Medical Research News
There are no records to display that match the provided criteria.
Sen. Moran Sponsors Bill to Make Naloxone Rescue Kits More Affordable and Accessible for Veterans
Enhances veteran safety by eliminating copayments for naloxone rescue kits and education
Apr 12 2016
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) this week sponsored S. 2772, legislation that would make naloxone rescue kits more affordable and accessible to our nation’s veterans.
As a PBS Frontline report recently highlighted, America’s veterans face greater risk amid the nation’s opioid crisis. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) system, veterans are more likely to die from accidental opioid overdoses than non-veterans. And, in 2014, more than 55,000 veterans were diagnosed with an opioid use disorder. This bill will eliminate copayment requirements for veterans prescribed naloxone rescue kits, which can help reverse the toxic effects of opioid overdoses. The bill would also educate veterans and their families about safe opioid use.
“When a veteran is dependent on opioids as a result of injuries incurred during his or her service to our nation, we have a responsibility to provide the best possible care, including pain management” Sen. Moran said. “The threshold between pain management and opioid addiction, however, is far too easy to cross, as we see from the high number of veterans currently diagnosed with an opioid use disorder. That is why it is critical that we lower barriers to access naloxone kits for our veterans – the only resource that can protect against the worst-case scenario of an overdose.”
Sen. Moran also sponsors the bipartisan Jason Simcakoski Memorial Opioid Safety Act (S. 1641), a bill aimed at providing safer and more effective pain management services to our nation’s veterans, which directs the VA to enhance its naloxone education and distribution program. An updated version of this legislation passed the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in 2015 and awaits consideration by the full Senate. Sen. Moran supported the Senate’s passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (S. 514) last month.
Mr. President, just a month ago, I was here on the Senate floor talking about the struggles of a number of Kansas veterans as they attempted to utilize the Veterans Choice Program that Congress passed now nearly two years ago. That program is being implemented by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. We looked for many opportunities to try to provide better service, more efficient service, more timely service to our veterans, and Congress ultimately came together and passed the Choice Act.
As I indicated a month ago and numerous times on the Senate Floor, that legislation, that law says if you are a veteran who can't receive the … medical services you are entitled to, that you have the opportunity to receive those services at a medical facility, a clinic, a physician, a hospital, at home. As an individual senator who comes from a state as rural as most and more rural than many – and certainly as rural as the Presiding Officer's home state and the home state of the Senator from Missouri – we have a real interest in trying to make certain our veterans who live long distances from a VA hospital can access that medical care.
I thought we took great satisfaction in the passage of that legislation. I certainly did. What we have discovered since then is its implementation has been one handicap, one hurdle, one bureaucratic difficulty, one challenge after another. And while maybe it is difficult for the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement this legislation, they are the ones who ought to suffer the challenges of doing so, not the men and women who served our country.
During my conversation on the Senate floor a month ago, I talked about…a number of veterans in Kansas and called them by name. One of those veterans was Michael Dabney, a Kansas veteran from Hill City, Kansas, in northwest Kansas, out in the part of the state that I grew up in.
A piece of good news is that Mr. Dabney is eligible for the Veterans Choice Program because he lives more than 40 miles from a VA facility. So Mr. Dabney qualifies under that Choice Program, and Mr. Dabney needed surgery and elected to use the Choice Program. There is a community-based outpatient clinic hosted by the VA in Hays, which is about an hour away from his hometown. He was receiving care and treatment there. The indication was he needed the surgery, and they suggested that he travel to Wichita – another couple hundred miles – for that surgery. But Mr. Dabney suffers from PTSD and indicated that he didn't feel comfortable and capable of traveling that extra 200 miles to receive the surgery.
His primary care provider at the outpatient clinic in Hays then indicated to him: Well, you live more than 40 miles from a facility. You qualify for the Choice Act. You can have these services provided and this surgery provided at home.
Mr. Dabney elected to do that, so rather than driving another 200 miles for surgery in a city far away, he had the surgery performed at home. That seems like the way this is supposed to work. But the end result was that, according to the VA, he didn’t receive preauthorization. So his primary care provider telling him that he qualified for the Veterans Choice Act, him getting the service at home, he then started receiving the bills for that service.
In frustration, he then contacted our office, and the folks in my office – like in yours who solve these problems – went to work. Here was an example that I thought we could be successful in solving. The record clearly indicates that his primary care provider, his primary VA care provider indicated he should utilize the Choice Act and have the services, the surgery provided at home. He did so. And the VA then declined to pay for those services to the provider, and he began receiving the bills.
So we went to bat for Mr. Dabney, and despite our efforts and despite his efforts, he has been told that those bills are due and to be paid by him because he didn’t get preauthorization. My point being today is that the Department of Veterans Affairs ought to be the federal agency that bends over backwards to help our veterans.
I remember when the current secretary testified before our Veterans’ Committee in his confirmation hearing, and he indicated that he was going to run the department in a way that was all focused on meeting the needs of veterans. And yet, just a few weeks ago, Mr. Dabney was told this by the VA. I don't know if they said they are sorry. They simply said: You didn’t get preauthorization. You don’t qualify. Those bills are your responsibility.
I am here once again trying to highlight [what happened]…We went to the intermediary TriWest. They thought they could help us accomplish this and get the information that Mr. Dabney acted on and that this ought to be sufficient for the VA to pay the bill. And even with their help, the results from the Department of Veterans Affairs, through their Wichita hospital, said that Mr. Dabney obviously didn’t understand the rules, and, therefore, they were not going to see that his bills were paid by the VA.
This just seems outrageous to me. The VA, through its employees, indicated he qualified. He relied upon that information, their assurance that he qualified, to have the surgery done at home. He is a veteran who needed surgery and who suffers from PTSD. He would be deserving of all the care, the treatment, and the consideration that could be given a man who served our country so well and suffered the consequences. And yet, despite his assurance that he should use the program, the decision was made: I am sorry you didn't dot the i's and cross the t's.
I ask my colleagues to help me as we work our way through the implementation of the Choice Act. It is discouraging to me – the number of veterans who tell me how disappointed they are with the Choice Act – when I thought it was such a great opportunity for their care and well-being. And the end result is that many are discouraged, giving up on the Choice Act and not receiving the care and attention that they need from the VA, deciding that the VA should not be their provider. The point being that we’re failing them once again. We’re failing them veteran by veteran, one at a time.
The consequence is that the program is still not working. You cannot not meet the needs of a veteran and then have an expectation that we have done something useful and beneficial to that veteran.
There is a discussion going on in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and there are bills led by Senators Isakson and Blumenthal that address many of the issues plaguing the VA, ranging from their appeals system to accountability, to remedying the problems associated with the Choice Act. I urge my colleagues not to lose, allow this opportunity to bypass, to go away. We must take these actions. In my view, this is an example of this problem that the VA should solve on its own. They should find a way to make this work. In their absence to do so, we as Members of the Senate – certainly, I, as a member of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs – we have the obligation to continue to do battle for those who battled for our freedoms and liberties.
I apologize to Mr. Dabney that he has been treated the way he has been by the Department of Veterans Affairs, by his government, and I will continue to fight on a case-by-case basis. But we do have a real opportunity as Republican and Democrat Senators to come together and agree upon a legislative solution to these and many other problems that plague us and plague our veterans.
So I simply am here to make the case, hopefully to the Department of Veterans Affairs, that they would again find a way to care for this man who served his country and also to ask my colleagues to work together to make certain – in whatever ways legislatively we need act to meet the needs of those who served our country – we do so.
Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to address this issue and the cause of this veteran and many others. And I yield the floor.
###
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Defense and Co-Chair of the Senate Defense Communities Caucus, was recently awarded National Guard Association of the United States Charles Dick Medal of Merit. The award recognizes the contributions to the National Guard by elected representatives to legislative bodies at the state and national levels.
“I am grateful to the Kansas National Guard for their service and to Major General Lee Tafanelli for his leadership to achieve the Guard’s mission to provide a ready military, emergency management and homeland security capability for our state and nation,” Sen. Moran said. “Particularly in the wake of the drought and wildfires that continue to burn across Kansas, I’m honored to receive this award from such committed and brave men and women.”
“Senator Moran has been an outstanding supporter of our Armed Forces and a leading advocate for issues of importance to the Kansas National Guard, Emergency Management and Homeland Security,” said Maj. Gen. Tafanelli, Kansas Adjutant General. “This award serves as recognition of our deep gratitude to Senator Moran for his support of the National Guard.”
Sen. Moran has emphasized prioritization of the Kansas National Guard Readiness Center at Fort Leavenworth with the National Guard Bureau and the Department of Defense for several years, and is working to address the National Guard’s training backlog of cyber units in the Reserve Component.
The medal is named in honor of Major General Charles Dick, NGAUS president from 1902 to 1909, a major general in the Ohio National Guard, a Congressman and later a Senator. Dick was responsible for the passage of the Dick Acts of 1903 and 1908 that established the foundation of the modern National Guard.
The award will be presented later this month during the annual National Guard Association of Kansas Conference.
###
U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, spoke on the U.S. Senate Floor about the importance of reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal year 2017. The legislation to reauthorize the FAA was passed out of committee last month.
In his remarks, he highlights aspects of the legislation he’s championed including its impact on Kansas, General Aviation, the Pilot's Bill of Rights, the TSA Fairness Act and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.
The Importance of Long-Term FAA Reauthorization
Apr 06 2016
I am pleased to be on the Senate floor as we begin the debate and discussion of legislation that I think is critical to certainly my home state of Kansas and important and valuable to the rest of the nation as well. Kansas is known as an aviation state. Wichita, Kansas, is known as the ‘Air Capital of the World,’ and one would expect a senator from Kansas to be especially supportive of things that improve the opportunity for aviation, and that is certainly true.
We care about the jobs that are in our state as a result of general aviation manufacturing, as a result of aviation manufacturing for large commercial airlines, and it matters. The FAA is an important component of our environment in our state as a driver of our state's economy. But I also want to point out that I am a strong supporter of general aviation and reauthorization of the FAA as a result of representing a very rural state.
Kansas is made up of a number of larger communities, but small cities and towns dot our state. Those local airports and the ability to connect with those communities as a result of general aviation – the ability to fly to visit somebody but perhaps more importantly the ability for a business to be in a community, a small rural community – exists in part because of those general aviation airports and those planes and pilots. So in communities across our state, we are able to have manufacturing and service industries that probably otherwise, in the absence of an airport and aviation, would have to be located in larger cities in Kansas or elsewhere.
GA and FAA reauthorization is important to every Kansan, regardless of whether they are a factory line worker or engineer in Wichita and south central Kansas or whether they are a hospital, a manufacturing business or a service located in a small community in our state.
I am pleased the Senate is beginning to do its work on the FAA reauthorization. I serve on the Committee on Commerce responsible for this product, and I am pleased the chairman and ranking member have worked closely together to get us to this point today in a bill that I hope – I assume subject to some amendments – I hope this bill then passes with strong support across both sides of the aisle.
This FAA Reauthorization Act of 2016 will strengthen the industry by improving the FAA's process for certifying aircraft. Again, in that manufacturing sector in our state, one of the things that would be of great value is to have a process by which an improvement, a development, the manufacturing process, the product we manufacture is more readily and more quickly, more efficiently certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, making certain that those certifications allow those airplane manufacturers to compete in a global marketplace.
This bill also addresses the Pilot's Bill of Rights. I see I have been joined on the Senate floor by the senator from Oklahoma, the champion of this issue. We are pleased it is in this bill, and it reforms, among other things, the third-class medical certificate process for general aviation pilots – something that has been long overdue and something the senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, has championed and continues to champion. Just this week, he called me asking for assistance as we make certain that this bill advances and the House approves language that is included in this bill.
Another essential piece of this bill text, S. 2549, is the TSA Fairness Act. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that was originally introduced by Senator Merkley and Senator Barrasso. The language provides protection for some of our small airports that have commercial air service. Generally, it is possible that air service is there, that small commercial airline flight is there because of the Essential Air Service Program, but in order for Essential Air Service to work and to meet the needs of a community and the traveling public, we need to make certain that the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration, provides the necessary screeners and screening equipment that you would find in a larger airport.
We want to make certain our rural communities that have commercial service – often flying to Denver International Airport – are screened before they enter the plane to fly to DIA, and this legislation includes language that would enhance that circumstance.
I am also encouraged by the efforts in this bill to address the rapidly evolving circumstance we face with unmanned aerial vehicles. That industry is moving forward, again another Kansas industry that matters greatly. This legislation moves the ball forward for an environment where businesses, universities and countless others can tap into the potential and the vast economic benefits of UASs, while maintaining high safety standards that we would expect in the aviation world.
I know my colleagues remember – I remember well – the 23 short-term FAA reauthorizations that have occurred leading up to the 2012 FAA reauthorization bill. It is hugely detrimental to our aviation system to have to tolerate, to have to figure out how to abide by these short-term extensions that eliminate the opportunity for any long-term planning and create great uncertainty. I am pleased we are headed down the path of a longer term, FAA, more permanent reauthorization act represented by this legislation, this Act of 2016.
I would ask my colleagues to work, all of us together, to make sure the end product is something we can be proud of. We certainly start in a position in which that’s the case.
Again, I commend Senator Thune, the senator from South Dakota, for his leadership in working with the senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, getting us to this point today. This is an important piece of legislation for our country, its economy, for our citizens, and certainly matters greatly to the folks back home in Kansas.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to the senator from Oklahoma.
###
Sen. Moran Hosts Kansan at Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing on Military Veterans in Agriculture
Apr 05 2016
Sen. Moran Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Case Challenging Obama Administration’s Immigration Executive Actions
Obama Administration’s Actions Stand ‘In Stark Contravention of Federal Law’ And Are ‘An Explicit Effort To Circumvent The Legislative Process’ On Immigration
Apr 05 2016
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) joined 42 of his Senate colleagues today in filing an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of a challenge by a majority of the nation’s governors and state attorneys general to the Obama Administration’s November 2014 executive actions on immigration. The state of Kansas is a co-plaintiff.
The Supreme Court took up this case (United States of America v. State of Texas) after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in November 2015 affirmed a preliminary injunction by a federal district court in Brownsville, Texas, blocking the Obama Administration from moving forward with its executive actions on immigration that are in violation of federal law. Sen. Moran also filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals when this case was being considered at the circuit level. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on this case on April 18.
“Given that the Executive has asserted that the acts challenged here are not even subject to judicial review, what is at stake in this matter is nothing less than an effort to supplant Congress’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.’ Such an action stands in stark contravention to federal law and to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers,” the Senators’ amicus brief states. “There is little doubt that the Executive adopted the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program as part of an explicit effort to circumvent the legislative process.”
The amicus brief may be found HERE.
###
Sen. Moran Statement on SCOTUS Nominee
Mar 25 2016
MANHATTAN, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) issued the following statement about President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court:
“I am opposed to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee and this administration’s attempt to put another liberal judge on the Supreme Court. As I have said since the vacancy was created, I believe I have a duty to ask tough questions and demand answers. I am certain a thorough investigation would expose Judge Garland’s record and judicial philosophy, and disqualify him in the eyes of Kansans and Americans.”
###
HAYS, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, today praised Acting Army Secretary Patrick Murphy’s support to restore inurnment eligibility at Arlington National Cemetery to the Women Air Force Service Pilots (WASP) and other active duty designees.
“Veterans who have sacrificed for our country – including the Women Air Force Service Pilots – deserve the honor of being inurned at Arlington National Cemetery,” Sen. Moran said. “I’m pleased the Acting Army Secretary supports resolving this flawed decision and will continue working to make certain veterans and their families are properly honored for their service to our nation.”
In February, Sen. Moran and a bipartisan group of senators called on Acting Secretary Murphy to use his existing authority to specify that active duty designees are eligible for inurnment, asking that the Army “resolve this matter with respect and compassion for veterans and their families.”
A 1977 law designated the Women’s Air Force Service Pilots, American Merchant Marines and 35 other groups of individuals as eligible to receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A decision by the Department of the Army in 2002 authorized these active duty designees to be inurned at Arlington National Cemetery. Last year, the Department of the Army reversed the 2002 decision on the grounds that the original 1977 law only applied to VA benefits.
###
Sen. Moran Urges VA to Extend Presumption of Agent Orange Exposure to More Veterans Who Served in Korean DMZ
Mar 21 2016
HAYS, KAN. – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, joined a bipartisan group of senators, including U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), in urging the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to extend the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange to provide more veterans who served in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) access to critical health care benefits. Currently, only veterans who served in the Korean DMZ during specific dates are granted a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange, which allows easier access to health care and benefits for conditions caused by the toxins.
In a letter to VA Secretary Robert McDonald, the senators called on VA to extend the timeframe of the presumption to include veterans affected during the initial herbicide spraying.
“We urge the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to extend the presumption of Agent Orange Exposure to all the veterans who were affected by herbicide spraying in the Korean DMZ, including those who are currently deemed ineligible because they were in or near the DMZ only during the test phase of defoliation,” the senators wrote. “This presumption will allow easier access to critical health care and other benefits for veterans who urgently need it.”
Sens. Moran and Blumenthal also introduced the Toxic Exposure Research Act (S.901) – along with a bipartisan group of 40 senators – which supports research on health conditions faced by descendants of veterans who were exposed to toxins during their military service.
The full text of the letter is available below:
Dear Secretary McDonald,
Many veterans who served in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) during the Vietnam War are suffering from significant health conditions associated with exposure to toxic herbicides. Some of these veterans were not present during the full-scale defoliation operation commonly associated with herbicide exposure, but were nonetheless affected by the herbicide testing that preceded it. They are currently excluded from qualifying for the presumption of service connection for diseases associated with exposure to these toxic substances.
We urge the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to extend the presumption of Agent Orange Exposure to all the veterans who were affected by herbicide spraying in the Korean DMZ, including those who are currently deemed ineligible because they were in or near the DMZ only during the test phase of defoliation. This presumption will allow easier access to critical health care and other benefits for veterans who urgently need it.
On March 2, 2016, the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs and the House Committee on Veterans Affairs held a joint hearing entitled “Legislative Presentation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.” John Piedrzycki, Commander in Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, testified at the hearing on the inequity of the exclusions caused by the current presumption policies.
VA has already used its authority to extend the presumption of service connection for veterans exposed later in the relevant period. In a final rule issued on February 24, 2011, VA recognized that section 102 of the Veterans Benefits Act authorized a qualifying period for the connection beginning September 1, 1967 and ending on August 31, 1971. The rule then extended the end date from July 31, 1969 to August 31, 1971. Although this change was important, it did not include the needed step of extending the start date as well. In so doing, it failed to adequately take into account a declassified January 1969 document accepted as credible evidence in Board of Veterans Appeals cases – “Final Report, Vegetation Control Plan CY 68” – that cited use of herbicides in the DMZ for tests that began on October 9, 1967.
In light of this precedent and evidence, we respectfully request that you use your statutory authority to afford the presumption of service connection to veterans with Agent Orange-related diseases who served in or near the Korean DMZ between October 9, 1967 and March 31, 1968. We urge you to implement this change immediately, so these Korean DMZ veterans can begin receiving the benefits that they have heretofore been unjustly denied.
We thank you for your attention to this vital issue, and we look forward to working with you to resolve this matter promptly.
Sincerely,
###