House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee Presses VA on Contracted Disability Exams After GAO Finds Overpayments and Oversight Gaps

At a House Veterans Affairs subcommittee oversight hearing, lawmakers pressed Veterans Benefits Administration officials on the quality of contracted disability examinations after the Government Accountability Office reported errors in incentive calculations and other oversight gaps.

GAO's Elizabeth Curta, director of education, workforce and income security, told the panel that GAO's 2024'25 work found breakdowns in procedures to identify frequent or complex exam errors, mistakes in incentive payments and a lack of direct examiner feedback. "None of the five [GAO] recommendations have been fully implemented," Curta said, and GAO identified nearly $2.3 million in incentive payments that were overpaid to contractors because MDEO lacked standardized checks for calculations.

Mary Glenn, deputy director of the Medical Disability Examination Office, Veterans Benefits Administration, acknowledged the problems and described steps MDEO has taken. Glenn said the office has recouped the overpayments noted by GAO and moved from a manual payment-verification process to an automated system with a written statement of operations and an audit contract. "We have an automated process that is put into place," Glenn said, and she added that MDEO is working with VA's data team to refine reports and add additional invoice checks.

Members repeatedly pressed for more detail on the errors and penalties. The chair and others asked how the overpayments occurred, who discovered them (GAO brought the issue to VA's attention), and whether vendors were ever penalized. Glenn said the vendors that received the overpayments were assessed penalties but that the penalty totals do not equal the overpayment amounts; she said the staff involved in the payment errors are no longer employed by VA and that VA would provide additional contract- and penalty-level details after the hearing.

Lawmakers also focused on quality-assurance processes beyond payment calculations. Curta said GAO found MDEO's procedures for special focus reviews ' deep-dives on high-complexity conditions like traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder and Gulf War illness ' were behind schedule. GAO testified MDEO planned to change the cadence of those reviews from every two years to every three years because of staffing constraints; Curta warned that "waiting another year" reduces opportunities to determine whether corrective actions were effective and to prevent recurring errors. When asked directly whether a 3-year cadence was better or worse for veterans, Curta said, "I would say worse."

Several members detailed veterans'reports of scheduling failures, inappropriate exam locations and poor evidence flow into exam packets. Members noted that some veterans are scheduled at distant facilities or report exams conducted in settings they consider inappropriate. Glenn said the contract sets travel limits (50 miles for general exams, 100 miles for specialty exams), vendors operate mobile units in rural areas, and the recent extension of a license-portability provision in the Isaacson-Roe Act has helped VA reach veterans in other states and territories.

On examiner input, VA said it implemented a GAO-recommended examiner portal in September and has notified examiners and vendors. "The portal was live by the September," Glenn said; she described staff who review portal submissions and route actionable items to the appropriate office, and she said examiners may submit feedback anonymously.

GAO and members also questioned whether VA consistently ensures contracted examiners complete required training. Curta highlighted GAO and Inspector General concerns; Glenn said VA runs monthly checks by matching vendor-provided lists of active examiners to the agency learning management system to confirm training completion.

Committee members sought data VA did not provide on the spot: total annual payments to vendors, penalty totals, per-exam cost comparisons between VA-employed and contracted examiners, and contract-level invoices tied to the overpayments. VA committed to supply those figures after the hearing.

The hearing ended with the chair asking unanimous consent for members to have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks; there was no objection and the subcommittee adjourned. Committee members signaled follow-up oversight, including potential future briefings or roundtables with contractor representatives.

Provenance: This article is drawn from the subcommittee's opening remarks (overview of MDEO), GAO opening testimony, VA opening testimony and subsequent member questioning focused on incentive miscalculations, special focus review cadence, examiner feedback and accessibility/site-visit issues.