Michael McGeary – författare

21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans'' Disability Benefits recommends improvements in the medical evaluation and rating of veterans for the benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to compensate for illnesses or injuries incurred in or aggravated by military service. Compensation is a monthly cash benefit based on a rating schedule that determines the degree of disability on a scale of 0 to 100. Although a disability rating may also entitle a veteran to ancillary services, such as vocational rehabilitation and employment services, the rating schedule is out of date medically and contains ambiguous criteria and obsolete conditions and language. The current rating schedule emphasizes impairment and limitations or loss of specific body structures and functions which may not predict disability well. 21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans'' Disability Benefits recommends that this schedule could be revised to include modern concepts of disability including work disability, nonwork disability, and quality of life.

In addition to the need for an updated rating schedule, this book highlights the need for the Department of Veterans'' Affairs to devote additional resources to systematic analysis of how well it is providing services or how much the lives of veterans are being improved, as well as the need for a program of research oriented toward understanding and improving the effectiveness of its benefits programs.

A nuclear attack on a large U.S. city by terrorists—even with a low-yield improvised nuclear device (IND) of 10 kilotons or less—would cause a large number of deaths and severe injuries. The large number of injured from the detonation and radioactive fallout that would follow would be overwhelming for local emergency response and health care systems to rescue and treat, even assuming that these systems and their personnel were not themselves incapacitated by the event.The United States has been struggling for some time to address and plan for the threat of nuclear terrorism and other weapons of mass destruction that terrorists might obtain and use. The Department of Homeland Security recently contracted with the Institute of Medicine to hold a workshop, summarized in this volume, to assess medical preparedness for a nuclear detonation of up to 10 kilotons.This book provides a candid and sobering look at our current state of preparedness for an IND, and identifies several key areas in which we might begin to focus our national efforts in a way that will improve the overall level of preparedness.

A nuclear attack on a large U.S. city by terrorists—even with a low-yield improvised nuclear device (IND) of 10 kilotons or less—would cause a large number of deaths and severe injuries. The large number of injured from the detonation and radioactive fallout that would follow would be overwhelming for local emergency response and health care systems to rescue and treat, even assuming that these systems and their personnel were not themselves incapacitated by the event.The United States has been struggling for some time to address and plan for the threat of nuclear terrorism and other weapons of mass destruction that terrorists might obtain and use. The Department of Homeland Security recently contracted with the Institute of Medicine to hold a workshop, summarized in this volume, to assess medical preparedness for a nuclear detonation of up to 10 kilotons.This book provides a candid and sobering look at our current state of preparedness for an IND, and identifies several key areas in which we might begin to focus our national efforts in a way that will improve the overall level of preparedness.

21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans'' Disability Benefits recommends improvements in the medical evaluation and rating of veterans for the benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to compensate for illnesses or injuries incurred in or aggravated by military service. Compensation is a monthly cash benefit based on a rating schedule that determines the degree of disability on a scale of 0 to 100. Although a disability rating may also entitle a veteran to ancillary services, such as vocational rehabilitation and employment services, the rating schedule is out of date medically and contains ambiguous criteria and obsolete conditions and language. The current rating schedule emphasizes impairment and limitations or loss of specific body structures and functions which may not predict disability well. 21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans'' Disability Benefits recommends that this schedule could be revised to include modern concepts of disability including work disability, nonwork disability, and quality of life.

In addition to the need for an updated rating schedule, this book highlights the need for the Department of Veterans'' Affairs to devote additional resources to systematic analysis of how well it is providing services or how much the lives of veterans are being improved, as well as the need for a program of research oriented toward understanding and improving the effectiveness of its benefits programs.

Congress has become concerned about funding increases for these programsgiven current demands on the military budget. At the request of Congress, theInstitute of Medicine (IOM) examined possibilities of augmenting program fundingfrom alternative sources. The resulting IOM book, Strategies to Leverage ResearchFunding: Guiding DOD''s Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs, focuses on nonfederaland private sector contributions that could extend the appropriated funds withoutbiasing the peer review project selection process.

Grants for research centers located in universities, medical centers, and other nonprofitresearch institutions account for about 9 percent of the National Institutes ofHealth budget. Centers are popular because they can bring visibility, focus, andincreased resources to bear on specific diseases. However, congressional debate in2001 over proposed legislation directing NIH to set up centers for muscular dystrophyresearch highlighted several areas of uncertainty about how to decide whencenters are an appropriate research mechanism in specific cases. The debate alsohighlighted a growing trend among patient advocacy groups to regard centers as akey element of every disease research program, regardless of how much is knownabout the disease in question, the availability of experienced researchers, and otherfactors. This book examines the criteria and procedures used in deciding whether toestablish new specialized research centers. It discusses the future role of centers inlight of the growing trend of large-scale research in biomedicine, and it offers recommendationsfor improving the classification and tracking of center programs, clarifyingand improving the decision process and criteria for initiating center programs,resolving the occasional disagreements over the appropriateness of centers, andevaluating the performance of center programs more regularly and systematically.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits to disabled persons of less than full retirement age and to their dependents. SSA also provides Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to disabled persons who are under age 65. For both programs, disability is defined as a "medically determinable physical or mental impairment" that prevents an individual from engaging in any substantial gainful activity and is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death.Assuming that an applicant meets the nonmedical requirements for eligibility (e.g., quarters of covered employment for SSDI; income and asset limits for SSI), the file is sent to the Disability Determination Services (DDS) agency operated by the state in which he or she lives for a determination of medical eligibility. SSA reimburses the states for the full costs of the DDSs.The DDSs apply a sequential decision process specified by SSA to make an initial decision whether a claim should be allowed or denied. If the claim is denied, the decision can be appealed through several levels of administrative and judicial review. On average, the DDSs allow 37 percent of the claims they adjudicate through the five-step process. A third of those denied decide to appeal, and three-quarters of the appeals result in allowances. Nearly 30 percent of the allowances made each year are made during the appeals process after an initial denial.In 2003, the Commissioner of Social Security announced her intent to develop a "new approach" to disability determination. In late 2004, SSA asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help in two areas related to its initiatives to improve the disability decision process: 1) Improvements in the criteria for determining the severity of impairments, and 2) Improvements in the use of medical expertise in the disability decision process.This interim report provides preliminary recommendations addressing the three tasks that relate to medical expertise issues, with a special focus on the appropriate qualifications of medical and psychological experts involved in disability decision making. After further information gathering and analyses of the effectiveness of the disability decision process in identifying those who qualify for benefits and those who do not, the committee may refine its recommendations concerning medical and psychological expertise in the final report. The final report will address a number of issues with potential implications for the qualifications of the medical experts involved in the disability decision process.

Despite the fact that technology is embodied in human as well as physical capital and that interactions among technically trained people are critical to innovation and technology diffusion, data on scientists, engineers and other professionals have not been adequately exploited to illuminate the productivity of and changing patterns in innovation. STEP convened a workshop to examine how data on qualifications and career paths, mobility, cross sector relationships, and the structure of work in firms could shed light on issues of research productivity, interactions among private and public sector institutions, and other aspects of innovation.

Despite the fact that technology is embodied in human as well as physical capital and that interactions among technically trained people are critical to innovation and technology diffusion, data on scientists, engineers and other professionals have not been adequately exploited to illuminate the productivity of and changing patterns in innovation. STEP convened a workshop to examine how data on qualifications and career paths, mobility, cross sector relationships, and the structure of work in firms could shed light on issues of research productivity, interactions among private and public sector institutions, and other aspects of innovation.

Grants for research centers located in universities, medical centers, and other nonprofitresearch institutions account for about 9 percent of the National Institutes ofHealth budget. Centers are popular because they can bring visibility, focus, andincreased resources to bear on specific diseases. However, congressional debate in2001 over proposed legislation directing NIH to set up centers for muscular dystrophyresearch highlighted several areas of uncertainty about how to decide whencenters are an appropriate research mechanism in specific cases. The debate alsohighlighted a growing trend among patient advocacy groups to regard centers as akey element of every disease research program, regardless of how much is knownabout the disease in question, the availability of experienced researchers, and otherfactors. This book examines the criteria and procedures used in deciding whether toestablish new specialized research centers. It discusses the future role of centers inlight of the growing trend of large-scale research in biomedicine, and it offers recommendationsfor improving the classification and tracking of center programs, clarifyingand improving the decision process and criteria for initiating center programs,resolving the occasional disagreements over the appropriateness of centers, andevaluating the performance of center programs more regularly and systematically.

Congress has become concerned about funding increases for these programsgiven current demands on the military budget. At the request of Congress, theInstitute of Medicine (IOM) examined possibilities of augmenting program fundingfrom alternative sources. The resulting IOM book, Strategies to Leverage ResearchFunding: Guiding DOD''s Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs, focuses on nonfederaland private sector contributions that could extend the appropriated funds withoutbiasing the peer review project selection process.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits to disabled persons of less than full retirement age and to their dependents. SSA also provides Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to disabled persons who are under age 65. For both programs, disability is defined as a "medically determinable physical or mental impairment" that prevents an individual from engaging in any substantial gainful activity and is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death.Assuming that an applicant meets the nonmedical requirements for eligibility (e.g., quarters of covered employment for SSDI; income and asset limits for SSI), the file is sent to the Disability Determination Services (DDS) agency operated by the state in which he or she lives for a determination of medical eligibility. SSA reimburses the states for the full costs of the DDSs.The DDSs apply a sequential decision process specified by SSA to make an initial decision whether a claim should be allowed or denied. If the claim is denied, the decision can be appealed through several levels of administrative and judicial review. On average, the DDSs allow 37 percent of the claims they adjudicate through the five-step process. A third of those denied decide to appeal, and three-quarters of the appeals result in allowances. Nearly 30 percent of the allowances made each year are made during the appeals process after an initial denial.In 2003, the Commissioner of Social Security announced her intent to develop a "new approach" to disability determination. In late 2004, SSA asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to help in two areas related to its initiatives to improve the disability decision process: 1) Improvements in the criteria for determining the severity of impairments, and 2) Improvements in the use of medical expertise in the disability decision process.This interim report provides preliminary recommendations addressing the three tasks that relate to medical expertise issues, with a special focus on the appropriate qualifications of medical and psychological experts involved in disability decision making. After further information gathering and analyses of the effectiveness of the disability decision process in identifying those who qualify for benefits and those who do not, the committee may refine its recommendations concerning medical and psychological expertise in the final report. The final report will address a number of issues with potential implications for the qualifications of the medical experts involved in the disability decision process.