Don't privatize vets home

Lawmakers can hardly be blamed for scrutinizing a significant cost disparity in operating the Montana Veterans Home in Columbia Falls and another veterans facility in Glendive, but an effort to slash funding in the current session of the Legislature is unwarranted.

First of all, the disparity and the impacts of privatizing the Montana Veterans Home have not been examined closely enough. Secondly, as the outpouring of public opposition shows, Montana has a strong commitment to its veterans, just as strong today as in 1895 when the veterans home was established.

The Legislature’s Joint Health and Human Services Subcommittee voted last month to cut Montana Veterans Home funding by $847,000 this year and an additional $1.4 million next year, a move that would compel the facility to be operated by a private organization rather than the state. The cut has been incorporated into the general fund spending bill, but it will fortunately meet stiff resistance from the likes of Sen. Ryan Zinke, R-Whitefish, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.

The fight to cut funding was led by Sen. David Lewis, R-Helena, based on his analysis of a report showing that per patient costs in 2010 were $24,445 at the privately operated Glendive facility, and $105,571 at the Montana Veterans Home.

The study evaluated those facilities on several similar measures, giving them both above-average five-star ratings. The study found that the costs of state-employee benefits at the Columbia Falls home were 249 percent higher than a national average, which could lead one to believe that would account for the overall higher cost of operating the facility.

But that’s where the report came up short: it did not account for several aspects of the Montana Veterans Home that differ sharply from other facilities.

It did not, for instance, account for the facility having an in-house pharmacy that is used by many of the 10,000 veterans in the Flathead area, nor did it account for the higher costs of operating in this region, and most importantly it didn’t account for the costs of maintaining the sprawling veterans home campus and its numerous historic buildings.

In other words, there’s reason to regard the comparisons with some skepticism, and  it’s our view that a sudden, fundamental overhaul of the Montana Veterans Home based on those comparisons would be rash and unwise. The care of veterans who have served the country is not a matter to be trifled with, particularly without a careful assessment of how the quality of care could change under a private operator.

But again, scrutiny of Montana Veterans Home operations is warranted, especially when one considers the long-term challenges of rising health-care costs and the changing demographics and needs of veterans who may or may not use the Montana Veterans Home in the future.

While we favor continued state management of the facility, there certainly may be ways to provide the same high-quality care at a lower cost.