VA Mental Health Provider Venting / Problem-solving / Peer Support Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
That is simply because the VA has employees to handle this and most hospital systems in the community simply do not. The most they will do is have psychiatry throw a pill at you. The issue with the VA is not the ratio of patients to providers so much as it is a problem of unlimited free services and secondary gain. I could easily see the same 8-10 "problem children" in my program in perpetuity and make my numbers without ever doing another intake. Why? because I am in primary care and the VA has unlimited services ad no right to refuse care. The most I could do is put them on my "wait list....except that is not allowed. That said, a lot the cbocs have been understaffed for years due to the requirements to show understaffing before any position is approved.

It is literally, need 5 positons...okay, hire one new position and show us that you are still understaffed.....wait 1-2 years for data. See, we need more positions because we are understaffed...wait the 1 person we hired quit because they are overworked. Back to square one.

Totally agree regarding secondary gain. All of your VA data on that comes from us neuropsychs 🙂 But I still maintain that the people that truly need MH care have better access and availability within the VA. As for CBOCs, rural staffing is a universal issue.
 
So....today I had some colleagues in my clinic finally express more vocally how pissed off they are with our program manager and how they can't wait to leave and how disorganized our clinic is, then then end up saying how all the things I brought up before many months ago that I said were problematic (and they downplayed and dismissed) are actually a problem. They apologized and then said they'd be speaking up this week in our clinic meeting and giving me credit. I told them I really don't care...I won't be here much longer. Then I said "I've been providing lots of feedback and suggestions that they've all been shot down, at this point my ideas deserve an exhibit in a war memorial museum." They all busted out laughing.
 
I didn't realize trying to change from GS-12 to GS-13 had so many ways for things to go wrong.
 
I didn't realize trying to change from GS-12 to GS-13 had so many ways for things to go wrong.
Oh no! I think the worst thing that happened to me was that payroll didn't put in my backpay.
 
Oh no! I think the worst thing that happened to me was that payroll didn't put in my backpay.
I have avoided issues so far, but I'm hearing the horror stories for other folks. I should be switching in less than a month. We'll see how things go!
 
HR having to get involved is a force multiplier for FUBAR
The baffling thing here is that VA HR jobs are very competitive to get and yet I've never heard of any in any role (applicant, hiring manager, employee) having a positive experience with VA HR.
 
The baffling thing here is that VA HR jobs are very competitive to get and yet I've never heard of any in any role (applicant, hiring manager, employee) having a positive experience with VA HR.
If I read this correctly, you can't understand why a job with good pay and benefits where you don't need any work ethic is competitive?

Tell me you're an academic without telling me you're an academic.
 
If I read this correctly, you can't understand why a job with good pay and benefits where you don't need any work ethic is competitive?

Tell me you're an academic without telling me you're an academic.
More like, it's so competitive why don't they manage to get competent people? I'm legit beginning to wonder if they hire against competence or something.
 
More like, it's so competitive why don't they manage to get competent people? I'm legit beginning to wonder if they hire against competence or something.
Complete conjecture, but I wonder if they look for people who they think will stick around, as HR seems to have a decent amount of turnover of employees leaving for other VA positions (especially for folks who are good at their job).
 
The baffling thing here is that VA HR jobs are very competitive to get and yet I've never heard of any in any role (applicant, hiring manager, employee) having a positive experience with VA HR.
The current HR folks within this VA system have been my best experience thus far. Literally the only thing in the last 8 months was the back pay from my grade increase. So I just need to double check next pay period. The HR rep said they would double check too with payroll.

-They were actually ready to onboard me a month before I was ready to transfer
-Special salary rate communication and implementation was good
-They respond within 2 hours


My two previous systems were trash though.
 
I reckon I did the Lord's work today. I had an honest conversation with my intake about secondary gain and how the point of mental health treatment is to help you recover which may be in direct contradiction with filing for service connection related to mental health. Turns out they didn't want treatment if it was not necessary for filing for benefits.
 
I reckon I did the Lord's work today. I had an honest conversation with my intake about secondary gain and how the point of mental health treatment is to help you recover which may be in direct contradiction with filing for service connection related to mental health. Turns out they didn't want treatment if it was not necessary for filing for benefits.

It is definitely the lord's work because no one else will thank you and you just lost some RVUs. However, you likely saved yourself from having to reschedule lots of no-shows.
 
I reckon I did the Lord's work today. I had an honest conversation with my intake about secondary gain and how the point of mental health treatment is to help you recover which may be in direct contradiction with filing for service connection related to mental health. Turns out they didn't want treatment if it was not necessary for filing for benefits.
Good job. You may have just saved yourself and/or your colleagues 5+ years and 50+ appointments characterized by pseudo-engagement and frustration.
 
Is the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program worth it? Seems like a good deal from the HR brochure, but I always prefer to get some real-life feedback.
 
I reckon I did the Lord's work today. I had an honest conversation with my intake about secondary gain and how the point of mental health treatment is to help you recover which may be in direct contradiction with filing for service connection related to mental health. Turns out they didn't want treatment if it was not necessary for filing for benefits.
I'm thinking of instituting formalized informed consent documentation that says this in writing (large, bolded, italicized, underlined font).

"Warning: Active participation in evidence-based psychotherapy may cause reduction in PTSD symptoms as well as associated reduction in psychosocial and occupational impairment due to PTSD symptoms which may ultimately lower or eliminate service-connected status."

Holy balls. That's actually a good idea to deal with the current monumental increase in rates of cases that keep slamming my clinic because people keep resigning/retiring from these positions and leadership refuses to examine rates of inflow/outflow in clinics.
 
I've read that, in general, flex spending accounts are a ripoff.
 
I mean, you get that extra workout in and plus I get to figure out what is broken on that particular dummy. That reminds, I need to go do that this month.
Most of our dummies are broken/non-functional most of the time, too.

Damn, it's uncanny how universally dysfunctional almost every VA hospital is...right down to little details like this.
 
I feel kind of bad for messing up their data, but it's not my fault they decided to structure it this way.
 
Just want to express my consternation with the clinical triage notes and being alerted to patients who you haven't seen for years, and who have every capability of calling you themselves but apparently are choosing not to do so
 
Just want to express my consternation with the clinical triage notes and being alerted to patients who you haven't seen for years, and who have every capability of calling you themselves but apparently are choosing not to do so
Ah...the lovely "Tag You're It" notes. Should be a cprs note template (TAG YOURE IT).
 
If you work in VA healthcare, I'd recommend checking out the british television mini-series 'This is Going to Hurt.'

It's a really gritty series about practicing medicine in the National Health Service and I laughed out loud several times as they brilliantly portrayed the warts and foibles of overly-bureaucratized healthcare systems.

It also makes me grateful that I'm a psychologist and not a physician working in the NHS. Worth a watch.

 
In a training on CPT coding and just thinking about what a fustercluck it's gonna be when we switch to ICD-11 and the PTSD criteria drastically diverges from DSM-5.
 
Yeah, most are use it or lose it. HSAs generally roll over. And, they can be set up in a way that people essentially use them as another IRA.
You can currently roll over $610/year on an FSA, so from my perspective, if you are eligible for one, may as well put in at least that amount per year. So many expenses qualify for FSA that this money goes real quickly, and if you are someone who knows you will wind up having high out of pocket health expenses in the coming year, its just throwing away money to not have one set up.
 
You can currently roll over $610/year on an FSA, so from my perspective, if you are eligible for one, may as well put in at least that amount per year. So many expenses qualify for FSA that this money goes real quickly, and if you are someone who knows you will wind up having high out of pocket health expenses in the coming year, its just throwing away money to not have one set up.

The childcare portion of FSA is great and can get spent quickly.
 
You know how suicide prevention used to be able to decide in certain cases that they would not reach out to patients who contacted the VCL, if it was clinically indicated? Apparently they can't anymore. Cool.
 
You know how suicide prevention used to be able to decide in certain cases that they would not reach out to patients who contacted the VCL, if it was clinically indicated? Apparently they can't anymore. Cool.

Wait, so they just have to reach out to everyone? Not new in my neck of the woods. They used to do daily check-ins on my suicidal quadriplegic. If he could answer the phone, he probably wouldn't have been suicidal.
 
Last edited:
Wait, so they just have to reach out to everyone? Not new in my neck of the woods. They used to do daily check-ins on my suicidal quadriplegic. If he could answer the phone, he probably wouldn't have been suicidal.

They were able to make exceptions for VERY specific cases, like high utilizers who didn't follow through with treatment or people with BPD
 
5 more weeks and I am gone from the VA! Very excited. I have spent this time building the practice so that on 10/27, I will have a caseload of 25 patients and will have had solid capital gains. I have spent these last months paying off a variety of personal and business debts which are all cleared. I spent 2 weeks in Europe and have returned with only 5 more weeks left. I've been delegating folks off my caseload to prepare.
 
Thoughts on if not decreasing VA Disability payments for treated mental health conditions would be an overall positive or not? It seems to lead to some vets not getting their treatable conditions (PTSD, etc) treated to avoid decreasing their payments, and it's probably still a net benefit to the VA and society (and their bottom lines) if these people were able to get treated and retain their same level of VA disability benefits as opposed to them just not getting treated.
 
They were able to make exceptions for VERY specific cases, like high utilizers who didn't follow through with treatment or people with BPD
I struggle with the BPD scenario because we don't want to inadvertently reinforce suicidal threats as a means of accessing attention in people with BPD, but it's also true that people with BPD are still more likely to actually die by suicide. One approach I've read about is taking every suicidal threat by someone with BPD extremely seriously to the point of immediate commitment, because that type of attention isn't usually the type of attention that's reinforcing in these contexts and is often punishing, while still providing liability protection for the provider. Not sure if there's any research on that approach, though,
 
Thoughts on if not decreasing VA Disability payments for treated mental health conditions would be an overall positive or not? It seems to lead to some vets not getting their treatable conditions (PTSD, etc) treated to avoid decreasing their payments, and it's probably still a net benefit to the VA and society (and their bottom lines) if these people were able to get treated and retain their same level of VA disability benefits as opposed to them just not getting treated.

The issue I see is what would qualify as treatment and what would be done about those that cannot easily be seen such as rural folks.

I can see folks showing up to psychiatry every three months and lying to keep a check. I also see folks with no transportation or internet in rural areas struggling to meet such a mandate. Many need those funds to survive. This is aside from the massive negative political ramifications.
 
I struggle with the BPD scenario because we don't want to inadvertently reinforce suicidal threats as a means of accessing attention in people with BPD, but it's also true that people with BPD are still more likely to actually die by suicide. One approach I've read about is taking every suicidal threat by someone with BPD extremely seriously to the point of immediate commitment, because that type of attention isn't usually the type of attention that's reinforcing in these contexts and is often punishing, while still providing liability protection for the provider. Not sure if there's any research on that approach, though,
I would expect the approach is not viable, not the least because it would require a single policy interfacing successfully with 50+ different sets of mental health laws and procedures. Which you won't be able to do, because what you describe would be criminal in many if not all of those jurisdictions.
 
The issue I see is what would qualify as treatment and what would be done about those that cannot easily be seen such as rural folks.

I can see folks showing up to psychiatry every three months and lying to keep a check. I also see folks with no transportation or internet in rural areas struggling to meet such a mandate. Many need those funds to survive. This is aside from the massive negative political ramifications.
Oh, I wasn't talking about mandating treatment as a condition of funds--just not reducing funds if the symptoms are no longer disabling to the same degree.
 
Oh, I wasn't talking about mandating treatment as a condition of funds--just not reducing funds if the symptoms are no longer disabling to the same degree.
I've worked with folks who thought that, overall, the "lump sum" payment approach (or something similar, ala a set amount of money for a set amount of time, regardless) would be better all around. I suppose the primary potential downside is that there might then be even more incentive to feign/exaggerate if it's just seen as a one-off evaluation, although at the same time, it's not like engagement with MH treatment should be used as a deterrent for filing fraudulent claims.
 
Thoughts on if not decreasing VA Disability payments for treated mental health conditions would be an overall positive or not? It seems to lead to some vets not getting their treatable conditions (PTSD, etc) treated to avoid decreasing their payments, and it's probably still a net benefit to the VA and society (and their bottom lines) if these people were able to get treated and retain their same level of VA disability benefits as opposed to them just not getting treated.
I think they need to do away with the 'band' of different percentages (0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 100).

They need also to spend a little more time/money and effort on the original determination. For example, maybe require a consensus of a couple of examiners, ensure that a structured interview is utilized (CAPS-5) and maybe include objective personality assessment (MMPI-2-RF), verify stressors (like they used to).

The quest of veterans to 'climb the ladder' of disability percentages (especially that 'hump' from 70 to 100 [HUGE increase in pay/benefits]) is DESTROYING outpatient mental health at VA at the present time. I'd estimate maybe 80% of my scheduled psychotherapy cases are spent addressing issues of non- or pseudo- engagement and, while many of these represent genuine 'pre-contemplation' stage issues in psychotherapy, a good number of them are likely due to the fact that patients are auditioning for higher service connection benefits.

The amount of expensive clinician time/ effort that we spend on the vast majority of veterans who (on the surface) claim that they're here for therapy (but who are actually here to try to establish that therapy doesn't work for them ['I'm 100% totally and permanently disabled']) could be diverted to the reorganization of disability payments to just pay everyone who is properly determined to have service-connected PTSD at the 100% level.

Hell, we may actually save money by doing this and we would avoid all of the 'Catch 22' situations in therapy where a veteran feels that he/she has to be caught between a rock and a hard place by either (a) truthfully reporting symptom reduction but risking losing money they rely upon to feed/house them and their family or (b) over-report symptom severity in order to retain income, but then cause all kinds of problems by over-reporting their symptom severity.
 
I think they need to do away with the 'band' of different percentages (0, 10, 30, 50, 70, 100).

They need also to spend a little more time/money and effort on the original determination. For example, maybe require a consensus of a couple of examiners, ensure that a structured interview is utilized (CAPS-5) and maybe include objective personality assessment (MMPI-2-RF), verify stressors (like they used to).

The quest of veterans to 'climb the ladder' of disability percentages (especially that 'hump' from 70 to 100 [HUGE increase in pay/benefits]) is DESTROYING outpatient mental health at VA at the present time. I'd estimate maybe 80% of my scheduled psychotherapy cases are spent addressing issues of non- or pseudo- engagement and, while many of these represent genuine 'pre-contemplation' stage issues in psychotherapy, a good number of them are likely due to the fact that patients are auditioning for higher service connection benefits.

The amount of expensive clinician time/ effort that we spend on the vast majority of veterans who (on the surface) claim that they're here for therapy (but who are actually here to try to establish that therapy doesn't work for them ['I'm 100% totally and permanently disabled']) could be diverted to the reorganization of disability payments to just pay everyone who is properly determined to have service-connected PTSD at the 100% level.

Hell, we may actually save money by doing this and we would avoid all of the 'Catch 22' situations in therapy where a veteran feels that he/she has to be caught between a rock and a hard place by either (a) truthfully reporting symptom reduction but risking losing money they rely upon to feed/house them and their family or (b) over-report symptom severity in order to retain income, but then cause all kinds of problems by over-reporting their symptom severity.

I'm also a firm believer in, when it's feasible, we should be advocating for people using SC benefits to grow and get better as to not need SC benefits going forward. I realize this may not be feasible for everybody, but I'd imagine a statistical majority are able to improve functioning as to be more independent and less reliant on disability benefits.
 
I'm also a firm believer in, when it's feasible, we should be advocating for people using SC benefits to grow and get better as to not need SC benefits going forward. I realize this may not be feasible for everybody, but I'd imagine a statistical majority are able to improve functioning as to be more independent and less reliant on disability benefits.
Agreed, and here's the deal.

Anyone who is 'helping' veterans by 'bending' the truth is fooling themselves and their patients. The thing about reality is that when you try to 'bend' it more and more is that...eventually...inevitably...it's going to 'snap' back into place at some future point in time and you are going to be even more injured by the result.

Any life built on a lie is not going to work. You would hope that people who are professional psychotherapists would understand this simple truth. Self-deception is the root of all psychopathology.

Anyone who aids and abets people lying to themselves isn't actually 'helping' them.

You may not know what 'the truth' actually is (e.g., it can be really difficult to impossible to know when someone is lying to you regarding their symptom presentation) but...you don't have to. All you have to do is NOT LIE yourself when interacting with patients. You know when you are lying--that is--you know when you are saying something that you don't actually believe to be true. Just stop doing that.

Medicine has a Hippocratic Oath regarding 'doing no harm' (primum non nocere). I think this broadly applies to psychotherapists but I think that a corollary moral responsibility is 'don't lie to your patients...ever.' That means saying 'I don't know' when you don't know. I have known PhD level psychotherapists to just blithely document in their notes, 'Mr. X is unemployable due to his PTSD.' To be clear, this isn't a summary statement at the end of some sort of actual evaluative process. They just flat out state it as a known fact in the middle of a several line clinical process note. There is no way they can know this. They are dooming that person to never working productively ever again and never having any self-esteem related to being productive vs. 'just getting by' on whatever the taxpayer deems is enough for their subsistence. Good luck to that person (especially if they are still relatively young (late 20s, early 30s) living a long, healthy, and happy life. And if that veteran happens to also suffer from substance abuse issues (and these are very common), then, look out. This is pouring gallons of gasoline on that fire. They'll likely end up dead in less than a decade from it. All because a loving psychotherapist decided to 'help' them by lying to them and/or lying for them.

We are going to have to get the 'climbing the service connection percentage ladder' issue out of the outpatient psychotherapy office or we will always have 'access issues' and not enough 'therapists' around to do 'therapy' with the population.
 
Last edited:
Top