. No more missing medical records. No more illegible notes from colleagues who saw the patient last week in a needed consultation. No longer were patients responsible for remembering each of the medications prescribed by the four or five doctors they were seeing. No more erroneously transcribed medications with sound-alike drugs given in error, or dosages off by a factor of 10.

The complaints of Mr. Krauthammer’s classmates are probably a lot like the complaints of doctors at the turn of the 20th century, who lamented time lost having to wash their hands and put on sterile gowns before going in to surgery.

STANLEY N. COHEN

HENDERSON

Governor’s tax plan

To the editor:

Regarding the Legislature passing Gov. Brian Sandoval’s tax plan, here’s the billion-dollar question: What is the difference between a politician who pledges “no new taxes” and a liar?

ED WISEMAN

LAS VEGAS