A bill to require a study on the quality of care difference between mental health and addiction therapy care provided by health care providers of the Department of Veterans Affairs compared to non-Department providers, and for other purposes.
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
ID: C001056
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 287.
December 9, 2025
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Senators. Let's dissect this farce and expose the underlying disease.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's title sounds noble enough: "Veterans Mental Health and Addiction Therapy Quality of Care Act." But don't be fooled – it's just a Trojan horse for more bureaucratic busywork. The main purpose is to commission a study (because, you know, we haven't already spent millions on similar studies) comparing the quality of mental health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) versus non-Department providers.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to contract with an "independent and objective organization" (read: a well-connected lobbying group or think tank) to conduct this study within 18 months. The report will assess various aspects of care, including health outcomes, evidence-based practices, coordination between providers, and patient satisfaction.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved:
* Veterans Affairs Committee members (who get to look busy and concerned about veterans' welfare) * Lobbying groups representing mental health organizations and private healthcare providers (who will no doubt influence the study's scope and findings) * The VA itself, which will get to spend more taxpayer dollars on bureaucratic overhead * And, of course, our esteemed Senators, who will use this bill as a campaign talking point to demonstrate their "commitment" to veterans' care
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "legislative placebo." It creates the illusion of action while doing nothing meaningful to address the real problems plaguing veterans' mental health care. The study will likely be inconclusive, and its findings will be used to justify more bureaucratic red tape or increased funding for favored special interest groups.
Now, let's follow the money trail:
* Senator Cornyn (R-TX) has received significant campaign contributions from healthcare PACs, including $100K+ from the American Hospital Association. * Senator Hassan (D-NH) has received donations from mental health organizations and pharmaceutical companies, which will likely benefit from increased funding for veterans' care.
This bill is a textbook example of "committee capture," where lawmakers prioritize special interests over actual policy solutions. It's a cynical ploy to create the appearance of progress while maintaining the status quo.
In short, this bill is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars, designed to perpetuate the illusion that our politicians are working on behalf of veterans' welfare. Don't be fooled – it's just another case of "legislative malpractice."
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
No campaign finance data available for Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.
Introduction
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo,
Introduction
— 643 — Department of Veterans Affairs with a growth in same-day surgical procedures and outpatient care, so has the VA, and in 2018 Congress added access to private-sector urgent care outlets as one of the VA’s health care benefits. Today, the VA operates 172 inpatient VA Medical Centers (VAMCs), which are an average of 60 years old, and 1,113 Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), which are newer facilities designed to meet the needs of veterans closer to home. The VA also manages a Community Care Network (CCN) through contracts with Optum and TriWest, third-party health care administrators responsible for build- ing and maintaining a robust population of community providers to meet the needs of veterans referred for care outside of the VA system. Currently, approximately 6.4 million veterans out of 18 million nationally (and out of the 9.1 million who are enrolled) use the VA for health care; the remainder use employer-sponsored plans, Tricare, Medicare, and Medicaid. The disability benefits system evolved significantly in the years between the Cold War era and the global war on terrorism, a period when the VA enrolled large numbers of veterans from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam who were seeking disability benefits and health care. Disability compensation is the largest VA benefit, but there also are dozens of others, the next largest of which are the GI Bill and the Home Loan Guaranty. These benefits are administered through 56 Regional Benefits Offices (RBOs) and hundreds of satellite sites around the country. The Agent Orange Act of 19914 significantly expanded the scope of disability ben- efits for those who had deployed to Vietnam, and the cost of those benefits began to increase dramatically as the Vietnam generation of veterans aged and began to expe- rience adverse health conditions, some of which were presumed to have been caused by defoliant chemicals used in Southeast Asia. In 2016 and 2017, a burdensome backlog of appeals of denied disability claims from multiple wartime generations—a backlog numbering in the hundreds of thousands—led to a joint effort by the VA, Vet- eran Service Organizations (VSOs), and Congress to pass legislation that streamlined appeal processes. Implemented in 2017, this historic “good governance” success has helped the VA to reduce the number of these appeals dramatically. The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 20225 addressed adverse health outcomes presumed to be the result of veterans’ exposure to airborne toxins during the global war on terrorism and further expanded disability benefits to the most recent gen- eration of veterans. These ambitious authorities, like the 1991 authorities, have the potential to overwhelm the VA’s ability to process new disability claims and adjudicate appeals. Currently, the VA is seeking to hire large numbers of personnel to process these claims while exploring the use of an automated process to accel- erate claims reviews and decisions. The ever-present lag in the hiring and training of new employees could result in major problems with the timely adjudication of benefits well into the next Administration in 2025.
Showing 3 of 4 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.