VA fund cuts Impact Minority and Women Veterans
Alongside this Act, the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative was expanded, focusing on providing tailored cultural awareness and training for VA staff. These initiatives were implemented across veteran services, including in claims processing systems, and VA healthcare organisations, as well as support services offered to veterans and their family members, such as college programs, mental health resources, and housing assistance. Now, pending budget cuts initiated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), all DEI initiatives are to be terminated.
Nonetheless, the federal government warns that all organisations under VA leadership must comply with federal regulations regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. Indeed, the existence of federal policies that prevent discrimination makes DEI initiatives seem redundant. The VA is also expected to save around $6.1 million annually by eliminating DEI structures. In line with the budget planning for 2026, the VA will use these funds to enhance services for veterans, including the provision of healthcare.
However, despite existing policies against discrimination, a substantial part of this social behaviour is triggered by unconscious bias, also referred to as implicit bias, whereby staff may exhibit behaviors or trigger actions that are discriminatory, without intention or awareness. Research to date suggests that this is a systemic issue within the VA, despite efforts to mitigate its effects. For example, data collected and analysed before the implementation of the PACT Act and structured DEI initiatives show that, on average, claims made by veterans from an ethnic minority group were 14% more likely to be rejected when compared to claims made by White veterans. A 75% increase in the number of claims approved for ethnic minority veterans was recorded following the implementation of the PACT Act and DEI initiatives.
Additional data collected from the medical system demonstrate that ethnic minority veterans, as well as women veterans, encounter discrimination and biases when seeking service. When having a negative experience of healthcare, these people tend to avoid new encounters, be less likely to adhere to prescribed regimes, or withhold vital information from their healthcare provider. As a result, people who perceive being discriminated against or treated unfairly based on their gender, race, or other type of group identity will also experience poorer health outcomes. Education and awareness are among the most effective ways to address the unconscious bias that produces inequity and inequality within a system. Removing DEI may, therefore, buffer out the progress obtained so far.
Impact of DEI Removal on Veterans
Almost 16 million veterans lived in the U.S. in 2023, including ethnic minority groups and women veterans. The termination of DEI programs may have a disproportionate effect on this population without targeted oversight and culturally informed protocols.
Presently, the PACT Act offers direct compensation and health care for various conditions developed as a result of toxic exposure, including exposure to asbestos, radiation, and burning pits. Notably, new toxic agents are considered by the VA, and compensation is provided outside of the PACT Act presumption. Many of these chemicals are being used with increased frequency by the U.S. military. This will most likely result in new generations of veterans seeking claims for the effects of toxic exposure.
Similar to the current veteran population, the next generation of veterans will also include a growing number of ethnic minorities and women. For upholding the VA's commitment to justice and care for all who have served, ensuring that these veterans have equal access to compensation and healthcare is essential.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Black America Web
15 hours ago
- Black America Web
Trump Administration Cuts Funding For Black Infant Health Research, Labeling It A DEI Initiative
Source: Cultura Creative / Getty It would surprise absolutely no one that infant mortality rates in America are disproportionately high among Black babies, or that Black and Latino babies are more vulnerable than their white counterparts to serious, life-threatening illnesses such as upper respiratory infection (URI). Of course, anyone who has been paying attention to our current political climate would be equally unsurprised to find that, under the Trump administration, medical research that seeks to understand why Black children suffer these health issues so often is under attack, because the results of that research might hurt white people's feelings. In other words, Black babies might have to die in order to placate white fragility. According to The Cincinnati Herald, a federally funded study exploring why Black babies in Detroit are disproportionately born prematurely has been abruptly terminated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), apparently, because the study focused on the effects of stress associated with racism and poverty, and how that stress might alter gene function and contribute to adverse birth outcomes — or as the Trump administration defines it, DEI. From the Herald: In termination letters sent to researchers, the NIH claimed the project relied on 'artificial and non-scientific categories' linked to DEI and asserted it did not 'enhance health or advance science.' Researchers behind the project strongly contest that explanation, calling the decision politically motivated. The cancellation aligns with a broader initiative by the Trump administration to dismantle DEI initiatives across the federal government, including within health and science agencies. Numerous projects focused on minority and LGBTQ health have been defunded under the same rationale. So, a bunch of so-called medical authorities from the same administration that gave the position of a Secretary of Health and Human Services to RFK Jr. — who thinks Black people don't need vaccines as much as white people because we have super negro immune systems — have canceled funding for this research, because, in their non-medical opinions, any research tied to racial disparities is 'non-scientific.' Actual medical experts, of course, say differently. 'Health-related social needs are health care,' said Dr. Alex Peahl, an OB-GYN at the University of Michigan and co-director of the Partnering for the Future Clinic. 'And if we want to improve the health of pregnant people and their families, we have to care for every part of their lives, not just the clinical pieces.' Peahl noted that access to prenatal care is inseparable from issues like lack of transportation, food insecurity and other external stressors that disproportionately affect Black people. 'It is really hard to come to your prenatal visit if you don't have a car, or to take a medication if you don't have food on the table,' she explained. And it would be nice if the administration of President Donald Trump cared about any of that, but it does not. Source: MEHMET ESER / Getty In April, Trump signed an executive order that essentially made housing discrimination easier by requiring federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to stop using 'disparate impact' data to identify discriminatory policies and practices that disproportionately harm certain groups. Days before signing that order, Trump signed a similar order discouraging school administrators from using 'disparate impact' data to address racial disparities in disciplinary actions taken against students. In other words: Trump decided researchers can't use data involving racial disparities to study potential racial discrimination because, in his mind and that of his ilk, anything that addresses systemic racism against anyone but white people is a diversity, equity and inclusion effort. Hell, also in April, the Trump administration ended a wastewater settlement for a mostly Black Alabama town, erroneously calling it 'environmental justice as viewed through a distorting, DEI lens' because the case addressed environmental racism. So, a whole town full of Black people has to continue living with well-documented wastewater sanitation issues all because a White House full of white nationalists is far more invested in silencing calls for racial justice than it is in correcting racial injustice (again, except for fictional racial injustice against white people). Anyway, according to the Herald, the research team in Detroit, which is currently scrambling to secure private funding so it can continue its work, has 30 days to appeal the NIH decision. Last month, a federal judge ruled that the agency's funding cuts to minority health research were illegal and an example of 'government racial discrimination' like nothing the judge had ever seen. Unfortunately, that ruling could also be appealed by the Trump administration. The very idea of correcting systemic racism in America makes white conservatives deeply resentful, and Black health continues to suffer because of it. Sad. SEE ALSO: Op-Ed: We Should All Be More Concerned That Trump Keeps Threatening To Deport US Citizens Trump's DOJ Investigates University Of California Over Effort To Recruit Racially Diverse Faculty SEE ALSO Trump Administration Cuts Funding For Black Infant Health Research, Labeling It A DEI Initiative was originally published on
USA Today
16 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump doesn't know what it means to be a veteran. His budget bill punishes us.
President Donald Trump doesn't know what it's like to be a veteran. And, based on his policies, he doesn't care to learn from those of us who do. Imagine going to war to protect your country and coming home to find your country no longer protects you. Under President Donald Trump, this could be the new reality for the 15 million veterans who depend on VA health care. His "One Big Beautiful Bill" budget includes changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs, meaning Kentucky veterans like me might have to wait longer for the medical care, including mental health care, that was promised to us in exchange for service to our country. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "Veterans could be particularly harmed by Medicaid and (food stamps) cuts given the complexity of their health care needs and their higher prevalence of food insecurity compared to non-veterans." His disrespect toward those who have served doesn't stop there. According to FactCheck: "The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs changed the wording in its bylaws to comply with recent executive orders. In making the changes, words including 'national origin, politics, marital status' were removed from language prohibiting discrimination. But existing federal law already prohibits discrimination on those grounds, the VA says." 'Extremely disturbing and unethical' is right on the money One doctor called the change 'extremely disturbing and unethical.' While that's how you could describe a lot of Trump's decisions these days, this one targets our troops with a dangerous type of loyalty test – as if being willing to die for your country wasn't test enough. Kentucky vets already wait months to settle VA claims and get the benefits and care they've earned. Now, between Trump's mass VA layoffs, proposed budget cuts and this new change in bylaws, the gap between what Kentucky veterans get and what they deserve will get even wider. People willing to fight for this country should not have to wait months for benefits and be forced to drive hours just to see a doctor. And they shouldn't have to worry about getting turned away for wearing the wrong hat. Opinion: Hegseth stripping Harvey Milk's name off Navy ship is weak and insecure This is an insult to veterans It is an insult to subject these men and women to political intimidation tactics after they've put their lives on the line to defend democracy, religious freedom, freedom of speech – the most valuable principles of our nation. And I'll tell you, discrimination ain't one of them. Opinion: You think Republicans realize they've started hurting the wrong people? Taking care of veterans should be a place where Democrats and Republicans find common ground, but right now the GOP is applauding a man who uses troops as birthday party decorations while cutting the care they need to survive. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Donald Trump doesn't know what it's like to be a veteran. And, based on his policies, he doesn't care to learn from those of us who do. We cannot let our troops come home to a country where their lawful political beliefs could get them punished. If someone is willing to defend American principles with their life, we'd better make damn sure those principles apply to them, too. Bud Andrews is a retired Army master sergeant who lives in Lawrenceburg, Kentucky. This column originally published in the Louisville Courier-Journal. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
Nevada Rep. Mark Amodei explains yes vote on Trump's budget bill, Medicaid changes
Only one member of Congress from Nevada voted in favor of President Donald Trump's budget bill and its Medicaid cuts: Rep. Mark Amodei. Trump plans to sign the bill into law at 2 p.m. Pacific time July 4. After the U.S. House approved the bill July 3, Amodei released a lengthy statement explaining his decision to support what he called historic legislation to address the Biden administration's mismanagement. 'As with any major reform bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill is a balancing act,' he said, referring to its legislative name inspired by Trump's language. 'I have long believed that we can't let perfect be the enemy of good, and our work won't stop here in getting Nevadans the relief they need.' Amodei disputed claims the bill is only a handout to the wealthy and characterized it as helping everyday working families. Amodei's bill highlights Among Amodei's highlights for the bill are that: 'Claims that this bill harms veterans are nothing more than political scare tactics and gaslighting,' he said. 'The legislative text contains no provisions explicitly targeting veterans, and veterans receiving VA benefits will continue to do so without interruption.' Amodei on Medicaid changes Amodei, a Republican who represents the top half of Nevada, noted that discussions around the bill have focused on Medicaid. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, hammered the bill the day before its passage, calling it 'mean and cruel.' She noted that estimates show 114,500 Nevadans are expected to lose health care coverage. Northern Nevada HOPES, which serves low-income patients, said the bill will force a 30% reduction in the number of people it can said Medicaid has exploded in size since it started in 1965. 'Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act,' his news release said, 'Medicaid has shifted away from its original mission of serving the traditional low-income population, evolving instead into a de facto state-run universal healthcare system.' In fiscal year 2023, he said, Nevada spent 30% of its budget on Medicaid, $5.6 billion. 'The One Big Beautiful Bill addresses and reins in these excessive Medicaid costs by establishing commonsense work requirements for able-bodied adults without young dependents,' Amodei said. 'In addition, the bill strengthens program integrity measures that protect Medicaid resources for the most vulnerable such as children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and low-income families.' More: 'Cruel' Medicaid cuts in Trump budget bill cuts to hurt Nevada, Sen. Cortez Masto says Funding for rural hospitals There's a balancing act, he said, between reining in out-of-control Medicaid spending and protecting Nevada's hospitals and health clinics. To offset decreases in Medicaid funding for hospitals, Republicans added the Rural Hospital Stabilization Fund to the bill. This, Amodei said, 'will provide $50 billion in relief from 2028 through 2032 for rural hospitals.' Pat Kelly of the Nevada Hospital Association said it's unclear how much help it'll bring. At Cortez Masto's news conference, Kelly said that the federal budget bill's changes to the provider tax rate will decrease hospital funds. 'The total effect by state fiscal year 2029 on Nevada hospitals,' he said, 'will be a loss of $618 million in payments.' Kelly noted the $50 billion fund mentioned by Amodei in the federal budget bill. 'But that provision,' he said, 'is not just for rural hospitals. It's for all providers in rural areas so we're not sure how much is going to be available for hospitals. If there's a group that truly needs our support, it's our rural hospitals.' Amodei said the bill gives the state two years to prepare for changes to the Medicaid provider tax supporting hospitals. 'A perfect solution to healthcare costs has eluded us again,' he said, 'but it will be interesting to see what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services do with implementation of these new Medicaid policies and future rules and regulations. 'I look forward to continuing to work with CMS, the Nevada Health Authority, and our local stakeholders on these issues.' Mark Robison is the state politics reporter for the Reno Gazette Journal, with occasional forays into other topics. Email comments to mrobison@ or comment on Mark's Greater Reno Facebook page.
