Health Policy

Despite the ongoing shutdown of the US federal government, the Indian Health Service (IHS) continues to maintain the status quo while operating on an island of relatively insulated stability.

“IHS will continue to operate business-as-usual during a lapse of appropriations,” US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said at a recent meeting with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “100% of IHS staff will report for work, and health care services across Indian Country will not be impacted.” 

The protective cocoon around IHS and its services provided is largely due to advance appropriations, and lessons learned from previous government shutdowns. During the historically long 35-day government shutdown in 2018 and 2019, all federal government operations had to halt operations unless they were deemed indispensable. IHS was not considered indispensable and consequently, about 60% of IHS employees did not receive a paycheck.

In preparation for another potential shutdown in 2023, IHS was more proactive. “Because of the fact that now we have advanced appropriations for Indian Health Services, on Oct. 1, whether or not there’s a federal budget in place, will continue providing services,” then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, said at the time.

The safeguards have held for the current shutdown, aided by tribal pressure. As the federal shutdown loomed in September, a delegation led by NCAI spent 3 days lobbying Congress—focusing primarily on the new leadership in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—to guarantee some protection for federal employees who work with tribal governments.

At the quarterly meeting of the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma (UINO) in Tulsa, Rear Adm. Travis Watts, director of the IHS Oklahoma City Area and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told attendees, “The advance appropriations allow us to keep our doors open at this particular time. We want to thank the tribal nations for their advocacy for those advance appropriations.”

IHS is funded through 2026. All 14,801 IHS staff will be paid through advance appropriations, multi-year or supplemental appropriations, third-party collections, or carryover balances. 

However, according to the proposed 2026 budget some key health-related funding is at risk, including about $128 million in Tribal set-aside funding for mental and behavioral health funding: $60 million from the Tribal Opioid Response Grants, $22.75 million from Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, $14.5 million from Medication-Assisted Treatment for Prescription and Opioid Addiction, and $3.4 million Tribal set-aside for the Zero Suicide program. Six IHS accounts are not funded by advance appropriations: Electronic Health Record System, Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, Contract Support Costs, Payments for Tribal Leases, Sanitation Facilities Construction, and Health Care Facilities Construction.

In a public statement, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said, “[W]e’re hopeful that Congress’ foresight to provide an advance appropriation for the Indian Health Service will prevent any severe disruptions as experienced during the 2013 and 2018 shutdowns. I urge both sides of the aisle to work on a path forward and reopen the government as soon as possible and call on the administration to honor the government’s Treaty and Trust responsibilities, avoid needless cuts to Tribal programs and personnel, and use its authorities to minimize harm to tribes and tribal citizens.”

Hoskin Jr. cautioned, though, that not every tribe has the same resources. Many smaller, direct-service tribes depend entirely on IHS to deliver care.

“Thank goodness for forward funding,” he said. “But we have to make that permanent in federal statute. No one in this country should be at the mercy of political dysfunction to get health care. “The United States can keep its lights off,” Hoskin Jr. said. “We’ll still be moving forward.”

Despite the ongoing shutdown of the US federal government, the Indian Health Service (IHS) continues to maintain the status quo while operating on an island of relatively insulated stability.

“IHS will continue to operate business-as-usual during a lapse of appropriations,” US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said at a recent meeting with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “100% of IHS staff will report for work, and health care services across Indian Country will not be impacted.” 

The protective cocoon around IHS and its services provided is largely due to advance appropriations, and lessons learned from previous government shutdowns. During the historically long 35-day government shutdown in 2018 and 2019, all federal government operations had to halt operations unless they were deemed indispensable. IHS was not considered indispensable and consequently, about 60% of IHS employees did not receive a paycheck.

In preparation for another potential shutdown in 2023, IHS was more proactive. “Because of the fact that now we have advanced appropriations for Indian Health Services, on Oct. 1, whether or not there’s a federal budget in place, will continue providing services,” then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, said at the time.

The safeguards have held for the current shutdown, aided by tribal pressure. As the federal shutdown loomed in September, a delegation led by NCAI spent 3 days lobbying Congress—focusing primarily on the new leadership in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—to guarantee some protection for federal employees who work with tribal governments.

At the quarterly meeting of the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma (UINO) in Tulsa, Rear Adm. Travis Watts, director of the IHS Oklahoma City Area and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told attendees, “The advance appropriations allow us to keep our doors open at this particular time. We want to thank the tribal nations for their advocacy for those advance appropriations.”

IHS is funded through 2026. All 14,801 IHS staff will be paid through advance appropriations, multi-year or supplemental appropriations, third-party collections, or carryover balances. 

However, according to the proposed 2026 budget some key health-related funding is at risk, including about $128 million in Tribal set-aside funding for mental and behavioral health funding: $60 million from the Tribal Opioid Response Grants, $22.75 million from Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, $14.5 million from Medication-Assisted Treatment for Prescription and Opioid Addiction, and $3.4 million Tribal set-aside for the Zero Suicide program. Six IHS accounts are not funded by advance appropriations: Electronic Health Record System, Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, Contract Support Costs, Payments for Tribal Leases, Sanitation Facilities Construction, and Health Care Facilities Construction.

In a public statement, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said, “[W]e’re hopeful that Congress’ foresight to provide an advance appropriation for the Indian Health Service will prevent any severe disruptions as experienced during the 2013 and 2018 shutdowns. I urge both sides of the aisle to work on a path forward and reopen the government as soon as possible and call on the administration to honor the government’s Treaty and Trust responsibilities, avoid needless cuts to Tribal programs and personnel, and use its authorities to minimize harm to tribes and tribal citizens.”

Hoskin Jr. cautioned, though, that not every tribe has the same resources. Many smaller, direct-service tribes depend entirely on IHS to deliver care.

“Thank goodness for forward funding,” he said. “But we have to make that permanent in federal statute. No one in this country should be at the mercy of political dysfunction to get health care. “The United States can keep its lights off,” Hoskin Jr. said. “We’ll still be moving forward.”

Despite the ongoing shutdown of the US federal government, the Indian Health Service (IHS) continues to maintain the status quo while operating on an island of relatively insulated stability.

“IHS will continue to operate business-as-usual during a lapse of appropriations,” US Department of Health and Human Services press secretary Emily G. Hilliard said at a recent meeting with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “100% of IHS staff will report for work, and health care services across Indian Country will not be impacted.” 

The protective cocoon around IHS and its services provided is largely due to advance appropriations, and lessons learned from previous government shutdowns. During the historically long 35-day government shutdown in 2018 and 2019, all federal government operations had to halt operations unless they were deemed indispensable. IHS was not considered indispensable and consequently, about 60% of IHS employees did not receive a paycheck.

In preparation for another potential shutdown in 2023, IHS was more proactive. “Because of the fact that now we have advanced appropriations for Indian Health Services, on Oct. 1, whether or not there’s a federal budget in place, will continue providing services,” then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, said at the time.

The safeguards have held for the current shutdown, aided by tribal pressure. As the federal shutdown loomed in September, a delegation led by NCAI spent 3 days lobbying Congress—focusing primarily on the new leadership in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee—to guarantee some protection for federal employees who work with tribal governments.

At the quarterly meeting of the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma (UINO) in Tulsa, Rear Adm. Travis Watts, director of the IHS Oklahoma City Area and a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, told attendees, “The advance appropriations allow us to keep our doors open at this particular time. We want to thank the tribal nations for their advocacy for those advance appropriations.”

IHS is funded through 2026. All 14,801 IHS staff will be paid through advance appropriations, multi-year or supplemental appropriations, third-party collections, or carryover balances. 

However, according to the proposed 2026 budget some key health-related funding is at risk, including about $128 million in Tribal set-aside funding for mental and behavioral health funding: $60 million from the Tribal Opioid Response Grants, $22.75 million from Tribal Behavioral Health Grants, $14.5 million from Medication-Assisted Treatment for Prescription and Opioid Addiction, and $3.4 million Tribal set-aside for the Zero Suicide program. Six IHS accounts are not funded by advance appropriations: Electronic Health Record System, Indian Health Care Improvement Fund, Contract Support Costs, Payments for Tribal Leases, Sanitation Facilities Construction, and Health Care Facilities Construction.

In a public statement, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said, “[W]e’re hopeful that Congress’ foresight to provide an advance appropriation for the Indian Health Service will prevent any severe disruptions as experienced during the 2013 and 2018 shutdowns. I urge both sides of the aisle to work on a path forward and reopen the government as soon as possible and call on the administration to honor the government’s Treaty and Trust responsibilities, avoid needless cuts to Tribal programs and personnel, and use its authorities to minimize harm to tribes and tribal citizens.”

Hoskin Jr. cautioned, though, that not every tribe has the same resources. Many smaller, direct-service tribes depend entirely on IHS to deliver care.

“Thank goodness for forward funding,” he said. “But we have to make that permanent in federal statute. No one in this country should be at the mercy of political dysfunction to get health care. “The United States can keep its lights off,” Hoskin Jr. said. “We’ll still be moving forward.”

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ongoing US government partial shutdown has unintended consequences for seniors and their doctors as most telehealth appointments are now no longer being covered by Medicare.

That's because without a budget deal, federal lawmakers did not renew some pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities allowing Medicare beneficiaries to have medical appointments with doctors over audio or video at home.

This policy was first put into place under the first Trump Administration in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, Medicare covered very limited telehealth services for rural patients.

For the past 5 years, lawmakers have always managed to renew the telehealth flexibilities in every government funding bill before the expiration date. This year, however, they expired for the first time on October 1.

Federal lawmakers remain at odds on the 2026 federal funding bill, meaning the shutdown could last into more days and even weeks.

But with Congress in a standoff, clinicians and patients outside Washington, DC, are already grappling with the consequences of the funding impasse.

Clinicians, Patients Already Feeling Effects

For the South Dakota-based Sanford Health System, which is the largest rural health system in the country, the past week without the Medicare telehealth waivers being in place has caused a lot of anxiety and uncertainty for both patients and clinicians.

Dave Newman, an endocrinologist and chief medical officer of virtual care at Sanford, said the health system decided to keep providing Medicare telehealth appointments to patients for now.

"We're maintaining telehealth access because we know that's the best thing for our patients. We've got full confidence that reimbursement will follow, but patients can't wait for Congress to act at this point," Newman told Medscape Medical News. "They still need access to their specialists. They still need access to their primary care providers, and this is one of the only ways that a lot of our patients get access. For them, it's either virtual care or no care at all."

Newman said as the shutdown continues, Sanford may reconsidered whether it can keep providing these appointments without reimbursement.

Some health systems have stopped providing an Medicare telehealth appointments, said Alexis Apple, director of federal affairs at the American Telemedicine Association. That means patients must appear in person for their doctor's appointment or cancel.

NYU Langone Health system's website currently has a banner that reads: "Due to the federal government shutdown, Medicare and Medicaid patients are unable to schedule new telehealth/video visits. If you already have a visit scheduled, it will continue as planned. If not, contact your doctor's office to schedule an in-person appointment.

"It's creating lots of confusion in the industry from patients, providers, hospital systems. You know, what do we do next? How do we grapple with this shutdown?" said Apple. "Patients have been able to receive care within their homes over the past 5 years, and now, all of a sudden, they've been stripped of that access."

Medicare patients who continue telehealth after October 1 may find out they're on the hook for the bill, if Congress doesn't act, said Apple.

Some physicians worry that commercial insurance payers may follow suit and no longer cover virtual appointments. Medicare, which is the largest health care payer in the country, is often seen as the standard for what services should be covered.

Patients and doctors have come to rely on telehealth as an integral part of health care, said Richard Chou, an anesthesiologist at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Sacramento, California.

"You're seeing that postpandemic, telehealth is kind of a new way of doing things. It's part of the day for us as doctors," said Chou. He said tha tmany of his VA patients do their preliminary surgery appointments via telehealth before coming into the facility.

"Telehealth is that bridge to making sure patients get the care they need, and when these patients don't get that preliminary care they need, this builds up and builds up," said Chou. "And next thing you know, you have people flooding the emergency rooms, and we can't have that."

Will Telehealth Reimbursement See a Permanent Fix?

With Congressional budget negotiations at an impasse, it remains unclear when the shutdown will end.

Health care spending disagreements weigh heavily in negotiations. Democrats are currently unwilling to give the votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate unless Republicans agree to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Democrats also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts that were part of the large Republican domestic tax and spending bill passed by Congress earlier this year.

When lawmakers do reach an agreement and reopen the government, it's likely telehealth flexibilities will be included in any package but for how long remains in question.

A newly introduced bipartisan bill would permanently allow Medicare patients to access telehealth appointments in their homes. But the legislation has been estimated to be very costly.

Federal data does show that telehealth appointments have been popular with Medicare recipients and increased over time since telehealth became more accessible.

"I used to say that virtual care was the future of medicine, and now it's just kind of the present of medicine. It used to be like a cool technology that we used to advertise, now it's just the standard of care," said Newman. "We think that permanent coverage would mean stability for both patients and providers."

Victoria Knight is a freelance reporter based in Washington, DC.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The size of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) workforce continues to contract according to the latest data released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Applications for employment are down 44% in fiscal year (FY) 2025 with just 14,485 cumulative new hires and 28,969 losses. In 2024, the VHA had 416,667 workers—it now has 401,224. 

The reductions align with VA Secretary Doug Collins’ goal of downsizing the VA’s workforce by 30,000 employees by the end of 2025. In August, Collins outlined how a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force he proposed earlier this year.

Compared with July’s numbers, the VHA now employs 139 fewer medical officers/physicians, 418 fewer registered nurses, 107 fewer social workers, and 65 fewer psychologists. Staffing of licensed practical nurses, medical support assistants, and nursing assistants is also down (reduced by 77, 129, and 29, respectively). 

Retention rates for the first 2 years of onboarding hover around 80% for physicians and nurses. However, retention incentives have dropped from 19,484 to 8982 and recruitment incentives from 6069 to 1299.

In voluntary exit surveys, 78% of 6762 medical and dental staff who left said they would work again for the VA, while 79% said they would recommend the VA as an employer. These rates are down from a similar survey in May 2023 when 81% noted that they would work again for the VA and 82% would recommend the VA to others. Personal matters, geographic relocation, and poor working relationships with supervisors or colleagues were among the reasons cited for leaving in August 2025. 

Of 435 psychologists, 69% said they would work again for the VA, and 62% said they would recommend the VA as an employer (71% and 67%, respectively in May 2023). Their reasons for leaving in August 2025 included a lack of trust in senior leaders and policy or technology barriers to getting the work done.

An August survey from the Office of the Inspector General found that VHA facilities reported 4434 staffing shortages this fiscal year—a 50% increase from fiscal year 2024. Most (94%) of the 139 facilities reported severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% of facilities reported severe shortages for nurses. Due to the timing of the questionnaire, the responses did not yet reflect the full impact from workforce reshaping efforts.

The size of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) workforce continues to contract according to the latest data released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Applications for employment are down 44% in fiscal year (FY) 2025 with just 14,485 cumulative new hires and 28,969 losses. In 2024, the VHA had 416,667 workers—it now has 401,224. 

The reductions align with VA Secretary Doug Collins’ goal of downsizing the VA’s workforce by 30,000 employees by the end of 2025. In August, Collins outlined how a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force he proposed earlier this year.

Compared with July’s numbers, the VHA now employs 139 fewer medical officers/physicians, 418 fewer registered nurses, 107 fewer social workers, and 65 fewer psychologists. Staffing of licensed practical nurses, medical support assistants, and nursing assistants is also down (reduced by 77, 129, and 29, respectively). 

Retention rates for the first 2 years of onboarding hover around 80% for physicians and nurses. However, retention incentives have dropped from 19,484 to 8982 and recruitment incentives from 6069 to 1299.

In voluntary exit surveys, 78% of 6762 medical and dental staff who left said they would work again for the VA, while 79% said they would recommend the VA as an employer. These rates are down from a similar survey in May 2023 when 81% noted that they would work again for the VA and 82% would recommend the VA to others. Personal matters, geographic relocation, and poor working relationships with supervisors or colleagues were among the reasons cited for leaving in August 2025. 

Of 435 psychologists, 69% said they would work again for the VA, and 62% said they would recommend the VA as an employer (71% and 67%, respectively in May 2023). Their reasons for leaving in August 2025 included a lack of trust in senior leaders and policy or technology barriers to getting the work done.

An August survey from the Office of the Inspector General found that VHA facilities reported 4434 staffing shortages this fiscal year—a 50% increase from fiscal year 2024. Most (94%) of the 139 facilities reported severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% of facilities reported severe shortages for nurses. Due to the timing of the questionnaire, the responses did not yet reflect the full impact from workforce reshaping efforts.

The size of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) workforce continues to contract according to the latest data released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Applications for employment are down 44% in fiscal year (FY) 2025 with just 14,485 cumulative new hires and 28,969 losses. In 2024, the VHA had 416,667 workers—it now has 401,224. 

The reductions align with VA Secretary Doug Collins’ goal of downsizing the VA’s workforce by 30,000 employees by the end of 2025. In August, Collins outlined how a federal hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements, and normal attrition have eliminated the need for the "large-scale" reduction-in-force he proposed earlier this year.

Compared with July’s numbers, the VHA now employs 139 fewer medical officers/physicians, 418 fewer registered nurses, 107 fewer social workers, and 65 fewer psychologists. Staffing of licensed practical nurses, medical support assistants, and nursing assistants is also down (reduced by 77, 129, and 29, respectively). 

Retention rates for the first 2 years of onboarding hover around 80% for physicians and nurses. However, retention incentives have dropped from 19,484 to 8982 and recruitment incentives from 6069 to 1299.

In voluntary exit surveys, 78% of 6762 medical and dental staff who left said they would work again for the VA, while 79% said they would recommend the VA as an employer. These rates are down from a similar survey in May 2023 when 81% noted that they would work again for the VA and 82% would recommend the VA to others. Personal matters, geographic relocation, and poor working relationships with supervisors or colleagues were among the reasons cited for leaving in August 2025. 

Of 435 psychologists, 69% said they would work again for the VA, and 62% said they would recommend the VA as an employer (71% and 67%, respectively in May 2023). Their reasons for leaving in August 2025 included a lack of trust in senior leaders and policy or technology barriers to getting the work done.

An August survey from the Office of the Inspector General found that VHA facilities reported 4434 staffing shortages this fiscal year—a 50% increase from fiscal year 2024. Most (94%) of the 139 facilities reported severe shortages for medical officers, and 79% of facilities reported severe shortages for nurses. Due to the timing of the questionnaire, the responses did not yet reflect the full impact from workforce reshaping efforts.

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) ¹

Early in residency, I decided I only wanted to work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It was a way to follow the example of service that my parents, an Army doctor and nurse, had set. I spent much of my residency, including all of my last year of training, at a VA medical center, hoping a vacancy would open in the psychiatry service. In those days, VA jobs were hard to come by; doctors spent their entire careers in the system, only retiring after decades of commitment to its unique mission. Finally, close to graduation, one of my favorite attending physicians left his post. After mountains of paperwork and running the human resources obstacle course with the usual stumbles, I arrived at my dream job as a VA psychiatrist.

So, it is with immense sadness and even shock that I read a recent ProPublica article reporting that from January to March 2025 almost 40% of the physicians who received employment offers from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) declined the positions.² Medical media rapidly picked up the story, likely further discouraging potential applicants.³

There have always been health care professionals (HCPs) who had zero interest in working for the VA. Medical students and residents often have a love/hate relationship with the VA, with some trainees not having the patience for the behemoth pace of the bureaucracy or finding the old-style physical environment and more relaxed pace antiquated and inefficient.

The reasons doctors are saying no to VA employment at 4 times the previous rate are different and more disturbing. According to ProPublica, VA officials in Texas reported in a June internal presentation that about 90 people had turned down job offers due to the “uncertainty of reorganization.”² They reported that low morale was causing existing employees to recommend against working at the VA. My own anecdotal experience is similar: contrary to prior years, few residents, if any, are interested in working at the VA because of concerns about the stability of employment and the direction of its organizational culture.

It is fair to question the objectivity of the ProPublica report. However, the latest VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) analysis of staffing had similar findings. “Despite the ability to make noncompetitive appointments for such occupations, VHA continues to experience severe occupational staffing shortages for these occupations that are fundamental to the delivery of health care.” The 4434 severe occupational shortage figures in fiscal year (FY) 2025 were 50% higher than in FY 2024.⁴ OIG reported that 57% of facilities noted severe occupational staffing shortages for psychology, making it the most frequently reported clinical shortage.

At this critical juncture, when new health care professional energy is not flowing into the VHA, there is an unprecedented drain of the lifeblood of any system—the departure of the bearers of institutional memory. Early and scheduled retirements, the deferred resignation program, and severance have decimated the ranks of senior HCPs, experienced leaders, and career clinicians. ProPublica noted the loss of 600 doctors and 1900 nurses at the VHA so far in 2025.² Internal VA data from exit interviews suggest similar motivations. Many cited lack of trust and confidence in senior leaders and job stress/pressure.⁵

It should be noted the VA has an alternative and plausible explanation for the expected departure of 30,000 employees. They argue that the VHA was overstaffed and the increased workforce decreased the efficiency of service. Voluntary separation from employment, VA contends, has avoided the need for a far more disruptive reduction in force. VA leaders avow that downsizing has not adversely impacted its ability to deliver high-quality health care and benefits and they assert that a reduction in red tape will enable VA to provide easier access to care. VA Secretary Doug Collins has concluded that because of these difficult but necessary changes, “VA is headed in the right direction.”⁶

What is institutional memory, and why is it important? “The core of institutional memory is collective awareness and understanding of a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences, and know-how,” Bhugra and Ventriglio explain. “These are all held collectively at various levels in any given institution. Thus, collective memory or history can be utilized to build on what has gone before and how we take things forward.”⁷

The authors of this quote offer a modern twist on what Sir Isaac Newton described in more metaphorical language in the epigraph: to survive, and even more to thrive, an enterprise must have those who have accumulated technical knowledge and professional wisdom as well as those who assume responsibility for appropriating and adding to this storehouse of operational skill, expertise, unique cultural values, and ethical commitments. The VHA is losing its instructors and students of institutional memory which deals a serious blow to the stability and vitality of any learning health system.⁶ As Bhugra and Ventriglio put it, institutional memory identifies “what has worked in delivering the aims in the past and what has not, thereby ensuring the lessons learnt are remembered and passed on to the next generation.”⁷

Nearly every week, at all levels of the agency, I have encountered this exodus of builders and bearers of institutional memory. Those who have left did so for many of the same reasons cited by those who declined to come, leaving incalculable gaps at both ends of the career spectrum. Both the old and new are essential for organizational resilience: fresh ideas enable an institution to be agile in responding to challenges, while operational savvy ensures responses are ecologically aligned with the organizational mission.⁸

The dire shortage of HCPs—especially in mental health and primary care—has opened up unprecedented opportunities.⁹ Colleagues have noted that with only a little searching they found multiple lucrative positions. Once, HCPs picked the VA because they valued the commitment to public service and being part of a community of education and research more than fame or fortune. Having the best benefits packages in the industry only reinforced its value. 

Even so, surpassing a genius such as Sir Isaac Newton, writing to a scientific competitor, Robert Hooke, recognized that progress and discovery in science and medicine are nigh well impossible without the collective achievements housed in institutional memory.¹ It was inspiring teachers and attending physicians—Newton’s giants—who attracted the best and brightest in medicine and nursing, other HCPs, and research, to the VA, where they could participate in a transactive organizational learning process from their seniors, and then grow that fund of knowledge to improve patient care, educate their learners, and innovate. What will happen when there are no longer shoulders of giants or anyone to stand on them?

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) ¹

Early in residency, I decided I only wanted to work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It was a way to follow the example of service that my parents, an Army doctor and nurse, had set. I spent much of my residency, including all of my last year of training, at a VA medical center, hoping a vacancy would open in the psychiatry service. In those days, VA jobs were hard to come by; doctors spent their entire careers in the system, only retiring after decades of commitment to its unique mission. Finally, close to graduation, one of my favorite attending physicians left his post. After mountains of paperwork and running the human resources obstacle course with the usual stumbles, I arrived at my dream job as a VA psychiatrist.

So, it is with immense sadness and even shock that I read a recent ProPublica article reporting that from January to March 2025 almost 40% of the physicians who received employment offers from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) declined the positions.² Medical media rapidly picked up the story, likely further discouraging potential applicants.³

There have always been health care professionals (HCPs) who had zero interest in working for the VA. Medical students and residents often have a love/hate relationship with the VA, with some trainees not having the patience for the behemoth pace of the bureaucracy or finding the old-style physical environment and more relaxed pace antiquated and inefficient.

The reasons doctors are saying no to VA employment at 4 times the previous rate are different and more disturbing. According to ProPublica, VA officials in Texas reported in a June internal presentation that about 90 people had turned down job offers due to the “uncertainty of reorganization.”² They reported that low morale was causing existing employees to recommend against working at the VA. My own anecdotal experience is similar: contrary to prior years, few residents, if any, are interested in working at the VA because of concerns about the stability of employment and the direction of its organizational culture.

It is fair to question the objectivity of the ProPublica report. However, the latest VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) analysis of staffing had similar findings. “Despite the ability to make noncompetitive appointments for such occupations, VHA continues to experience severe occupational staffing shortages for these occupations that are fundamental to the delivery of health care.” The 4434 severe occupational shortage figures in fiscal year (FY) 2025 were 50% higher than in FY 2024.⁴ OIG reported that 57% of facilities noted severe occupational staffing shortages for psychology, making it the most frequently reported clinical shortage.

At this critical juncture, when new health care professional energy is not flowing into the VHA, there is an unprecedented drain of the lifeblood of any system—the departure of the bearers of institutional memory. Early and scheduled retirements, the deferred resignation program, and severance have decimated the ranks of senior HCPs, experienced leaders, and career clinicians. ProPublica noted the loss of 600 doctors and 1900 nurses at the VHA so far in 2025.² Internal VA data from exit interviews suggest similar motivations. Many cited lack of trust and confidence in senior leaders and job stress/pressure.⁵

It should be noted the VA has an alternative and plausible explanation for the expected departure of 30,000 employees. They argue that the VHA was overstaffed and the increased workforce decreased the efficiency of service. Voluntary separation from employment, VA contends, has avoided the need for a far more disruptive reduction in force. VA leaders avow that downsizing has not adversely impacted its ability to deliver high-quality health care and benefits and they assert that a reduction in red tape will enable VA to provide easier access to care. VA Secretary Doug Collins has concluded that because of these difficult but necessary changes, “VA is headed in the right direction.”⁶

What is institutional memory, and why is it important? “The core of institutional memory is collective awareness and understanding of a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences, and know-how,” Bhugra and Ventriglio explain. “These are all held collectively at various levels in any given institution. Thus, collective memory or history can be utilized to build on what has gone before and how we take things forward.”⁷

The authors of this quote offer a modern twist on what Sir Isaac Newton described in more metaphorical language in the epigraph: to survive, and even more to thrive, an enterprise must have those who have accumulated technical knowledge and professional wisdom as well as those who assume responsibility for appropriating and adding to this storehouse of operational skill, expertise, unique cultural values, and ethical commitments. The VHA is losing its instructors and students of institutional memory which deals a serious blow to the stability and vitality of any learning health system.⁶ As Bhugra and Ventriglio put it, institutional memory identifies “what has worked in delivering the aims in the past and what has not, thereby ensuring the lessons learnt are remembered and passed on to the next generation.”⁷

Nearly every week, at all levels of the agency, I have encountered this exodus of builders and bearers of institutional memory. Those who have left did so for many of the same reasons cited by those who declined to come, leaving incalculable gaps at both ends of the career spectrum. Both the old and new are essential for organizational resilience: fresh ideas enable an institution to be agile in responding to challenges, while operational savvy ensures responses are ecologically aligned with the organizational mission.⁸

The dire shortage of HCPs—especially in mental health and primary care—has opened up unprecedented opportunities.⁹ Colleagues have noted that with only a little searching they found multiple lucrative positions. Once, HCPs picked the VA because they valued the commitment to public service and being part of a community of education and research more than fame or fortune. Having the best benefits packages in the industry only reinforced its value. 

Even so, surpassing a genius such as Sir Isaac Newton, writing to a scientific competitor, Robert Hooke, recognized that progress and discovery in science and medicine are nigh well impossible without the collective achievements housed in institutional memory.¹ It was inspiring teachers and attending physicians—Newton’s giants—who attracted the best and brightest in medicine and nursing, other HCPs, and research, to the VA, where they could participate in a transactive organizational learning process from their seniors, and then grow that fund of knowledge to improve patient care, educate their learners, and innovate. What will happen when there are no longer shoulders of giants or anyone to stand on them?

If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) ¹

Early in residency, I decided I only wanted to work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It was a way to follow the example of service that my parents, an Army doctor and nurse, had set. I spent much of my residency, including all of my last year of training, at a VA medical center, hoping a vacancy would open in the psychiatry service. In those days, VA jobs were hard to come by; doctors spent their entire careers in the system, only retiring after decades of commitment to its unique mission. Finally, close to graduation, one of my favorite attending physicians left his post. After mountains of paperwork and running the human resources obstacle course with the usual stumbles, I arrived at my dream job as a VA psychiatrist.

So, it is with immense sadness and even shock that I read a recent ProPublica article reporting that from January to March 2025 almost 40% of the physicians who received employment offers from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) declined the positions.² Medical media rapidly picked up the story, likely further discouraging potential applicants.³

There have always been health care professionals (HCPs) who had zero interest in working for the VA. Medical students and residents often have a love/hate relationship with the VA, with some trainees not having the patience for the behemoth pace of the bureaucracy or finding the old-style physical environment and more relaxed pace antiquated and inefficient.

The reasons doctors are saying no to VA employment at 4 times the previous rate are different and more disturbing. According to ProPublica, VA officials in Texas reported in a June internal presentation that about 90 people had turned down job offers due to the “uncertainty of reorganization.”² They reported that low morale was causing existing employees to recommend against working at the VA. My own anecdotal experience is similar: contrary to prior years, few residents, if any, are interested in working at the VA because of concerns about the stability of employment and the direction of its organizational culture.

It is fair to question the objectivity of the ProPublica report. However, the latest VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) analysis of staffing had similar findings. “Despite the ability to make noncompetitive appointments for such occupations, VHA continues to experience severe occupational staffing shortages for these occupations that are fundamental to the delivery of health care.” The 4434 severe occupational shortage figures in fiscal year (FY) 2025 were 50% higher than in FY 2024.⁴ OIG reported that 57% of facilities noted severe occupational staffing shortages for psychology, making it the most frequently reported clinical shortage.

At this critical juncture, when new health care professional energy is not flowing into the VHA, there is an unprecedented drain of the lifeblood of any system—the departure of the bearers of institutional memory. Early and scheduled retirements, the deferred resignation program, and severance have decimated the ranks of senior HCPs, experienced leaders, and career clinicians. ProPublica noted the loss of 600 doctors and 1900 nurses at the VHA so far in 2025.² Internal VA data from exit interviews suggest similar motivations. Many cited lack of trust and confidence in senior leaders and job stress/pressure.⁵

It should be noted the VA has an alternative and plausible explanation for the expected departure of 30,000 employees. They argue that the VHA was overstaffed and the increased workforce decreased the efficiency of service. Voluntary separation from employment, VA contends, has avoided the need for a far more disruptive reduction in force. VA leaders avow that downsizing has not adversely impacted its ability to deliver high-quality health care and benefits and they assert that a reduction in red tape will enable VA to provide easier access to care. VA Secretary Doug Collins has concluded that because of these difficult but necessary changes, “VA is headed in the right direction.”⁶

What is institutional memory, and why is it important? “The core of institutional memory is collective awareness and understanding of a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences, and know-how,” Bhugra and Ventriglio explain. “These are all held collectively at various levels in any given institution. Thus, collective memory or history can be utilized to build on what has gone before and how we take things forward.”⁷

The authors of this quote offer a modern twist on what Sir Isaac Newton described in more metaphorical language in the epigraph: to survive, and even more to thrive, an enterprise must have those who have accumulated technical knowledge and professional wisdom as well as those who assume responsibility for appropriating and adding to this storehouse of operational skill, expertise, unique cultural values, and ethical commitments. The VHA is losing its instructors and students of institutional memory which deals a serious blow to the stability and vitality of any learning health system.⁶ As Bhugra and Ventriglio put it, institutional memory identifies “what has worked in delivering the aims in the past and what has not, thereby ensuring the lessons learnt are remembered and passed on to the next generation.”⁷

Nearly every week, at all levels of the agency, I have encountered this exodus of builders and bearers of institutional memory. Those who have left did so for many of the same reasons cited by those who declined to come, leaving incalculable gaps at both ends of the career spectrum. Both the old and new are essential for organizational resilience: fresh ideas enable an institution to be agile in responding to challenges, while operational savvy ensures responses are ecologically aligned with the organizational mission.⁸

The dire shortage of HCPs—especially in mental health and primary care—has opened up unprecedented opportunities.⁹ Colleagues have noted that with only a little searching they found multiple lucrative positions. Once, HCPs picked the VA because they valued the commitment to public service and being part of a community of education and research more than fame or fortune. Having the best benefits packages in the industry only reinforced its value. 

Even so, surpassing a genius such as Sir Isaac Newton, writing to a scientific competitor, Robert Hooke, recognized that progress and discovery in science and medicine are nigh well impossible without the collective achievements housed in institutional memory.¹ It was inspiring teachers and attending physicians—Newton’s giants—who attracted the best and brightest in medicine and nursing, other HCPs, and research, to the VA, where they could participate in a transactive organizational learning process from their seniors, and then grow that fund of knowledge to improve patient care, educate their learners, and innovate. What will happen when there are no longer shoulders of giants or anyone to stand on them?

Background

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.

Methods

Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.

Analysis

For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).

Results

From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).

Conclusions

Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.

Background

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.

Methods

Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.

Analysis

For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).

Results

From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).

Conclusions

Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.

Background

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) faces a landscape of increasingly complex practice, especially in Hematology/Oncology (H/O), and a nationwide shortage of healthcare providers, while serving more Veterans than ever before. To understand current and future staffing needs, the VA National Oncology Program performed an assessment of H/O staffing, including attending physicians, residents/ fellows, licensed independent practitioners (LIPs) (nurse practitioners/physician assistants), and nurses for fiscal years (FY) 19–24.

Methods

Using VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified H/O visits in VA from 10/01/2018 through 09/30/2024 using stop codes. No-show (< 0.00001%) and National TeleOncology appointments (1%) were removed. We retrieved all notes associated with resulting visits and used area-ofspecialization and provider-type data to identify all attending physicians, trainees, LIPs, and nurses who authored or cosigned these notes. We identified H/O staff as 1. those associated with H/O clinic locations, 2. physicians who consistently cosigned H/O notes authored by fellows and LIPs associated with H/O locations, 3. fellows and LIPs authoring notes that were then cosigned by H/O physicians, and 4. nurses authoring notes associated with H/O visits.

Analysis

For each FY, we obtained total numbers of visits, unique patients, and care-providing staff by type. For validation, collaborating providers at several sites reviewed visit information, and a colleague also performed an independent, parallel data extraction. We adjusted FY totals to account for the growing patient population by dividing unique staff count by number of unique patients and multiplying by 200,000 (the approximate number of unique patients in FY19).

Results

From FY19 through FY24, VA Hematology/ Oncology saw a 14.6% rise in unique patients (from 232,084 to 265,926) and a 15.4% rise in visits (from 923,175 to 1,065,186). The absolute number of attendings rose by 4 (0.6%); of LIPs, by 138 (14.4%); and of nurses, by 142 (4.9%); trainees fell by 102 (4.3%). Adjusted to 200,000 patients, the number of attendings fell by 76 (12.3%); LIPs, by 1 (0.1%); trainees, by 335 (16.5%); and nurses, by 211 (8.4%).

Conclusions

Adjusted to number of Veterans, there are 10.4% fewer staff in Hematology/Oncology in FY24 compared to FY19.

Background

Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.

Methods

Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.

Results

We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.

Conclusions

NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.

Background

Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.

Methods

Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.

Results

We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.

Conclusions

NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.

Background

Germline genetic testing (GGT) is essential in prostate cancer care, informing clinical decisions. The Veterans Affairs National Oncology Program (VA NOP) recommends GGT for patients with specific risk factors in non-metastatic prostate cancer and all patients with metastatic disease. Understanding GGT access helps evaluate care quality and guide improvements. Since 2021, VA NOP has implemented pathway health factor (HF) templates to standardize cancer care documentation, including GGT status, enabling data extraction from the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) rather than requiring manual review of clinical notes. This work aims to evaluate Veterans’ access to GGT in prostate cancer care by leveraging pathway HF templates, and to assess the feasibility of using structured electronic health record (EHR) data to monitor adherence to GGT recommendations.

Methods

Process delivery diagrams (PDDs) were used to map data flow from prostate cancer clinical pathways to the VA CDW. We identified and categorized HFs related to prostate cancer GGT through the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize access, ordering, and consent rates.

Results

We identified 5,744 Veterans with at least one prostate cancer GGT-relevant HF entered between 02/01/2021 and 12/31/2024. Of these, 5,125 (89.2%) had access to GGT, with 4,569 (89.2%) consenting to or having GGT ordered, while 556 (10.8%) declined testing. Among the 619 (10.8%) Veterans without GGT access, providers reported plans to discuss GGT in the future for 528 (85.3%) patients, while 91 (14.7%) were off pathway.

Conclusions

NOP-developed HF templates enabled extraction of GGT information from structured EHR data, eliminating manual extraction from clinical notes. We observed high GGT utilization among Veterans with pathway-entered HFs. However, low overall HF utilization may introduce selection bias. Future work includes developing a Natural Language Processing pipeline using large language models to automatically extract GGT information from clinical notes, with HF data serving as ground truth.

A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE). 

The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2). 

Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.

Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses. 

Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.

For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.

A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE). 

The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2). 

Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.

Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses. 

Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.

For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.

A mid-season analysis of the influenza vaccine by the US Department of Defensive (DoD) Global Respiratory Pathogen Surveillance Program (DoDGRPSP) has reported low to moderate vaccine effectiveness (VE). 

The study included 295 Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries (adults and children) who tested positive for influenza and 965 controls who tested negative. Vaccinated patients had received the 2024-2025 influenza vaccine at least 14 days prior to symptom onset. The study conducted VE analyses for influenza A (any subtype), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2). 

Overall, moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was reported in all beneficiaries and children aged 6 months to 17 years. In adults aged 18 to 64 years—and all beneficiaries—there was moderate effectiveness against influenza A(H3N2). VE estimates against influenza A (any subtype) for all beneficiaries, children, and adults were not significant; VE estimates were also not effective among children for influenza A(H3N2) and in adults for influenza A(H1N1)pdm09.

Adjusted VE estimates among all participants for influenza A (any subtypes), influenza A(H1N1)pdm09, and influenza A(H3N2) were 25%, 58%, and 42%, respectively. VE for influenza B was not calculated due to a low number of cases.

Flu vaccination rates for adults are usually in the 30% to 60% range despite the recommended target of 70%. Flu vaccination rates were rising by around 1% to 2% annually before 2020, but began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. In adults aged ≥ 65 years, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-2020 to 43% in 2024-2025.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the end of the 2023-2024 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors offices compared with the baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since 2022, private manufacturers have distributed significantly fewer influenza vaccine doses. 

Each March, the US Food and Drug Association (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meets to analyze the current influenza season and forecast the next. The committee reviews and discusses data on influenza strain circulation and VE, which come from DoDGRPSP analyses. In February, US Department of Health and Human Services officials indefinitely postponed a public meeting of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), at which members were also expected to discuss, among other things, VE and vaccine recommendations. The FDA canceled a March 13 VRBPAC meeting and provided no reason for the cancelation to members. That day, however, the FDA issued new recommendations for the influenza vaccine for the 2025-2026 season without the input of VRBPAC. Instead, experts from the FDA, CDC, and DoD made recommendations after reviewing surveillance data from the US and globally.

For the 2025-2026 influenza season, the FDA recommends the vaccines be trivalent and target 2 strains of influenza A and 1 strain of influenza B. The FDA anticipates there will be an “adequate and diverse supply” of approved trivalent seasonal influenza vaccines. Trivalent flu vaccines are formulated to protect against 3 influenza viruses: an A(H1N1) virus, an A(H3N2) virus, and a B/Victoria virus. All influenza vaccines for the 2025-2026 season are anticipated to be trivalent in the US.

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024.