Amidst intense scrutiny and a history marred by critical failures, the Department of Veterans Affairs is facing a formidable challenge from lawmakers who demand nothing short of a “flawless” execution for the planned relaunch of its new electronic health record (EHR) system. The ambitious and costly project, largely paused since April 2023 due to significant patient safety concerns and technological malfunctions, is scheduled to resume its deployment in early 2026. However, assurances from the VA and its contractor, Oracle, have done little to quell the deep-seated apprehension on Capitol Hill, where a legacy of broken promises and unheeded warnings has fostered an environment of profound distrust. The central conflict lies between the optimistic progress reports from officials and the persistent, unresolved issues flagged by government watchdogs, creating a high-stakes standoff over the future of veteran healthcare technology.
A History of Unmet Expectations
Promises Versus Performance
During recent testimony, officials from both the VA and Oracle painted a picture of significant recovery and stabilization for the beleaguered EHR system. They emphasized a period of marked improvement, highlighting that during fiscal year 2025, the system operated for ten consecutive months without any systemwide outages—a notable milestone for a platform previously defined by its instability. This progress, they argued, is a clear indicator of their readiness to move forward and expand the system’s reach beyond its current limited footprint. The narrative presented was one of a project that has turned a corner, with technical glitches being systematically addressed and performance metrics trending in a positive direction. This portrayal suggests that the lessons from past failures have been learned and that the foundational technology is now robust enough to support a broader, more aggressive deployment schedule, finally fulfilling the initial promise of a modernized, seamless health record system for the nation’s veterans.
In stark contrast to these optimistic reports stands the project’s grim history, which continues to cast a long shadow over its future. Initiated in 2018 with vendor Cerner, later acquired by Oracle, the EHR modernization effort has been severely troubled from its inception. The deployment has been restricted to just six of the VA’s 170 medical centers, and even this limited rollout was plagued by a cascade of severe problems. Reports documented numerous instances of patient harm, technological failures that disrupted clinical workflows, and fundamental system reliability issues that eroded the trust of medical staff. The decision to pause the program in 2023 was not a proactive measure but a necessary reaction to a system that was actively endangering veteran care. This troubled past makes lawmakers deeply skeptical of any claims of a complete turnaround, as the core issues that led to the pause—related to user experience, patient safety, and system functionality—remain at the forefront of their concerns, fueling doubts that the underlying problems have truly been resolved.
Unheeded Warnings from Government Watchdogs
The skepticism expressed by lawmakers is not based on past performance alone but is actively reinforced by contemporary evidence from government oversight bodies. A recent and damning report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has become a focal point of the debate, revealing a significant gap between the VA’s asserted progress and its actual implementation of critical improvements. The report found that the VA has failed to address 16 out of 18 key recommendations previously issued by the GAO. These are not minor suggestions but address fundamental pillars of a successful system deployment, including crucial areas such as improving user satisfaction, strengthening training and change management protocols to ensure staff can use the system effectively, and, critically, accelerating the resolution time for technical support tickets that can directly impact patient care. This failure to act on expert guidance suggests a systemic inability or unwillingness to tackle the project’s foundational weaknesses, undermining any confidence that future rollouts will be managed more effectively than those in the past.
This extensive backlog of unimplemented recommendations has become a symbol of the project’s inertia and has galvanized congressional opposition. Lawmakers pointed to the GAO’s findings as definitive proof that the VA and Oracle are not prepared for the next phase of deployment. The ignored advice on enhancing user training is particularly concerning, as staff dissatisfaction and difficulty with the system were primary drivers of the initial failures. The slow resolution of support tickets further indicates that the underlying infrastructure to support clinicians remains inadequate. This sentiment was forcefully articulated by Rep. Nikki Budzinski, who, citing the GAO’s findings, stated she has “no confidence” that the upcoming deployments will be any better than the disastrous previous attempts. Her statement encapsulates the prevailing mood in Congress: without concrete action on the well-documented advice from watchdogs, promises of a better future for the EHR system ring hollow.
A High-Stakes Future
An Accelerated and Aggressive Rollout Strategy
Adding to the considerable unease is the VA’s newly proposed deployment strategy, which represents a significant departure from its previous, more cautious approach. Instead of the single-site rollouts that characterized the initial phase, the VA now plans to implement a market-based approach. This strategy involves bringing multiple facilities in a single geographic region live on the new EHR system simultaneously. The proposed schedule is notably ambitious, with thirteen medical centers slated for deployment in 2026 and a staggering 26 additional facilities planned for 2027. According to the VA and Oracle, this accelerated method is intended to improve efficiency, streamline logistics, and allow for the sharing of best practices and support resources among facilities within the same market. In theory, this approach could create a more cohesive and collaborative transition, but it also magnifies the potential for systemic failure if the underlying technology and support structures are not flawlessly prepared for such a large-scale, concurrent launch.
This pivot to a more aggressive, multi-site deployment is viewed by many as a high-risk gamble rather than a well-reasoned strategy. The GAO, in particular, has raised serious alarms about the feasibility and safety of this approach. Carol Harris, the GAO’s director of IT and cybersecurity, testified that managing the testing, training, and potential issues across four or more sites at once would require a “tremendous amount” of resources and coordination. The risk, she explained, is that problems that might be manageable at a single site could cascade across an entire regional market, overwhelming support teams and potentially leading to widespread disruptions in veteran care. Lawmakers share this concern, viewing the accelerated timeline as an attempt to make up for lost time without first demonstrating mastery over the system’s fundamental flaws. The fear is that in the rush to deploy, critical issues will be overlooked, repeating the mistakes of the past but on a much larger and more dangerous scale.
The Specter of Uncontrolled Costs
Overshadowing the entire debate about system readiness and deployment strategy is the project’s massive and poorly defined budget. Initially, the cost for the EHR modernization was estimated at $10 billion over a decade. However, that figure has since ballooned to a recent, staggering estimate of approximately $37 billion, a more than threefold increase that has shocked and alarmed lawmakers. This spiraling price tag raises fundamental questions about the project’s financial management and long-term viability. The concern is not merely the total cost but the lack of transparency and stability in the projections. Lawmakers expressed frustration that this estimate has changed multiple times, creating a moving target that makes effective oversight nearly impossible. This financial uncertainty suggests a project that is not only technically challenged but also fiscally uncontrolled, adding another layer of risk to an already precarious endeavor.
The lack of clarity surrounding the budget has further eroded any remaining confidence in the project’s leadership. A particularly troubling revelation during hearings was that the GAO, the primary government watchdog, had not even been officially provided with the latest cost figures from the VA. This breakdown in communication indicates a severe lack of transparency and accountability, leading to concerns that the true bottom line of the project remains unknown and potentially even higher than the current estimate. For Congress, a project without a firm, reliable, and officially communicated budget is a project without adequate controls. This financial chaos, combined with the unresolved technical issues and the high-risk deployment strategy, has created a perfect storm of doubt. The consensus among many lawmakers is that moving forward under such conditions would be an irresponsible use of taxpayer money and an unacceptable risk to veteran health and safety. The hearing concluded with a palpable sense of apprehension, as the chasm between the VA’s assurances and the project’s documented failures left the path forward shrouded in uncertainty.
