Since 2014, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has dramatically shifted the ways in which Veterans can receive care. While a substantial majority of Veteran care is provided at one of the 170 VA Medical Centers and 1074 outpatient sites of care nationwide, the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (Choice Act) (2014) and the VA MISSION Act (MISSION Act) (2018) provided Veterans increased opportunities to receive care from community providers by partnering with federal and private providers, clinics, and hospitals. Both MISSION and Choice represented the attempts of Congress to address reports of long wait times for certain VA services, especially in parts of the country where growth of the Veteran population outpaced VA capacity and in rural areas where Veterans had to drive long distances to see a subspecialist.

BACKGROUND: Congress has enacted 2 major pieces of legislation to improve access to care for Veterans within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As a result, the VA has undergone a major transformation in the way that care is delivered to Veterans with an increased reliance on community-based provider networks. No studies have examined the relationship between VA and contracted community providers. This study examines VA facility directors' perspectives on their successes and challenges building relationships with community providers within the VA Community Care Network (CCN). OBJECTIVES: To understand who VA facilities partner with for community care, highlight areas of greatest need for partnerships in various regions, and identify challenges of working with community providers in the new CCN contract. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a national survey with VA facility directors to explore needs, challenges, and expectations with the CCN. RESULTS: The most common care referred to community providers included physical therapy, chiropractic, orthopedic, ophthalmology, and acupuncture. Open-ended responses focused on 3 topics: (1) Challenges in working with community providers, (2) Strategies to maintain strong relationships with community providers, and (3) Re-engagement with community providers who no longer provide care for Veterans. CONCLUSIONS: VA faces challenges engaging with community providers given problems with timely reimbursement of community providers, low (Medicare) reimbursement rates, and confusing VA rules related to prior authorizations and bundled services. It will be critical to identify strategies to successfully initiate and sustain relationships with community providers.

OBJECTIVES: To inform how the VA should develop and implement network adequacy standards, we convened an expert panel to discuss Community Care Network (CCN) adequacy and how VA might implement network adequacy standards for community care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data were generated from expert panel ratings and from an audio-recorded expert panel meeting conducted in Arlington, Virginia, in October 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We used a modified Delphi panel process involving one round of expert panel ratings provided by nine experts in network adequacy standards. Expert panel members received a list of network adequacy standard measures used in commercial and government market and were provided a rating form listing a total of 11 measures and characteristics to rate. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Items on the rating form were individually discussed during an expert panel meeting between the nine expert panel members and VA Office of Community Care leaders. Attendees addressed discordant views and generated revised or new standards accordingly. Recorded audio data were transcribed to facilitate thematic analysis regarding opportunities and challenges with implementing network adequacy standards in VA Community Care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The five highest ranked standards were network directories for Veterans, regular reporting of network adequacy data to VA, maximum wait time/distance standards, minimum ratio of providers to enrolled population, and qualitative assessments of network adequacy. During the expert panel discussion with VA Community Care leaders, opportunities and challenges implementing network adequacy standards were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Our expert panel shed light on priorities for network adequacy to be implemented under CCN contracts, such as developing comprehensive provider directories for Veterans to use when selecting community providers. Remaining questions focus on whether the VA could reasonably develop and implement network adequacy standards given current Congressional restraints on VA reimbursement to community providers.