Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 3, 2014
Veterans Access to Care Accountability Act - Directs the Comptroller General (GAO) to conduct random, periodic audits of the medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Veterans Integrated Service Networks to determine if they are in compliance with legal and administrative standards requiring that veterans be provided timely access to health care from the VA.
Requires the VA Secretary, upon the receipt of a specified report finding that a veteran has been subjected to a wait time of more than 30 days for health care from the VA, to: (1) notify the veteran, within 48 hours of receiving such report, of the status of the veteran's appointment; and (2) make every possible effort to schedule the veteran's appointment at a VA facility or through a non-VA health care provider on a date not later than 7 days after receiving such report.
Requires the VA Inspector General to provide the Secretary with a list of the names of each director or other VA official responsible for activities at a VA medical facility who is found to have purposefully misrepresented patient records or other data in order to: (1) conceal a failure of the facility to comply with VA patient access or care standards, or (2) qualify for a performance award or any other compensation that is in addition to basic pay. Prohibits the Secretary from paying a bonus or award to any director or official on such list until the Secretary determines that all issues relating to the reasons why such director or official was included on such list have been resolved.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Directs the Secretary to ensure that any performance review or consideration for promotion of a director or other VA official responsible for activities at a VA medical facility where such misrepresentation has occurred includes an evaluation of whether the director or other official knew or should have known about such misrepresentation.
Prohibits the Inspector General from making the names of the individuals on the list public.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.2423 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.2423 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.2423 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.2423 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.