Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans
Health Administration
Erin Bagalman
Analyst in Health Policy
February 3, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42340
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Summary
Responsibility for prevention of veteran suicide lies primarily with the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VHA Strategic Plan
for Suicide Prevention is based on a public health framework, which has three major components:
(1) surveillance, (2) risk and protective factors, and (3) prevention interventions.
No nationwide surveillance system exists for suicide among all veterans; therefore, the actual
incidence of suicide among veterans is not known. Surveillance, or systematic collection of data
on completed (i.e., fatal) suicides, is essential to define the scope of the problem (i.e., the suicide
rate among veterans), identify characteristics associated with higher or lower risk of suicide, and
track changes in the suicide rate over time to evaluate suicide prevention interventions. In the
absence of a nationwide surveillance system for veteran suicide, the VHA is attempting to
determine the rate of suicide among veterans in two ways, both in collaboration with the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Information collected in surveillance is used to identify suicide risk factors (i.e., characteristics
associated with higher rates of suicide) and protective factors (i.e., characteristics associated with
lower rates of suicide). This is essential in order to design interventions that reduce risk factors
and/or increase protective factors, thus lowering overall risk of suicide. Risk factors are also
helpful in identifying at-risk groups or individuals so that interventions can be delivered to the
people who need them most. Within the VHA, this research is supported by the Office of
Research and Development; a Center of Excellence in suicide prevention; and a Mental Illness
Research, Education, and Clinical Center on suicide prevention.
The intervention cycle includes three stages: design and test interventions, implement
interventions, and evaluate interventions. The research components mentioned above have roles
in small-scale pilot testing and large-scale evaluations of interventions. This report discusses
seven areas of VHA suicide prevention interventions: (1) easy access to care, (2) education, (3)
screening and treatment, (4) limited access to lethal means, (5) suicide hotline, (6) media
restrictions, and (7) suicide prevention coordinators.
This report identifies challenges the VHA faces in each component of suicide prevention and
discusses potential issues for Congress. A recurring theme is the need for the VHA to work in
concert with other federal, state, and local government agencies; private for-profit and not-for-
profit health care providers; veterans, their families, and their communities; and other individuals
or organizations that might be able to help. Specific challenges in surveillance include timeliness
of data, accurate identification of decedents as veterans, and consistent classification of deaths as
suicides. Challenges in risk and protective factors research include a need for more collaboration
and dialogue among agencies involved in suicide prevention and across other areas of public
health (because suicide has some of the same risk and protective factors as other public health
problems). Challenges in VHA suicide prevention interventions also include the need for more
collaboration and dialogue, as well as an apparent gap between policy and practice, and
misperceptions about mental illness and mental health care.

Congressional Research Service

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
A Public Health Framework for Suicide Prevention........................................................................ 3
Suicide Surveillance ........................................................................................................................ 4
Combining VHA Data with the National Death Index (NDI) ................................................... 4
Accessing the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) ........................................ 5
Suicide Risk Factors and Protective Factors.................................................................................... 6
VHA Office of Research and Development (ORD) .................................................................. 8
Center of Excellence (COE) ...................................................................................................... 8
Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC)....................................... 9
Suicide Prevention Interventions ..................................................................................................... 9
Easy Access to Care................................................................................................................. 10
Education................................................................................................................................. 11
Screening and Treatment ......................................................................................................... 11
Limited Access to Lethal Means ............................................................................................. 12
Suicide Hotline ........................................................................................................................ 12
Media Restrictions................................................................................................................... 13
Suicide Prevention Coordinators ............................................................................................. 13
Potential Issues for Congress......................................................................................................... 13
Potential Issues in Surveillance ............................................................................................... 14
Potential Issues in Risk and Protective Factors ....................................................................... 15
Potential Issues in Interventions.............................................................................................. 15

Figures
Figure 1. A Public Health Framework for Suicide Prevention ........................................................ 4
Figure 2. Combining VHA Data with the National Death Index..................................................... 5

Tables
Table 1. Selected Risk and Protective Factors in the General Population ....................................... 7

Appendixes
Appendix. Public Laws Addressing VA Suicide Prevention Efforts.............................................. 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Introduction
Congress has attempted to address the problem of suicide among veterans through legislation,1
and the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs have conducted oversight hearings,
both on prevention of veteran suicide specifically and on veteran mental health more broadly.2
The actual number or rate of veteran suicides is not known, because no nationwide surveillance
system for suicide among all veterans exists, but there is consensus that the number is too high.3
Responsibility for prevention of veteran suicide lies primarily with the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Such a challenging task,
however, demands collaboration with other federal agencies, state and local governments, other
organizations, communities, and individuals.
Prevention of suicide can be approached in two ways, which are not mutually exclusive. The
public health approach intervenes with populations (e.g., distributing educational materials about
mental illness and mental health services), whereas the clinical approach intervenes with
individuals (e.g., prescribing antidepressant medication to a person diagnosed with depression).
The individual focus of the clinical approach limits its reach to those who access the health care
system;4 clinical interventions are necessary but not sufficient. If the goal is to reach a broader
population, the public health approach is considered essential.
The public health approach provides the framework for two suicide prevention strategies that are
referenced in this report. The National Strategy for Suicide Prevention5 involves multiple federal
departments, including the VA, Defense (DOD), and Education (ED), as well as several agencies
within Health and Human Services (HHS).6 The VHA Strategic Plan for Suicide Prevention7 is a
compilation of VHA activities related to suicide prevention. While this CRS report focuses on
suicide prevention efforts of the VHA, activities of other entities are discussed as they relate to

1 See the Appendix for public laws addressing suicide among veterans.
2 See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Closing the Gaps,
112th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 2011; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care:
Addressing Wait Times and Access to Care, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 30, 2011; U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, Understanding and Preventing Veteran Suicide, 112th
Cong., 1st sess., December 2, 2011.
3 For suicide rates among veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) using VA health
care, and for a discussion of limitations of the data, see CRS Report R41921, Suicide, PTSD, and Substance Use
Among OEF/OIF Veterans Using VA Health Care: Facts and Figures, by Erin Bagalman.
4 This report focuses on the public health approach. A full discussion of the clinical approach to suicide prevention is
beyond the scope of this report. The pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy mentioned in the “Screening and Treatment”
section are examples of the clinical approach.
5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Strategy for Suicide
Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action, SMA01-3517, Rockville, MD, 2001, http://store.samhsa.gov/product/
SMA01-3517; hereinafter referred to as National Strategy for Suicide Prevention. The public health framework is
described on pp. 29-40.
6 Federal Working Group on Suicide Prevention, National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Compendium of Federal
Activities, 2009, http://www.samhsa.gov/mentalhealth/NSSPCompendium_v2_March09.pdf. HHS agencies involved in
suicide prevention include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Indian Health Service (IHS),
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and
Administration on Aging (AoA).
7 Veterans Health Administration, VHA Strategic Plan for Suicide Prevention: FY 2009–2011; hereinafter referred to as
VHA Strategic Plan. The VHA Strategic Plan is based on both public health and clinical approaches; see Element 2.1.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

VHA activities. The textbox briefly discusses eligibility for, enrollment in, and use of VHA
services. As noted in the textbox, the majority of veterans do not use VHA services. VHA efforts
to increase access to care—and to prevent suicide among veterans who do not use VHA
services—are discussed later in this report.
Who Is a Veteran? Eligibility for, Enrollment in, and Use of VA Health Care
The term “veteran” may refer broadly to anyone who has served in the armed forces, including those currently
serving. In this report, a veteran is someone who has separated from military service following a period of active duty.
Although an individual may return to active duty fol owing separation (a particular issue among National Guard and
Reserve members who have been activated), current active duty servicemembers are not the focus of this report.
Three additional points may be made relative to veterans and VA health care services:
•
Eligibility: Not all veterans are eligible for VA health care services (see http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits); Vet
Centers (non-medical facilities that provide readjustment counseling services for veterans and their families) have
their own eligibility criteria (see http://www.vetcenter.va.gov/Eligibility.asp).
•
Enrollment: Not all eligible veterans enroll in VA health care services. The number of enrolled veterans in
FY2010 was 8.3 million, which is 36.6% of the estimated veteran population of 22.7 million. As noted above,
some veterans are not eligible for VA health care services; others may choose not to enrol for various reasons
(e.g., they might have employer-sponsored health insurance or other sources of health care services).
•
Use: Not all enrolled veterans actually use VA health care services. The number of veterans who received
health care services in FY2010 was 5.4 million, which is 65.1% of the 8.3 million enrolled veterans, or 23.8% of
the estimated veteran population of 22.7 million. Enrolled veterans may choose not to receive care for various
reasons (e.g., they might not perceive a need for health care services).
Sources: Estimated number of veterans is from Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012 Budget Submission,
Summary Volume, Volume 1 of 4, February 2011, pp. 1F-1; numbers of veterans enrolled using services are from
Department of Veterans Affairs, FY2012 Budget Submission, Medical Programs and Information Technology
Programs, Volume 2 of 4, February 2011, pp. 1A-28. See also CRS Report R42324, “Who is a Veteran?”—Basic
Eligibility for Veterans’ Benefits, by Christine Scott.
The VHA has received both praise and criticism for its suicide prevention efforts and mental
health services more generally. In 2010 the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, funded by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), in collaboration with
the non-profit Suicide Prevention Action Network, published a progress report on the National
Strategy for Suicide Prevention; the progress report (hereinafter referred to as Charting the
Future) praises VHA’s suicide prevention practices and recommends disseminating them to the
rest of the health care system.8 Charting the Future describes the VHA as “one of the most
vibrant forces in the U.S. suicide prevention movement, implementing multiple levels of
innovation and state of the art interventions, backed up by a robust evaluation and research
capacity.”9 In contrast, some congressional testimony has criticized VHA’s suicide prevention
efforts for inadequacies, such as barriers to accessing care and lack of evidence-based treatments
for those who do access care.10 A 2011 evaluation of VHA mental health services (not limited to

8 Suicide Prevention Resource Center and Suicide Prevention Action Network (SPAN), Charting the Future of Suicide
Prevention: A 2010 Progress Review of the National Strategy and Recommendations for the Decade Ahead, 2010, p.
18, http://www.sprc.org/library/ChartingTheFuture_Fullbook.pdf; hereinafter referred to as Charting the Future.
9 Charting the Future, p. 11.
10See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Closing the Gaps,
112th Cong., 1st sess., July 14, 2011; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care:
Addressing Wait Times and Access to Care, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 30, 2011; U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, Understanding and Preventing Veteran Suicide, 112th
Cong., 1st sess., December 2, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

suicide prevention efforts) by the Altarum Institute and RAND Health captures both sides of the
argument, finding that VHA mental health care is generally at least as good as that of other health
care systems, but that it “often does not meet implicit VA expectations.”11
This report begins with a brief overview of the public health framework for suicide prevention.
The three subsequent parts of the report correspond to the three major components of the public
health framework: (1) suicide surveillance, (2) suicide risk factors and protective factors, and (3)
suicide prevention interventions. The final section addresses potential issues for Congress.
The importance of collaboration and dialogue is a recurring theme across all components of the
VHA’s suicide prevention efforts. Surveillance requires collaboration to address timeliness of
data, accurate identification of decedents as veterans, and consistent classification of deaths as
suicides. Risk and protective factors research requires dialogue among agencies involved in
suicide prevention and across other areas of public health (because suicide has some of the same
risk and protective factors as other public health problems). Successful prevention interventions
also require collaboration. Challenges in prevention interventions include an apparent gap
between policy and practice, as well as misperceptions about mental illness and its treatment.
A Public Health Framework for Suicide Prevention
As noted previously, both the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention and the VHA Strategic
Plan for Suicide Prevention are based on a public health framework. As illustrated in Figure 1,
the framework has three major components: (1) surveillance, (2) risk and protective factors, and
(3) prevention interventions. Suicide surveillance involves collecting data on completed (i.e.,
fatal) suicides in order to define the scope of the problem. Data collected in surveillance can be
used to identify risk factors (i.e., characteristics associated with higher suicide risk) and protective
factors (i.e., characteristics associated with lower suicide risk). Suicide prevention interventions
aim to reduce risk factors and/or enhance protective factors that have been identified;
interventions may target high-risk groups or individuals, identified based on known risk factors.

11 Katherine E. Watkins and Harold Alan Pincus, Veterans Health Administration Mental Health Program Evaluation:
Capstone Report, Altarum Institute and RAND Health, 2011, p. 153; hereinafter referred to as VHA Mental Health
Program Evaluation.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Figure 1. A Public Health Framework for Suicide Prevention

Source: CRS summary of the public health framework described in the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, National Strategy for Suicide
Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action, SMA01-3517, Rockville, MD, 2001, http://store.samhsa.gov/product/
SMA01-3517, pp. 29-40.
Suicide Surveillance
As noted previously, no nationwide surveillance system exists for suicide among all veterans.
Surveillance, or systematic collection of data on completed (i.e., fatal) suicides, is essential for
three purposes. First, surveillance defines the scope of the problem, i.e., the suicide rate among
veterans. Second, information from surveillance is used to identify characteristics associated with
higher or lower risk of suicide. Third, information from surveillance is used to track changes in
the suicide rate over time and evaluate suicide prevention interventions. In order to evaluate
interventions, suicide surveillance must measure the same thing, in the same way, repeatedly over
time.
In the absence of a nationwide surveillance system for veteran suicide, the VHA is attempting to
determine the rate of suicide among veterans in two ways, both in collaboration with the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Combining the two methods provides more
information about veteran suicide than either method alone, but the combination remains
inadequate to the task. For example, one method is limited to enrolled veterans, and the other is
limited to fewer than half the states; thus even the combination does not capture all veteran
suicides. Also, statistics from both methods have a lag time of years, so that timeliness of data is
an ongoing challenge. Each of the two methods is described below, along with its limitations and
(where applicable) efforts to overcome those limitations.
Combining VHA Data with the National Death Index (NDI)
The VHA’s primary approach to surveillance is illustrated in Figure 2. Information about
completed (i.e., fatal) suicides is collected in death certificates by state, territorial, and local
governments;12 aggregated into the National Death Index (NDI) by the CDC;13 and combined
with enrollment data by the VHA in order to identify suicides among enrolled veterans.14

12 Suicide surveillance relies on information derived from death certificates. Both the legal authority for maintaining
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Figure 2. Combining VHA Data with the National Death Index

Source: CRS summary of information from CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, About the National Death
Index, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/ndi/about_ndi.htm; and from the VHA.
This approach is subject to the following limitations:
• The resulting data may not be comparable across jurisdictions.15
• The lag between a suicide event and identification of the decedent as an enrolled
veteran may be years; this delays the availability of crucial information.
• Suicides among non-enrolled veterans are not captured;16 this leaves out the
majority of veterans.17
Accessing the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)
In an attempt to identify suicides among veterans regardless of enrollment with the VA, the VHA
uses the CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), among other sources of

(...continued)
registries of deaths and the responsibility for issuing death certificates reside with individual states, territories, and two
cities (Washington, DC, and New York, NY).
13 The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). NCHS works cooperatively with state, territorial, and
local jurisdictions to collect information from death certificates in the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS). NCHS
extracts information from NVSS to create the National Death Index (NDI), a data set that can be combined with other
data sets for research purposes. For more information, see CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, About the
National Death Index, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/ndi/about_ndi.htm.
14 VHA combines suicide data from the NDI with enrollment records to identify suicides among enrolled veterans. The
enrollment file includes veterans receiving benefits from the Veterans Benefits Administration, even if the veterans are
not receiving care from VHA.
15 Researchers at the RAND Corporation summarized variation in suicide statistics across jurisdictions in four domains:
(1) how suicides are defined or how ambiguous deaths are classified, (2) qualifications of professionals certifying a
death as a suicide, (3) the extent to which possible suicide deaths are investigated, and (4) the quality of data
management. Rajeev Ramchand et al., The War Within: Preventing Suicide in the U.S. Military, The RAND
Corporation, 2011, p. 13, http://www.rand.org; hereinafter referred to as The War Within.
16 The standard death certificate allows officials to indicate if a decedent has ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces;
however, this indication captures both veterans and current servicemembers, with no means of distinguishing between
the two. Also, the individual responsible for completing the death certificate may not know whether the decedent is a
veteran.
17 See textbox in the Introduction.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

information.18 The NVDRS is a CDC-funded program that enables participating states to
supplement death certificates with information from law enforcement agencies, crime
laboratories, coroner or medical examiner reports, health providers, and other state and local
agencies. Through ongoing active surveillance, NVDRS may increase the likelihood that a death
is recognized as a suicide and that a decedent’s veteran status is captured (regardless of
enrollment with the VHA). The CDC is working to address the limitations of this approach
through the following activities:
• Expand the NVDRS to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
territories;19 currently, the NVDRS is in operation in fewer than half the states.20
• Increase standardization of data collection and analysis, in order to increase
comparability across states.21
• Assess the feasibility of linking VHA data directly to state NVDRS programs,
thereby eliminating a step in the process and potentially reducing the lag time.22
• Link the NVDRS to data from the VHA and the DOD’s Suicide Event Report, in
order to increase accurate identification of veteran status.23
The timeliness of the data is a challenge for the VHA in both methods of surveillance described
above. This is a challenge for suicide surveillance nationwide, not limited to suicide surveillance
among veterans. Timely reporting of death certificates is identified as a core issue in the 2010
update to the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention.24
Suicide Risk Factors and Protective Factors
Identifying characteristics associated with higher rates of suicide (i.e., risk factors) and lower
rates of suicide (i.e., protective factors) is essential in order to design effective interventions.
Suicide prevention interventions aim to reduce risk factors and/or increase protective factors, thus
lowering overall risk of suicide. Knowing what the risk factors are also helps in identifying at-risk
groups or individuals so that interventions can be delivered to the people who need them most.
Thus the second step in the public health framework for suicide prevention is identification of
suicide risk and protective factors using data collected in surveillance. Table 1 provides examples
of risk and protective factors among the general population.

18 VHA Strategic Plan, Element 7.1.
19 HHS, CDC, Fiscal Year 2012 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees.
20 HHS, CDC, National Violent Death Reporting System, http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs and
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/NVDRS.
21 HHS, CDC, Fiscal Year 2012 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees.
22 HHS, CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention, Preventing Suicide:
Program Activities Guide, Atlanta, GA, 2010, http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pub/PreventingSuicide.html.
23 Ibid.
24 Charting the Future, p. 30.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Table 1. Selected Risk and Protective Factors in the General Population
Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Some major physical illnesses, mental disorders, and
Effective clinical care for physical illnesses, mental disorders,
substance use disorders
and substance use disorders
Barriers to accessing health care
Easy access to a variety of clinical interventions
Stigma associated with help-seeking behavior
Support for help-seeking behavior
Easy access to lethal means (e.g., firearms or poison)
Restricted access to lethal means (e.g., firearms or poison)
Lack of social support and sense of isolation
Strong connections to family and community support
Cultural/religious beliefs that accept suicide
Cultural/religious beliefs that discourage suicide
Source: Examples of risk and protective factors selected from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS), Public Health Service, National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action, SMA01-3517,
Rockville, MD, 2001, pp. 35-36, http://store.samhsa.gov/product/SMA01-3517.
Veteran-specific research on suicide risk and protective factors is necessary, because the veteran
population differs from the non-veteran population on a variety of characteristics (e.g., gender
distribution), some of which may also be associated with suicide risk. The subpopulation of
veterans who are enrolled with the VHA may differ from non-enrolled veterans, as well.
The VHA conducts veteran-specific research that builds on research among the general
population. Within HHS, both the CDC25 and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)26
disseminate research on suicide risk and protective factors within the general population. Also,
SAMHSA collects data on suicide attempts and related behavior.27 It should be noted that risk
factors for attempted suicide may differ from risk factors for completed suicide; for example,
women have a higher rate of attempted suicide, but men have a higher rate of completed
suicide.28 Despite a large number of risk and protective factors identified by researchers, it is not
yet possible to predict who will attempt or complete suicide.29 The inability to identify individuals
most in need of interventions is one of the reasons a public health approach—with a focus on
population-level interventions—is necessary for effective suicide prevention.
Within the VHA, mental health research—including research on suicide risk and protective
factors—is supported by two organizational units: the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) and the Mental Health Strategic Healthcare Group (MHSHG). In general, the ORD funds
intramural research by individual VHA investigators or researchers (including mental health care

25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Suicide: Risk and Protective Factors, Atlanta, GA, http://www.cdc.gov/
ViolencePrevention/suicide/riskprotectivefactors.html.
26 HHS, National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Mental Health, Publications about Suicide
Prevention, http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-prevention-listing.shtml; and National Institute of
Mental Health, Science News about Suicide Prevention, http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/science-news-about-
suicide-prevention.shtml.
27 SAMHSA asks about these topics in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). See HHS, CDC,
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among Adults ≥ 18 Years—United States,
2008 – 2009, October 21, 2011, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6013a1.htm.
28 HHS, CDC, Suicide: Facts at a Glance, 2009, http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.pdf.
29 For example, although the single strongest predictor of a completed suicide is a prior suicide attempt, most people
who attempt suicide do not subsequently complete suicide, and most people who complete suicides have no history of
prior attempts. See The War Within and Joel Paris, “Predicting and Preventing Suicide: Do We Know Enough to Do
Either?,” Harvard Review of Psychiatry, vol. 14, no. 5 (2006), pp. 233-240.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

research).30 The MHSHG funds a Center of Excellence (COE) in suicide prevention and a Mental
Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC) on suicide prevention, as well as
centers addressing other mental health topics. Examples of research conducted on risk and
protective factors by each of these three components—ORD, COE, and MIRECC—are provided
below. The same three research components are also involved in the development and evaluation
of suicide prevention interventions.
VHA Office of Research and Development (ORD)
The ORD’s Health Services Research and Development Service supports research into suicide
risk factors and protective factors.31 For example, the VHA conducted a study to identify patient
characteristics associated with higher suicide rates among veterans in treatment for depression (a
known risk factor in the general population, as well as among veterans).32 Another study
examined characteristics associated with suicide risk among patients seen in VHA primary care,
to help identify factors that primary care providers may be able to use to detect suicide risk.33
These studies, and others like them, can help the VHA identify veterans at high risk of suicide, so
that interventions can be targeted to them.
Center of Excellence (COE)
The COE at Canandaigua, New York, conducts research on suicide risk factors and protective
factors, in addition to other suicide prevention activities. Established in August 2007 at the
direction of Congress,34 the COE has the mission of developing and studying evidence-based
public health approaches to prevention of veteran suicide, with the goal of reducing morbidity
and mortality associated with suicide in the veteran population. In pursuit of its mission, the
Epidemiology and Interventions Research Core within the COE collects and analyzes data on
suicide risk factors and protective factors (as well as other topics) among both veterans who use
VHA services and those who do not.35

30 The ORD supports research through four research divisions: Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development
(BLR&D), Clinical Science Research and Development (CSR&D), Rehabilitation Research and Development
(RR&D), and Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D).
31 A search for “suicide*” at http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/research/ yields dozens of suicide-related studies
conducted within ORD’s Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Service; some of the resulting studies
investigate risk factors and/or protective factors.
32 VA, VHA, Health Services Research and Development, Suicide Among Veterans: Using the VA Depression Registry
to Inform Care, Study IIR 04-211, http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/research/abstracts.cfm?Project_ID=2141695453.
33 VA, VHA, Health Services Research and Development, Suicidality: Correlates and Impact on Preference-Weighted
Health Status of Veterans in VA Primary Care, Study SHP 08-160, http://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/research/
abstracts.cfm?Project_ID=2141698711.
34 U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, Making Appropriations for Military Quality of Life Functions of the
Department of Defense, Military Construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal
Year Ending September 30, 2006, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 2528, 109th Cong., 1st sess.,
November 18, 2005, H.Rept. 109-305 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 39. The committee report directed the VHA “to
place more emphasis on psychiatric care of our veterans by designating three centers of excellence to focus on mental
health/PTSD needs. These three centers will be established at Waco Medical Center, Texas; San Diego Medical Center,
California; and the Canandaigua Medical Center, New York.”
35 VA, VHA, VISN 2 Center of Excellence at Canandaigua, http://www.mirecc.va.gov/docs/2010InfoSheets/
VISN_2_CoE_Canandaigua_Info_Sheet_2010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC)
The MIRECCs, also established at the direction of Congress,36 conduct research on a range of
mental health-related topics, including suicide risk factors and protective factors. Specifically, the
MIRECC of the VA Rocky Mountain Network pursues the goal of reducing suicidality in the
veteran population, by conducting research on potential contributions of cognitive and
neurobiological factors, among other activities.37 For example, one study assesses the relationship
(if any) between prolonged grief and suicidal ideation.38 Another study investigates the
neurobiology of suicide risk in traumatic brain injury and substance abuse.39 Other MIRECCs
may also conduct research related to suicide, in the course of pursuing their other goals.
Suicide Prevention Interventions
Through effective suicide prevention interventions, people’s lives can be saved. Interventions aim
to reduce risk factors and/or enhance protective factors, thereby lowering the risk of suicide. They
may address entire populations (e.g., all veterans), at-risk subgroups (e.g., veterans diagnosed
with PTSD), or high-risk individuals (e.g., veterans with recent suicide attempts).
Suicide prevention interventions are refined in a three-stage cycle. The first stage is to develop
and pilot test interventions on a small scale to ensure that they are safe, ethical, feasible,
efficacious (i.e., they work under ideal conditions), and effective (i.e., they work under real-world
conditions). If interventions are successful in the first stage, the second stage is to implement
them on a larger scale. The third stage is to evaluate interventions that have been implemented on
a larger scale, to verify their effectiveness and determine for whom they are most effective. The
three stages can then be repeated to refine interventions, either to improve their effectiveness or to
adjust them for use with a different population (e.g., applying an intervention developed for male
veterans to a population of female veterans).
Within the VHA, the same three research components involved in risk and protective factors
research are involved in the intervention cycle: ORD,40 COE,41 and MIRECC.42 Because small-
scale testing and large-scale evaluation are both integral to suicide prevention interventions, it is

36 P.L. 104-262, Veterans’ Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, enacted 10/09/1996 (38 U.S.C. § 7320).
37 VA, VHA, MIRECC of the VA Rocky Mountain Network (VISN 19 MIRECC), http://www.mirecc.va.gov/visn19/
index.asp.
38 VA, VHA, VISN 19 MIRECC, Examining Prolonged Grief Disorder and Its Relationship to Self-Directed Violence
(SDV) Among Veterans, http://www.mirecc.va.gov/visn19/studies/grief/index.asp.
39 VA, VHA, VISN 19 MIRECC, Neurobiology Of Suicide Risk In Traumatic Brain Injury And Substance Abuse,
http://www.mirecc.va.gov/visn19/studies/tbi_sud/index.asp.
40 One goal of the Mental Health Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) within ORD is to “[d]evelop and
implement evidence-based suicide prevention strategies.” See VA Mental Health QUERI Center, Strategic Plan,
November 2008, http://www.queri.research.va.gov/about/strategic_plans/mh.pdf#page=21; and VA Mental Health
QUERI Center, Fact Sheet, June 2011, http://www.queri.research.va.gov/about/factsheets/mh_factsheet.pdf.
41 The COE at Canandaigua evaluates implementation of suicide prevention initiatives.
42 For example, the MIRECC of the VA Rocky Mountain Network is conducting a pilot program to determine whether
providing prescription medication in blister packages (rather than bottles) reduces the likelihood of overdose. Veterans
Health Administration, Blister Packaging Medication to Increase Treatment Adherence and Clinical Response: Impact
on Suicide-Related Morbidity and Mortality, http://www.mirecc.va.gov/projects/blisterpack/index.asp.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

worth noting that rigorous research on effectiveness is difficult and lacking for most
interventions, both within and outside the VHA.43
The rest of this section discusses seven areas of VHA suicide prevention interventions: (1) easy
access to care, (2) education, (3) screening and treatment, (4) limited access to lethal means, (5)
suicide hotline, (6) media restrictions, and (7) suicide prevention coordinators.
Easy Access to Care
As noted previously, the majority of veterans do not use VHA services. Easy access to care is a
protective factor against suicide,44 and the VHA is making efforts to increase access to care by
addressing identified barriers to care, including logistical challenges in scheduling or attending
appointments, lack of understanding or awareness of mental health care, stigma associated with
mental illness, and concerns about VHA care. In order to address these barriers, the VHA is
taking two broad approaches: (1) increasing access to care by offering a broader range of mental
health services (e.g., telehealth or off-hours clinics) and (2) providing education about mental
illness and mental health care to veterans, their families, health care providers, and others in their
communities.45
Offering expanded options in mental health services aims to alleviate logistical challenges by
making services available in more places at more times.46 VHA policy requires that new patients
requesting or referred for mental health services receive an initial assessment within 24 hours and
a full evaluation appointment within 14 days; follow-up appointments for established patients
must occur within 30 days.47 The extent to which these policies are implemented in practice has
been questioned in Congressional testimony, news media, and survey responses from both
providers and patients.48
Educating veterans and others aims to increase understanding of mental health care and mental
illness, reduce the associated stigma, and correct misconceptions about VHA care. For example,
the VHA incorporates messages intended to reduce stigma into public health and outreach
activities. In addition, the VHA is working to integrate mental health and substance use
evaluation and treatment services into other treatment settings, which both increases the

43 The War Within, p. 13.
44 Ibid.
45 U.S. Government Accountability Office, VA Mental Health: Number of Veterans Receiving Care, Barriers Faced,
and Efforts to Increase Access, GAO-12-12, October 14, 2011, pp. 15-17, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-12.
46 Ibid. Examples of expanded options include increasing use of telemental health services and call centers (i.e.,
telephone counseling), integrating mental health services into primary care settings, increasing the number of mental
health staff and mental health clinic hours, and adding more Vet Centers.
47 VA, VHA, Uniform Mental Health Services in VA Medical Centers and Clinics, VHA Handbook 1160.01,
September 11, 2008.
48 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Closing the Gaps, 112th Cong., 1st
sess., July 14, 2011; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Addressing Wait
Times and Access to Care, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 30, 2011; Gregg Zoroya and Paul Monies, “Lag in Mental
Health Care Found at a Third of VA Hospitals,” USA Today, November 9, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/news/
military/story/2011-11-09/veterans-mental-health-care/51143216/1; and VHA Mental Health Program Evaluation.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

convenience and reduces the stigma associated with seeking care.49 Educational interventions are
described in more detail in the next subsection.
Education
The VHA offers suicide prevention education to audiences within VHA facilities and in
surrounding communities. VHA requires suicide prevention training for all VHA staff that
interact with veterans, plus additional training for health care providers. In the community, the
VHA provides education for veterans’ families and community “guides.”50 Community guides are
trained to recognize individuals who may be at risk of suicide and help them seek treatment.
Evidence supports education of guides; however, they must be able to refer individuals to quality
mental health services.51 Thus, access to care and quality of care are essential.
Screening and Treatment
Some types of screening, pharmacotherapy, and psychotherapy are supported by evidence that
they reduce the likelihood of suicide.52 VHA policy requires screening for a variety of risk
factors, including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), problem drinking, traumatic
brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST), and pain; veterans who screen positive must be
offered follow-up evaluations and, if appropriate, treatment.53
An evaluation of VHA mental health care by the Altarum Institute and RAND Health finds that
treatment in the VHA is generally better than in other systems on a variety of measures, but still
has room for improvement.54 In particular, the evaluation finds that evidence-based treatments
(both pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy), while widely available, are not usually provided.55
Researchers based this finding on a review of medical records, which showed that prescriptions
for medication were often not filled for as long as recommended and that psychotherapy, as
documented, was often not delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
Additionally, the evaluation found that assessment is lacking, both at the beginning of treatment
and during treatment (to track progress).56 Even if a particular treatment is supported by evidence,
it will not necessarily be effective for every patient. The only way to know whether a patient is
improving, holding steady, or growing worse is to assess his or her symptoms at intervals.

49 VHA Strategic Plan, Elements 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
50 VHA Strategic Plan, Element 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4.
51 The War Within. Outside the VHA, the term “gatekeeper” (rather than “guide”) is generally used.
52 The War Within.
53 VHA Strategic Plan, Element 6.2.
54 VHA Mental Health Program Evaluation, p. 153.
55 VHA Mental Health Program Evaluation. For example, among veterans for whom maintenance medication is
recommended, less than one-third received the recommended continuous treatment (p. 160). Similarly, among veterans
receiving psychotherapy, “most did not include elements of an evidence-based modality” (p. 154).
56 VHA Mental Health Program Evaluation. Less than two-thirds of veterans in a new treatment episode “have a
documented assessment of their housing and employment needs” (p. 161). Among veterans with major depressive
disorder who were receiving psychotherapy, less than a quarter (23%) “had documentation of an assessment of
response to psychotherapy” (p. 155).
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Limited Access to Lethal Means
The three most common means of completing suicide among the general population are firearms
(50%), suffocation (24%), and poisoning (18%).57 Evidence supports restricting access to lethal
means (e.g., firearms, gas, drugs) as a way to reduce suicide rates.58 The VHA has a gun safety
program (as both a child safety initiative and a suicide prevention initiative), which includes
distribution of gun safety literature and gun locks. The VHA also encourages demonstration
projects and research on blister packaging medications as a way to reduce the incidence of
medication overdoses.59 Means restriction is a promising area still under investigation.60
Suicide Hotline
Suicide hotlines are telephone numbers individuals can call for help in crisis situations (e.g., at
the moment they are considering suicide). Hotlines are generally toll-free and available around
the clock. The Veterans Crisis Line is a joint effort of the VHA and SAMHSA.61 The main line (1-
800-273-8255) is the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, operated by SAMHSA.62 Veterans (or
others calling with concerns about veterans) may select option 1 to be directed to the VHA’s
Veterans Crisis Line, answered by staff at the COE in Canandaigua, New York. Callers may
remain anonymous or disclose their identify in order to allow the COE staff to access their VA
medical records during the call. Since the Veterans Crisis Line began in 2007, it has received over
500,000 calls, resulting in over 73,000 referrals to Suicide Prevention Coordinators for same-day
or next-day service. The Veterans Crisis Line is supplemented by an online chat service
(www.VeteransCrisisLine.net/chat) and support via text messaging (text 838255).63
The evidence base for suicide hotlines is not sufficient to determine their effectiveness in
reducing suicide rates, due to the difficulties inherent in conducting such evaluations.64 The
confidentiality of suicide hotlines renders follow-up with each individual caller impossible.
Moreover, national hotlines, such as those operated by SAMHSA and the VHA, serve a large
geographic area. A range of other interventions may be in place in localities within the hotline’s
reach, such that any change in the suicide rate may not be attributable to the hotline.

57 Mechanism of injury for suicides among the general U.S. population in CY2007 identified from Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Compressed Mortality File 1999-2007. CDC WONDER
On-line Database, compiled from Compressed Mortality File 1999-2007 Series 20 No. 2M, 2010,
http://wonder.cdc.gov/cmf-icd10.html.
58 J. John Mann et al., “Suicide Prevention Strategies: A Systematic Review,” Journal of the American Medical
Association, vol. 294, no. 16 (October 26, 2005), pp. 2064-2074.
59 VHA Strategic Plan, Elements 10.4 and 10.6; and VA, Blister Packaging Medication to Increase Treatment
Adherence and Clinical Response: Impact on Suicide-Related Morbidity and Mortality, http://www.mirecc.va.gov/
projects/blisterpack/index.asp.
60 J. John Mann et al., “Suicide Prevention Strategies: A Systematic Review,” Journal of the American Medical
Association, vol. 294, no. 16 (October 26, 2005), pp. 2064-2074.
61 VHA Strategic Plan, Element 6.10.
62 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Suicide Prevention Lifeline,
http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/.
63 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, Understanding and Preventing
Veteran Suicide, 112th Cong., 1st sess., December 2, 2011, testimony of Jan E. Kemp, RN, Ph.D., National Mental
Health Director for Suicide Prevention, Veterans Heath Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
64 J. John Mann et al., “Suicide Prevention Strategies: A Systematic Review,” Journal of the American Medical
Association, vol. 294, no. 16 (October 26, 2005), pp. 2064-2074.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Media Restrictions
Exposure to a suicide—whether through a personal relationship with the decedent or through
media coverage—is a risk factor for suicide.65 In this way, suicide sometimes seems to act as a
contagion, resulting in suicide clusters as one suicide is followed by other imitative suicides.
Following a completed suicide, news media may restrict how suicides are reported (e.g., not
glamorizing suicide or not reporting the specific means), in an effort to reduce the likelihood of
imitative suicides. Evidence has shown that this may reduce suicide at a particular site (e.g., a
bridge); however, more evidence is needed to determine whether this approach reduces the
overall rate of suicide.66 The VA monitors depictions of suicide in the media and (working with
other federal agencies and partners in academia) encourages both news and entertainment media
to depict suicide in a manner that is ethical and responsible.67
Suicide Prevention Coordinators
Per department policy, every VA Medical Center has at least one suicide prevention coordinator,
whose responsibilities include (among other things) tracking patients who have been identified as
at high risk for suicide; the VHA’s computerized patient record system enables clinicians to flag
high-risk patients, and policy requires that safety plans be developed for them.68 A safety plan is a
written document, developed jointly by a patient and a clinician, that identifies strategies for
coping in a crisis (e.g., recognizing warning signs and contacting family members, friends, or
mental health providers). Outside the VA, the use of suicide prevention coordinators has not been
widely adopted, although some components of the program (e.g., safety plans) are widely used.
The suicide prevention coordinator program has been identified as a practice worth emulating by
a DOD task force on suicide prevention.69
Potential Issues for Congress
A recurring theme in recommendations regarding VHA suicide prevention efforts is the need for
the VHA to work in concert with other federal, state, and local government agencies; private for-
profit and not-for-profit health care providers; veterans, their families, and their communities; and
other individuals or organizations that might be able to help. Specific recommendations are
organized in the following subsections, according to the public health framework for suicide

65 National Strategy for Suicide Prevention, p. 36.
66 J. John Mann et al., “Suicide Prevention Strategies: A Systematic Review,” Journal of the American Medical
Association, vol. 294, no. 16 (October 26, 2005), pp. 2064-2074.
67 VHA Strategic Plan, Elements 11.1 and 11.2.
68 VA, Office of Inspector General, Healthcare Inspection: Evaluation of Suicide Prevention Program Implementation
in VHA Facilities, January–June 2009, Report No. 09-00326-223, Washington, DC, September 22, 2009,
http://www.va.gov/oig/54/reports/VAOIG-09-00326-223.pdf; and VA, Office of Inspector General, Combined
Assessment Program Summary Report: Re-Evaluation of Suicide Safety Plan Practices in Veterans Health
Administration Facilities, Report No. 11-01380-128, Washington, DC, March 22, 2011, http://www.va.gov/oig/CAP/
VAOIG-11-01380-128.pdf.
69 Department of Defense Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of the Armed Forces, The Challenge
and the Promise: Strengthening the Force, Preventing Suicide, and Saving Lives, August 2010, pp. 55, 89,
http://www.health.mil/dhb/subcommittees-tfpsmaf.cfm; hereinafter referred to as The Challenge and the Promise.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

prevention: surveillance, risk and protective factors, and interventions. Public laws addressing
suicide prevention among veterans are described in the Appendix.
Potential Issues in Surveillance
As discussed earlier, three challenges in suicide surveillance are (1) timeliness of data, (2)
accurate identification of decedents as veterans, and (3) consistent classification of deaths as
suicides. Addressing these three challenges requires the involvement of entities other than VHA.
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS)70 offers three recommendations related to the
timeliness of data. First, CNAS recommends that “Congress should establish reasonable time
requirements for states to provide death data to the CDC.”71 It should be noted that states,
territories, and cities voluntarily share vital statistics with the CDC. Congress may be able to
facilitate or motivate more rapid data sharing by providing resources or incentives. Second,
CNAS recommends ensuring that the CDC’s ability to compile national death data expeditiously
is not limited by a lack of resources.72 Third, CNAS recommends that the annual analysis of
veteran suicide data be coordinated among VA, DOD, and HHS.73
The VHA can identify decedents as veterans only if they are enrolled with the agency.74
Identification of non-enrolled veterans relies on information gathered in the course of completing
the death certificate or on supplemental information gathered as part of the National Violent
Death Reporting System. VA researchers conducting a one-time study (not ongoing surveillance)
combined information from the National Death Index with information from the DOD’s Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC) to identify suicides among veterans regardless of VA
enrollment.75 Congress may consider whether the DMDC is a source of information that can be
used for suicide surveillance among veterans regardless of enrollment.
It is widely believed that inconsistent reporting of suicides across jurisdictions, as well as
underreporting of suicides in general, limits the effectiveness of surveillance efforts.76
Classification of a death as a suicide requires a determination that the death is both self-inflicted
and intentional. Determining the decedent’s intent is difficult, and coroners or medical examiners
may feel pressure not to classify a death as suicide, due to the stigma associated with suicide.

70 CNAS is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit organization located in Washington; it describes itself as independent and
non-partisan. (http://www.cnas.org/about).
71 Margaret Harrell and Nancy Berglass, Losing the Battle: The Challenge of Military Suicide, Center for a New
American Security, Washington, DC, October 2011, p. 9; hereinafter referred to as Losing the Battle.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 The enrollment file includes veterans receiving benefits from the Veterans Benefits Administration, even if the
veterans are not receiving care from VHA.
75 Han K. Kang and Tim A. Bullman, “Letter: Risk of Suicide Among US Veterans After Returning From the Iraq or
Afghanistan War Zones,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 300, no. 6 (2008), pp. 652-653. The study
was limited to veterans who served in Operations Enduring Freedom and/or Iraqi Freedom and who were separated
alive from active duty between October 2001 and December 2005.
76 See for example Stefan Timmermans, “Suicide determination and the professional authority of medical examiners.,”
American Sociological Review, vol. 70, no. 2 (2005), pp. 311-333; Hugh P. Whitt, “Where did the bodies go? The
social construction of suicide data, New York City, 1976-1992,” Sociological Inquiry, vol. 76, no. 2 (2006), pp. 166-
187; M.J. Breiding and B. Wiersema, “Variability of undetermined manner of death classification in the U.S.,” Injury
Prevention, vol. 12(Suppl II) (2006), pp. ii49-ii54.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Suicides may be underreported when the manner of death is misclassified as “undetermined” or
“accidental” (e.g., poisonings or single-vehicle crashes). Additionally, each jurisdiction (state,
territory, or city) has its own requirements for investigating deaths, leading to variability across
jurisdictions. Congress may be able to facilitate or motivate more standardization by providing
resources or incentives.
Potential Issues in Risk and Protective Factors
Recommendations in the area of risk and protective factors include collaboration and dialogue
both among agencies involved in suicide prevention and across other areas of public health.
CNAS suggests information sharing between the VA, DOD, and HHS77 and recommends that the
House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs initiate discussions with the House and Senate
Armed Services Committees to develop provisions addressing veteran suicide in the National
Defense Authorization Act.78 Charting the Future notes that suicide prevention tends to operate in
its own silo, even though suicide has some of the same risk and protective factors as other public
health problems. It recommends collaboration and dialogue between the suicide prevention effort
and other public health efforts, stating, “Strong dialogue will help prevent the field from endlessly
recreating wheels and spreading the limited funds too broadly to make a sustainable difference.”79
Congress may choose to assess whether current levels of collaboration and dialogue are sufficient
to ensure rapid dissemination of knowledge and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. (Note
that replication of studies is an integral part of the research process, so a distinction may be made
between appropriate and unnecessary duplication of effort.) Congress may mandate, facilitate, or
incentivize additional interagency coordination.
Potential Issues in Interventions
Three issues in VHA suicide prevention interventions that have come before Congress during
hearings are (1) collaboration and dialogue, as discussed above; (2) an apparent gap between
policy and practice; and (3) perceptions about mental illness and mental health care.80
If agencies (federal, state, or local) engage in ongoing collaboration and dialogue, sharing
evaluations of existing interventions and research into new interventions, they may prevent
unnecessary duplication of effort and help build the evidence base more quickly. The
recommendations above regarding information sharing and collaboration pertain to intervention
research as well.81 Charting the Future advocates fast-tracking all phases of the intervention cycle
(designing and pilot testing interventions, implementing interventions, and evaluating

77 Losing the Battle, p. 9.
78 Ibid.
79 Charting the Future, p. 40.
80 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Closing the Gaps, 112th Cong., 1st
sess., July 14, 2011; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Addressing Wait
Times and Access to Care, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 30, 2011; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Veterans’
Affairs, Subcommittee on Health, Understanding and Preventing Veteran Suicide, 112th Cong., 1st sess., December 2,
2011.
81 Losing the Battle, p. 9; and Charting the Future, p. 40.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

interventions), as well as the dissemination of the knowledge gained in each phase.82 Moreover,
congressional testimony has repeatedly called for increased use of non-VA resources, including
other federal, state, and local government agencies; private for-profit and not-for-profit health
care providers; veterans, their families, and their communities; and other individuals or
organizations.83 The use of non-VA resources might help suicide prevention interventions reach
the majority of veterans who do not use VHA services.
A recurring theme in the area of suicide prevention interventions is the apparent gap between
policy and practice. Examples of such a gap include the timeliness of mental health appointments
and the use of evidence-based treatment. Increasing the timeliness of appointments may require
congressional action in the form of additional resources in order to hire more providers, expand
office space, or implement technologies such as telemedicine. Other gaps between policy and
practice, such as the infrequent use of evidence-based treatment, may be possible for the VHA to
address without additional resources; Congress may choose to continue exercising oversight in
such areas.
Perceptions about mental illness and mental health care may affect whether veterans make use of
treatment available to them. The belief that mental illness is a sign of weakness or something
shameful may inhibit individuals or those around them from reaching out. Additionally, the belief
that mental health care is not available, not appropriate, or not effective may discourage veterans
from seeking care. Both stigma and mistaken beliefs may be reduced through discussions that
address the facts of mental illness and mental health care. Thus congressional hearings on suicide,
mental illness, or mental health care may have the unintended—but beneficial—consequence of
reducing stigma and correcting misunderstandings about treatment.84

82 Charting the Future, p. 40.
83 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Addressing Wait Times and Access
to Care, 112th Cong., 1st sess., November 30, 2011; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,
Subcommittee on Health, Understanding and Preventing Veteran Suicide, 112th Cong., 1st sess., December 2, 2011.
84 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, VA Mental Health Care: Closing the Gaps, 112th Cong., 1st
sess., July 14, 2011. Senator Murray mentioned stigma in her opening statement, and it was discussed at several points.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

Appendix. Public Laws Addressing VA Suicide
Prevention Efforts
Since Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom began, four public laws have addressed
VHA suicide prevention efforts: the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act (P.L. 110-
110); the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181); the Veterans’
Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-389); and the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus
Health Services Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-163). Relevant provisions of each are summarized below.
Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act
The Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act (P.L. 110-110), enacted in 2007, required the
VA Secretary to develop and implement a comprehensive suicide prevention program, and to
report to Congress on the program. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that
implementing the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act would have “little, if any, cost,”
because the VA already had implemented or was planning to implement each of the specific
requirements.85 The textbox below lists the required elements and additional authorized elements
of the comprehensive suicide prevention program.
Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act (P.L. 110-110)
Required elements of the comprehensive suicide prevention program include the following:
•
mandatory suicide prevention training for appropriate VA staff and contractors;
•
designation of a suicide prevention counselor at each VA medical center;
•
outreach and education for veterans and their families to promote mental health;
•
mental health assessments of veterans and referrals to appropriate treatment;
•
availability of 24-hour mental health care for veterans;
•
research on best practices for suicide prevention; and
•
research on mental health among veterans with military sexual trauma.
Additional authorized (but not required) elements include the following:
•
a 24-hour tol -free hotline staffed by trained mental health personnel;
•
peer support counseling; and
•
other actions to reduce the incidence of suicide among veterans.


85 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for H.R. 327 Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act,
March 19, 2007; and U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate for S.4797 Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide
Prevention Act, July 10, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Suicide Prevention Efforts of the Veterans Health Administration

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
Section 1611 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (P.L. 110-181)
directed the VA and DOD Secretaries to jointly develop a comprehensive care and transition
policy for servicemembers recovering from serious injuries or illnesses related to their military
service. The law specified that the policy must address (among other things) the training and
skills of health care professionals, recovery coordinators, and case managers, to ensure that they
are able to detect and report early warning signs of suicidal thoughts or behaviors, along with
other behavioral health concerns. The law further specified that the policy must include tracking
the notifications made by recovery care coordinators, medical care case managers, and non-
medical care managers to health care professionals regarding suicidal thoughts or behaviors,
along with other behavioral health concerns. A 2009 Government Accountability Office report
indicates that DOD and VA have developed the relevant policies.86
Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008
Section 809 of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-389) grants the VA
Secretary authority to advertise in the media for various purposes, including suicide prevention.
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
Section 403 of the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-163)
requires the VA Secretary to conduct a study to determine the number of veterans who died by
suicide between January 1, 1999, and May 5, 2010 (i.e., the date of enactment). As of this writing,
the study has not been completed.

Author Contact Information

Erin Bagalman

Analyst in Health Policy
ebagalman@crs.loc.gov, 7-5345


Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the work of Amber Wilhelm, who created the figures in this report.


86 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Recovering Servicemembers: DOD and VA Have Jointly Developed the
Majority of Required Policies but Challenges Remain, GAO-09-728, July 2009, p. 25.
Congressional Research Service
18

---