A new Department of Veterans Affairs report concludes that every alternative to finishing its half-built Aurora hospital would be unpalatable.

The cost-benefit analysis, dated April 21, looked at five alternatives to continuing construction: living with the status quo, renovating the existing medical center in Denver, leasing a newly built medical center, contracting out veterans’ medical care and buying an existing facility.

It calls finishing the hospital the preferred option, one that would prove most cost-effective over the long term and provide the best care.

“This option is the one most likely to positively affect patient satisfaction and care,” the report says. “By constructing a new tertiary care medical facility, VA will enhance the quality of care provided to veterans and reduce patient wait times.”

Construction of the new VA medical center began in December 2011 with a $604 million budget. Its completion has been jeopardized by a new price estimate given to Congress last month: $1.73 billion.

In turn, the VA was asked to explore alternatives to completing a project already a billion dollars over budget.

The VA report, obtained by The Denver Post, relies on predictions of future numbers of veterans and their needs to make its recommendation. Jones Lang LaSalle, a large commercial real estate firm with federal clients, assisted in its preparation.

While the Denver-area veteran population is expected to decline by 25 percent in the next 20 years, according to the report, the number of veterans enrolled in the VA health-care system here is expected to grow by 13 percent.

And while the need for inpatient hospital beds also is expected to decline, the report forecasts a growing need for long-term care and spinal-cord injury beds, outpatient clinics and mental-health visits.

“The new facility,” the report says, “will help VA meet increased demand, as well as co-locate the medical center with the medical affiliate” — the University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora.

Bernie Rogoff, a commissioner of veterans affairs for the city of Aurora and longtime patient advocate, said he has yet to meet a veteran who doesn’t want the new hospital completed.

“I want it built quickly, by veterans for veterans,” he said, but at the same time, “those who lied to us need to be brought to justice.”

The report calls keeping the existing Denver hospital “the least preferred” alternative because it would not improve patient care, reduce wait times or put the VA near the university hospital.

Renovating the Denver hospital would require buying land, expanding parking and building a new hospital tower, a project estimated to take 27 years and cost an extra $1 billion in operating expenses over 20 years, the report says.

Contracting out medical care would add an estimated $2 billion to VA operating costs. In the Denver area, “a single suitable facility for possible acquisition” does not exist, and leasing an entire federal medical center “is unprecedented in the U.S.”

The VA analysis did not consider reducing the size of the medical center, a limited option because much of the exterior structural work has been completed.

Meanwhile, VA spokesman Paul Sherbo confirmed that overall project costs did increase slightly because two elevators needed to be enlarged to accommodate spinal-cord injury patients on gurneys.

Sherbo last week told The Post that the design team provided that service at no added cost. But, he later wrote that “in terms of actual materials,” the change added $17,650 for two elevators, or a 2 percent increase.

David Olinger: 303-954-1498, dolinger@denverpost.com or twitter.com/dolingerdp