Jan Dyer

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

A bipartisan bill establishing research directives aimed at revealing cancer risks among military aviators and aircrews recently became law.

Spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX-11) and Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-CA-19), all of whom are veterans, the Aviator Cancer Examination Study (ACES) Act was signed into law on August 14. The ACES Act will address cancer rates among Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps aircrew members by directing the Secretary of the US Department of Veterans Affairs to study cancer incidence and mortality rates among these populations.

Military aviators and aircrews face a 15% to 24% higher rate of cancer compared with the general US population, including a 75% higher rate of melanoma, 31% higher rate of thyroid cancer, 20% higher rate of prostate cancer, and 11% higher rate of female breast cancer, with potential links to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer. These individuals are also diagnosed earlier in life, at the median age of 55 years compared with 67 years. However, further investigation is still needed to understand why. 

“By better understanding the correlation between aviator service and cancer, we can better assist our military and provide more adequate care for our veterans,” Kelly said.

Some reasons for the higher rates of cancer in aviators seem clear, such as the association between dioxin exposure and cancer. In a study of cancer incidence and mortality in Air Force veterans of the Vietnam War, incidence of melanoma and prostate cancer was increased among White veterans who sprayed herbicides during Operation Ranch Hand. The risk of cancer at any site, prostate cancer, and melanoma was increased in the highest dioxin exposure category among veterans who spent ≤ 2 years in Southeast Asia.

However, some links between these veterans and increased cancer rates are less clear. In a review of 28 studies (including 18 studies in military settings), slight evidence was found for associations between jet fuel exposure and various outcomes including cancer. Cosmic ionizing radiation (CIR) exposure is another possible cause. Several epidemiological studies have documented elevated incidence and mortality for several cancers in flight crews, but a link between them and CIR exposure has not been established.

Certain occupations have been associated with increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors, including aircraft maintenance, military pilots, fighter pilots, and aircrews. Those associations led to hypotheses that job-related chemical exposures (eg, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, solvents, paints, hydrocarbons in degreasing/lubricating agents, lubricating oils) may increase risk. A study of young active-duty Air Force servicemen found that pilots and men with aircraft maintenance jobs had elevated tenosynovial giant cell tumor risk, but indicates that further research is needed to “elucidate specific occupational exposures underlying these associations.”

“As a former Navy pilot, there are certain risks that we know and accept come with our service, but we know far less about the health risks that are affecting many aviators and aircrews years later,” Kelly said in a statement. “Veteran aviators and aircrews deserve answers about the correlation between their job and cancer risks so we can reduce those risks for future pilots. Getting this across the finish line has been a bipartisan effort from the start, and I’m proud to see this bill become law so we can deliver real answers and accountability for those who served.”   

“The ACES Act is now the law of the land,” Cotton added. “We owe it to past, present, and future aviators in the armed forces to study the prevalence of cancer among this group of veterans.”

The ACES Act complements Kelly’s bipartisan Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act, which requires Veterans Health Administration facilities to share cancer data with state cancer registries, thereby guaranteeing their inclusion in the national registries. Key provisions of the Counting Veterans’ Cancer Act were included in the first government funding package of fiscal year 2024. 

Caring messages to veterans at risk for suicide come in many forms: cards, letters, phone calls, email, and text messages. Each message can have a major impact on the veteran’s mental health and their decision to use health care provided by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A recent study outlined ways to centralize that impact, ensuring the caring message reaches those who need it most.

The study examined the impact of the VA Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) caring letters intervention among veterans at increased psychiatric risk. It focused on veterans with ≥ 2 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health service encounters within 24 months prior to VCL contact. The primary outcome was suicide-related events (SRE), including suicide attempts, intentional self-harm, and suicidal self-directed violence. Secondary outcomes included VHA health care use (all-cause inpatient and outpatient, mental health outpatient, mental health inpatient, and emergency department). 

Of 186,514 VCL callers, 8.3% had a psychiatric hospitalization, 4.8% were flagged as high-risk by the REACH VET program, 6.2% had an SRE, and 12.9% met any of these criteria in the year prior to initial VCL contact. There was no association between caring letters and all-cause mortality or SRE, even though caring letters is one of the only interventions to demonstrate a reduction in suicide mortality as a randomized controlled trial.

While reducing suicide has not been the expected result, caring letters have consistently been associated with increased use of outpatient mental health services. The analysis found that veterans with and without indicators of elevated psychiatric risk were using services more. That, the researchers suggest, is more evidence that caring letters might prompt engagement with VHA care, even among veterans not identified as high risk.

Psychiatrist Jerome A. Motto, MD believed long-term supportive but nondemanding contact could reduce a suicidal person’s sense of isolation and enhance feelings of connectedness. His 1976 intervention established a plan to “exert a suicide prevention influence on high-risk persons who decline to enter the health care system.” In Motto’s 5-year follow-up study of 3,006 psychiatric inpatients, half of those who were not following their postdischarge treatment plan received calls or letters expressing interest in their well-being. Suicidal deaths were found to “diverge progressively,” leading Motto to claim the study showed “tentative evidence” that a high-risk population for suicide can be identified and that risk might be reduced through a systematic approach.

Despite those findings, the results of studies on repeated follow-up contact have been mixed. One review outlined how 5 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in suicidal behavior, 4 showed mixed results with trends toward a preventive effect, and 2 studies did not show a preventive effect.

In 2020, the VA launched an intervention for veterans who contacted the VCL. In the first 12 months, CLs were sent to > 100,000 veterans. In feedback interviews, participants described feeling appreciated, cared for, encouraged, and connected. They also said that the CLs helped them engage with community resources and made them more likely to seek VA care. Even veterans who were skeptical of the utility of the caring letters sometimes admitted keeping them.

Finding effective ways to prevent suicide among veterans has been a top priority for the VA. In 2021, then-US Surgeon General Jerome Adams issued a Call to Action that recommended using caring letters when gaps in care may exist, including following crisis line calls.

Caring messages to veterans at risk for suicide come in many forms: cards, letters, phone calls, email, and text messages. Each message can have a major impact on the veteran’s mental health and their decision to use health care provided by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A recent study outlined ways to centralize that impact, ensuring the caring message reaches those who need it most.

The study examined the impact of the VA Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) caring letters intervention among veterans at increased psychiatric risk. It focused on veterans with ≥ 2 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health service encounters within 24 months prior to VCL contact. The primary outcome was suicide-related events (SRE), including suicide attempts, intentional self-harm, and suicidal self-directed violence. Secondary outcomes included VHA health care use (all-cause inpatient and outpatient, mental health outpatient, mental health inpatient, and emergency department). 

Of 186,514 VCL callers, 8.3% had a psychiatric hospitalization, 4.8% were flagged as high-risk by the REACH VET program, 6.2% had an SRE, and 12.9% met any of these criteria in the year prior to initial VCL contact. There was no association between caring letters and all-cause mortality or SRE, even though caring letters is one of the only interventions to demonstrate a reduction in suicide mortality as a randomized controlled trial.

While reducing suicide has not been the expected result, caring letters have consistently been associated with increased use of outpatient mental health services. The analysis found that veterans with and without indicators of elevated psychiatric risk were using services more. That, the researchers suggest, is more evidence that caring letters might prompt engagement with VHA care, even among veterans not identified as high risk.

Psychiatrist Jerome A. Motto, MD believed long-term supportive but nondemanding contact could reduce a suicidal person’s sense of isolation and enhance feelings of connectedness. His 1976 intervention established a plan to “exert a suicide prevention influence on high-risk persons who decline to enter the health care system.” In Motto’s 5-year follow-up study of 3,006 psychiatric inpatients, half of those who were not following their postdischarge treatment plan received calls or letters expressing interest in their well-being. Suicidal deaths were found to “diverge progressively,” leading Motto to claim the study showed “tentative evidence” that a high-risk population for suicide can be identified and that risk might be reduced through a systematic approach.

Despite those findings, the results of studies on repeated follow-up contact have been mixed. One review outlined how 5 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in suicidal behavior, 4 showed mixed results with trends toward a preventive effect, and 2 studies did not show a preventive effect.

In 2020, the VA launched an intervention for veterans who contacted the VCL. In the first 12 months, CLs were sent to > 100,000 veterans. In feedback interviews, participants described feeling appreciated, cared for, encouraged, and connected. They also said that the CLs helped them engage with community resources and made them more likely to seek VA care. Even veterans who were skeptical of the utility of the caring letters sometimes admitted keeping them.

Finding effective ways to prevent suicide among veterans has been a top priority for the VA. In 2021, then-US Surgeon General Jerome Adams issued a Call to Action that recommended using caring letters when gaps in care may exist, including following crisis line calls.

Caring messages to veterans at risk for suicide come in many forms: cards, letters, phone calls, email, and text messages. Each message can have a major impact on the veteran’s mental health and their decision to use health care provided by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A recent study outlined ways to centralize that impact, ensuring the caring message reaches those who need it most.

The study examined the impact of the VA Veterans Crisis Line (VCL) caring letters intervention among veterans at increased psychiatric risk. It focused on veterans with ≥ 2 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health service encounters within 24 months prior to VCL contact. The primary outcome was suicide-related events (SRE), including suicide attempts, intentional self-harm, and suicidal self-directed violence. Secondary outcomes included VHA health care use (all-cause inpatient and outpatient, mental health outpatient, mental health inpatient, and emergency department). 

Of 186,514 VCL callers, 8.3% had a psychiatric hospitalization, 4.8% were flagged as high-risk by the REACH VET program, 6.2% had an SRE, and 12.9% met any of these criteria in the year prior to initial VCL contact. There was no association between caring letters and all-cause mortality or SRE, even though caring letters is one of the only interventions to demonstrate a reduction in suicide mortality as a randomized controlled trial.

While reducing suicide has not been the expected result, caring letters have consistently been associated with increased use of outpatient mental health services. The analysis found that veterans with and without indicators of elevated psychiatric risk were using services more. That, the researchers suggest, is more evidence that caring letters might prompt engagement with VHA care, even among veterans not identified as high risk.

Psychiatrist Jerome A. Motto, MD believed long-term supportive but nondemanding contact could reduce a suicidal person’s sense of isolation and enhance feelings of connectedness. His 1976 intervention established a plan to “exert a suicide prevention influence on high-risk persons who decline to enter the health care system.” In Motto’s 5-year follow-up study of 3,006 psychiatric inpatients, half of those who were not following their postdischarge treatment plan received calls or letters expressing interest in their well-being. Suicidal deaths were found to “diverge progressively,” leading Motto to claim the study showed “tentative evidence” that a high-risk population for suicide can be identified and that risk might be reduced through a systematic approach.

Despite those findings, the results of studies on repeated follow-up contact have been mixed. One review outlined how 5 studies showed a statistically significant reduction in suicidal behavior, 4 showed mixed results with trends toward a preventive effect, and 2 studies did not show a preventive effect.

In 2020, the VA launched an intervention for veterans who contacted the VCL. In the first 12 months, CLs were sent to > 100,000 veterans. In feedback interviews, participants described feeling appreciated, cared for, encouraged, and connected. They also said that the CLs helped them engage with community resources and made them more likely to seek VA care. Even veterans who were skeptical of the utility of the caring letters sometimes admitted keeping them.

Finding effective ways to prevent suicide among veterans has been a top priority for the VA. In 2021, then-US Surgeon General Jerome Adams issued a Call to Action that recommended using caring letters when gaps in care may exist, including following crisis line calls.

Traumatic and environmental exposures during military service may put women veterans at risk for early menopause, a recent longitudinal analysis of data from 668 women in the Gulf War Era Cohort Study found.

The study examined associations between possible early menopause (aged < 45 years) and participants’ Gulf War deployment, military environmental exposures (MEEs), Gulf War Illness, military sexual trauma (MST) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Of 384 Gulf War–deployed veterans, 63% reported MEEs and 26% reported MST during deployment. More than half (57%) of study participants (both Gulf War veterans and nondeployed veterans) met criteria for Gulf War Illness, and 23% met criteria for probable PTSD. 

At follow-up, 15% of the women had possible early menopause—higher than population estimates for early menopause in the US, which range from 5% to 10%.

Gulf War deployment, Gulf War–related environmental exposures, and MST during deployment were not significantly associated with early menopause. However, both Gulf War Illness (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.95) and probable PTSD (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.90) were strongly associated with early menopause. Women with probable PTSD at baseline had more than double the odds of possible early menopause.

Previous research suggests that deployment, MEEs, and Gulf War Illness are broadly associated with adverse reproductive health conditions in women veterans. Exposure to persistent organic pollutants and combustion byproducts (eg, from industrial processes and burn pits) have been linked to ovarian dysfunction and oocyte destruction presumed to contribute to accelerated ovarian aging.

The average age for menopause in the US is 52 years. About 5% of women go through early menopause naturally. Early and premature (< 40 years) menopause may also result from a medical or surgical cause, such as a hysterectomy. Regardless the cause, early menopause can have a profound impact on a woman’s physical, emotional, and mental health. It is associated with premature mortality, poor bone health, sexual dysfunction, a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and 2-fold increased odds of depression.

“Sometimes we talk about menopause symptoms thinking that they're just sort of 1 brief point in time, but we're also talking about things that may affect women's health and functioning for a third or half of a lifespan,” Carolyn Gibson, PhD, MPH, said at the 2024 Spotlight on Women's Health Cyberseminar Series.

Gibson, a staff psychologist at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Women’s Mental Health Program and lead author on the recent early-menopause study, pointed to some of the chronic physical health issues that might develop, such as cardiovascular disease, but also the psychological effects.

“It's just important,” she said during the Cyberseminar Series. “To think about the number of things that women in midlife tend to be juggling and managing, all of which may turn up the volume on symptom experience, effect of vulnerability to health and mental health challenges during this period.”

The findings of the study have clinical implications. Midlife women veterans (aged 45 to 64 years) are the largest group of women veterans enrolled in VA health care. Early menopause brings additional age-related care considerations. The authors advise prioritizing support for routine screening for menopause status and symptoms as well as gender-sensitive training, resources, and staffing to provide comprehensive, trauma-informed, evidence-based menopause care for women at any age.

Traumatic and environmental exposures during military service may put women veterans at risk for early menopause, a recent longitudinal analysis of data from 668 women in the Gulf War Era Cohort Study found.

The study examined associations between possible early menopause (aged < 45 years) and participants’ Gulf War deployment, military environmental exposures (MEEs), Gulf War Illness, military sexual trauma (MST) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Of 384 Gulf War–deployed veterans, 63% reported MEEs and 26% reported MST during deployment. More than half (57%) of study participants (both Gulf War veterans and nondeployed veterans) met criteria for Gulf War Illness, and 23% met criteria for probable PTSD. 

At follow-up, 15% of the women had possible early menopause—higher than population estimates for early menopause in the US, which range from 5% to 10%.

Gulf War deployment, Gulf War–related environmental exposures, and MST during deployment were not significantly associated with early menopause. However, both Gulf War Illness (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.95) and probable PTSD (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.90) were strongly associated with early menopause. Women with probable PTSD at baseline had more than double the odds of possible early menopause.

Previous research suggests that deployment, MEEs, and Gulf War Illness are broadly associated with adverse reproductive health conditions in women veterans. Exposure to persistent organic pollutants and combustion byproducts (eg, from industrial processes and burn pits) have been linked to ovarian dysfunction and oocyte destruction presumed to contribute to accelerated ovarian aging.

The average age for menopause in the US is 52 years. About 5% of women go through early menopause naturally. Early and premature (< 40 years) menopause may also result from a medical or surgical cause, such as a hysterectomy. Regardless the cause, early menopause can have a profound impact on a woman’s physical, emotional, and mental health. It is associated with premature mortality, poor bone health, sexual dysfunction, a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and 2-fold increased odds of depression.

“Sometimes we talk about menopause symptoms thinking that they're just sort of 1 brief point in time, but we're also talking about things that may affect women's health and functioning for a third or half of a lifespan,” Carolyn Gibson, PhD, MPH, said at the 2024 Spotlight on Women's Health Cyberseminar Series.

Gibson, a staff psychologist at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Women’s Mental Health Program and lead author on the recent early-menopause study, pointed to some of the chronic physical health issues that might develop, such as cardiovascular disease, but also the psychological effects.

“It's just important,” she said during the Cyberseminar Series. “To think about the number of things that women in midlife tend to be juggling and managing, all of which may turn up the volume on symptom experience, effect of vulnerability to health and mental health challenges during this period.”

The findings of the study have clinical implications. Midlife women veterans (aged 45 to 64 years) are the largest group of women veterans enrolled in VA health care. Early menopause brings additional age-related care considerations. The authors advise prioritizing support for routine screening for menopause status and symptoms as well as gender-sensitive training, resources, and staffing to provide comprehensive, trauma-informed, evidence-based menopause care for women at any age.

Traumatic and environmental exposures during military service may put women veterans at risk for early menopause, a recent longitudinal analysis of data from 668 women in the Gulf War Era Cohort Study found.

The study examined associations between possible early menopause (aged < 45 years) and participants’ Gulf War deployment, military environmental exposures (MEEs), Gulf War Illness, military sexual trauma (MST) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Of 384 Gulf War–deployed veterans, 63% reported MEEs and 26% reported MST during deployment. More than half (57%) of study participants (both Gulf War veterans and nondeployed veterans) met criteria for Gulf War Illness, and 23% met criteria for probable PTSD. 

At follow-up, 15% of the women had possible early menopause—higher than population estimates for early menopause in the US, which range from 5% to 10%.

Gulf War deployment, Gulf War–related environmental exposures, and MST during deployment were not significantly associated with early menopause. However, both Gulf War Illness (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.95) and probable PTSD (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.90) were strongly associated with early menopause. Women with probable PTSD at baseline had more than double the odds of possible early menopause.

Previous research suggests that deployment, MEEs, and Gulf War Illness are broadly associated with adverse reproductive health conditions in women veterans. Exposure to persistent organic pollutants and combustion byproducts (eg, from industrial processes and burn pits) have been linked to ovarian dysfunction and oocyte destruction presumed to contribute to accelerated ovarian aging.

The average age for menopause in the US is 52 years. About 5% of women go through early menopause naturally. Early and premature (< 40 years) menopause may also result from a medical or surgical cause, such as a hysterectomy. Regardless the cause, early menopause can have a profound impact on a woman’s physical, emotional, and mental health. It is associated with premature mortality, poor bone health, sexual dysfunction, a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and 2-fold increased odds of depression.

“Sometimes we talk about menopause symptoms thinking that they're just sort of 1 brief point in time, but we're also talking about things that may affect women's health and functioning for a third or half of a lifespan,” Carolyn Gibson, PhD, MPH, said at the 2024 Spotlight on Women's Health Cyberseminar Series.

Gibson, a staff psychologist at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs (VA) Women’s Mental Health Program and lead author on the recent early-menopause study, pointed to some of the chronic physical health issues that might develop, such as cardiovascular disease, but also the psychological effects.

“It's just important,” she said during the Cyberseminar Series. “To think about the number of things that women in midlife tend to be juggling and managing, all of which may turn up the volume on symptom experience, effect of vulnerability to health and mental health challenges during this period.”

The findings of the study have clinical implications. Midlife women veterans (aged 45 to 64 years) are the largest group of women veterans enrolled in VA health care. Early menopause brings additional age-related care considerations. The authors advise prioritizing support for routine screening for menopause status and symptoms as well as gender-sensitive training, resources, and staffing to provide comprehensive, trauma-informed, evidence-based menopause care for women at any age.

The US military has revised its grooming standards to remove medical exemptions for male facial hair, a policy change that may put careers at risk for thousands of service members. According to the updated guidelines, all soldiers must be clean-shaven on duty when in uniform or civilian clothes, with temporary exemptions for medical reasons and permanent exemptions for religious accommodations. 

The Army is the latest service branch to update its guidelines about beards: Soldiers with skin conditions will no longer be granted permanent medical waivers that allow them to avoid shaving. The Air Force and Space Force updated their guidance on grooming waivers in January, as did the Marine Corps in March. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who ordered the guideline review, focused on grooming and appearance. In a Feb. 7 townhall with troops and department employees, he said, “It starts with the basic stuff, right? It’s grooming standards and uniform standards and training standards, fitness standards, all of that matters.”

Hegseth compared not enforcing grooming standards to the “broken windows” theory of policing: “I’m not saying if you violate grooming standards, you’re a criminal. The analogy is incomplete. But if you violate the small stuff and you allow it to happen, it creates a culture where the big stuff, you’re not held accountable for.”

The policy changes are particularly significant for soldiers who grow beards because they suffer from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), an often-painful genetic condition that causes ingrown hairs. PFB produces flesh-colored or red follicular papules, which can be itchy, tender, and may bleed when shaved. Even if they heal, the lesions may lead to postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, scarring (including keloid scarring), and abscess. 

Although the updated standards affect all service members with beards, they draw ire from those who claim the rules disproportionately affect men of African descent. Up to 60% of Black men have PFB, according to the American Osteopathic College of Dermatology. According to the US Department of Defense (DoD) 2023 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, service members who self-identify as Black or African American make up 17% of the total DoD military force (N = 2,034,426). Of 1,273,382 active-duty members, 18% are Black. Of 1,038,909 active-duty enlisted members, 20% are Black, and 9% of 234,473 active-duty officers are Black.

“Almost 65% of the US Air Force shaving waivers are held by Black men. And PFB is one of the most common reasons,” DanTasia Welch, MS, told Federal Practitioner. She, along with Richard P. Usatine, MD, and Candrice R. Heath, MD, wrote a recent review of the impact of PFB that was published in Federal Practitioner. 

“It is almost exclusively found in men of African descent,” Usatine said. “That just means if you have a policy that affects people with this condition, you are basically aiming that policy directly at Black men.”

“Pseudofolliculitis barbae, a lot of that just has to do with your shaving technique is what we’ve determined,” Steve Warren, an Army spokesman, told reporters in early July. “A vast majority of minority soldiers, African American soldiers, are within the standards all the time.” 

Usatine disagreed: “[PFB] is genetic, and whether you shave with or against the direction of the hairs, the problem is still there, and you can't just shave it away by ‘shaving correctly.’ They're going after one racial/ethnic group who has this problem, because almost everyone that has the problem is of African descent.”

The most effective management for PFB is to discontinue shaving. Grooming techniques and topical medications can be effective in treating mild-to-moderate cases of PFB, but more severe cases respond best to laser therapy. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps advise laser therapy as a treatment option, but it has drawbacks. It is expensive and coded as a cosmetic procedure, and patients also may not have access to specialists experienced in performing the procedure in people with darker skin tones. Some patients may not want to permanently reduce the amount of hair that grows in the beard area for personal or religious reasons. 

A survey of Air Force members with 10,383 responses suggested that the men who had medical shaving waivers experienced longer times to promotion than those with no waiver. Most in the waiver group were Black or African American. 

The branches have handled the rule change in different ways. The Air Force, for example, which began tightening its standards on uniform and shaving waivers in January 2025, grants long-term shaving waivers only to airmen or guardians who have severe cases of PFB following consultation with medical practitioners. Air Force Surgeon General Lt. Gen. John DeGoes said in a video that the department’s 2020 (now expired) policy allowing 5-year shaving waivers did not give clinicians enough clarity on diagnosis by not differentiating between PFB and shaving irritation.

“They are 2 different things,” DeGoes said. “Ensuring a standardized approach to managing PFB is essential. And it is crucial that we provide consistent and effective care to our service members, enabling them to meet grooming standards while managing their condition.”

The new grooming policies leave many service members in an uncomfortable quandary: Keep the beard, run the risk of getting kicked out; keep shaving and put your skin and health at risk for complications; or receive laser treatment and have to deal with lack of beard hair after leaving the military.

Simply changing the rules isn’t enough. Candrice Heath, MD, told Federal Practitioner, “You need to always strike a balance. One of those points that’s always raised is about the facial equipment that's needed to protect during times of war.”

Heath called for more research funding to develop equipment, so people can have some facial hair if needed. “There is an opportunity to not just say, hey, this is an issue, but there's an opportunity for innovation here, to really think about it this problem in a different way, so that we are solution-focused.”

The US military has revised its grooming standards to remove medical exemptions for male facial hair, a policy change that may put careers at risk for thousands of service members. According to the updated guidelines, all soldiers must be clean-shaven on duty when in uniform or civilian clothes, with temporary exemptions for medical reasons and permanent exemptions for religious accommodations. 

The Army is the latest service branch to update its guidelines about beards: Soldiers with skin conditions will no longer be granted permanent medical waivers that allow them to avoid shaving. The Air Force and Space Force updated their guidance on grooming waivers in January, as did the Marine Corps in March. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who ordered the guideline review, focused on grooming and appearance. In a Feb. 7 townhall with troops and department employees, he said, “It starts with the basic stuff, right? It’s grooming standards and uniform standards and training standards, fitness standards, all of that matters.”

Hegseth compared not enforcing grooming standards to the “broken windows” theory of policing: “I’m not saying if you violate grooming standards, you’re a criminal. The analogy is incomplete. But if you violate the small stuff and you allow it to happen, it creates a culture where the big stuff, you’re not held accountable for.”

The policy changes are particularly significant for soldiers who grow beards because they suffer from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), an often-painful genetic condition that causes ingrown hairs. PFB produces flesh-colored or red follicular papules, which can be itchy, tender, and may bleed when shaved. Even if they heal, the lesions may lead to postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, scarring (including keloid scarring), and abscess. 

Although the updated standards affect all service members with beards, they draw ire from those who claim the rules disproportionately affect men of African descent. Up to 60% of Black men have PFB, according to the American Osteopathic College of Dermatology. According to the US Department of Defense (DoD) 2023 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, service members who self-identify as Black or African American make up 17% of the total DoD military force (N = 2,034,426). Of 1,273,382 active-duty members, 18% are Black. Of 1,038,909 active-duty enlisted members, 20% are Black, and 9% of 234,473 active-duty officers are Black.

“Almost 65% of the US Air Force shaving waivers are held by Black men. And PFB is one of the most common reasons,” DanTasia Welch, MS, told Federal Practitioner. She, along with Richard P. Usatine, MD, and Candrice R. Heath, MD, wrote a recent review of the impact of PFB that was published in Federal Practitioner. 

“It is almost exclusively found in men of African descent,” Usatine said. “That just means if you have a policy that affects people with this condition, you are basically aiming that policy directly at Black men.”

“Pseudofolliculitis barbae, a lot of that just has to do with your shaving technique is what we’ve determined,” Steve Warren, an Army spokesman, told reporters in early July. “A vast majority of minority soldiers, African American soldiers, are within the standards all the time.” 

Usatine disagreed: “[PFB] is genetic, and whether you shave with or against the direction of the hairs, the problem is still there, and you can't just shave it away by ‘shaving correctly.’ They're going after one racial/ethnic group who has this problem, because almost everyone that has the problem is of African descent.”

The most effective management for PFB is to discontinue shaving. Grooming techniques and topical medications can be effective in treating mild-to-moderate cases of PFB, but more severe cases respond best to laser therapy. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps advise laser therapy as a treatment option, but it has drawbacks. It is expensive and coded as a cosmetic procedure, and patients also may not have access to specialists experienced in performing the procedure in people with darker skin tones. Some patients may not want to permanently reduce the amount of hair that grows in the beard area for personal or religious reasons. 

A survey of Air Force members with 10,383 responses suggested that the men who had medical shaving waivers experienced longer times to promotion than those with no waiver. Most in the waiver group were Black or African American. 

The branches have handled the rule change in different ways. The Air Force, for example, which began tightening its standards on uniform and shaving waivers in January 2025, grants long-term shaving waivers only to airmen or guardians who have severe cases of PFB following consultation with medical practitioners. Air Force Surgeon General Lt. Gen. John DeGoes said in a video that the department’s 2020 (now expired) policy allowing 5-year shaving waivers did not give clinicians enough clarity on diagnosis by not differentiating between PFB and shaving irritation.

“They are 2 different things,” DeGoes said. “Ensuring a standardized approach to managing PFB is essential. And it is crucial that we provide consistent and effective care to our service members, enabling them to meet grooming standards while managing their condition.”

The new grooming policies leave many service members in an uncomfortable quandary: Keep the beard, run the risk of getting kicked out; keep shaving and put your skin and health at risk for complications; or receive laser treatment and have to deal with lack of beard hair after leaving the military.

Simply changing the rules isn’t enough. Candrice Heath, MD, told Federal Practitioner, “You need to always strike a balance. One of those points that’s always raised is about the facial equipment that's needed to protect during times of war.”

Heath called for more research funding to develop equipment, so people can have some facial hair if needed. “There is an opportunity to not just say, hey, this is an issue, but there's an opportunity for innovation here, to really think about it this problem in a different way, so that we are solution-focused.”

The US military has revised its grooming standards to remove medical exemptions for male facial hair, a policy change that may put careers at risk for thousands of service members. According to the updated guidelines, all soldiers must be clean-shaven on duty when in uniform or civilian clothes, with temporary exemptions for medical reasons and permanent exemptions for religious accommodations. 

The Army is the latest service branch to update its guidelines about beards: Soldiers with skin conditions will no longer be granted permanent medical waivers that allow them to avoid shaving. The Air Force and Space Force updated their guidance on grooming waivers in January, as did the Marine Corps in March. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who ordered the guideline review, focused on grooming and appearance. In a Feb. 7 townhall with troops and department employees, he said, “It starts with the basic stuff, right? It’s grooming standards and uniform standards and training standards, fitness standards, all of that matters.”

Hegseth compared not enforcing grooming standards to the “broken windows” theory of policing: “I’m not saying if you violate grooming standards, you’re a criminal. The analogy is incomplete. But if you violate the small stuff and you allow it to happen, it creates a culture where the big stuff, you’re not held accountable for.”

The policy changes are particularly significant for soldiers who grow beards because they suffer from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), an often-painful genetic condition that causes ingrown hairs. PFB produces flesh-colored or red follicular papules, which can be itchy, tender, and may bleed when shaved. Even if they heal, the lesions may lead to postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, scarring (including keloid scarring), and abscess. 

Although the updated standards affect all service members with beards, they draw ire from those who claim the rules disproportionately affect men of African descent. Up to 60% of Black men have PFB, according to the American Osteopathic College of Dermatology. According to the US Department of Defense (DoD) 2023 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, service members who self-identify as Black or African American make up 17% of the total DoD military force (N = 2,034,426). Of 1,273,382 active-duty members, 18% are Black. Of 1,038,909 active-duty enlisted members, 20% are Black, and 9% of 234,473 active-duty officers are Black.

“Almost 65% of the US Air Force shaving waivers are held by Black men. And PFB is one of the most common reasons,” DanTasia Welch, MS, told Federal Practitioner. She, along with Richard P. Usatine, MD, and Candrice R. Heath, MD, wrote a recent review of the impact of PFB that was published in Federal Practitioner. 

“It is almost exclusively found in men of African descent,” Usatine said. “That just means if you have a policy that affects people with this condition, you are basically aiming that policy directly at Black men.”

“Pseudofolliculitis barbae, a lot of that just has to do with your shaving technique is what we’ve determined,” Steve Warren, an Army spokesman, told reporters in early July. “A vast majority of minority soldiers, African American soldiers, are within the standards all the time.” 

Usatine disagreed: “[PFB] is genetic, and whether you shave with or against the direction of the hairs, the problem is still there, and you can't just shave it away by ‘shaving correctly.’ They're going after one racial/ethnic group who has this problem, because almost everyone that has the problem is of African descent.”

The most effective management for PFB is to discontinue shaving. Grooming techniques and topical medications can be effective in treating mild-to-moderate cases of PFB, but more severe cases respond best to laser therapy. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps advise laser therapy as a treatment option, but it has drawbacks. It is expensive and coded as a cosmetic procedure, and patients also may not have access to specialists experienced in performing the procedure in people with darker skin tones. Some patients may not want to permanently reduce the amount of hair that grows in the beard area for personal or religious reasons. 

A survey of Air Force members with 10,383 responses suggested that the men who had medical shaving waivers experienced longer times to promotion than those with no waiver. Most in the waiver group were Black or African American. 

The branches have handled the rule change in different ways. The Air Force, for example, which began tightening its standards on uniform and shaving waivers in January 2025, grants long-term shaving waivers only to airmen or guardians who have severe cases of PFB following consultation with medical practitioners. Air Force Surgeon General Lt. Gen. John DeGoes said in a video that the department’s 2020 (now expired) policy allowing 5-year shaving waivers did not give clinicians enough clarity on diagnosis by not differentiating between PFB and shaving irritation.

“They are 2 different things,” DeGoes said. “Ensuring a standardized approach to managing PFB is essential. And it is crucial that we provide consistent and effective care to our service members, enabling them to meet grooming standards while managing their condition.”

The new grooming policies leave many service members in an uncomfortable quandary: Keep the beard, run the risk of getting kicked out; keep shaving and put your skin and health at risk for complications; or receive laser treatment and have to deal with lack of beard hair after leaving the military.

Simply changing the rules isn’t enough. Candrice Heath, MD, told Federal Practitioner, “You need to always strike a balance. One of those points that’s always raised is about the facial equipment that's needed to protect during times of war.”

Heath called for more research funding to develop equipment, so people can have some facial hair if needed. “There is an opportunity to not just say, hey, this is an issue, but there's an opportunity for innovation here, to really think about it this problem in a different way, so that we are solution-focused.”

The initial plan to reduce the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) workforce by 15%—roughly 83,000 employees—has been revised. The VA announced that it expected to reduce its workforce by 30,000 positions through normal attrition, early retirements, and resignations by the end of fiscal year 2025, “eliminating the need for a large-scale reduction-in-force.” Most of the positions will not be replaced due to the federal hiring freeze, which has been extended for 3 months.

“Since March, we’ve been conducting a holistic review of the department centered on reducing bureaucracy and improving services to Veterans,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a press release. “A department-wide RIF is off the table, but that doesn’t mean we’re done improving VA.”

About 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs as of June 1. From now and Sept. 30, the department expects another reduction of nearly 12,000. Pete Kasperowicz, a VA spokesperson, said there would not be any reductions beyond the 30,000 planned.

The VA says it has multiple safeguards in place to ensure the reductions do not impact veteran care or benefits. All VA mission-critical positions are exempt from the voluntary early retirement authority and deferred resignation program, and > 350,000 positions are exempt from the federal hiring freeze. 

The release noted several other improvements regarding VA performance in 2025, among them that the disability claims backlog has been reduced by 30% and a record 2 million disability claims have been processed by June. More than 60,000 VA employees have also returned to the office, according to the release.

“As a result of our efforts, VA is headed in the right direction – both in terms of staff levels and customer service,” Collins said. “Our review has resulted in a host of new ideas for better serving Veterans that we will continue to pursue.” 

The initial plan to reduce the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) workforce by 15%—roughly 83,000 employees—has been revised. The VA announced that it expected to reduce its workforce by 30,000 positions through normal attrition, early retirements, and resignations by the end of fiscal year 2025, “eliminating the need for a large-scale reduction-in-force.” Most of the positions will not be replaced due to the federal hiring freeze, which has been extended for 3 months.

“Since March, we’ve been conducting a holistic review of the department centered on reducing bureaucracy and improving services to Veterans,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a press release. “A department-wide RIF is off the table, but that doesn’t mean we’re done improving VA.”

About 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs as of June 1. From now and Sept. 30, the department expects another reduction of nearly 12,000. Pete Kasperowicz, a VA spokesperson, said there would not be any reductions beyond the 30,000 planned.

The VA says it has multiple safeguards in place to ensure the reductions do not impact veteran care or benefits. All VA mission-critical positions are exempt from the voluntary early retirement authority and deferred resignation program, and > 350,000 positions are exempt from the federal hiring freeze. 

The release noted several other improvements regarding VA performance in 2025, among them that the disability claims backlog has been reduced by 30% and a record 2 million disability claims have been processed by June. More than 60,000 VA employees have also returned to the office, according to the release.

“As a result of our efforts, VA is headed in the right direction – both in terms of staff levels and customer service,” Collins said. “Our review has resulted in a host of new ideas for better serving Veterans that we will continue to pursue.” 

The initial plan to reduce the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) workforce by 15%—roughly 83,000 employees—has been revised. The VA announced that it expected to reduce its workforce by 30,000 positions through normal attrition, early retirements, and resignations by the end of fiscal year 2025, “eliminating the need for a large-scale reduction-in-force.” Most of the positions will not be replaced due to the federal hiring freeze, which has been extended for 3 months.

“Since March, we’ve been conducting a holistic review of the department centered on reducing bureaucracy and improving services to Veterans,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a press release. “A department-wide RIF is off the table, but that doesn’t mean we’re done improving VA.”

About 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs as of June 1. From now and Sept. 30, the department expects another reduction of nearly 12,000. Pete Kasperowicz, a VA spokesperson, said there would not be any reductions beyond the 30,000 planned.

The VA says it has multiple safeguards in place to ensure the reductions do not impact veteran care or benefits. All VA mission-critical positions are exempt from the voluntary early retirement authority and deferred resignation program, and > 350,000 positions are exempt from the federal hiring freeze. 

The release noted several other improvements regarding VA performance in 2025, among them that the disability claims backlog has been reduced by 30% and a record 2 million disability claims have been processed by June. More than 60,000 VA employees have also returned to the office, according to the release.

“As a result of our efforts, VA is headed in the right direction – both in terms of staff levels and customer service,” Collins said. “Our review has resulted in a host of new ideas for better serving Veterans that we will continue to pursue.” 

The US House Appropriations Committee approved a $453 billion budget to fund the US Department of Veterans (VA), military construction, and other programs in 2026 by a 36-27 vote. The bill includes $34 billion proposed for community care programs, an increase of > 50% from 2025 community care funding levels.

The discretionary funding would also send $2.5 billion to the VA electronic health records modernization program. Mandatory spending includes $53 billion for the Toxic Exposures Fund, which supports benefits and health care costs associated with the PACT Act.

Although VA budget bills are typically bipartisan in nature, this bill passed by a much narrower margin than is typical. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, said the bill “diverts far too many resources away from the vital, VA-based care that veterans consistently tell us they want, and it pushes them into pricier, subpar corporate hospitals.” 

Committee Democrats offered dozens of amendments. All amendments were rejected except for a modification that would block staff reductions at the Veterans Crisis Line and other VA suicide prevention programs.

The bill now moves to the full House of Representatives for consideration. House leaders have not yet announced when that vote will take place; the House is in recess the week of June 16, 2025. 

The committee also released the Fiscal Year 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Bill, which would spend > $83 million, a 22% increase over the 2025.

The US House Appropriations Committee approved a $453 billion budget to fund the US Department of Veterans (VA), military construction, and other programs in 2026 by a 36-27 vote. The bill includes $34 billion proposed for community care programs, an increase of > 50% from 2025 community care funding levels.

The discretionary funding would also send $2.5 billion to the VA electronic health records modernization program. Mandatory spending includes $53 billion for the Toxic Exposures Fund, which supports benefits and health care costs associated with the PACT Act.

Although VA budget bills are typically bipartisan in nature, this bill passed by a much narrower margin than is typical. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, said the bill “diverts far too many resources away from the vital, VA-based care that veterans consistently tell us they want, and it pushes them into pricier, subpar corporate hospitals.” 

Committee Democrats offered dozens of amendments. All amendments were rejected except for a modification that would block staff reductions at the Veterans Crisis Line and other VA suicide prevention programs.

The bill now moves to the full House of Representatives for consideration. House leaders have not yet announced when that vote will take place; the House is in recess the week of June 16, 2025. 

The committee also released the Fiscal Year 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Bill, which would spend > $83 million, a 22% increase over the 2025.

The US House Appropriations Committee approved a $453 billion budget to fund the US Department of Veterans (VA), military construction, and other programs in 2026 by a 36-27 vote. The bill includes $34 billion proposed for community care programs, an increase of > 50% from 2025 community care funding levels.

The discretionary funding would also send $2.5 billion to the VA electronic health records modernization program. Mandatory spending includes $53 billion for the Toxic Exposures Fund, which supports benefits and health care costs associated with the PACT Act.

Although VA budget bills are typically bipartisan in nature, this bill passed by a much narrower margin than is typical. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, said the bill “diverts far too many resources away from the vital, VA-based care that veterans consistently tell us they want, and it pushes them into pricier, subpar corporate hospitals.” 

Committee Democrats offered dozens of amendments. All amendments were rejected except for a modification that would block staff reductions at the Veterans Crisis Line and other VA suicide prevention programs.

The bill now moves to the full House of Representatives for consideration. House leaders have not yet announced when that vote will take place; the House is in recess the week of June 16, 2025. 

The committee also released the Fiscal Year 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Bill, which would spend > $83 million, a 22% increase over the 2025.

Research on cannabis use disorder (CUD) has mainly focused on individuals aged < 65 years, but a recently published study in JAMA Network Open found one-third of older veterans who had used cannabis in the previous 30 days screened positive for CUD.

The cross-sectional study of 4503 veterans aged 65 to 84 years from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cannabis and Aging Cohort found 57% of participants reported lifetime cannabis use, with 29% citing medical reasons, usually for pain management. About 10% reported using cannabis in the previous 30 days, with 52% reporting use for ≥ 20 days in a month. The odds of CUD were higher among men, respondents aged < 76 years, individuals with anxiety, and individuals who reported any illicit drug use or frequent cannabis use.

In 2019, 9.8% of veterans reported using cannabis in the previous year. In 2019 to 2020, > 20% of veterans aged 18 to 44 years said they had used cannabis in the previous 6 months. According to VA Health Systems Research, about 1 in 11 veterans had used cannabis in the previous year. Compared to the general US population, recent cannabis use was similar or slightly lower among veterans. Among those with previous year use, however, the percentage of veterans using cannabis for medical purposes was more than double that of the general population.

Older veterans are particularly at risk for CUD. Cannabis use can increase the chance of neuropsychiatric disorders, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular outcomes—all leading causes of death in older adults. They also have an elevated risk of suicidal ideation and therefore may be particularly susceptible to adverse effects of cannabis, even if used for therapeutic purposes.

In addition to CUD, older veterans may be at risk for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) intoxication if they are unable to tolerate cannabis potency or the latent THC components found in products marketed as only having cannabidiol. THC is the primary psychoactive compound found in the cannabis plant and interacts with brain cannabinoid receptors to affect mood, perception, and various bodily functions. Cannabis potency has increased from about 3% in the 1980s to about 15% in recent years; the average THC-to-CBD ratio has increased substantially over the past decade.

Unlike veterans aged 18 to 25 years, those aged ≥ 65 years are less likely to use recreational cannabis, are more likely to use medicinal cannabis recommended by a health care professional, and report use for pain management, insomnia, and mental health (including posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). Some research indicates that rates of cannabis use and CUD are particularly elevated among veterans with PTSD and major depressive disorder who may use cannabis as a means of coping with negative affect and sleep disturbances. PTSD is recognized as a qualifying condition by states that have legalized medicinal cannabis. 

Sleep disturbance, especially in conjunction with PTSD, is associated with CUD among veterans. According to the VA, research does not support cannabis as an effective PTSD treatment, a reason the 2023 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD does not recommend it for that use. In 2020, lifetime prevalence of CUD among veterans was 9.2%; the prevalence of past-6-month CUD diagnoses among veterans was 2.7%. Among veterans with PTSD, however, CUD rates were much higher (12.1%).

Current VA guidelines recommend that patients with CUD be offered referral to mental health services for evidence-based treatments, including motivational interviews, contingency management, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The JAMA Network Open study notes the importance of screening and informing older veterans about the risks of cannabis use: “Unidentified, patients cannot be offered existing evidence-based treatments. Despite increasing cannabis use among older adults, there is an inadequate evidence base on therapeutic benefits and potential harms from cannabis use among older people.”

Research on cannabis use disorder (CUD) has mainly focused on individuals aged < 65 years, but a recently published study in JAMA Network Open found one-third of older veterans who had used cannabis in the previous 30 days screened positive for CUD.

The cross-sectional study of 4503 veterans aged 65 to 84 years from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cannabis and Aging Cohort found 57% of participants reported lifetime cannabis use, with 29% citing medical reasons, usually for pain management. About 10% reported using cannabis in the previous 30 days, with 52% reporting use for ≥ 20 days in a month. The odds of CUD were higher among men, respondents aged < 76 years, individuals with anxiety, and individuals who reported any illicit drug use or frequent cannabis use.

In 2019, 9.8% of veterans reported using cannabis in the previous year. In 2019 to 2020, > 20% of veterans aged 18 to 44 years said they had used cannabis in the previous 6 months. According to VA Health Systems Research, about 1 in 11 veterans had used cannabis in the previous year. Compared to the general US population, recent cannabis use was similar or slightly lower among veterans. Among those with previous year use, however, the percentage of veterans using cannabis for medical purposes was more than double that of the general population.

Older veterans are particularly at risk for CUD. Cannabis use can increase the chance of neuropsychiatric disorders, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular outcomes—all leading causes of death in older adults. They also have an elevated risk of suicidal ideation and therefore may be particularly susceptible to adverse effects of cannabis, even if used for therapeutic purposes.

In addition to CUD, older veterans may be at risk for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) intoxication if they are unable to tolerate cannabis potency or the latent THC components found in products marketed as only having cannabidiol. THC is the primary psychoactive compound found in the cannabis plant and interacts with brain cannabinoid receptors to affect mood, perception, and various bodily functions. Cannabis potency has increased from about 3% in the 1980s to about 15% in recent years; the average THC-to-CBD ratio has increased substantially over the past decade.

Unlike veterans aged 18 to 25 years, those aged ≥ 65 years are less likely to use recreational cannabis, are more likely to use medicinal cannabis recommended by a health care professional, and report use for pain management, insomnia, and mental health (including posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). Some research indicates that rates of cannabis use and CUD are particularly elevated among veterans with PTSD and major depressive disorder who may use cannabis as a means of coping with negative affect and sleep disturbances. PTSD is recognized as a qualifying condition by states that have legalized medicinal cannabis. 

Sleep disturbance, especially in conjunction with PTSD, is associated with CUD among veterans. According to the VA, research does not support cannabis as an effective PTSD treatment, a reason the 2023 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD does not recommend it for that use. In 2020, lifetime prevalence of CUD among veterans was 9.2%; the prevalence of past-6-month CUD diagnoses among veterans was 2.7%. Among veterans with PTSD, however, CUD rates were much higher (12.1%).

Current VA guidelines recommend that patients with CUD be offered referral to mental health services for evidence-based treatments, including motivational interviews, contingency management, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The JAMA Network Open study notes the importance of screening and informing older veterans about the risks of cannabis use: “Unidentified, patients cannot be offered existing evidence-based treatments. Despite increasing cannabis use among older adults, there is an inadequate evidence base on therapeutic benefits and potential harms from cannabis use among older people.”

Research on cannabis use disorder (CUD) has mainly focused on individuals aged < 65 years, but a recently published study in JAMA Network Open found one-third of older veterans who had used cannabis in the previous 30 days screened positive for CUD.

The cross-sectional study of 4503 veterans aged 65 to 84 years from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cannabis and Aging Cohort found 57% of participants reported lifetime cannabis use, with 29% citing medical reasons, usually for pain management. About 10% reported using cannabis in the previous 30 days, with 52% reporting use for ≥ 20 days in a month. The odds of CUD were higher among men, respondents aged < 76 years, individuals with anxiety, and individuals who reported any illicit drug use or frequent cannabis use.

In 2019, 9.8% of veterans reported using cannabis in the previous year. In 2019 to 2020, > 20% of veterans aged 18 to 44 years said they had used cannabis in the previous 6 months. According to VA Health Systems Research, about 1 in 11 veterans had used cannabis in the previous year. Compared to the general US population, recent cannabis use was similar or slightly lower among veterans. Among those with previous year use, however, the percentage of veterans using cannabis for medical purposes was more than double that of the general population.

Older veterans are particularly at risk for CUD. Cannabis use can increase the chance of neuropsychiatric disorders, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular outcomes—all leading causes of death in older adults. They also have an elevated risk of suicidal ideation and therefore may be particularly susceptible to adverse effects of cannabis, even if used for therapeutic purposes.

In addition to CUD, older veterans may be at risk for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) intoxication if they are unable to tolerate cannabis potency or the latent THC components found in products marketed as only having cannabidiol. THC is the primary psychoactive compound found in the cannabis plant and interacts with brain cannabinoid receptors to affect mood, perception, and various bodily functions. Cannabis potency has increased from about 3% in the 1980s to about 15% in recent years; the average THC-to-CBD ratio has increased substantially over the past decade.

Unlike veterans aged 18 to 25 years, those aged ≥ 65 years are less likely to use recreational cannabis, are more likely to use medicinal cannabis recommended by a health care professional, and report use for pain management, insomnia, and mental health (including posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]). Some research indicates that rates of cannabis use and CUD are particularly elevated among veterans with PTSD and major depressive disorder who may use cannabis as a means of coping with negative affect and sleep disturbances. PTSD is recognized as a qualifying condition by states that have legalized medicinal cannabis. 

Sleep disturbance, especially in conjunction with PTSD, is associated with CUD among veterans. According to the VA, research does not support cannabis as an effective PTSD treatment, a reason the 2023 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD does not recommend it for that use. In 2020, lifetime prevalence of CUD among veterans was 9.2%; the prevalence of past-6-month CUD diagnoses among veterans was 2.7%. Among veterans with PTSD, however, CUD rates were much higher (12.1%).

Current VA guidelines recommend that patients with CUD be offered referral to mental health services for evidence-based treatments, including motivational interviews, contingency management, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The JAMA Network Open study notes the importance of screening and informing older veterans about the risks of cannabis use: “Unidentified, patients cannot be offered existing evidence-based treatments. Despite increasing cannabis use among older adults, there is an inadequate evidence base on therapeutic benefits and potential harms from cannabis use among older people.”

Veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who have been referred to Community Care no longer need a second review from a VA clinician according to a new policy. The provision implements language from the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act. VA officials hope that it will speed up access to community care.

The move expands on the 2019 MISSION Act, which allows eligible veterans to access health care from non-VA clinicians that is paid for by the VA when it is in their “best medical interest.” Those decisions, however, were not considered final until reviewed by a second VA doctor.

The Dole Act prohibits VA administrators from overriding a VA doctor’s referral for a patient to receive outside care. According to the law, the ban on administrative review will remain in place for 2 years, after which the VA must report on its effects to Congress. The VA announced it would begin training employees to ensure the community care referral process is followed in compliance with the Dole Act. 

Analysis from the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute claims the best medical interest criterion “is to be considered when a veteran's health and/or well-being would be compromised if they were not able to be seen in the community for the requested clinical service.”

During a March hearing, Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee on health, said any veteran who seeks residential treatment should get it, but noted the VA has not developed a fee schedule for community treatment centers. In at least 1 case, she said, the department was charged up to $6000 a day for 1 patient. Brownley also noted that the VA doesn't track the timeliness or quality of medical care in community residential treatment facilities.

“We have no way of knowing the level of treatment or support they are getting,” she said. “We must find a balance between community care and VA direct care. In my opinion, we have not found that balance when it comes to residential rehabilitation treatment facilities.”

At the same hearing, chair of the House Veterans Affairs health subcommittee Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) said more change is needed—specifically to ensure that veterans also can access private residential substance abuse treatment centers. Some, she said, “are told they cannot access community care unless a VA facility fails to meet a 20-day threshold—forcing them to wait, even when immediate, alternative options exist."

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1969, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act, in May, which expands the VA suicide prevention grant program. However, the Senate has yet to take up the legislation. “I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it can be for veterans in crisis to navigate a complicated system when every second counts,” Miller-Meeks said. “The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act ensures that our heroes are never turned away or left without help. It streamlines access, strengthens coordination, and reaffirms our promise to those who served.”

Veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who have been referred to Community Care no longer need a second review from a VA clinician according to a new policy. The provision implements language from the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act. VA officials hope that it will speed up access to community care.

The move expands on the 2019 MISSION Act, which allows eligible veterans to access health care from non-VA clinicians that is paid for by the VA when it is in their “best medical interest.” Those decisions, however, were not considered final until reviewed by a second VA doctor.

The Dole Act prohibits VA administrators from overriding a VA doctor’s referral for a patient to receive outside care. According to the law, the ban on administrative review will remain in place for 2 years, after which the VA must report on its effects to Congress. The VA announced it would begin training employees to ensure the community care referral process is followed in compliance with the Dole Act. 

Analysis from the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute claims the best medical interest criterion “is to be considered when a veteran's health and/or well-being would be compromised if they were not able to be seen in the community for the requested clinical service.”

During a March hearing, Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee on health, said any veteran who seeks residential treatment should get it, but noted the VA has not developed a fee schedule for community treatment centers. In at least 1 case, she said, the department was charged up to $6000 a day for 1 patient. Brownley also noted that the VA doesn't track the timeliness or quality of medical care in community residential treatment facilities.

“We have no way of knowing the level of treatment or support they are getting,” she said. “We must find a balance between community care and VA direct care. In my opinion, we have not found that balance when it comes to residential rehabilitation treatment facilities.”

At the same hearing, chair of the House Veterans Affairs health subcommittee Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) said more change is needed—specifically to ensure that veterans also can access private residential substance abuse treatment centers. Some, she said, “are told they cannot access community care unless a VA facility fails to meet a 20-day threshold—forcing them to wait, even when immediate, alternative options exist."

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1969, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act, in May, which expands the VA suicide prevention grant program. However, the Senate has yet to take up the legislation. “I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it can be for veterans in crisis to navigate a complicated system when every second counts,” Miller-Meeks said. “The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act ensures that our heroes are never turned away or left without help. It streamlines access, strengthens coordination, and reaffirms our promise to those who served.”

Veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who have been referred to Community Care no longer need a second review from a VA clinician according to a new policy. The provision implements language from the Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act. VA officials hope that it will speed up access to community care.

The move expands on the 2019 MISSION Act, which allows eligible veterans to access health care from non-VA clinicians that is paid for by the VA when it is in their “best medical interest.” Those decisions, however, were not considered final until reviewed by a second VA doctor.

The Dole Act prohibits VA administrators from overriding a VA doctor’s referral for a patient to receive outside care. According to the law, the ban on administrative review will remain in place for 2 years, after which the VA must report on its effects to Congress. The VA announced it would begin training employees to ensure the community care referral process is followed in compliance with the Dole Act. 

Analysis from the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute claims the best medical interest criterion “is to be considered when a veteran's health and/or well-being would be compromised if they were not able to be seen in the community for the requested clinical service.”

During a March hearing, Rep. Julia Brownley (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee on health, said any veteran who seeks residential treatment should get it, but noted the VA has not developed a fee schedule for community treatment centers. In at least 1 case, she said, the department was charged up to $6000 a day for 1 patient. Brownley also noted that the VA doesn't track the timeliness or quality of medical care in community residential treatment facilities.

“We have no way of knowing the level of treatment or support they are getting,” she said. “We must find a balance between community care and VA direct care. In my opinion, we have not found that balance when it comes to residential rehabilitation treatment facilities.”

At the same hearing, chair of the House Veterans Affairs health subcommittee Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) said more change is needed—specifically to ensure that veterans also can access private residential substance abuse treatment centers. Some, she said, “are told they cannot access community care unless a VA facility fails to meet a 20-day threshold—forcing them to wait, even when immediate, alternative options exist."

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1969, the No Wrong Door for Veterans Act, in May, which expands the VA suicide prevention grant program. However, the Senate has yet to take up the legislation. “I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it can be for veterans in crisis to navigate a complicated system when every second counts,” Miller-Meeks said. “The No Wrong Door for Veterans Act ensures that our heroes are never turned away or left without help. It streamlines access, strengthens coordination, and reaffirms our promise to those who served.”