Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Cardiovascular System, 37594-37607 [2019-15904]
Download as PDF
37594
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 148
Thursday, August 1, 2019
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900–AQ67
Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The
Cardiovascular System
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) proposes to amend the
section of the VA Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD or Rating Schedule)
that addresses the cardiovascular
system. The proposed changes
incorporate medical advances that have
occurred since the last review, update
medical terminology, and clarify
evaluation criteria where necessary.
Where changes to the scientific and/
or medical nature of a given condition
have been proposed, VA has cited the
published, publicly-available sources
for these changes. The proposed
changes are not a reflection of any
particular expert’s comments or
recommendations, but were based on
published, peer-reviewed materials.
Materials from the public forum, held in
2011, are available for public inspection
at the Office of Regulation Policy and
Management (see the ADDRESSES section
of this rulemaking), and other
deliberative materials are cited herein.
DATES: VA must receive comments on or
before September 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
through www.Regulations.gov; by mail
or hand-delivery to the Director, Office
of Regulations Policy and Management
(00REG), Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Room
1064, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax
to (202) 273–9026. Comments should
indicate that they are submitted in
response to RIN 2900–AQ67—Schedule
for Rating Disabilities: The
Cardiovascular System. Copies of
comments received will be available for
public inspection in the Office of
Regulation Policy and Management,
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
Room 1068, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday (except holidays). Please call
(202) 461–4902 for an appointment.
(This is not a toll-free number.) In
addition, during the comment period,
please view comments online through
the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Reynolds, MD, Medical Officer,
Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation
Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–9700.
(This is not a toll-free telephone
number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of
VA’s ongoing revision of the VA
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD
or Rating Schedule), VA proposes
changes to 38 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) §§ 4.100 and 4.104,
which pertain to the cardiovascular
system. The proposed changes will: (1)
Update the medical terminology of
certain conditions; (2) add medical
conditions not currently in the Rating
Schedule; (3) refine evaluation criteria
based on medical advances that have
occurred since the last revision; and (4)
incorporate current understanding of
functional changes associated with, or
resulting from, cardiovascular disease or
injury (pathophysiology).
I. § 4.100 Application of the
Evaluation Criteria for Diagnostic
Codes 7000–7007, 7011, and 7015–7020
In almost all cases, the current § 4.100
specifically requires testing for
metabolic equivalent of tasks when
evaluating heart diseases. Medical
literature more commonly refers to
metabolic equivalent of tasks as simply
metabolic equivalents, or METs.
Exceptions to METs testing for rating
purposes occur when medically
contraindicated, when the left ejection
fraction is 50 percent or less, with
chronic congestive heart failure, when
more than one episode of heart failure
occurred in the past year, or when VA
may assign a 100 percent evaluation on
another basis. 38 CFR 4.100(b). As
explained below, this proposed rule will
eliminate considering ejection fractions
or congestive heart failure when
evaluating cardiovascular disability.
Therefore, for clarity and simplicity, VA
proposes to delete paragraphs (b)(2),
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(b)(3), and (c), and redesignate
paragraphs (b)(4) as (b)(2) of this
section.
II. General Rating Formula for Diseases
of the Heart
VA proposes to revise § 4.104 to
include a new General Rating Formula
for Diseases of the Heart (General
Formula). VA will use this new General
Formula to clarify and standardize the
evaluation of many cardiovascular
diseases. As discussed below, it will
provide a more timely, efficient, and
accurate method of evaluating these
diseases.
The proposed General Formula
reflects current concepts in
cardiovascular disability. The Institute
of Medicine (now called the National
Academy of Medicine) stated, ‘‘It is
important for the Rating Schedule to be
as up-to-date as possible in current
medical approaches and terminology to
serve veterans with disabilities most
effectively. This ensures that the criteria
in the Rating Schedule are based on
concepts and terms used by medical
personnel who provide medical
evidence, and that evolving
understanding of, or recognition of, new
disabling conditions are reflected.’’
Institute of Medicine, Committee on
Medical Evaluation of Veterans for
Disability Compensation, ‘‘A 21st
Century System for Evaluating Veterans
for Disability Benefits,’’ 5 (Michael
McGeary et al. eds. 2007).
As in the current Rating Schedule, the
proposed General Formula is based
primarily on Metabolic equivalents
(METs), which objectively and
accurately measure the cardiac work
capacity and which clinicians routinely
obtain for all patients with heart
disease. The examiner eliminates
spurious results by considering various
parameters, such as age and expected
maximal heart rate achieved when
factors other than heart disease are
present. In situations where a person is
unable to walk, or walk well, the patient
may test on a bicycle or with the use of
certain medications.
VA notes that a number of diagnostic
codes (DCs) within current § 4.104,
including DCs 7000–7007, 7011, 7015–
7017, and 7019–7020, already utilize
METs in evaluating their respective
cardiovascular conditions. Specifically,
each level of evaluation (10, 30, 60, and
100 percent) outlines a range of METs,
as well as a list of associated symptoms,
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
within which an individual must fall to
warrant that particular evaluation.
Additionally, VA may assign higher
ratings (e.g., 60 and 100 percent) for
congestive heart failure or left
ventricular dysfunction as demonstrated
by ejection fraction. Finally, VA may
also assign a 30 percent evaluation with
evidence on electrocardiogram,
echocardiogram, or X-ray of cardiac
hypertrophy or dilatation. Lastly, VA
may assign a 10 percent evaluation if
the condition requires continuous
medication.
VA proposes to rely on METs as the
primary indicator of cardiac ability and
eliminate other indicators currently
found in the VASRD, such as ejection
fractions or the number of any episodes
of acute congestive heart failure in the
past year. These latter indicators are less
reliable in assessing cardiac function.
Congestive heart failure may be due to
poor conditioning, salt consumption,
poor medication compliance, body
weight, additional disease burden, or a
variety of other factors not associated
with the underlying cardiovascular
disease itself. See Joshi, Mohanan et al.,
‘‘Factors precipitating Congestive Heart
Failure—role of patient noncompliance,’’ 47 J. Assoc. Physicians
India 294–95 (Mar. 1999) (emphasizing
‘‘the importance of patient noncompliance with prescribed therapy as
a leading precipitating factor for
congestive heart failure . . . which can
be prevented by appropriate cost saving
strategies aimed to improve patient
compliance.’’) Similarly, ejection
fractions are unreliable because factors
unrelated to cardiovascular disability,
such as fluid intake, salt ingestion, and
exercise, may influence them. See
Ramachandran S. Vasan, MD, et al.,
‘‘Congestive heart failure in subjects
with normal versus reduced left
ventricular ejection fraction,’’ 33(7)
1948–55 (1999). Conversely, METs form
the most reliable basis of cardiac
capability, even after heart disease
weakens the ability of the heart to
function at full capacity. See Charles K.
Morris, MD, et al., ‘‘Nomogram based on
metabolic equivalents and age for
assessing aerobic exercise capacity in
men,’’ 22(1) J. Am. College of
Cardiology, 175–82 (1993).
The heart is often described as the
pump of the human body, and, as such,
requires power to function. Power is the
rate that energy is consumed to work.
Various types of energy employ
different measures of rate (power), such
as kW (kilowatts) for electrical energy;
Btu/hr (British Thermal Units per hour)
for heat energy; hp (horsepower) for
mechanical energy; and, for our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
purposes, METs (metabolic equivalent
of tasks) for cardiac energy.
In evaluating cardiovascular
disabilities, METs refer to the intensity
of activities. For example, an activity
with a MET of 2, such as walking at a
slow pace (e.g., 2 mph), would require
twice the energy that an average person
consumes at rest (e.g., sitting quietly),
which requires 1 MET. See ‘‘The
Compendium of Physical Activities,’’
Arnold School of Public HealthPrevention Research Center, available at
https://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/
compendium.htm. VA does not propose
any alteration to the ranges of METs
provided in the current VASRD, nor
will it eliminate the references to
dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or
syncope. Instead, VA proposes to state
that these symptoms may represent
heart failure. VA also proposes to use
the more common term
‘‘breathlessness’’ for the more obscure
term ‘‘dyspnea,’’ and to expand the list
of common findings associated with
congestive heart failure to include
arrhythmia and palpitations. See
‘‘Congestive Heart Failure,’’ Johns
Hopkins Medicine, available at https://
www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_
vascular_institute/conditions_
treatments/conditions/congestive_
heart_failure.html (last visited Apr. 30,
2014). Although VA proposes to
eliminate the use of congestive heart
failure and ejection fraction as
indicators for evaluation, it will retain
the non-MET criteria provided in the
current 10 and 30 percent evaluations
because these criteria remain valid. Id.
VA proposes to apply the General
Formula to those DCs within § 4.104
that instruct rating personnel to
consider METs (among other
indicators). The DCs using METS as the
primary rating criteria include 7003,
7004, 7005, 7007, 7015, and 7020. On
the other hand, DCs 7000, 7001, 7002,
7006, 7011, 7016, 7017, and 7019 have
100 percent evaluation criteria unique
to each particular DC. VA does not
intend to disturb the 100 percent
evaluations currently prescribed in
these DCs; rather, it proposes to apply
the General Formula following the total
evaluations. To ensure clarity and
consistency in applying the General
Formula, VA intends to instruct
personnel to rate disabilities under
§ 4.104 using the General Formula
unless otherwise directed.
With respect to DCs 7010, 7011, 7015,
and newly proposed DC 7009,
regardless of the DC, the resulting
impairment and disability are
essentially indistinguishable. To offer
more than one evaluation under those
circumstances would be contrary to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37595
§ 4.14 (pyramiding). VA will provide an
instruction immediately before DC 7009
which states ‘‘For DCs 7009, 7010, 7011,
and 7015, a single evaluation will be
assigned under the diagnostic code
which reflects the predominant
disability picture.’’
The discussion that follows explains
the changes to each DC affected by the
General Formula, and explains
additional changes to these DCs (e.g.,
title changes, note changes, etc.).
A. Diagnostic Code 7000
DC 7000 currently provides a 100
percent evaluation during active
infection with valvular heart damage
and for three months following the
cessation of treatment for the active
infection. VA proposes no change to this
provision. Following the three months,
VA will evaluate residual cardiac
disability using the General Rating
Formula for Diseases of the Heart.
B. Diagnostic Codes 7001 and 7002
The current DCs 7001 and 7002
(endocarditis and pericarditis,
respectively) provide a 100 percent
evaluation during active infection with
cardiac involvement, and for three
months following the cessation of
treatment for the active infection. VA
proposes no change to these provisions.
Following the three months, VA will
evaluate any residual cardiac disability
using the General Rating Formula for
Diseases of the Heart.
C. Diagnostic Codes 7003, 7004, 7005,
7007, and 7020
VA proposes to evaluate disability
due to these conditions (pericardial
adhesions, syphilitic heart disease,
arteriosclerotic heart disease,
hypertensive heart disease, and
cardiomyopathy, respectively) using the
General Rating Formula.
D. Diagnostic Code 7006
The current DC 7006 provides a 100
percent evaluation during, and for three
months following, a documented
myocardial infarction. VA proposes no
change to this provision. Following the
three months, VA proposes to evaluate
residual disability under the General
Rating Formula.
E. Diagnostic Code 7011
VA does not propose any change to
the current DC 7011 provisions
establishing a 100 percent evaluation for
sustained ventricular arrhythmia or
ventricular aneurysmectomy from the
date of hospital admission. However,
VA proposes to apply the General
Rating Formula following the
mandatory examination provided six
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
37596
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
months after discharge to determine
residual disability rating.
Additionally, DC 7011 currently
includes a note indicating VA will
conduct a mandatory examination six
months following discharge and therapy
for a sustained arrhythmia or ventricular
aneurysmectomy. The intent is to
monitor the extent of disability
following inpatient hospitalization for
surgical intervention and therapy. VA
proposes to add the phrase ‘‘discharge
from inpatient hospitalization’’ to the
note to clarify that the timing for
mandatory re-examination is based
upon discharge from inpatient
hospitalization, rather than discharge
from an outpatient treatment program.
This proposed clarification does not
represent a change in VA policy.
F. Diagnostic Code 7015
VA proposes to update this DC to
reflect modern treatment and to more
accurately evaluate impairment by
separating the various forms of
atrioventricular block into two specific
categories: benign and non-benign i.e.,
the latter requiring immediate
treatment. ‘‘Types of Heart Block,’’
National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute (July 9, 2012), https://
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/healthtopics/topics/hb/types.html (last visited
April 22, 2014).
The benign, or less severe, category of
atrioventricular block includes firstdegree heart block (first-degree) and
second-degree heart block, type I
(second-degree type I). First-degree
(seen as a delayed or prolonged P–R
interval on electrocardiogram), involves
the slowing of the heart’s electrical
signals, often without any symptoms
and, therefore, without requiring any
treatment. Id. In second-degree type I,
the electrical signals are slowed more
and more with each heartbeat until the
heart eventually skips a beat. An
occasional, transitory, and mild
symptom may be associated with
second-degree type I heart block. Id. No
specific therapy is required for seconddegree type I heart block. Ali A. Sovari,
‘‘Second-Degree Atrioventricular Block
Treatment & Management,’’ Medscape—
Reference (May 9, 2013) https://
emedicine.medscape.com/article/
161919-treatment (last visited April 22,
2014). VA proposes to evaluate the
benign form of atrioventricular block
under the General Rating Formula.
The non-benign, or more severe,
category of atrioventricular block
include second-degree heart block, type
II (second-degree type II) and thirddegree heart block (third-degree). In
second-degree type II, some of the
heart’s electrical signals do not reach
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
the ventricles, which may result in
symptoms of dizziness, lightheadedness, or syncope. In addition,
individuals with second degree may
experience chest pain, hypoperfusion,
and hypotension. Ali A. Sovari,
‘‘Second-Degree Atrioventricular Block
Clinical Presentation,’’ Medscape—
Reference (May 9, 2013), https://
emedicine.medscape.com/article/
161919-clinical (last visited April 22,
2014). Second-degree type II presents a
much more immediate medical risk as it
may progress rapidly to complete heart
block. As a result, affected individuals
may receive permanent pacemakers.
Third-degree heart block occurs when
none of the heart’s electrical signals
reach the ventricles, which often
requires emergency treatment because it
can result in cardiac arrest or death.
Like second-degree type II, this severe
type of atrioventricular block requires
pacemaker implantation. Based on this
treatment, VA proposes to evaluate the
non-benign categories of atrioventricular
block (second-degree, type II and thirddegree) under DC 7018, implantable
cardiac pacemakers. Given the proposed
amendments to DC 7015, the note that
currently follows is no longer relevant.
The VA proposes to remove the note
following DC 7015.
G. Diagnostic Code 7016
VA does not propose any change to
the current DC 7016 provisions
establishing a 100 percent evaluation for
heart valve replacement (prosthesis).
However, VA proposes to apply the
General Rating Formula following the
mandatory examination provided six
months after discharge to determine
residual disability rating.
Additionally, DC 7016 currently
includes a note indicating VA will
examine this disability six months
following discharge. The intent is to
monitor the extent of the disability
following hospitalization for surgery.
Similar to DC 7011, VA proposes to link
the evaluation with discharge from
inpatient hospitalization for this
particular dysrhythmia. This
clarification does not represent a change
in VA policy.
H. Diagnostic Code 7017
DC 7017 currently provides a 100
percent evaluation for three months
following hospital admission for
coronary bypass surgery. VA proposes
no change to this provision. Following
the three months, VA proposes to
evaluate any residual cardiac disability
under the General Rating Formula.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Diagnostic Code 7019
Currently, DC 7019 provides a 100
percent evaluation from the date of
hospital admission for cardiac
transplantation, continuing for ‘‘an
indefinite period.’’ The current note also
states, however, that one year following
discharge, VA should examine the
individual to determine the appropriate
disability rating, assigning a minimum
evaluation of 30 percent. VA applies 38
CFR 3.105(e) to any change in
evaluation. VA proposes no changes to
this process or the minimum evaluation
of 30 percent. However, VA proposes to
eliminate the phrase ‘‘for an indefinite
period’’ and replace it with ‘‘for a
minimum of one year.’’ This will
eliminate any confusion as to whether
the Veteran’s 100 percent evaluation
may be subject to reduction during the
year following transplantation.
Practically, a Veteran will receive a 100
percent evaluation for at least one year
plus hospitalization time as VA will not
re-evaluate the Veteran until one year
following hospital discharge. In
addition to this change, VA proposes to
evaluate residual cardiac disability
under the General Rating Formula.
Additionally, DC 7019 currently
includes a note indicating VA will
examine this disability one year
following discharge. The note’s intent is
to assess the extent of residual cardiac
disability following hospitalization for
surgery. VA proposes to add the phrase
‘‘discharge from inpatient
hospitalization’’ to clarify when the
point at which the timing for mandatory
examination begins. Discharge from an
outpatient treatment program does not
activate this provision. This clarification
does not represent a change in VA
policy.
III. Proposed Changes to Diagnostic
Codes Not Rated Under the General
Formula
A. Diagnostic Code 7008
The DC 7008 addresses hyperthyroid
heart disease. This DC was amended
with the final publication of 82 FR
50804, Schedule for Rating Disabilities;
The Endocrine System, effective
December 10, 2017. VA’s update of the
endocrine system (38 CFR 4.117)
revised the evaluation criteria for
hyperthyroidism under DC 7900. See
RIN 2900–AO44. Specifically, VA
eliminated any current rating criteria in
DC 7900 that referred to cardiovascular
findings. Instead, VA evaluates any
hyperthyroid heart disease under DC
7008, which directs rating personnel to
evaluate any cardiovascular findings
according to the appropriate DC. The
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
VA does not propose any additional
changes for DC 7008 at this time.
B. Diagnostic Code 7010
VA proposes to change the name of
the current DC 7010 from
supraventricular arrhythmias to the
more modern and accurate
supraventricular tachycardia.
Arrhythmia generally refers to an
irregular heartbeat and includes a
heartbeat that is too fast, too slow, or
irregular. ‘‘What Is an Arrhythmia?’’
National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute (July 1, 2011), https://
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/healthtopics/topics/arr/ (last visited April 22,
2014). Supraventricular tachycardia is
an irregularly fast heartbeat that
originates above or within the
atrioventricular node18 or in the upper
part of the heart. Id. The various forms
of supraventricular tachycardia include,
but are not limited to, atrial fibrillation,
atrial flutter, sinus tachycardia,
sinoatrial nodal reentrant tachycardia,
atrioventricular nodal reentrant
tachycardia, atrioventricular reentrant
tachycardia, atrial tachycardia,
junctional tachycardia, and multifocal
atrial tachycardia. Id. VA proposes to
add an explanatory Note 1 to provide a
non-exhaustive list of examples of
supraventricular tachycardia. VA
proposes to use tachycardia, rather than
arrhythmia, in the title to clarify that
rating personnel should use this DC to
evaluate individuals with abnormally
fast heartbeats.
VA also proposes to update the
evaluation criteria for supraventricular
tachycardia, utilizing hospitalization as
a more accurate measure of disability.
The current criteria in DC 7010 assign
evaluations based on the number of
episodes of supraventricular
arrhythmias documented by
electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG) or
Holter monitor, without considering the
need for hospital treatment.
Supraventricular tachycardia is usually
non-lethal and does not result in
disabling symptoms in otherwise
healthy individuals. See ‘‘Paroxysmal
supraventricular tachycardia’’ in
‘‘A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia,’’
PubMed Health, U.S. National Library of
Medicine (June 18, 2012), https://
www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/
article/000183.htm (last visited Apr. 30,
2014). For example, some patients with
supraventricular tachycardias have
many short episodes throughout the day
and remain asymptomatic. Id. Others
may have atrial fibrillation on a
permanent basis, also without
symptoms. These non-disabling
episodes do not require hospitalization
or treatment, but may be recorded
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
incidentally by an ECG or Holter
monitor without any other findings. Id.
Therefore, the mere presence of
episodes of supraventricular
tachycardia, as well as their number, is
unrelated to symptomatology or
disability.
However, some episodes of
supraventricular tachycardia result in
hypotension, shortness of breath,
dizziness, or chest pain in patients who
are older or have underlying cardiac
disorders. Id. These symptomatic
episodes typically require a controlled
medical setting to monitor and treat
heart rate control, anticoagulation,
cardioversion, electrophysiological
studies, or catheter-based arrhythmia
ablation. Id. Medical intervention for
supraventricular tachycardia more
accurately indicates impairment, as the
purpose of treatment is to eliminate or
reduce any disabling symptoms. As
mentioned previously, the mere
documentation of supraventricular
tachycardia on an ECG or Holter
monitor does not confirm the existence
of symptoms or impairment.
As such, VA proposes to replace the
current reference to episodes
documented by ECG or Holter monitor
in DC 7010 with treatment
interventions. For the purposes of this
DC, a treatment intervention occurs
whenever a symptomatic patient
requires intravenous pharmacologic
adjustment, cardioversion, and/or
ablation for symptom relief. For clarity,
VA proposes to add Note 2 to identify
when a treatment occurs. VA will assign
a 10 percent evaluation for
supraventricular tachycardia,
documented by ECG, with one to four
treatment interventions per year; VA
will assign a 30 percent evaluation with
five or more treatment interventions per
year. VA proposes the number of
interventions annually because benign,
non-disabling episodes may occur
throughout the year. However, only
episodes that require treatment
interventions are most likely disabling,
because they require treatment within a
controlled medical setting and typically
prevent an individual from working.
C. Diagnostic Code 7018
DC 7018 currently provides a 100
percent evaluation for two months
following hospital admission for
implantation or reimplantation of a
cardiac pacemaker. Following these two
months, VA evaluates the disability
under DC 7010, 7011, or 7015, with a
minimum evaluation of 10 percent.
Advances in surgical methods and
medical technology have drastically
reduced the recovery time following
implantation of a cardiac pacemaker.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37597
Surgical techniques for cardiac
pacemakers have changed and improved
drastically over the past several years
and recovery currently requires less
than 30 days. According to the National
Institutes of Health (NIH),
hospitalization following surgical
implantation of a pacemaker usually
lasts one to two days. ‘‘What to Expect
After Pacemaker Surgery,’’ NIH—
National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute (February 28, 2012), https://
www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/healthtopics/topics/pace/after.html (last
visited April 14, 2014). NIH also
indicates that mild pain, swelling, and
tenderness at the site of pacemaker
implantation may continue from a few
days to a few weeks. Id. While
healthcare providers may instruct
patients to avoid vigorous activity,
including heavy lifting, for up to one
month following surgery, most patients
may return to their normal activity level
within a few days. Id. VA proposes to
reduce the period of 100 percent
evaluation from two months to one
month. Additionally, VA proposes to
add a second note to this DC, crossreferencing DC 7009, which will be
addressed in greater detail below. VA
proposes no other changes to this DC.
D. Diagnostic Code 7110
The current DC 7110 addresses
impairment due to aortic aneurysm. VA
proposes to change the name of the code
to ‘‘Aortic aneurysm: ascending,
thoracic, or abdominal’’ to clarify the
location of aortic aneurysm that this DC
will evaluate.
VA proposes to eliminate the 60
percent evaluation for an aortic
aneurysm that precludes exertion while
expanding the criteria for a 100 percent
evaluation to include symptomatic
aneurysm (e.g., precludes exertion). VA
proposes to omit the 60 percent category
as it is does not provide an adequate
evaluation for a symptomatic aneurysm
in which exertion may hasten rupture.
See Emile R. Mohler III, MD, ‘‘Patient
information: Abdominal aortic
aneurysm (Beyond the Basics),’’ Up-todate (Aug. 21, 2013), https://
www.uptodate.com/contents/
abdominal-aortic-aneurysm-beyond-thebasics#H4 (last visited May 2, 2014). A
symptomatic aneurysm presents a
medical emergency and requires
surgical treatment to prevent the
aneurysm from rupturing. Id. Under the
proposed criteria, VA will grant a total
evaluation when a patient becomes a
surgical candidate and is unable to exert
him/herself.
Additionally, if a person cannot exert
him/herself due to aortic aneurysm but
is unable to undergo surgery due to a co-
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
37598
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
morbid medical condition (e.g., kidney
dysfunction requiring dialysis), VA will
grant a total evaluation. Jeffrey Jim, MD
and Robert W. Thompson, MD,
‘‘Management of symptomatic (nonruptured) and ruptured abdominal
aortic aneurysm,’’ UpToDate (Feb. 12,
2013), https://www.uptodate.com/
contents/management-of-symptomaticnon-ruptured-and-ruptured-abdominalaortic-aneurysm?source=see_
link&anchor=H53322839#H53322839
(last visited May 5, 2014). ‘‘Although
there are rare reports of patient survival
following ruptured abdominal aortic
aneurysm (AAA) without repair, in
general, expectant management of
ruptured AAA is nearly uniformly fatal.
Thus, when ruptured AAA is identified,
repair should be undertaken emergently
to give the patient the best chance for
survival.’’ Id. As such, expanding the
100 percent evaluation to the date a
physician recommended surgical
correction will include Veterans who
have severely disabling aneurysms but,
due to co-morbid medical conditions or
other reasons, cannot undergo surgical
intervention. This 100 percent
evaluation will continue for six months
following hospital discharge.
In addition, VA proposes to add a 0
percent rating if an aneurysm is present
but does not meet the requirements for
surgical correction. Asymptomatic
aneurysms may expand rapidly until
they require surgical correction, so they
need close medical follow-up. This
provision allowing service connection
for aneurysms not requiring surgery
eliminates barriers to frequent medical
check-ups by VA to monitor the
progress of those aneurysms.
VA will also add a directive for raters
to evaluate non-cardiovascular residuals
according to the body systems affected.
This is done to take into acount any
disabling residuals related to surgical
correction (e.g., infection, bowel
adhesions, kidney failure, and so forth).
The current DC 7110 also includes a
note indicating that VA will assign the
100 percent rating as of the date of
admission for surgical correction. VA
will re-evaluate the condition after a
mandatory examination six months
following discharge. VA proposes to add
the phrase ‘‘discharge from inpatient
hospitalization’’ to clarify that the
starting point to calculate the mandatory
re-examination begins with discharge
from inpatient hospitalization. VA also
proposes to clarify in the rating criteria
for a 100 percent evaluation that it shall
assign the 100 percent evaluation as of
the date a physician recommends
surgical correction. This practice will
allow VA to assign 100 percent
evaluations to individuals who require
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
surgical correction but, due to comorbid medical conditions or other
reasons, cannot undergo surgical
procedures.
E. Diagnostic Code 7111
The current DC 7111 provides 100
percent evaluations for aneurysms of
large arteries which are symptomatic. It
also provides 100 percent evaluations
for indefinite periods of time from the
date of hospital admission for surgical
corrections. VA proposes to amend the
latter criteria to provide a 100 percent
evaluation from the date a physician
recommends surgical correction, rather
than the date of hospital admission.
Aneurysms of any large artery are
known to spontaneously rupture,
which, depending on its location, can
lead to death if not immediately
addressed by surgery.
This expansion to the 100 percent
evaluation criteria requires that VA
amend the note in DC 7111. Currently,
VA assigns the 100 percent rating as of
the date of admission for surgical
correction, and VA assesses any residual
disability by a mandatory examination
six months following discharge. VA
proposes to add the phrase ‘‘discharge
from inpatient hospitalization’’ in the
criteria note to clarify that the timing for
the mandatory re-examination is based
upon discharge from inpatient
hospitalization. Additionally, VA
proposes to clarify that it shall assign
the 100 percent evaluation beginning
from the date a physician recommends
surgical correction, in the event
individuals who require surgical
correction cannot undergo it due to comorbid medical conditions or other
reasons. The 100 percent evaluation
shall continue for six months following
hospital discharge for surgical
correction.
The current DC 7111 provides rating
criteria following surgical intervention
that is based on the ankle-brachial
index, claudication on walking certain
distances, and other symptoms related
to poor blood flow to the extremities.
These criteria provide for evaluations
ranging from 20 to 100 percent; notes (1)
and (2) provide additional information
when evaluating post-surgical large
artery aneurysms. The residual
disabilities after post-surgical repair of
large artery aneurysms are similar to
those under DC 7114. For greater ease of
use and simplicity, VA therefore
proposes to remove these criteria and
notes and replace them with
instructions to evaluate post-surgical
residuals under DC 7114. The section of
the preamble below specifically
addressing DC 7114 discusses any
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
changes related to these criteria and
notes.
F. Diagnostic Code 7113
DC 7113, arteriovenous (AV) fistula,
traumatic, currently includes the phrase
‘‘with edema’’ as one of the disabling
symptoms present at the 50, 40, 30, and
20 percent levels. However, such
wording does not distinguish between
chronic and transitory edema, resulting
in evaluations that may be based on
symptoms that are unrelated to
arteriovenous fistula or do not
adequately represent its chronic
residual disability. Transitory edema
may occur following prolonged
standing, prolonged sitting during
travel, the wearing of tight hosiery,
taking certain medications, consuming
excessive salt, or being pregnant.
Transitory edema due to these causes is
non-disabling and typically resolves
without complication.
However, edema due to an AV fistula
requires medical treatment and may
impair function. Therefore, VA proposes
to clarify that evaluations at the 50, 40,
30, and 20 percent levels under DC 7113
must involve ‘‘chronic edema’’ to better
comply with 38 CFR 4.1, which states
the accurate application of the VASRD
requires an emphasis upon ‘‘the
limitation of activity imposed by the
disabling condition.’’
G. Diagnostic Code 7114
The current DC 7114, titled
‘‘Arteriosclerosis obliterans,’’ addresses
impairment of the lower extremities due
to narrowing and hardening of the
arteries. The term ‘‘arteriosclerosis’’ is
also used in current note (2). VA
proposes to replace the term
‘‘arteriosclerosis obliterans’’ with
‘‘peripheral arterial disease’’ to conform
to current medical terminology. Peter
Libby et al., ‘‘Braunwald’s Heart
Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular
Medicine,’’ 1491–1515 (8th ed. 2007).
The evaluation criteria of the current
DC 7114 include the ankle/brachial
index (ABI), associated examination
findings and symptoms, or claudication
(pain in the extremities) upon walking
certain distances. The current criteria,
however, have two major shortcomings:
(1) They do not account for veterans
with non-compressible arteries (these
veterans have either a normal or
elevated ABI, which would be noncompensable); and (2) they rely in large
part on claudication, which is an
inconsistent measure of disability. To
that end, VA will employ a more
objective approach as outlined below.
VA will create evaluation criteria
based on a modified version of the
ischemia scoring table found in J. Mills,
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
‘‘The Society for Vascular Surgery
Lower Extremity Threatened Limb
Classification System: Risk stratification
based on Wound, Ischemia, and foot
Infection (WIfI)’’ J Vasc Surg; vol 59, pg
226. 2014. This table uses the ABI, as
well as ankle pressure (AP), toe pressure
(TP) and transcutaneous oximetry
(TcPO2) to describe four different levels
of impairment. The ABI is the ratio of
the systolic blood pressure measured at
the ankle to that measured at the
antecubital fossa. For VA disability
compensation purposes, normal is
greater than or equal to 0.80. The reason
this normal value is used, rather than
normal values cited in the 2016 ACC/
AHA Guidelines is that an ABI between
0.90 and 0.81 is not consistently
associated with objective signs of
disability beyond symptomatic
complaints (e.g., wounds or infections).
The AP is the systolic blood pressure
measured at the ankle. Normal is greater
than or equal to 100 mm Hg. The TP is
the systolic blood pressure measured at
the great toe. Normal is greater than or
equal to 60 mm Hg. TcPO2 is measured
at the first intercostal space on the foot.
Normal is greater than or equal to 60
mm Hg. See also M. Kalani
‘‘Transcutaneous Oxygen Tension and
Toe Blood Pressure as Predictors for
Outcome of Diabetic Foot Ulcers,’’
Diabetes Care, vol. 22, Pgs 147–52. 1999.
The levels of impairment as described
in the previously referenced ischemia
scoring table directly correlate to levels
of disability (i.e., evaluation levels). VA
will slightly modify this table to
describe four levels of disability (and
thus, evaluation levels) consistent with
these criteria, while preserving the 20,
40, 60, and 100 percent evaluation
levels.
Turning to the three notes associated
with DC 7114, VA will make two
significant revisions. First, VA will
revise Note (1) to add definitions and
normal values for ABI, AP, TP, and
TcPO2. Next, VA will redesignate
current Note (2) as Note (3), and current
Note (3) as Note (4). Finally, VA will
then add a new Note (2), which directs
the rater to select the value (ABI, AP,
TP, or TcPO2) which yields the highest
level of impairment for evaluation.
H. Diagnostic Code 7115
DC 7115 currently uses lower
extremity findings to evaluate thromboangiitis obliterans (Buerger’s Disease).
VA proposes new criteria for the
evaluation of upper extremity disease
because Buerger’s Disease can affect
either upper or lower extremities.
Buerger’s disease is a nonatherosclerotic
segmental inflammatory disease that
affects the small and medium-sized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
arteries, veins, and nerves of the arms,
legs, and rarely elsewhere. See Topol,
E.J., Textbook of Cardiovascular
Medicine Chap. 108, Pg 1535. (2007).
DC 7115 currently evaluates impairment
of the lower extremity using the ankle/
brachial index (ABI) or associated signs
and symptoms upon examination (as
found in current DC 7114). For the
reasons discussed above in DC 7114, VA
proposes to clarify the evaluation
criteria by using objective signs, with
the ABI as the primary criteria for the
lower extremities. VA proposes to delete
claudication on walking from all
evaluation criteria as it inaccurately
measures the extent of this disability.
VA also proposes to remove current
Note (1), as DC 7115 will now direct
rating personnel to evaluate lower
extremities under DC 7114 and the
information regarding the ABI is
contained in that diagnostic code. With
elimination of current Note (1), VA
proposes to rename existing Note (2) as
Note (1) with clarification similar to that
proposed in Note (3) DC 7114 (as
explained above). Additionally, a new
Note (2) is proposed to give raters
examples of trophic changes so it will
be easier to recognize when encountered
in clinical documentation.
I. Diagnostic Code 7117
Currently, DC 7117 addresses
impairment due to Raynaud’s
syndrome, in which cold or stress
abnormally reduces blood flow in the
extremities. Raynaud’s syndrome (also
called secondary Raynaud’s
phenomenon) is often confused with
Raynaud’s disease (also called primary
Raynaud’s phenomenon or primary
Raynaud’s), which is different in terms
of etiology and severity. While both
conditions present with vasospasm,
Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s
phenomenon) has few, if any, long term
residuals. In contrast, Raynaud’s
syndrome (secondary Raynaud’s
phenomenon) is associated with another
illness, most commonly an autoimmune
disease. The residuals tend to be
permanent, more extensive, and more
disabling. To improve clarity, ensure
more accurate evaluations, and promote
consistency and usability of the VASRD,
VA proposes to focus DC 7117 on
Raynaud’s syndrome (secondary
Raynaud’s phenomenon) only, while
creating a new DC 7124 for Raynaud’s
disease (primary Raynaud’s
phenomenon or primary Raynaud’s). In
addition, VA proposes to use the
existing note to emphasize that DC 7117
is only for evaluating Raynaud’s
syndrome (secondary Raynaud’s
phenomenon), and add a note
emphasizing that Raynaud’s disease
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37599
(primary Raynaud’s phenomenon)
should be rated under DC 7124.
As stated, Raynaud’s syndrome
(secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon)
and Raynaud’s disease (primary
Raynaud’s phenomenon) are unrelated
in both etiology and severity. According
to the NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute, Raynaud’s syndrome
(secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon) is
typically caused by autoimmune
diseases such as scleroderma, lupus,
rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis, or
polycythemia. ‘‘Raynaud Phenomenon.’’
Medscape (September 6, 2017), https://
emedicine.medscape.com/article/
331197-overview (last visited September
12, 2017).
On the other hand. the cause of
Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s
phenomenon) is not known. Id.
Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s
phenomenon) is more common and
tends to be less severe than Raynaud’s
syndrome (secondary Raynaud’s
phenomenon). Ray W. Gifford, Jr. &
Edgar A. Hines, Jr., ‘‘Raynaud’s Disease
Among Women and Girls,’’ 16
Circulation 1012, 1019 (1957). VA
discusses how to properly evaluate
Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s
phenomenon) below in the section
proposing the new DC 7124. No other
changes are proposed to DC 7117.
J. Diagnostic Code 7120
DC 7121 currently evaluates postphlebitic syndrome of any etiology, with
its rating criteria identical to that used
in DC 7120, Varicose veins. VA
currently maintains separate DCs for
these disabilities to monitor in the
Veteran population the incidence and
outcome of claims for these specific and
separate diagnoses. However, for clarity,
consistency, and improved ease of use,
VA proposes to delete the duplicative
rating criteria and instruct rating
personnel to evaluate DC 7120, Varicose
veins, under DC 7121, Post-phlebitic
syndrome. VA does not propose any
changes to the content of DC 7121 itself.
K. Diagnostic Code 7122
VA last amended the rating criteria for
DC 7122, Cold injury residuals, in 1998.
63 FR 37778. In the time since,
medicine has documented new chronic
residuals of cold injury. Therefore, VA
proposes to update the criteria to
include the findings specifically noted
by the Veterans Health Initiative,
Department of Veterans Affairs, ‘‘Cold
Injury: Diagnosis and Management of
Long-Term Sequelae,’’ revised in March
2002. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/
docs/vhi/coldinjury.pdf
This study collected medical and
anecdotal information on cold injury
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
37600
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
residuals from veterans. The study
indicated that the effects of cold
weather injuries may be irreversible and
worsen with age. Id. at 15. The residuals
of cold injuries include residual pain,
numbness, cold sensitivity, tissue loss,
nail abnormalities, color changes,
locally impaired sensation,
hyperhidrosis, x-ray abnormalities,
anhydrosis, muscle atrophy, muscle
fibrosis, deformity in flexion and/or
extension of certain joints, loss of fat
pads in the fingers and toes, bone death,
skin ulcers, and carpal or tarsal tunnel
syndrome. Id. at 24–25. VA proposes to
include these updated residuals of cold
injuries within this DC, which assigns
evaluations based on the number of cold
injury residuals present.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Proposed New Diagnostic Codes
A. New Diagnostic Code 7009
VA proposes to add a new DC 7009,
titled ‘‘Bradycardia (Bradyarrhythmia),
symptomatic, requiring permanent
pacemaker implantation,’’ to account for
impairment in the Veteran population
due to this condition. Individuals
generally have a normal resting heart
rate ranging from 60 to 100 beats per
minute. Individuals with bradycardia,
however, have a resting heart rate of less
than 60 beats per minute.
‘‘Bradycardia,’’ Harvard Health Topic at
Drugs.com, https://www.drugs.com/
health-guide/bradycardia.html (last
visited May 5, 2014). Notably,
asymptomatic bradycardia occurs
normally in individuals when sleeping
and in many healthy, athletic adults. Id.
See also ‘‘Bradycardia (Slow Heart
Rate)—Topic Overview,’’ WebMD (Nov.
21, 2011), https://www.webmd.com/
heart-disease/tc/bradycardia-slowheart-rate-overview (last visited May 5,
2014). It should be noted that
asymptomatic bradycardia is a medical
finding, does not require medical
intervention, and is not subject to
service-connected compensation.
Symptomatic bradycardia can be
caused by changes due to aging, certain
medications, diseases, and infections,
all of which can damage the heart and
slow its electrical impulses. See Amy
Scholten, MPH, ‘‘Bradycardia
(Bradyarrhythmia),’’ NYU Langone
Cardiac and Vascular Institute, 2–3 (Feb.
2008). When medical management for
symptomatic bradycardia is not
effective, a pacemaker implant is the
treatment of choice. Id. at 3.
Implantation of a pacemaker aids in
normalizing the heart rate and returning
the individual to baseline cardiac
function. VA proposes to evaluate this
condition at 100 percent for one month
following hospitalization for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
implantation or re-implantation.
Following the initial month, the
disability will be evaluated using the
General Rating Formula. To assist rating
personnel in understanding and
evaluating bradycardia, VA also
proposes to include a note under DC
7009 which defines bradycardia and
describes the five general classes of
bradyarrhythmias.
B. New Diagnostic Code 7124
VA proposes to add a new DC 7124,
titled ‘‘Raynaud’s disease (also known
as primary Raynaud’s phenomenon or
primary Raynaud’s):.’’ The VASRD
currently evaluates Raynaud’s disease
using the criteria under DC 7117, which
is for ‘‘Raynaud’s syndrome,’’ a different
and more severe disability. Therefore,
VA proposes a new DC to specifically
evaluate Raynaud’s disease. This DC
will also include notes to define
characteristic attacks as well as to
emphasize rating Raynaud’s syndrome
(Raynaud’s phenomenon, Secondary
Raynaud’s) under DC 7117.
As stated previously, Raynaud’s
disease is more common and tends to be
less severe than Raynaud’s syndrome.
The Mayo Clinic performed a study
involving 474 women and girls with
Raynaud’s disease. Follow-up
information obtained from 307 of those
who received conservative treatment
confirmed the benign nature of the
disease, with no deaths attributed to it
and extremely little disability. The
study found that uncomplicated
Raynaud’s disease may be inconvenient
because of the need to protect the
extremities from cold and trauma, but it
is not disabling.
Raynaud’s disease, the less severe
form of Raynaud’s, rarely involves
trophic changes because it involves brief
spasms of the arteries rather than
occlusion of the peripheral arteries. See
‘‘What is Raynaud’s?’’ National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute (Mar. 21,
2014), https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/
health/health-topics/topics/raynaud/
(last visited May 5, 2014). Furthermore,
when trophic changes are present, they
are limited to the distal skin of the
digits. ‘‘Raynaud’s disease,’’ Mayo
Clinic (Oct. 20, 2011), https://
www.mayoclinic.org/diseasesconditions/raynauds-disease/basics/
complications/con-20022916 (last
visited May 5, 2014). Therefore, VA
proposes a non-compensable evaluation
when Raynaud’s disease manifests
without lasting impairment in the form
of trophic changes. VA proposes a 10
percent evaluation with residual trophic
changes (e.g., skin changes such as
thinning, atrophy fissuring, ulceration,
scarring, absence of hair; nail changes
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(clubbing, deformities).) VA proposes
the addition of a note to provide
examples of trophic changes for
clarification purposes, consistent with
other proposed changes.
VA also proposes to include a note to
clarify and assist assigning evaluations
under this DC by defining a
characteristic attack of Raynaud’s
disease. As with DC 7117, this note will
also indicate that evaluations under this
code are for the disease as a whole. To
further promote clarity and consistency,
another proposed note would
emphasize that the purpose of DC 7124
is to evaluate only Raynaud’s disease, as
opposed to Raynaud’s syndrome. A
veteran cannot receive simultaneous
ratings under both DC 7117 and DC
7124, because Raynaud’s disease and
Raynaud’s syndrome cannot be
comorbid conditions.
Effect of Rulemaking
Title 38 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as revised by this proposed
rulemaking, would represent VA’s
implementation of its legal authority on
this subject. Other than future
amendments to these regulations or
governing statutes, no contrary guidance
or procedures are authorized. All
existing or subsequent VA guidance
must be read to conform with this
proposed rulemaking if possible or, if
not possible, such guidance is
superseded by this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity).
Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action,’’ which requires
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), as ‘‘any regulatory action
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) Materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive Order.’’
The economic, interagency,
budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this regulatory action
have been examined and it has been
determined to be a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866,
because it raises novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive Order. VA’s
impact analysis can be found as a
supporting document at https://
www.regulations.gov, usually within 48
hours after the rulemaking document is
published. Additionally, a copy of the
rulemaking and its impact analysis are
available on VA’s website at https://
www.va.gov/orpm by following the link
for VA Regulations Published from FY
2004 through Fiscal Year to Date. This
proposed rule is not expected to be
subject to the requirements of EO13771
because this proposed rule is expected
to result in no more than de minimis
costs.
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulatory action contains
provisions constituting a collection of
information under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
The information collection
requirements for 38 CFR 3.151 are
associated with this rule, but do not
constitute a new or revised collection of
information; OMB has already approved
these requirements under control
number 2900–0747.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that the
adoption of this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This
rule would not directly affect any small
entities; only individuals could be
directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from
the initial and final regulatory flexibility
analysis requirements of sections 603
and 604.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that
agencies prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
1 year. This rule will have no such
effect on State, local, and tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
37601
§ 4.100 Application of the evaluation
criteria for diagnostic codes 7000–7007,
7011, and 7015–7020.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Even if the requirement for a 10%
(based on the need for continuous
medication) or 30% (based on the
presence of cardiac hypertrophy or
dilatation) evaluation is met, METs
testing is required in all cases except:
(1) When there is a medical
contraindication.
(2) When a 100% evaluation can be
assigned on another basis.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
The Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance program numbers and titles
for this rule are 64.104, Pension for
Non-Service-Connected Disability for
Veterans; 64.109, Veterans
Compensation for Service-Connected
Disability; and 64.110, Veterans
Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation for Service-Connected
Death.
■
■
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155, unless
otherwise noted.
3. Amend § 4.104 by:
a. Adding the General Rating Formula
for Diseases of the Heart
■ b. Adding the instruction to DCs 7000,
7001, 7002, 7006, 7017 to evaluate
disability using the General Rating
Formula to evaluate residual disability
after three months
■ c. Adding the instruction to DCs 7003,
7004, 7005, 7007, and 7020 to evaluate
disability using the General Rating
Formula
■ d. Adding the instruction to DCs 7011,
7016 to evaluate disability using the
General Rating Formula by mandatory
examination six months after discharge
■ e. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7015
■ f. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7019
■ g. Retitling and revise the evaluation
criteria for DC 7010
■ h. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7018
■ i. Retitling and revise the evaluation
criteria for DC 7110
■ j. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7111
■ k. Revising DC 7113 to add
explanatory information
■ l. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7114
■ m. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7115
■ n. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7117
■ o. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7120
■ p. Revising the evaluation criteria for
DC 7122
■ q. Adding new DC 7009
■ r. Adding new DC 7124.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
2. Revise § 4.100 paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
§ 4.104 Schedule of ratings—
cardiovascular system.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4
Disability benefits, Pensions,
Veterans.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or
designee, approved this document and
authorized the undersigned to submit it
to the Office of the Federal Register for
electronic publication as an official
document of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document on April 10,
2019, for publication.
Dated: July 23, 2019.
Jeffrey M. Martin,
Assistant Director, Office of Regulation Policy
& Management, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, VA proposes to amend 38
CFR part 4 as set forth below:
PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING
DISABILITIES
Subpart B—Disability Ratings
1. The authority citation for part 4
continues to read as follows:
■
■
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
37602
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Rating
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Diseases of the Heart
Unless otherwise directed, use this general rating formula to evaluate diseases of the heart.
Note (1): Evaluate cor pulmonale, which is a form of secondary heart disease, as part of the pulmonary condition that causes it.
Note (2): One MET (metabolic equivalent) is the energy cost of standing quietly at rest and represents an oxygen uptake of 3.5
milliliters per kilogram of body weight per minute. When the level of METs at which breathlessness, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope develops is required for evaluation, and a laboratory determination of METs by exercise testing cannot be
done for medical reasons, a medical examiner may estimate the level of activity (expressed in METs and supported by specific examples, such as slow stair climbing or shoveling snow) that results in those symptoms.
Note (3): For this general formula, heart failure symptoms include, but are not limited to, breathlessness, fatigue, angina, dizziness, arrhythmia, palpitations, or syncope.
General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart:
Workload of 3.0 METs or less results in heart failure symptoms ................................................................................................
Workload of 3.1–5.0 METs results in heart failure symptoms .....................................................................................................
Workload of 5.1–7.0 METs results in heart failure symptoms; or evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation confirmed by
echocardiogram or equivalent (e.g., multigated acquisition scan or magnetic resonance imaging) .......................................
Workload of 7.1–10.0 METs results in heart failure symptoms; or continuous medication required for control .........................
7000 Valvular heart disease (including rheumatic heart disease), 7001 Endocarditis, or 7002 Pericarditis:
During active infection with cardiac involvement and for three months following cessation of therapy for the active infection
Thereafter, with diagnosis confirmed by findings on physical examination and either echocardiogram, Doppler echocardiogram, or cardiac catheterization, use the General Rating Formula.
7003 Pericardial adhesions.
7004 Syphilitic heart disease:
Note: Evaluate syphilitic aortic aneurysms under DC 7110 (Aortic aneurysm: Ascending, thoracic, abdominal).
7005 Arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease).
Note: If non-service-connected arteriosclerotic heart disease is superimposed on service-connected valvular or other nonarteriosclerotic heart disease, request a medical opinion as to which condition is causing the current signs and symptoms.
7006 Myocardial infarction:
During and for three months following myocardial infarction, confirmed by laboratory tests ......................................................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
7007 Hypertensive heart disease.
7008 Hyperthyroid heart disease:
Rate under the appropriate cardiovascular diagnostic code, depending on particular findings.
For DCs 7009, 7010, 7011, and 7015, a single evaluation will be assigned under the diagnostic code which reflects the predominant disability picture.
7009 Bradycardia (Bradyarrhythmia), symptomatic, requiring permanent pacemaker implantation:
For one month following hospital discharge for implantation or re-implantation .........................................................................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
Note (1): Bradycardia (bradyarrhythmia) refers to conduction abnormalities that produce a heart rate less than 60 beats/
min. There are five general classes of bradyarrhythmias:
—Sinus bradycardia, including sinoatrial block;
—Atrioventricular (AV) junctional (nodal) escape rhythm;
—AV heart block (second or third degree) or AV dissociation;
—Atrial fibrillation or flutter with a slow ventricular response; and
—Idioventricular escape rhythm.
Note (2): Asymptomatic bradycardia (bradyarrhythmia) is a medical finding which does not require medical intervention,
thus, it is not entitled to service connection.
7010 Supraventricular tachycardia:
Confirmed by ECG, with five or more treatment interventions per year ......................................................................................
Confirmed by ECG, with one to four treatment interventions per year .......................................................................................
Note (1): Examples of supraventricular tachycardia include, but are not limited to, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, sinus tachycardia, sinoatrial nodal reentrant tachycardia, atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia, atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia, atrial tachycardia, junctional tachycardia, and multifocal atrial tachycardia.
Note (2): For the purposes of this diagnostic code, a treatment intervention occurs whenever a symptomatic patient requires intravenous pharmacologic adjustment, cardioversion, and/or ablation for symptom relief.
7011 Ventricular arrhythmias (sustained):
For an indefinite period from the date of hospital admission for initial medical therapy for a sustained ventricular arrhythmia;
or for an indefinite period from the date of hospital admission for ventricular aneurysmectomy; or with an automatic
implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) in place ...............................................................................................................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient hospitalization for sustained ventricular arrhythmia or for ventricular
aneurysmectomy, disability evaluation shall be conducted by mandatory VA examination using the General Rating Formula. Apply the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter to any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent
examination.
7015 Atrioventricular block:
Benign (First-Degree and Second-Degree, Type I):
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula.
Non-Benign (Second-Degree, Type II and Third-Degree):
Evaluate under DC 7018 (implantable cardiac pacemakers).
7016 Heart valve replacement (prosthesis):
For an indefinite period following date of hospital admission for valve replacement ..................................................................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
100
60
30
10
100
100
100
30
10
100
100
37603
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Rating
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient hospitalization, disability evaluation shall be conducted by mandatory
VA examination using the General Rating Formula. Apply the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter to any change in
evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination.
7017 Coronary bypass surgery:.
For three months following hospital admission for surgery .........................................................................................................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
7018 Implantable cardiac pacemakers:
For one month following hospital discharge for implantation or re-implantation .........................................................................
Thereafter:
Evaluate as supraventricular tachycardia (DC 7010), ventricular arrhythmias (DC 7011), or atrioventricular block (DC
7015).
Minimum ................................................................................................................................................................................
Note (1): Evaluate automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (AICDs) under DC 7011.
7019 Cardiac transplantation:
For a minimum of one year from the date of hospital admission for cardiac transplantation .....................................................
Thereafter:
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula.
Minimum ................................................................................................................................................................................
Note: One year following discharge from inpatient hospitalization, determine the appropriate disability rating by mandatory
VA examination. Apply the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter to any change in evaluation based upon that or any
subsequent examination.
7020 Cardiomyopathy.
100
100
10
100
30
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Diseases of the Arteries and Veins
7110 Aortic aneurysm: Ascending, thoracic, or abdominal:
If 5 centimeters (cm) or larger in diameter; or, if symptomatic (e.g., precludes exertion) and a physician recommends surgical correction, for the period beginning on the date a physician recommends surgical correction and continuing for six
months following hospital discharge for surgical correction (including any type of graft insertion) .........................................
If less than 5 cm in diameter; or, surgical correction not recommended ....................................................................................
Evaluate non-cardiovascular residuals of surgical correction according to organ systems affected.
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient hospitalization for surgery, disability evaluation shall be determined by
mandatory VA examination of cardiovascular residuals using the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart. Any
change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject to the provisions of § 3.105(e) of
this chapter.
7111 Aneurysm, any large artery:
If symptomatic; or, for the period beginning on the date a physician recommends surgical correction and continuing for six
months following discharge from inpatient hospital admission for surgical correction ............................................................
Following surgery: Evaluate under DC 7114 (peripheral arterial disease).
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient hospitalization for surgery, determine the appropriate disability rating by
mandatory VA examination. Any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination shall be subject
to the provisions of § 3.105(e) of this chapter.
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
7113 Arteriovenous fistula, traumatic:
With high-output heart failure .......................................................................................................................................................
Without heart failure but with enlarged heart, wide pulse pressure, and tachycardia .................................................................
Without cardiac involvement but with chronic edema, stasis dermatitis, and either ulceration or cellulitis:
Lower extremity .....................................................................................................................................................................
Upper extremity .....................................................................................................................................................................
Without cardiac involvement but with chronic edema or stasis dermatitis:
Lower extremity .....................................................................................................................................................................
Upper extremity .....................................................................................................................................................................
7114 Peripheral arterial disease:
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index less than or equal to 0.39; ankle pressure less than 50 mm Hg; toe pressure less than 30 mm Hg; or transcutaneous oxygen tension less than 30 mm Hg ...............................................................
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index of 0.40–0.53; ankle pressure of 50–65 mm Hg; toe pressure of 30–39
mm Hg; or transcutaneous oxygen tension of 30–39 mm Hg .................................................................................................
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index of 0.54–0.66; ankle pressure of 66–83 mm Hg; toe pressure of 40–49
mm Hg; or transcutaneous oxygen tension of 40–49 mm Hg .................................................................................................
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index of 0.67–0.79; ankle pressure of 84–99 mm Hg; toe pressure of 50–59
mm Hg; or transcutaneous oxygen tension of 50–59 mm Hg .................................................................................................
Note (1): The ankle/brachial index (ABI) is the ratio of the systolic blood pressure at the ankle divided by the simultaneous
brachial artery systolic blood pressure. For the purposes of this diagnostic code, normal ABI will be greater than or equal
to 0.80. The ankle pressure (AP) is the systolic blood pressure measured at the ankle. Normal AP is greater than or
equal to 100 mm Hg. The toe pressure (TP) is the systolic blood pressure measured at the great toe. Normal TP is
greater than or equal to 60 mm Hg. Transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcPO2) is measured at the first intercostal space on
the foot. Normal TcPO2 is greater than or equal to 60 mm Hg. All measurements must be determined by objective testing.
Note (2): Select the highest impairment value of ABI, AP, TP, or TcPO2 for evaluation.
Note (3): Evaluate residuals of aortic and large arterial bypass surgery or arterial graft as peripheral arterial disease.
Note (4): These evaluations involve a single extremity. If more than one extremity is affected, evaluate each extremity separately and combine (under § 4.25), using the bilateral factor (§ 4.26), if applicable.
7115 Thrombo-angiitis obliterans (Buerger’s Disease):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
100
0
100
*
100
60
50
40
30
20
100
60
40
20
37604
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Rating
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Lower extremity: Rate under DC 7114.
Upper extremity:
Deep ischemic ulcers and necrosis of the fingers with persistent coldness of the extremity, trophic changes with pains
in the hand during physical activity, and diminished upper extremity pulses ...................................................................
Persistent coldness of the extremity, trophic changes with pains in the hands during physical activity, and diminished
upper extremity pulses ......................................................................................................................................................
Trophic changes with numbness and paresthesia at the tips of the fingers, and diminished upper extremity pulses ........
Diminished upper extremity pulses .......................................................................................................................................
Note (1): These evaluations involve a single extremity. If more than one extremity is affected, evaluate each extremity separately and combine (under § 4.25), using the bilateral factor (§ 4.26), if applicable.
Note (2): Trophic changes include, but are not limited to, skin changes (thinning, atrophy, fissuring, ulceration, scarring, absence of hair) as well as nail changes (clubbing, deformities).
7117 Raynaud’s syndrome (also known as secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon or secondary Raynaud’s).
With two or more digital ulcers plus auto-amputation of one or more digits and history of characteristic attacks .....................
With two or more digital ulcers and history of characteristic attacks ...........................................................................................
Characteristic attacks occurring at least daily ..............................................................................................................................
Characteristic attacks occurring four to six times a week ............................................................................................................
Characteristic attacks occurring one to three times a week ........................................................................................................
Note (1): For purposes of this section, characteristic attacks consist of sequential color changes of the digits of one or more
extremities lasting minutes to hours, sometimes with pain and paresthesias, and precipitated by exposure to cold or by
emotional upsets. These evaluations are for Raynaud’s syndrome as a whole, regardless of the number of extremities involved or whether the nose and ears are involved.
Note (2): This section is for evaluating Raynaud’s syndrome (secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon or secondary Raynaud’s).
For evaluation of Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s phenomenon, or primary Raynaud’s), see DC 7124.
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
7120 Varicose veins:
Evaluate under diagnostic code 7121.
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
7122 Cold injury residuals:
With the following in affected parts:
Arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold sensitivity plus two or more of the following: Tissue loss, nail abnormalities,
color changes, locally impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis, anhydrosis, X-ray abnormalities (osteoporosis, subarticular
punched-out lesions, or osteoarthritis), atrophy or fibrosis of the affected musculature, flexion or extension deformity
of distal joints, volar fat pad loss in fingers or toes, avascular necrosis of bone, chronic ulceration, carpal or tarsal
tunnel syndrome ................................................................................................................................................................
Arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold sensitivity plus one of the following: Tissue loss, nail abnormalities, color
changes, locally impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis, anhydrosis, X-ray abnormalities (osteoporosis, subarticular
punched-out lesions, or osteoarthritis), atrophy or fibrosis of the affected musculature, flexion or extension deformity
of distal joints, volar fat pad loss in fingers or toes, avascular necrosis of bone, chronic ulceration, carpal or tarsal
tunnel syndrome ................................................................................................................................................................
Arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold sensitivity .........................................................................................................
Note (1): Separately evaluate amputations of fingers or toes, and complications such as squamous cell carcinoma at the
site of a cold injury scar or peripheral neuropathy, under other diagnostic codes. Separately evaluate other disabilities diagnosed as the residual effects of cold injury, such as Raynaud’s syndrome (which is otherwise known as secondary
Raynaud’s phenomenon), muscle atrophy, etc., unless they are used to support an evaluation under diagnostic code
7122.
Note (2): Evaluate each affected part (e.g., hand, foot, ear, nose) separately and combine the ratings in accordance with
§§ 4.25 and 4.26.
.
*
*
*
*
*
*
7124 Raynaud’s disease (also known as primary Raynaud’s phenomenon or primary Raynaud’s):.
Characteristic attacks associated with trophic change(s), such as tight, shiny skin ...................................................................
Characteristic attacks without trophic change(s) ..........................................................................................................................
Note (1): For purposes of this section, characteristic attacks consist of intermittent and episodic color changes of the digits
of one or more extremities, lasting minutes or longer, with occasional pain and paresthesias, and precipitated by exposure to cold or by emotional upsets. These evaluations are for the disease as a whole, regardless of the number of extremities involved or whether the nose and ears are involved.
Note (2): Trophic changes include, but are not limited to, skin changes (thinning, atrophy, fissuring, ulceration, scarring, absence of hair) as well as nail changes (clubbing, deformities).
Note (3): This section is for evaluating Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s phenomenon or primary Raynaud’s). For
evaluation of Raynaud’s syndrome (also known as secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon, or secondary Raynaud’s), see
DC 7117.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
4. Amend Appendix A to Part 4 by:
a. Adding an entry for the General
Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart
to 4.104;
■
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
b. Revising the entries for diagnostic
codes 7000 through 7008;
■ c. Adding, in numerical order, an
entry for diagnostic code 7009;
■ d. Revising the entries for diagnostic
codes 7010, 7011, 7015 through 7020,
■
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
100
60
40
20
100
60
40
20
10
*
*
30
20
10
*
10
0
7110 through 7111, 7113 through 7115,
7117, and 7121 through 7122; and
■ e. Adding, in numerical order, an
entry for diagnostic code 7124.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
37605
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
APPENDIX A TO PART 4—TABLE OF AMENDMENTS AND EFFECTIVE DATES SINCE 1946
Sec.
Diagnostic
code No.
*
4.104 ..............
*
........................
7000
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
*
*
*
*
*
General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation July 6, 1950; evaluation September 22, 1928, evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date
of final rule].
Evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Criterion September 22, 1978; evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation September 9, 1975; evaluation September 22, 1978; evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule]
Evaluation September 22, 1978; evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation January 12, 1998; evaluation [Effective date of final rule].
Added [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation January 12, 1998; title, criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Evaluation January 12, 1998; note, criterion [Effective date of final rule].
*
*
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
*
*
*
*
Evaluation September 9, 1975; criterion January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Added September 9, 1975; criterion January 12, 1998; note, criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Added September 22, 1978; evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Added January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Added January 12, 1998; note, criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Added January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
*
*
7110
7111
*
*
*
*
*
Evaluation September 9, 1975; evaluation January 12, 1998; title, criterion, note [Effective date of final rule].
Criterion September 9, 1975; evaluation January 12, 1998; note, criterion [Effective date of final rule].
*
*
7113
7114
7115
*
*
*
*
*
Evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of final rule].
Added June 9, 1952; evaluation January 12, 1998; title, criterion, note [Effective date of final rule].
Added June 9, 1952; evaluation January 12, 1998; note, criterion, evaluation [Effective date of final rule].
*
*
7117
*
*
*
*
Added June 9, 1952; evaluation January 12, 1998; title, note [Effective date of final rule].
*
*
7121
*
*
*
*
*
Criterion July 6, 1950; evaluation March 10, 1976; evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion [Effective date of
final rule].
Last sentence of Note following July 6, 1950; evaluation January 12, 1998; criterion August 13, 1998; criterion
[Effective date of final rule].
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7122
*
*
*
*
7124
*
Added [Effective date of final rule].
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5. Amend Appendix B to Part 4,
§ 4.104 by:
■ a. Adding, in numerical order, an
entry for diagnostic code 7009;
■
b. Revising diagnostic codes 7010,
7110, 7114, and 7117; and
■ c. Adding, in numerical order, an
entry for diagnostic code 7124.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
APPENDIX B TO PART 4—NUMERICAL INDEX OF DISABILITIES
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Diagnostic code
No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The Cardiovascular System—Diseases of the Heart
*
7009 ................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
*
*
Bradycardia (Bradyarrhythmia), symptomatic, requiring permanent pacemaker implantation.
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
01AUP1
37606
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
APPENDIX B TO PART 4—NUMERICAL INDEX OF DISABILITIES—Continued
Diagnostic code
No.
*
7010 ................
*
Supraventricular tachycardia.
*
7110 ................
*
*
*
*
*
*
Aortic aneurysm: ascending, thoracic, abdominal.
*
*
*
*
*
7114 ................
*
Peripheral arterial disease.
*
*
*
*
*
7117 ................
*
*
*
Raynaud’s syndrome (secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon).
*
*
*
*
7124 ................
*
*
*
*
Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s phenomenon, primary Raynaud’s).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6. Revise Appendix C to Part 4,
§ 4.104 by:
■ a. Revising the entry for Aneurysm:
Aortic: ascending, thoracic, abdominal;
■ b. Adding, in alphabetical order,
under the entry for Bones an entry for
Bradycardia (Bradyarrhthmia),
symptomatic, requiring permanent
pacemaker implantation;
■
*
*
c. Revising the entries for
Hypertension (isolated systolic,
diastolic, or combined systolic and
diastolic hypertension) and Peripheral
arterial disease;
■
d. Adding, in alphabetical order,
under the entry for Pyelonephritis,
chronic, an entry for Raynaud’s disease
■
(primary Raynaud’s phenomenon,
primary Raynaud’s); and
e. Revising the entries for Raynaud’s
syndrome (Raynaud’s phenomenon,
secondary Raynaud’s) and
Supraventricular tachycardia.
■
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
APPENDIX C TO PART 4—ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF DISABILITIES
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Diagnostic
code No.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Aneurysm:
Aortic: ascending, thoracic, abdominal ........................................................................................................................................
Large artery ..................................................................................................................................................................................
Small artery ..................................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Arrhythmia:
Ventricular .....................................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Bones:
Bradycardia ...................................................................................................................................................................................
(Bradyarrhythmia), symptomatic, requiring permanent pacemaker implantation.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Peripheral arterial disease ...................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Raynaud’s disease (primary Raynaud’s) .............................................................................................................................................
Raynaud’s syndrome (Raynaud’s phenomenon, secondary Raynaud’s) ...........................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Supraventricular tachycardia ...............................................................................................................................................................
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
18:24 Jul 31, 2019
*
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
*
01AUP1
7110
7111
7118
7011
7009
7114
7124
7117
7010
*
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. 2019–15904 Filed 7–31–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2019–0277; FRL–9997–70–
Region 3 ]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Source-Specific Reasonably Available
Control Technology Determinations for
2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
three state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. These
revisions address reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements
under the 2008 ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for three
facilities in Northern Virginia through
source-specific determinations. This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 3,
2019.
SUMMARY:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2019–0277 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
spielberger.susan@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
confidential business information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
jspears on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Jul 31, 2019
Jkt 247001
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emlyn Ve´lez-Rosa, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air &
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The telephone number is (215)
814–2038. Ms. Ve´lez-Rosa can also be
reached via electronic mail at velezrosa.emlyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
February 1, 14, and 15, 2019, the
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality (VADEQ) submitted three
separate revisions to its SIP addressing
RACT under the 2008 ozone NAAQS for
three facilities in Northern Virginia. The
SIP revisions consist of source-specific
RACT determinations for each facility.
I. Background
RACT is an important strategy for
reducing oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC)
emissions from major stationary sources
within areas not meeting the ozone
NAAQS. Since the 1970’s, EPA has
consistently defined ‘‘RACT’’ as the
lowest emission limit that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the
application of the control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.1
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA provides
that SIPs for nonattainment areas must
include reasonably available control
measures (RACM) for demonstrating
attainment of all NAAQS, including
emissions reductions from existing
sources through adoption of RACT. In
addition, Section 182 of the CAA sets
forth additional RACT requirements for
the ozone NAAQS for moderate, serious
or severe nonattainment areas. Section
182 requires states to implement RACT
for VOC sources in the area covered by
a control technique guideline (CTG)
document issued by EPA, all other
major stationary sources of VOCs that
are located in the area, and major
stationary sources of NOX. The section
182 RACT requirements are usually
referred to as CTG RACT, major nonCTG VOC RACT, and major NOX RACT.
Further, section 184(b)(1)(B) of the
CAA requires states to implement RACT
1 See December 9, 1976 memorandum from Roger
Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste
Management, to Regional Administrators,
‘‘Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas,’’ and also 44
FR 53762; September 17, 1979.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37607
in any areas located within ozone
transport regions established pursuant
to section 184. This requirement is
referred to as OTR RACT. A single
ozone transport region (the OTR) has
been established under section 184(a),
which comprises of 12 States, including
the District of Columbia, the Northern
portion of Virginia, and portions of
Maryland as part of the Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA).
The Northern portion of Virginia
(hereafter Northern Virginia) consists of
the Arlington County, Fairfax County,
Loudoun County, Prince William
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City,
Falls Church City, Manassas City,
Manassas Park City, and Strafford
County. The three facilities which are
the subject of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking are located in Northern
Virginia, and thus subject to OTR RACT.
On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the
8-hour ozone standards, by lowering the
standard to 0.075 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period
(2008 ozone NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436.
On May 21, 2012, EPA designated the
Washington, DC-MD-VA area as a
marginal ozone nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
Washington, DC-MD-VA marginal ozone
nonattainment area includes all cities
and counties in the Northern portion of
Virginia that are part of the OTR, with
exception of the Strafford County. See
77 FR 30088 and 40 CFR 81.347.
On March 6, 2015, EPA issued its
final rule for implementing the 2008
ozone NAAQS (‘‘the 2008 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule’’).2 In addressing
RACT requirements, the 2008 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule is consistent with
existing policy and EPA’s previous
ozone implementation rule. For 2008
ozone NAAQS, only Northern Virginia
is subject to RACT due to its location in
the OTR, as no moderate nonattainment
areas were designated by EPA under the
standard.
II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA
Analysis
Virginia’s February 1, 14, and 15,
2019 SIP revisions address NOX and/or
VOC RACT for the following facilities:
Virginia Electric and Power Company—
Possum Point Power Station, Covanta
Alexandria/Arlington, Inc., and Covanta
Fairfax, Inc. VADEQ is adopting as part
of these SIP revisions additional NOX
control requirements for these three
facilities to meet RACT under the 2008
ozone NAAQS, all of which are
implemented via Federally enforceable
permits issued by VADEQ. These RACT
permits, as listed on Table 1, have been
2 80
E:\FR\FM\01AUP1.SGM
FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
01AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37594-37607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15904]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 148 / Thursday, August 1, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37594]]
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 4
RIN 2900-AQ67
Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Cardiovascular System
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend the
section of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or Rating
Schedule) that addresses the cardiovascular system. The proposed
changes incorporate medical advances that have occurred since the last
review, update medical terminology, and clarify evaluation criteria
where necessary.
Where changes to the scientific and/or medical nature of a given
condition have been proposed, VA has cited the published, publicly-
available sources for these changes. The proposed changes are not a
reflection of any particular expert's comments or recommendations, but
were based on published, peer-reviewed materials. Materials from the
public forum, held in 2011, are available for public inspection at the
Office of Regulation Policy and Management (see the ADDRESSES section
of this rulemaking), and other deliberative materials are cited herein.
DATES: VA must receive comments on or before September 30, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments through www.Regulations.gov; by mail
or hand-delivery to the Director, Office of Regulations Policy and
Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave.
NW, Room 1064, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026.
Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to RIN
2900-AQ67--Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Cardiovascular System.
Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in
the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (except
holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not
a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, please
view comments online through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Reynolds, MD, Medical Officer,
Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free
telephone number.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As part of VA's ongoing revision of the VA
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or Rating Schedule), VA
proposes changes to 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec. Sec.
4.100 and 4.104, which pertain to the cardiovascular system. The
proposed changes will: (1) Update the medical terminology of certain
conditions; (2) add medical conditions not currently in the Rating
Schedule; (3) refine evaluation criteria based on medical advances that
have occurred since the last revision; and (4) incorporate current
understanding of functional changes associated with, or resulting from,
cardiovascular disease or injury (pathophysiology).
I. Sec. 4.100 Application of the Evaluation Criteria for Diagnostic
Codes 7000-7007, 7011, and 7015-7020
In almost all cases, the current Sec. 4.100 specifically requires
testing for metabolic equivalent of tasks when evaluating heart
diseases. Medical literature more commonly refers to metabolic
equivalent of tasks as simply metabolic equivalents, or METs.
Exceptions to METs testing for rating purposes occur when medically
contraindicated, when the left ejection fraction is 50 percent or less,
with chronic congestive heart failure, when more than one episode of
heart failure occurred in the past year, or when VA may assign a 100
percent evaluation on another basis. 38 CFR 4.100(b). As explained
below, this proposed rule will eliminate considering ejection fractions
or congestive heart failure when evaluating cardiovascular disability.
Therefore, for clarity and simplicity, VA proposes to delete paragraphs
(b)(2), (b)(3), and (c), and redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) as (b)(2) of
this section.
II. General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart
VA proposes to revise Sec. 4.104 to include a new General Rating
Formula for Diseases of the Heart (General Formula). VA will use this
new General Formula to clarify and standardize the evaluation of many
cardiovascular diseases. As discussed below, it will provide a more
timely, efficient, and accurate method of evaluating these diseases.
The proposed General Formula reflects current concepts in
cardiovascular disability. The Institute of Medicine (now called the
National Academy of Medicine) stated, ``It is important for the Rating
Schedule to be as up-to-date as possible in current medical approaches
and terminology to serve veterans with disabilities most effectively.
This ensures that the criteria in the Rating Schedule are based on
concepts and terms used by medical personnel who provide medical
evidence, and that evolving understanding of, or recognition of, new
disabling conditions are reflected.'' Institute of Medicine, Committee
on Medical Evaluation of Veterans for Disability Compensation, ``A 21st
Century System for Evaluating Veterans for Disability Benefits,'' 5
(Michael McGeary et al. eds. 2007).
As in the current Rating Schedule, the proposed General Formula is
based primarily on Metabolic equivalents (METs), which objectively and
accurately measure the cardiac work capacity and which clinicians
routinely obtain for all patients with heart disease. The examiner
eliminates spurious results by considering various parameters, such as
age and expected maximal heart rate achieved when factors other than
heart disease are present. In situations where a person is unable to
walk, or walk well, the patient may test on a bicycle or with the use
of certain medications.
VA notes that a number of diagnostic codes (DCs) within current
Sec. 4.104, including DCs 7000-7007, 7011, 7015-7017, and 7019-7020,
already utilize METs in evaluating their respective cardiovascular
conditions. Specifically, each level of evaluation (10, 30, 60, and 100
percent) outlines a range of METs, as well as a list of associated
symptoms,
[[Page 37595]]
within which an individual must fall to warrant that particular
evaluation. Additionally, VA may assign higher ratings (e.g., 60 and
100 percent) for congestive heart failure or left ventricular
dysfunction as demonstrated by ejection fraction. Finally, VA may also
assign a 30 percent evaluation with evidence on electrocardiogram,
echocardiogram, or X-ray of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation. Lastly,
VA may assign a 10 percent evaluation if the condition requires
continuous medication.
VA proposes to rely on METs as the primary indicator of cardiac
ability and eliminate other indicators currently found in the VASRD,
such as ejection fractions or the number of any episodes of acute
congestive heart failure in the past year. These latter indicators are
less reliable in assessing cardiac function. Congestive heart failure
may be due to poor conditioning, salt consumption, poor medication
compliance, body weight, additional disease burden, or a variety of
other factors not associated with the underlying cardiovascular disease
itself. See Joshi, Mohanan et al., ``Factors precipitating Congestive
Heart Failure--role of patient non-compliance,'' 47 J. Assoc.
Physicians India 294-95 (Mar. 1999) (emphasizing ``the importance of
patient non-compliance with prescribed therapy as a leading
precipitating factor for congestive heart failure . . . which can be
prevented by appropriate cost saving strategies aimed to improve
patient compliance.'') Similarly, ejection fractions are unreliable
because factors unrelated to cardiovascular disability, such as fluid
intake, salt ingestion, and exercise, may influence them. See
Ramachandran S. Vasan, MD, et al., ``Congestive heart failure in
subjects with normal versus reduced left ventricular ejection
fraction,'' 33(7) 1948-55 (1999). Conversely, METs form the most
reliable basis of cardiac capability, even after heart disease weakens
the ability of the heart to function at full capacity. See Charles K.
Morris, MD, et al., ``Nomogram based on metabolic equivalents and age
for assessing aerobic exercise capacity in men,'' 22(1) J. Am. College
of Cardiology, 175-82 (1993).
The heart is often described as the pump of the human body, and, as
such, requires power to function. Power is the rate that energy is
consumed to work. Various types of energy employ different measures of
rate (power), such as kW (kilowatts) for electrical energy; Btu/hr
(British Thermal Units per hour) for heat energy; hp (horsepower) for
mechanical energy; and, for our purposes, METs (metabolic equivalent of
tasks) for cardiac energy.
In evaluating cardiovascular disabilities, METs refer to the
intensity of activities. For example, an activity with a MET of 2, such
as walking at a slow pace (e.g., 2 mph), would require twice the energy
that an average person consumes at rest (e.g., sitting quietly), which
requires 1 MET. See ``The Compendium of Physical Activities,'' Arnold
School of Public Health- Prevention Research Center, available at
https://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/compendium.htm. VA does not propose
any alteration to the ranges of METs provided in the current VASRD, nor
will it eliminate the references to dyspnea, fatigue, angina,
dizziness, or syncope. Instead, VA proposes to state that these
symptoms may represent heart failure. VA also proposes to use the more
common term ``breathlessness'' for the more obscure term ``dyspnea,''
and to expand the list of common findings associated with congestive
heart failure to include arrhythmia and palpitations. See ``Congestive
Heart Failure,'' Johns Hopkins Medicine, available at https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/conditions_treatments/conditions/congestive_heart_failure.html (last visited Apr. 30, 2014).
Although VA proposes to eliminate the use of congestive heart failure
and ejection fraction as indicators for evaluation, it will retain the
non-MET criteria provided in the current 10 and 30 percent evaluations
because these criteria remain valid. Id.
VA proposes to apply the General Formula to those DCs within Sec.
4.104 that instruct rating personnel to consider METs (among other
indicators). The DCs using METS as the primary rating criteria include
7003, 7004, 7005, 7007, 7015, and 7020. On the other hand, DCs 7000,
7001, 7002, 7006, 7011, 7016, 7017, and 7019 have 100 percent
evaluation criteria unique to each particular DC. VA does not intend to
disturb the 100 percent evaluations currently prescribed in these DCs;
rather, it proposes to apply the General Formula following the total
evaluations. To ensure clarity and consistency in applying the General
Formula, VA intends to instruct personnel to rate disabilities under
Sec. 4.104 using the General Formula unless otherwise directed.
With respect to DCs 7010, 7011, 7015, and newly proposed DC 7009,
regardless of the DC, the resulting impairment and disability are
essentially indistinguishable. To offer more than one evaluation under
those circumstances would be contrary to Sec. 4.14 (pyramiding). VA
will provide an instruction immediately before DC 7009 which states
``For DCs 7009, 7010, 7011, and 7015, a single evaluation will be
assigned under the diagnostic code which reflects the predominant
disability picture.''
The discussion that follows explains the changes to each DC
affected by the General Formula, and explains additional changes to
these DCs (e.g., title changes, note changes, etc.).
A. Diagnostic Code 7000
DC 7000 currently provides a 100 percent evaluation during active
infection with valvular heart damage and for three months following the
cessation of treatment for the active infection. VA proposes no change
to this provision. Following the three months, VA will evaluate
residual cardiac disability using the General Rating Formula for
Diseases of the Heart.
B. Diagnostic Codes 7001 and 7002
The current DCs 7001 and 7002 (endocarditis and pericarditis,
respectively) provide a 100 percent evaluation during active infection
with cardiac involvement, and for three months following the cessation
of treatment for the active infection. VA proposes no change to these
provisions. Following the three months, VA will evaluate any residual
cardiac disability using the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the
Heart.
C. Diagnostic Codes 7003, 7004, 7005, 7007, and 7020
VA proposes to evaluate disability due to these conditions
(pericardial adhesions, syphilitic heart disease, arteriosclerotic
heart disease, hypertensive heart disease, and cardiomyopathy,
respectively) using the General Rating Formula.
D. Diagnostic Code 7006
The current DC 7006 provides a 100 percent evaluation during, and
for three months following, a documented myocardial infarction. VA
proposes no change to this provision. Following the three months, VA
proposes to evaluate residual disability under the General Rating
Formula.
E. Diagnostic Code 7011
VA does not propose any change to the current DC 7011 provisions
establishing a 100 percent evaluation for sustained ventricular
arrhythmia or ventricular aneurysmectomy from the date of hospital
admission. However, VA proposes to apply the General Rating Formula
following the mandatory examination provided six
[[Page 37596]]
months after discharge to determine residual disability rating.
Additionally, DC 7011 currently includes a note indicating VA will
conduct a mandatory examination six months following discharge and
therapy for a sustained arrhythmia or ventricular aneurysmectomy. The
intent is to monitor the extent of disability following inpatient
hospitalization for surgical intervention and therapy. VA proposes to
add the phrase ``discharge from inpatient hospitalization'' to the note
to clarify that the timing for mandatory re-examination is based upon
discharge from inpatient hospitalization, rather than discharge from an
outpatient treatment program. This proposed clarification does not
represent a change in VA policy.
F. Diagnostic Code 7015
VA proposes to update this DC to reflect modern treatment and to
more accurately evaluate impairment by separating the various forms of
atrioventricular block into two specific categories: benign and non-
benign i.e., the latter requiring immediate treatment. ``Types of Heart
Block,'' National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (July 9, 2012),
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/hb/types.html
(last visited April 22, 2014).
The benign, or less severe, category of atrioventricular block
includes first-degree heart block (first-degree) and second-degree
heart block, type I (second-degree type I). First-degree (seen as a
delayed or prolonged P-R interval on electrocardiogram), involves the
slowing of the heart's electrical signals, often without any symptoms
and, therefore, without requiring any treatment. Id. In second-degree
type I, the electrical signals are slowed more and more with each
heartbeat until the heart eventually skips a beat. An occasional,
transitory, and mild symptom may be associated with second-degree type
I heart block. Id. No specific therapy is required for second-degree
type I heart block. Ali A. Sovari, ``Second-Degree Atrioventricular
Block Treatment & Management,'' Medscape--Reference (May 9, 2013)
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/161919-treatment (last visited
April 22, 2014). VA proposes to evaluate the benign form of
atrioventricular block under the General Rating Formula.
The non-benign, or more severe, category of atrioventricular block
include second-degree heart block, type II (second-degree type II) and
third-degree heart block (third-degree). In second-degree type II, some
of the heart's electrical signals do not reach the ventricles, which
may result in symptoms of dizziness, light-headedness, or syncope. In
addition, individuals with second degree may experience chest pain,
hypoperfusion, and hypotension. Ali A. Sovari, ``Second-Degree
Atrioventricular Block Clinical Presentation,'' Medscape--Reference
(May 9, 2013), https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/161919-clinical
(last visited April 22, 2014). Second-degree type II presents a much
more immediate medical risk as it may progress rapidly to complete
heart block. As a result, affected individuals may receive permanent
pacemakers. Third-degree heart block occurs when none of the heart's
electrical signals reach the ventricles, which often requires emergency
treatment because it can result in cardiac arrest or death. Like
second-degree type II, this severe type of atrioventricular block
requires pacemaker implantation. Based on this treatment, VA proposes
to evaluate the non-benign categories of atrioventricular block
(second-degree, type II and third-degree) under DC 7018, implantable
cardiac pacemakers. Given the proposed amendments to DC 7015, the note
that currently follows is no longer relevant. The VA proposes to remove
the note following DC 7015.
G. Diagnostic Code 7016
VA does not propose any change to the current DC 7016 provisions
establishing a 100 percent evaluation for heart valve replacement
(prosthesis). However, VA proposes to apply the General Rating Formula
following the mandatory examination provided six months after discharge
to determine residual disability rating.
Additionally, DC 7016 currently includes a note indicating VA will
examine this disability six months following discharge. The intent is
to monitor the extent of the disability following hospitalization for
surgery. Similar to DC 7011, VA proposes to link the evaluation with
discharge from inpatient hospitalization for this particular
dysrhythmia. This clarification does not represent a change in VA
policy.
H. Diagnostic Code 7017
DC 7017 currently provides a 100 percent evaluation for three
months following hospital admission for coronary bypass surgery. VA
proposes no change to this provision. Following the three months, VA
proposes to evaluate any residual cardiac disability under the General
Rating Formula.
I. Diagnostic Code 7019
Currently, DC 7019 provides a 100 percent evaluation from the date
of hospital admission for cardiac transplantation, continuing for ``an
indefinite period.'' The current note also states, however, that one
year following discharge, VA should examine the individual to determine
the appropriate disability rating, assigning a minimum evaluation of 30
percent. VA applies 38 CFR 3.105(e) to any change in evaluation. VA
proposes no changes to this process or the minimum evaluation of 30
percent. However, VA proposes to eliminate the phrase ``for an
indefinite period'' and replace it with ``for a minimum of one year.''
This will eliminate any confusion as to whether the Veteran's 100
percent evaluation may be subject to reduction during the year
following transplantation. Practically, a Veteran will receive a 100
percent evaluation for at least one year plus hospitalization time as
VA will not re-evaluate the Veteran until one year following hospital
discharge. In addition to this change, VA proposes to evaluate residual
cardiac disability under the General Rating Formula.
Additionally, DC 7019 currently includes a note indicating VA will
examine this disability one year following discharge. The note's intent
is to assess the extent of residual cardiac disability following
hospitalization for surgery. VA proposes to add the phrase ``discharge
from inpatient hospitalization'' to clarify when the point at which the
timing for mandatory examination begins. Discharge from an outpatient
treatment program does not activate this provision. This clarification
does not represent a change in VA policy.
III. Proposed Changes to Diagnostic Codes Not Rated Under the General
Formula
A. Diagnostic Code 7008
The DC 7008 addresses hyperthyroid heart disease. This DC was
amended with the final publication of 82 FR 50804, Schedule for Rating
Disabilities; The Endocrine System, effective December 10, 2017. VA's
update of the endocrine system (38 CFR 4.117) revised the evaluation
criteria for hyperthyroidism under DC 7900. See RIN 2900-AO44.
Specifically, VA eliminated any current rating criteria in DC 7900 that
referred to cardiovascular findings. Instead, VA evaluates any
hyperthyroid heart disease under DC 7008, which directs rating
personnel to evaluate any cardiovascular findings according to the
appropriate DC. The
[[Page 37597]]
VA does not propose any additional changes for DC 7008 at this time.
B. Diagnostic Code 7010
VA proposes to change the name of the current DC 7010 from
supraventricular arrhythmias to the more modern and accurate
supraventricular tachycardia. Arrhythmia generally refers to an
irregular heartbeat and includes a heartbeat that is too fast, too
slow, or irregular. ``What Is an Arrhythmia?'' National Heart, Lung,
and Blood Institute (July 1, 2011), https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/arr/ (last visited April 22, 2014).
Supraventricular tachycardia is an irregularly fast heartbeat that
originates above or within the atrioventricular node18 or in the upper
part of the heart. Id. The various forms of supraventricular
tachycardia include, but are not limited to, atrial fibrillation,
atrial flutter, sinus tachycardia, sinoatrial nodal reentrant
tachycardia, atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia,
atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia, atrial tachycardia, junctional
tachycardia, and multifocal atrial tachycardia. Id. VA proposes to add
an explanatory Note 1 to provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of
supraventricular tachycardia. VA proposes to use tachycardia, rather
than arrhythmia, in the title to clarify that rating personnel should
use this DC to evaluate individuals with abnormally fast heartbeats.
VA also proposes to update the evaluation criteria for
supraventricular tachycardia, utilizing hospitalization as a more
accurate measure of disability. The current criteria in DC 7010 assign
evaluations based on the number of episodes of supraventricular
arrhythmias documented by electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG) or Holter
monitor, without considering the need for hospital treatment.
Supraventricular tachycardia is usually non-lethal and does not result
in disabling symptoms in otherwise healthy individuals. See
``Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia'' in ``A.D.A.M. Medical
Encyclopedia,'' PubMed Health, U.S. National Library of Medicine (June
18, 2012), https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000183.htm
(last visited Apr. 30, 2014). For example, some patients with
supraventricular tachycardias have many short episodes throughout the
day and remain asymptomatic. Id. Others may have atrial fibrillation on
a permanent basis, also without symptoms. These non-disabling episodes
do not require hospitalization or treatment, but may be recorded
incidentally by an ECG or Holter monitor without any other findings.
Id. Therefore, the mere presence of episodes of supraventricular
tachycardia, as well as their number, is unrelated to symptomatology or
disability.
However, some episodes of supraventricular tachycardia result in
hypotension, shortness of breath, dizziness, or chest pain in patients
who are older or have underlying cardiac disorders. Id. These
symptomatic episodes typically require a controlled medical setting to
monitor and treat heart rate control, anticoagulation, cardioversion,
electrophysiological studies, or catheter-based arrhythmia ablation.
Id. Medical intervention for supraventricular tachycardia more
accurately indicates impairment, as the purpose of treatment is to
eliminate or reduce any disabling symptoms. As mentioned previously,
the mere documentation of supraventricular tachycardia on an ECG or
Holter monitor does not confirm the existence of symptoms or
impairment.
As such, VA proposes to replace the current reference to episodes
documented by ECG or Holter monitor in DC 7010 with treatment
interventions. For the purposes of this DC, a treatment intervention
occurs whenever a symptomatic patient requires intravenous
pharmacologic adjustment, cardioversion, and/or ablation for symptom
relief. For clarity, VA proposes to add Note 2 to identify when a
treatment occurs. VA will assign a 10 percent evaluation for
supraventricular tachycardia, documented by ECG, with one to four
treatment interventions per year; VA will assign a 30 percent
evaluation with five or more treatment interventions per year. VA
proposes the number of interventions annually because benign, non-
disabling episodes may occur throughout the year. However, only
episodes that require treatment interventions are most likely
disabling, because they require treatment within a controlled medical
setting and typically prevent an individual from working.
C. Diagnostic Code 7018
DC 7018 currently provides a 100 percent evaluation for two months
following hospital admission for implantation or reimplantation of a
cardiac pacemaker. Following these two months, VA evaluates the
disability under DC 7010, 7011, or 7015, with a minimum evaluation of
10 percent. Advances in surgical methods and medical technology have
drastically reduced the recovery time following implantation of a
cardiac pacemaker.
Surgical techniques for cardiac pacemakers have changed and
improved drastically over the past several years and recovery currently
requires less than 30 days. According to the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), hospitalization following surgical implantation of a
pacemaker usually lasts one to two days. ``What to Expect After
Pacemaker Surgery,'' NIH--National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
(February 28, 2012), https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/pace/after.html (last visited April 14, 2014). NIH also
indicates that mild pain, swelling, and tenderness at the site of
pacemaker implantation may continue from a few days to a few weeks. Id.
While healthcare providers may instruct patients to avoid vigorous
activity, including heavy lifting, for up to one month following
surgery, most patients may return to their normal activity level within
a few days. Id. VA proposes to reduce the period of 100 percent
evaluation from two months to one month. Additionally, VA proposes to
add a second note to this DC, cross-referencing DC 7009, which will be
addressed in greater detail below. VA proposes no other changes to this
DC.
D. Diagnostic Code 7110
The current DC 7110 addresses impairment due to aortic aneurysm. VA
proposes to change the name of the code to ``Aortic aneurysm:
ascending, thoracic, or abdominal'' to clarify the location of aortic
aneurysm that this DC will evaluate.
VA proposes to eliminate the 60 percent evaluation for an aortic
aneurysm that precludes exertion while expanding the criteria for a 100
percent evaluation to include symptomatic aneurysm (e.g., precludes
exertion). VA proposes to omit the 60 percent category as it is does
not provide an adequate evaluation for a symptomatic aneurysm in which
exertion may hasten rupture. See Emile R. Mohler III, MD, ``Patient
information: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (Beyond the Basics),'' Up-to-
date (Aug. 21, 2013), https://www.uptodate.com/contents/abdominal-aortic-aneurysm-beyond-the-basics#H4 (last visited May 2, 2014). A
symptomatic aneurysm presents a medical emergency and requires surgical
treatment to prevent the aneurysm from rupturing. Id. Under the
proposed criteria, VA will grant a total evaluation when a patient
becomes a surgical candidate and is unable to exert him/herself.
Additionally, if a person cannot exert him/herself due to aortic
aneurysm but is unable to undergo surgery due to a co-
[[Page 37598]]
morbid medical condition (e.g., kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis),
VA will grant a total evaluation. Jeffrey Jim, MD and Robert W.
Thompson, MD, ``Management of symptomatic (non-ruptured) and ruptured
abdominal aortic aneurysm,'' UpToDate (Feb. 12, 2013), https://www.uptodate.com/contents/management-of-symptomatic-non-ruptured-and-ruptured-abdominal-aortic-aneurysm?source=see_link&anchor=H53322839#H53322839 (last visited May
5, 2014). ``Although there are rare reports of patient survival
following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) without repair, in
general, expectant management of ruptured AAA is nearly uniformly
fatal. Thus, when ruptured AAA is identified, repair should be
undertaken emergently to give the patient the best chance for
survival.'' Id. As such, expanding the 100 percent evaluation to the
date a physician recommended surgical correction will include Veterans
who have severely disabling aneurysms but, due to co-morbid medical
conditions or other reasons, cannot undergo surgical intervention. This
100 percent evaluation will continue for six months following hospital
discharge.
In addition, VA proposes to add a 0 percent rating if an aneurysm
is present but does not meet the requirements for surgical correction.
Asymptomatic aneurysms may expand rapidly until they require surgical
correction, so they need close medical follow-up. This provision
allowing service connection for aneurysms not requiring surgery
eliminates barriers to frequent medical check-ups by VA to monitor the
progress of those aneurysms.
VA will also add a directive for raters to evaluate non-
cardiovascular residuals according to the body systems affected. This
is done to take into acount any disabling residuals related to surgical
correction (e.g., infection, bowel adhesions, kidney failure, and so
forth).
The current DC 7110 also includes a note indicating that VA will
assign the 100 percent rating as of the date of admission for surgical
correction. VA will re-evaluate the condition after a mandatory
examination six months following discharge. VA proposes to add the
phrase ``discharge from inpatient hospitalization'' to clarify that the
starting point to calculate the mandatory re-examination begins with
discharge from inpatient hospitalization. VA also proposes to clarify
in the rating criteria for a 100 percent evaluation that it shall
assign the 100 percent evaluation as of the date a physician recommends
surgical correction. This practice will allow VA to assign 100 percent
evaluations to individuals who require surgical correction but, due to
co-morbid medical conditions or other reasons, cannot undergo surgical
procedures.
E. Diagnostic Code 7111
The current DC 7111 provides 100 percent evaluations for aneurysms
of large arteries which are symptomatic. It also provides 100 percent
evaluations for indefinite periods of time from the date of hospital
admission for surgical corrections. VA proposes to amend the latter
criteria to provide a 100 percent evaluation from the date a physician
recommends surgical correction, rather than the date of hospital
admission. Aneurysms of any large artery are known to spontaneously
rupture, which, depending on its location, can lead to death if not
immediately addressed by surgery.
This expansion to the 100 percent evaluation criteria requires that
VA amend the note in DC 7111. Currently, VA assigns the 100 percent
rating as of the date of admission for surgical correction, and VA
assesses any residual disability by a mandatory examination six months
following discharge. VA proposes to add the phrase ``discharge from
inpatient hospitalization'' in the criteria note to clarify that the
timing for the mandatory re-examination is based upon discharge from
inpatient hospitalization. Additionally, VA proposes to clarify that it
shall assign the 100 percent evaluation beginning from the date a
physician recommends surgical correction, in the event individuals who
require surgical correction cannot undergo it due to co-morbid medical
conditions or other reasons. The 100 percent evaluation shall continue
for six months following hospital discharge for surgical correction.
The current DC 7111 provides rating criteria following surgical
intervention that is based on the ankle-brachial index, claudication on
walking certain distances, and other symptoms related to poor blood
flow to the extremities. These criteria provide for evaluations ranging
from 20 to 100 percent; notes (1) and (2) provide additional
information when evaluating post-surgical large artery aneurysms. The
residual disabilities after post-surgical repair of large artery
aneurysms are similar to those under DC 7114. For greater ease of use
and simplicity, VA therefore proposes to remove these criteria and
notes and replace them with instructions to evaluate post-surgical
residuals under DC 7114. The section of the preamble below specifically
addressing DC 7114 discusses any changes related to these criteria and
notes.
F. Diagnostic Code 7113
DC 7113, arteriovenous (AV) fistula, traumatic, currently includes
the phrase ``with edema'' as one of the disabling symptoms present at
the 50, 40, 30, and 20 percent levels. However, such wording does not
distinguish between chronic and transitory edema, resulting in
evaluations that may be based on symptoms that are unrelated to
arteriovenous fistula or do not adequately represent its chronic
residual disability. Transitory edema may occur following prolonged
standing, prolonged sitting during travel, the wearing of tight
hosiery, taking certain medications, consuming excessive salt, or being
pregnant. Transitory edema due to these causes is non-disabling and
typically resolves without complication.
However, edema due to an AV fistula requires medical treatment and
may impair function. Therefore, VA proposes to clarify that evaluations
at the 50, 40, 30, and 20 percent levels under DC 7113 must involve
``chronic edema'' to better comply with 38 CFR 4.1, which states the
accurate application of the VASRD requires an emphasis upon ``the
limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition.''
G. Diagnostic Code 7114
The current DC 7114, titled ``Arteriosclerosis obliterans,''
addresses impairment of the lower extremities due to narrowing and
hardening of the arteries. The term ``arteriosclerosis'' is also used
in current note (2). VA proposes to replace the term ``arteriosclerosis
obliterans'' with ``peripheral arterial disease'' to conform to current
medical terminology. Peter Libby et al., ``Braunwald's Heart Disease: A
Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine,'' 1491-1515 (8th ed. 2007).
The evaluation criteria of the current DC 7114 include the ankle/
brachial index (ABI), associated examination findings and symptoms, or
claudication (pain in the extremities) upon walking certain distances.
The current criteria, however, have two major shortcomings: (1) They do
not account for veterans with non-compressible arteries (these veterans
have either a normal or elevated ABI, which would be non-compensable);
and (2) they rely in large part on claudication, which is an
inconsistent measure of disability. To that end, VA will employ a more
objective approach as outlined below.
VA will create evaluation criteria based on a modified version of
the ischemia scoring table found in J. Mills,
[[Page 37599]]
``The Society for Vascular Surgery Lower Extremity Threatened Limb
Classification System: Risk stratification based on Wound, Ischemia,
and foot Infection (WIfI)'' J Vasc Surg; vol 59, pg 226. 2014. This
table uses the ABI, as well as ankle pressure (AP), toe pressure (TP)
and transcutaneous oximetry (TcPO2) to describe
four different levels of impairment. The ABI is the ratio of the
systolic blood pressure measured at the ankle to that measured at the
antecubital fossa. For VA disability compensation purposes, normal is
greater than or equal to 0.80. The reason this normal value is used,
rather than normal values cited in the 2016 ACC/AHA Guidelines is that
an ABI between 0.90 and 0.81 is not consistently associated with
objective signs of disability beyond symptomatic complaints (e.g.,
wounds or infections). The AP is the systolic blood pressure measured
at the ankle. Normal is greater than or equal to 100 mm Hg. The TP is
the systolic blood pressure measured at the great toe. Normal is
greater than or equal to 60 mm Hg. TcPO2 is
measured at the first intercostal space on the foot. Normal is greater
than or equal to 60 mm Hg. See also M. Kalani ``Transcutaneous Oxygen
Tension and Toe Blood Pressure as Predictors for Outcome of Diabetic
Foot Ulcers,'' Diabetes Care, vol. 22, Pgs 147-52. 1999. The levels of
impairment as described in the previously referenced ischemia scoring
table directly correlate to levels of disability (i.e., evaluation
levels). VA will slightly modify this table to describe four levels of
disability (and thus, evaluation levels) consistent with these
criteria, while preserving the 20, 40, 60, and 100 percent evaluation
levels.
Turning to the three notes associated with DC 7114, VA will make
two significant revisions. First, VA will revise Note (1) to add
definitions and normal values for ABI, AP, TP, and
TcPO2. Next, VA will redesignate current Note (2)
as Note (3), and current Note (3) as Note (4). Finally, VA will then
add a new Note (2), which directs the rater to select the value (ABI,
AP, TP, or TcPO2) which yields the highest level
of impairment for evaluation.
H. Diagnostic Code 7115
DC 7115 currently uses lower extremity findings to evaluate
thrombo-angiitis obliterans (Buerger's Disease). VA proposes new
criteria for the evaluation of upper extremity disease because
Buerger's Disease can affect either upper or lower extremities.
Buerger's disease is a nonatherosclerotic segmental inflammatory
disease that affects the small and medium-sized arteries, veins, and
nerves of the arms, legs, and rarely elsewhere. See Topol, E.J.,
Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine Chap. 108, Pg 1535. (2007). DC 7115
currently evaluates impairment of the lower extremity using the ankle/
brachial index (ABI) or associated signs and symptoms upon examination
(as found in current DC 7114). For the reasons discussed above in DC
7114, VA proposes to clarify the evaluation criteria by using objective
signs, with the ABI as the primary criteria for the lower extremities.
VA proposes to delete claudication on walking from all evaluation
criteria as it inaccurately measures the extent of this disability. VA
also proposes to remove current Note (1), as DC 7115 will now direct
rating personnel to evaluate lower extremities under DC 7114 and the
information regarding the ABI is contained in that diagnostic code.
With elimination of current Note (1), VA proposes to rename existing
Note (2) as Note (1) with clarification similar to that proposed in
Note (3) DC 7114 (as explained above). Additionally, a new Note (2) is
proposed to give raters examples of trophic changes so it will be
easier to recognize when encountered in clinical documentation.
I. Diagnostic Code 7117
Currently, DC 7117 addresses impairment due to Raynaud's syndrome,
in which cold or stress abnormally reduces blood flow in the
extremities. Raynaud's syndrome (also called secondary Raynaud's
phenomenon) is often confused with Raynaud's disease (also called
primary Raynaud's phenomenon or primary Raynaud's), which is different
in terms of etiology and severity. While both conditions present with
vasospasm, Raynaud's disease (primary Raynaud's phenomenon) has few, if
any, long term residuals. In contrast, Raynaud's syndrome (secondary
Raynaud's phenomenon) is associated with another illness, most commonly
an autoimmune disease. The residuals tend to be permanent, more
extensive, and more disabling. To improve clarity, ensure more accurate
evaluations, and promote consistency and usability of the VASRD, VA
proposes to focus DC 7117 on Raynaud's syndrome (secondary Raynaud's
phenomenon) only, while creating a new DC 7124 for Raynaud's disease
(primary Raynaud's phenomenon or primary Raynaud's). In addition, VA
proposes to use the existing note to emphasize that DC 7117 is only for
evaluating Raynaud's syndrome (secondary Raynaud's phenomenon), and add
a note emphasizing that Raynaud's disease (primary Raynaud's
phenomenon) should be rated under DC 7124.
As stated, Raynaud's syndrome (secondary Raynaud's phenomenon) and
Raynaud's disease (primary Raynaud's phenomenon) are unrelated in both
etiology and severity. According to the NIH's National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute, Raynaud's syndrome (secondary Raynaud's phenomenon) is
typically caused by autoimmune diseases such as scleroderma, lupus,
rheumatoid arthritis, atherosclerosis, or polycythemia. ``Raynaud
Phenomenon.'' Medscape (September 6, 2017), https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/331197-overview (last visited September
12, 2017).
On the other hand. the cause of Raynaud's disease (primary
Raynaud's phenomenon) is not known. Id. Raynaud's disease (primary
Raynaud's phenomenon) is more common and tends to be less severe than
Raynaud's syndrome (secondary Raynaud's phenomenon). Ray W. Gifford,
Jr. & Edgar A. Hines, Jr., ``Raynaud's Disease Among Women and Girls,''
16 Circulation 1012, 1019 (1957). VA discusses how to properly evaluate
Raynaud's disease (primary Raynaud's phenomenon) below in the section
proposing the new DC 7124. No other changes are proposed to DC 7117.
J. Diagnostic Code 7120
DC 7121 currently evaluates post-phlebitic syndrome of any
etiology, with its rating criteria identical to that used in DC 7120,
Varicose veins. VA currently maintains separate DCs for these
disabilities to monitor in the Veteran population the incidence and
outcome of claims for these specific and separate diagnoses. However,
for clarity, consistency, and improved ease of use, VA proposes to
delete the duplicative rating criteria and instruct rating personnel to
evaluate DC 7120, Varicose veins, under DC 7121, Post-phlebitic
syndrome. VA does not propose any changes to the content of DC 7121
itself.
K. Diagnostic Code 7122
VA last amended the rating criteria for DC 7122, Cold injury
residuals, in 1998. 63 FR 37778. In the time since, medicine has
documented new chronic residuals of cold injury. Therefore, VA proposes
to update the criteria to include the findings specifically noted by
the Veterans Health Initiative, Department of Veterans Affairs, ``Cold
Injury: Diagnosis and Management of Long-Term Sequelae,'' revised in
March 2002. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/vhi/coldinjury.pdf
This study collected medical and anecdotal information on cold
injury
[[Page 37600]]
residuals from veterans. The study indicated that the effects of cold
weather injuries may be irreversible and worsen with age. Id. at 15.
The residuals of cold injuries include residual pain, numbness, cold
sensitivity, tissue loss, nail abnormalities, color changes, locally
impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis, x-ray abnormalities, anhydrosis,
muscle atrophy, muscle fibrosis, deformity in flexion and/or extension
of certain joints, loss of fat pads in the fingers and toes, bone
death, skin ulcers, and carpal or tarsal tunnel syndrome. Id. at 24-25.
VA proposes to include these updated residuals of cold injuries within
this DC, which assigns evaluations based on the number of cold injury
residuals present.
IV. Proposed New Diagnostic Codes
A. New Diagnostic Code 7009
VA proposes to add a new DC 7009, titled ``Bradycardia
(Bradyarrhythmia), symptomatic, requiring permanent pacemaker
implantation,'' to account for impairment in the Veteran population due
to this condition. Individuals generally have a normal resting heart
rate ranging from 60 to 100 beats per minute. Individuals with
bradycardia, however, have a resting heart rate of less than 60 beats
per minute. ``Bradycardia,'' Harvard Health Topic at Drugs.com, https://www.drugs.com/health-guide/bradycardia.html (last visited May 5, 2014).
Notably, asymptomatic bradycardia occurs normally in individuals when
sleeping and in many healthy, athletic adults. Id. See also
``Bradycardia (Slow Heart Rate)--Topic Overview,'' WebMD (Nov. 21,
2011), https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/tc/bradycardia-slow-heart-rate-overview (last visited May 5, 2014). It should be noted that
asymptomatic bradycardia is a medical finding, does not require medical
intervention, and is not subject to service-connected compensation.
Symptomatic bradycardia can be caused by changes due to aging,
certain medications, diseases, and infections, all of which can damage
the heart and slow its electrical impulses. See Amy Scholten, MPH,
``Bradycardia (Bradyarrhythmia),'' NYU Langone Cardiac and Vascular
Institute, 2-3 (Feb. 2008). When medical management for symptomatic
bradycardia is not effective, a pacemaker implant is the treatment of
choice. Id. at 3. Implantation of a pacemaker aids in normalizing the
heart rate and returning the individual to baseline cardiac function.
VA proposes to evaluate this condition at 100 percent for one month
following hospitalization for implantation or re-implantation.
Following the initial month, the disability will be evaluated using the
General Rating Formula. To assist rating personnel in understanding and
evaluating bradycardia, VA also proposes to include a note under DC
7009 which defines bradycardia and describes the five general classes
of bradyarrhythmias.
B. New Diagnostic Code 7124
VA proposes to add a new DC 7124, titled ``Raynaud's disease (also
known as primary Raynaud's phenomenon or primary Raynaud's):.'' The
VASRD currently evaluates Raynaud's disease using the criteria under DC
7117, which is for ``Raynaud's syndrome,'' a different and more severe
disability. Therefore, VA proposes a new DC to specifically evaluate
Raynaud's disease. This DC will also include notes to define
characteristic attacks as well as to emphasize rating Raynaud's
syndrome (Raynaud's phenomenon, Secondary Raynaud's) under DC 7117.
As stated previously, Raynaud's disease is more common and tends to
be less severe than Raynaud's syndrome. The Mayo Clinic performed a
study involving 474 women and girls with Raynaud's disease. Follow-up
information obtained from 307 of those who received conservative
treatment confirmed the benign nature of the disease, with no deaths
attributed to it and extremely little disability. The study found that
uncomplicated Raynaud's disease may be inconvenient because of the need
to protect the extremities from cold and trauma, but it is not
disabling.
Raynaud's disease, the less severe form of Raynaud's, rarely
involves trophic changes because it involves brief spasms of the
arteries rather than occlusion of the peripheral arteries. See ``What
is Raynaud's?'' National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Mar. 21,
2014), https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/raynaud/
(last visited May 5, 2014). Furthermore, when trophic changes are
present, they are limited to the distal skin of the digits. ``Raynaud's
disease,'' Mayo Clinic (Oct. 20, 2011), https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/raynauds-disease/basics/complications/con-20022916
(last visited May 5, 2014). Therefore, VA proposes a non-compensable
evaluation when Raynaud's disease manifests without lasting impairment
in the form of trophic changes. VA proposes a 10 percent evaluation
with residual trophic changes (e.g., skin changes such as thinning,
atrophy fissuring, ulceration, scarring, absence of hair; nail changes
(clubbing, deformities).) VA proposes the addition of a note to provide
examples of trophic changes for clarification purposes, consistent with
other proposed changes.
VA also proposes to include a note to clarify and assist assigning
evaluations under this DC by defining a characteristic attack of
Raynaud's disease. As with DC 7117, this note will also indicate that
evaluations under this code are for the disease as a whole. To further
promote clarity and consistency, another proposed note would emphasize
that the purpose of DC 7124 is to evaluate only Raynaud's disease, as
opposed to Raynaud's syndrome. A veteran cannot receive simultaneous
ratings under both DC 7117 and DC 7124, because Raynaud's disease and
Raynaud's syndrome cannot be comorbid conditions.
Effect of Rulemaking
Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this
proposed rulemaking, would represent VA's implementation of its legal
authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to these
regulations or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures
are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to
conform with this proposed rulemaking if possible or, if not possible,
such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory
Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a
``significant regulatory action,'' which requires review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), as ``any regulatory action that is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create a serious
[[Page 37601]]
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in this Executive Order.''
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy
implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has
been determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in this Executive Order. VA's impact analysis can be found as a
supporting document at https://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48
hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy
of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website
at https://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations
Published from FY 2004 through Fiscal Year to Date. This proposed rule
is not expected to be subject to the requirements of EO13771 because
this proposed rule is expected to result in no more than de minimis
costs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulatory action contains provisions constituting a
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The information collection requirements for 38 CFR 3.151 are
associated with this rule, but do not constitute a new or revised
collection of information; OMB has already approved these requirements
under control number 2900-0747.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary hereby certifies that the adoption of this rule would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601-612. This rule would not directly affect any small entities;
only individuals could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the initial and final
regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C.
1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and
benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any 1 year. This rule will have no such effect on State,
local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and
titles for this rule are 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected
Disability for Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-
Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation for Service-Connected Death.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4
Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.
Signing Authority
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this
document and authorized the undersigned to submit it to the Office of
the Federal Register for electronic publication as an official document
of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 10,
2019, for publication.
Dated: July 23, 2019.
Jeffrey M. Martin,
Assistant Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of
the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38
CFR part 4 as set forth below:
PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES
Subpart B--Disability Ratings
0
1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Revise Sec. 4.100 paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 4.100 Application of the evaluation criteria for diagnostic
codes 7000-7007, 7011, and 7015-7020.
* * * * *
(b) Even if the requirement for a 10% (based on the need for
continuous medication) or 30% (based on the presence of cardiac
hypertrophy or dilatation) evaluation is met, METs testing is required
in all cases except:
(1) When there is a medical contraindication.
(2) When a 100% evaluation can be assigned on another basis.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
0
3. Amend Sec. 4.104 by:
0
a. Adding the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart
0
b. Adding the instruction to DCs 7000, 7001, 7002, 7006, 7017 to
evaluate disability using the General Rating Formula to evaluate
residual disability after three months
0
c. Adding the instruction to DCs 7003, 7004, 7005, 7007, and 7020 to
evaluate disability using the General Rating Formula
0
d. Adding the instruction to DCs 7011, 7016 to evaluate disability
using the General Rating Formula by mandatory examination six months
after discharge
0
e. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7015
0
f. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7019
0
g. Retitling and revise the evaluation criteria for DC 7010
0
h. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7018
0
i. Retitling and revise the evaluation criteria for DC 7110
0
j. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7111
0
k. Revising DC 7113 to add explanatory information
0
l. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7114
0
m. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7115
0
n. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7117
0
o. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7120
0
p. Revising the evaluation criteria for DC 7122
0
q. Adding new DC 7009
0
r. Adding new DC 7124.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 4.104 Schedule of ratings--cardiovascular system.
[[Page 37602]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diseases of the Heart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless otherwise directed, use this general rating
formula to evaluate diseases of the heart.
Note (1): Evaluate cor pulmonale, which is a form of
secondary heart disease, as part of the pulmonary
condition that causes it.
Note (2): One MET (metabolic equivalent) is the energy
cost of standing quietly at rest and represents an
oxygen uptake of 3.5 milliliters per kilogram of body
weight per minute. When the level of METs at which
breathlessness, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope
develops is required for evaluation, and a laboratory
determination of METs by exercise testing cannot be
done for medical reasons, a medical examiner may
estimate the level of activity (expressed in METs and
supported by specific examples, such as slow stair
climbing or shoveling snow) that results in those
symptoms.
Note (3): For this general formula, heart failure
symptoms include, but are not limited to,
breathlessness, fatigue, angina, dizziness, arrhythmia,
palpitations, or syncope.
General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Heart:
Workload of 3.0 METs or less results in heart 100
failure symptoms...................................
Workload of 3.1-5.0 METs results in heart failure 60
symptoms...........................................
Workload of 5.1-7.0 METs results in heart failure 30
symptoms; or evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or
dilatation confirmed by echocardiogram or
equivalent (e.g., multigated acquisition scan or
magnetic resonance imaging)........................
Workload of 7.1-10.0 METs results in heart failure 10
symptoms; or continuous medication required for
control............................................
7000 Valvular heart disease (including rheumatic heart
disease), 7001 Endocarditis, or 7002 Pericarditis:
During active infection with cardiac involvement and 100
for three months following cessation of therapy for
the active infection...............................
Thereafter, with diagnosis confirmed by findings on
physical examination and either echocardiogram,
Doppler echocardiogram, or cardiac catheterization,
use the General Rating Formula.
7003 Pericardial adhesions.
7004 Syphilitic heart disease:
Note: Evaluate syphilitic aortic aneurysms under DC
7110 (Aortic aneurysm: Ascending, thoracic,
abdominal).
7005 Arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery
disease).
Note: If non-service-connected arteriosclerotic
heart disease is superimposed on service-connected
valvular or other non-arteriosclerotic heart
disease, request a medical opinion as to which
condition is causing the current signs and
symptoms.
7006 Myocardial infarction:
During and for three months following myocardial 100
infarction, confirmed by laboratory tests..........
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
7007 Hypertensive heart disease.
7008 Hyperthyroid heart disease:
Rate under the appropriate cardiovascular diagnostic
code, depending on particular findings.
For DCs 7009, 7010, 7011, and 7015, a single evaluation
will be assigned under the diagnostic code which
reflects the predominant disability picture.
7009 Bradycardia (Bradyarrhythmia), symptomatic,
requiring permanent pacemaker implantation:
For one month following hospital discharge for 100
implantation or re-implantation....................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
Note (1): Bradycardia (bradyarrhythmia) refers to
conduction abnormalities that produce a heart rate
less than 60 beats/min. There are five general
classes of bradyarrhythmias:
--Sinus bradycardia, including sinoatrial block;
--Atrioventricular (AV) junctional (nodal)
escape rhythm;
--AV heart block (second or third degree) or AV
dissociation;
--Atrial fibrillation or flutter with a slow
ventricular response; and
--Idioventricular escape rhythm.
Note (2): Asymptomatic bradycardia (bradyarrhythmia)
is a medical finding which does not require medical
intervention, thus, it is not entitled to service
connection.
7010 Supraventricular tachycardia:
Confirmed by ECG, with five or more treatment 30
interventions per year.............................
Confirmed by ECG, with one to four treatment 10
interventions per year.............................
Note (1): Examples of supraventricular tachycardia
include, but are not limited to, atrial
fibrillation, atrial flutter, sinus tachycardia,
sinoatrial nodal reentrant tachycardia,
atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia,
atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia, atrial
tachycardia, junctional tachycardia, and multifocal
atrial tachycardia.
Note (2): For the purposes of this diagnostic code,
a treatment intervention occurs whenever a
symptomatic patient requires intravenous
pharmacologic adjustment, cardioversion, and/or
ablation for symptom relief.
7011 Ventricular arrhythmias (sustained):
For an indefinite period from the date of hospital 100
admission for initial medical therapy for a
sustained ventricular arrhythmia; or for an
indefinite period from the date of hospital
admission for ventricular aneurysmectomy; or with
an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
(AICD) in place....................................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient
hospitalization for sustained ventricular
arrhythmia or for ventricular aneurysmectomy,
disability evaluation shall be conducted by
mandatory VA examination using the General Rating
Formula. Apply the provisions of Sec. 3.105(e) of
this chapter to any change in evaluation based upon
that or any subsequent examination.
7015 Atrioventricular block:
Benign (First-Degree and Second-Degree, Type I):
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula.
Non-Benign (Second-Degree, Type II and Third-
Degree):
Evaluate under DC 7018 (implantable cardiac
pacemakers).
7016 Heart valve replacement (prosthesis):
For an indefinite period following date of hospital 100
admission for valve replacement....................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
[[Page 37603]]
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient
hospitalization, disability evaluation shall be
conducted by mandatory VA examination using the
General Rating Formula. Apply the provisions of
Sec. 3.105(e) of this chapter to any change in
evaluation based upon that or any subsequent
examination.
7017 Coronary bypass surgery:...........................
For three months following hospital admission for 100
surgery............................................
Thereafter, use the General Rating Formula.
7018 Implantable cardiac pacemakers:
For one month following hospital discharge for 100
implantation or re-implantation....................
Thereafter:
Evaluate as supraventricular tachycardia (DC
7010), ventricular arrhythmias (DC 7011), or
atrioventricular block (DC 7015).
Minimum......................................... 10
Note (1): Evaluate automatic implantable
cardioverter-defibrillators (AICDs) under DC 7011.
7019 Cardiac transplantation:
For a minimum of one year from the date of hospital 100
admission for cardiac transplantation..............
Thereafter:
Evaluate under the General Rating Formula.
Minimum......................................... 30
Note: One year following discharge from inpatient
hospitalization, determine the appropriate
disability rating by mandatory VA examination.
Apply the provisions of Sec. 3.105(e) of this
chapter to any change in evaluation based upon that
or any subsequent examination.
7020 Cardiomyopathy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diseases of the Arteries and Veins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7110 Aortic aneurysm: Ascending, thoracic, or abdominal:
If 5 centimeters (cm) or larger in diameter; or, if 100
symptomatic (e.g., precludes exertion) and a
physician recommends surgical correction, for the
period beginning on the date a physician recommends
surgical correction and continuing for six months
following hospital discharge for surgical
correction (including any type of graft insertion).
If less than 5 cm in diameter; or, surgical 0
correction not recommended.........................
Evaluate non-cardiovascular residuals of surgical
correction according to organ systems affected.
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient
hospitalization for surgery, disability evaluation
shall be determined by mandatory VA examination of
cardiovascular residuals using the General Rating
Formula for Diseases of the Heart. Any change in
evaluation based upon that or any subsequent
examination shall be subject to the provisions of
Sec. 3.105(e) of this chapter.
7111 Aneurysm, any large artery:
If symptomatic; or, for the period beginning on the 100
date a physician recommends surgical correction and
continuing for six months following discharge from
inpatient hospital admission for surgical
correction.........................................
Following surgery: Evaluate under DC 7114
(peripheral arterial disease).
Note: Six months following discharge from inpatient
hospitalization for surgery, determine the
appropriate disability rating by mandatory VA
examination. Any change in evaluation based upon
that or any subsequent examination shall be subject
to the provisions of Sec. 3.105(e) of this
chapter.
* * * * * * *
7113 Arteriovenous fistula, traumatic:
With high-output heart failure...................... 100
Without heart failure but with enlarged heart, wide 60
pulse pressure, and tachycardia....................
Without cardiac involvement but with chronic edema,
stasis dermatitis, and either ulceration or
cellulitis:
Lower extremity................................. 50
Upper extremity................................. 40
Without cardiac involvement but with chronic edema
or stasis dermatitis:
Lower extremity................................. 30
Upper extremity................................. 20
7114 Peripheral arterial disease:
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index 100
less than or equal to 0.39; ankle pressure less
than 50 mm Hg; toe pressure less than 30 mm Hg; or
transcutaneous oxygen tension less than 30 mm Hg...
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index 60
of 0.40-0.53; ankle pressure of 50-65 mm Hg; toe
pressure of 30-39 mm Hg; or transcutaneous oxygen
tension of 30-39 mm Hg.............................
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index 40
of 0.54-0.66; ankle pressure of 66-83 mm Hg; toe
pressure of 40-49 mm Hg; or transcutaneous oxygen
tension of 40-49 mm Hg.............................
At least one of the following: Ankle/brachial index 20
of 0.67-0.79; ankle pressure of 84-99 mm Hg; toe
pressure of 50-59 mm Hg; or transcutaneous oxygen
tension of 50-59 mm Hg.............................
Note (1): The ankle/brachial index (ABI) is the
ratio of the systolic blood pressure at the ankle
divided by the simultaneous brachial artery
systolic blood pressure. For the purposes of this
diagnostic code, normal ABI will be greater than or
equal to 0.80. The ankle pressure (AP) is the
systolic blood pressure measured at the ankle.
Normal AP is greater than or equal to 100 mm Hg.
The toe pressure (TP) is the systolic blood
pressure measured at the great toe. Normal TP is
greater than or equal to 60 mm Hg. Transcutaneous
oxygen tension (TcPO2) is measured at the first
intercostal space on the foot. Normal TcPO2 is
greater than or equal to 60 mm Hg. All measurements
must be determined by objective testing.
Note (2): Select the highest impairment value of
ABI, AP, TP, or TcPO2 for evaluation.
Note (3): Evaluate residuals of aortic and large
arterial bypass surgery or arterial graft as
peripheral arterial disease.
Note (4): These evaluations involve a single
extremity. If more than one extremity is affected,
evaluate each extremity separately and combine
(under Sec. 4.25), using the bilateral factor
(Sec. 4.26), if applicable.
7115 Thrombo-angiitis obliterans (Buerger's Disease):
[[Page 37604]]
Lower extremity: Rate under DC 7114.
Upper extremity:
Deep ischemic ulcers and necrosis of the fingers 100
with persistent coldness of the extremity,
trophic changes with pains in the hand during
physical activity, and diminished upper
extremity pulses...............................
Persistent coldness of the extremity, trophic 60
changes with pains in the hands during physical
activity, and diminished upper extremity pulses
Trophic changes with numbness and paresthesia at 40
the tips of the fingers, and diminished upper
extremity pulses...............................
Diminished upper extremity pulses............... 20
Note (1): These evaluations involve a single
extremity. If more than one extremity is affected,
evaluate each extremity separately and combine
(under Sec. 4.25), using the bilateral factor
(Sec. 4.26), if applicable.
Note (2): Trophic changes include, but are not
limited to, skin changes (thinning, atrophy,
fissuring, ulceration, scarring, absence of hair)
as well as nail changes (clubbing, deformities).
7117 Raynaud's syndrome (also known as secondary
Raynaud's phenomenon or secondary Raynaud's)...........
With two or more digital ulcers plus auto-amputation 100
of one or more digits and history of characteristic
attacks............................................
With two or more digital ulcers and history of 60
characteristic attacks.............................
Characteristic attacks occurring at least daily..... 40
Characteristic attacks occurring four to six times a 20
week...............................................
Characteristic attacks occurring one to three times 10
a week.............................................
Note (1): For purposes of this section,
characteristic attacks consist of sequential color
changes of the digits of one or more extremities
lasting minutes to hours, sometimes with pain and
paresthesias, and precipitated by exposure to cold
or by emotional upsets. These evaluations are for
Raynaud's syndrome as a whole, regardless of the
number of extremities involved or whether the nose
and ears are involved.
Note (2): This section is for evaluating Raynaud's
syndrome (secondary Raynaud's phenomenon or
secondary Raynaud's). For evaluation of Raynaud's
disease (primary Raynaud's phenomenon, or primary
Raynaud's), see DC 7124.
* * * * * * *
7120 Varicose veins:
Evaluate under diagnostic code 7121.
* * * * * * *
7122 Cold injury residuals:
With the following in affected parts:
Arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold 30
sensitivity plus two or more of the following:
Tissue loss, nail abnormalities, color changes,
locally impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis,
anhydrosis, X-ray abnormalities (osteoporosis,
subarticular punched-out lesions, or
osteoarthritis), atrophy or fibrosis of the
affected musculature, flexion or extension
deformity of distal joints, volar fat pad loss
in fingers or toes, avascular necrosis of bone,
chronic ulceration, carpal or tarsal tunnel
syndrome.......................................
Arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold 20
sensitivity plus one of the following: Tissue
loss, nail abnormalities, color changes,
locally impaired sensation, hyperhidrosis,
anhydrosis, X-ray abnormalities (osteoporosis,
subarticular punched-out lesions, or
osteoarthritis), atrophy or fibrosis of the
affected musculature, flexion or extension
deformity of distal joints, volar fat pad loss
in fingers or toes, avascular necrosis of bone,
chronic ulceration, carpal or tarsal tunnel
syndrome.......................................
Arthralgia or other pain, numbness, or cold 10
sensitivity....................................
Note (1): Separately evaluate amputations of fingers
or toes, and complications such as squamous cell
carcinoma at the site of a cold injury scar or
peripheral neuropathy, under other diagnostic
codes. Separately evaluate other disabilities
diagnosed as the residual effects of cold injury,
such as Raynaud's syndrome (which is otherwise
known as secondary Raynaud's phenomenon), muscle
atrophy, etc., unless they are used to support an
evaluation under diagnostic code 7122.
Note (2): Evaluate each affected part (e.g., hand,
foot, ear, nose) separately and combine the ratings
in accordance with Sec. Sec. 4.25 and 4.26.
* * * * * * *
7124 Raynaud's disease (also known as primary Raynaud's
phenomenon or primary Raynaud's):......................
Characteristic attacks associated with trophic 10
change(s), such as tight, shiny skin...............
Characteristic attacks without trophic change(s).... 0
Note (1): For purposes of this section,
characteristic attacks consist of intermittent and
episodic color changes of the digits of one or more
extremities, lasting minutes or longer, with
occasional pain and paresthesias, and precipitated
by exposure to cold or by emotional upsets. These
evaluations are for the disease as a whole,
regardless of the number of extremities involved or
whether the nose and ears are involved.
Note (2): Trophic changes include, but are not
limited to, skin changes (thinning, atrophy,
fissuring, ulceration, scarring, absence of hair)
as well as nail changes (clubbing, deformities).
Note (3): This section is for evaluating Raynaud's
disease (primary Raynaud's phenomenon or primary
Raynaud's). For evaluation of Raynaud's syndrome
(also known as secondary Raynaud's phenomenon, or
secondary Raynaud's), see DC 7117.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
0
4. Amend Appendix A to Part 4 by:
0
a. Adding an entry for the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the
Heart to 4.104;
0
b. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 7000 through 7008;
0
c. Adding, in numerical order, an entry for diagnostic code 7009;
0
d. Revising the entries for diagnostic codes 7010, 7011, 7015 through
7020, 7110 through 7111, 7113 through 7115, 7117, and 7121 through
7122; and
0
e. Adding, in numerical order, an entry for diagnostic code 7124.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
[[Page 37605]]
Appendix A to Part 4--Table of Amendments and Effective Dates Since 1946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic
Sec. code No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
4.104..................... .............. General Rating Formula for
Diseases of the Heart
[Effective date of final
rule].
7000 Evaluation July 6, 1950;
evaluation September 22,
1928, evaluation January
12, 1998; criterion
[Effective date of final
rule].
7001 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
criterion [Effective date
of final rule].
7002 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
criterion [Effective date
of final rule].
7003 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
criterion [Effective date
of final rule].
7004 Criterion September 22,
1978; evaluation January
12, 1998; criterion
[Effective date of final
rule].
7005 Evaluation September 9,
1975; evaluation September
22, 1978; evaluation
January 12, 1998; criterion
[Effective date of final
rule].
7006 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
criterion [Effective date
of final rule]
7007 Evaluation September 22,
1978; evaluation January
12, 1998; criterion
[Effective date of final
rule].
7008 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
evaluation [Effective date
of final rule].
7009 Added [Effective date of
final rule].
7010 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
title, criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
7011 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
note, criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
* * * * * * *
7015 Evaluation September 9,
1975; criterion January 12,
1998; criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
7016 Added September 9, 1975;
criterion January 12, 1998;
note, criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
7017 Added September 22, 1978;
evaluation January 12,
1998; criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
7018 Added January 12, 1998;
criterion [Effective date
of final rule].
7019 Added January 12, 1998;
note, criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
7020 Added January 12, 1998;
criterion [Effective date
of final rule].
* * * * * * *
7110 Evaluation September 9,
1975; evaluation January
12, 1998; title, criterion,
note [Effective date of
final rule].
7111 Criterion September 9, 1975;
evaluation January 12,
1998; note, criterion
[Effective date of final
rule].
* * * * * * *
7113 Evaluation January 12, 1998;
criterion [Effective date
of final rule].
7114 Added June 9, 1952;
evaluation January 12,
1998; title, criterion,
note [Effective date of
final rule].
7115 Added June 9, 1952;
evaluation January 12,
1998; note, criterion,
evaluation [Effective date
of final rule].
* * * * * * *
7117 Added June 9, 1952;
evaluation January 12,
1998; title, note
[Effective date of final
rule].
* * * * * * *
7121 Criterion July 6, 1950;
evaluation March 10, 1976;
evaluation January 12,
1998; criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
7122 Last sentence of Note
following July 6, 1950;
evaluation January 12,
1998; criterion August 13,
1998; criterion [Effective
date of final rule].
* * * * * * *
7124 Added [Effective date of
final rule].
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Amend Appendix B to Part 4, Sec. 4.104 by:
0
a. Adding, in numerical order, an entry for diagnostic code 7009;
0
b. Revising diagnostic codes 7010, 7110, 7114, and 7117; and
0
c. Adding, in numerical order, an entry for diagnostic code 7124.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 4--Numerical Index of Disabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic code No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cardiovascular System--Diseases of the Heart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
7009.................... Bradycardia (Bradyarrhythmia), symptomatic,
requiring permanent pacemaker implantation.
[[Page 37606]]
* * * * * * *
7010.................... Supraventricular tachycardia.
* * * * * * *
7110.................... Aortic aneurysm: ascending, thoracic,
abdominal.
* * * * * * *
7114.................... Peripheral arterial disease.
* * * * * * *
7117.................... Raynaud's syndrome (secondary Raynaud's
phenomenon).
* * * * * * *
7124.................... Raynaud's disease (primary Raynaud's
phenomenon, primary Raynaud's).
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6. Revise Appendix C to Part 4, Sec. 4.104 by:
0
a. Revising the entry for Aneurysm: Aortic: ascending, thoracic,
abdominal;
0
b. Adding, in alphabetical order, under the entry for Bones an entry
for Bradycardia (Bradyarrhthmia), symptomatic, requiring permanent
pacemaker implantation;
0
c. Revising the entries for Hypertension (isolated systolic, diastolic,
or combined systolic and diastolic hypertension) and Peripheral
arterial disease;
0
d. Adding, in alphabetical order, under the entry for Pyelonephritis,
chronic, an entry for Raynaud's disease (primary Raynaud's phenomenon,
primary Raynaud's); and
0
e. Revising the entries for Raynaud's syndrome (Raynaud's phenomenon,
secondary Raynaud's) and Supraventricular tachycardia.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 4--Alphabetical Index of Disabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diagnostic
code No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Aneurysm:
Aortic: ascending, thoracic, abdominal.............. 7110
Large artery........................................ 7111
Small artery........................................ 7118
* * * * * * *
Arrhythmia:
Ventricular......................................... 7011
* * * * * * *
Bones:
Bradycardia......................................... 7009
(Bradyarrhythmia), symptomatic, requiring permanent
pacemaker implantation.............................
* * * * * * *
Peripheral arterial disease............................. 7114
* * * * * * *
Raynaud's disease (primary Raynaud's)................... 7124
Raynaud's syndrome (Raynaud's phenomenon, secondary 7117
Raynaud's).............................................
* * * * * * *
Supraventricular tachycardia............................ 7010
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37607]]
[FR Doc. 2019-15904 Filed 7-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P