The re-actions to General Order No. 26 were as I have just stated and came largely from the Bureau beneficiaries, from friends, relatives, and allied agencies working in the field. The criticisms of General Order No. 26–A, however, came largely from the hospitals and the District offices, the hospitals particularly. There was an apparent contradiction between the two orders. No. 26–A seemed to largely or entirely contradict the provisions of the original Order No. 26. General Order No. 26 stated that patients not requiring further hospital treatment should be given four days to complete personal arrangements and then be discharged.
General Order No. 26–A requires that before a patient is discharged from hospital it should be determined whether or not he is in further need of out-patient care; whether or not he is feasible and eligible for vocational training and if he wanted training, that this should be arranged before he is discharged, and that the necessary adjustments or re-adjustments of all matters pertaining to a claimant’s compensation be entirely completed by the time of his discharge from hospital; and further it must be distinctly understood in carrying out all of this that no unnecessary delay in discharge of patients would be allowed. A pretty complex and contradictory situation you might say. However, between the time of the issuance of General Order No. 26 and of General Order No. 26–A—to be exact, on October 14, 1921, a general order was addressed by the Medical Division of the U. S. Veterans’ Bureau to the several Government services—the Surgeons General of the Army, Navy, U. S. Public Health Service, the Superintendent of the National Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, the Superintendent of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, and to the fourteen District Managers. The essential parts of this letter are as follows:
October 14, 1921.
PSR/jcs L 10–DMO
District Manager,
District No. 1,
U. S. Veterans’ Bureau,
101 Milk Street,
Boston, Mass.
Dear Sir: