Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Benefits Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over HB 1102 spotlights fees, accreditation and protections for veterans seeking VA benefits
Summary
House Bill 1102 would regulate private companies that assist veterans with VA disability claims by setting contract, disclosure and fee limits; testimony split between companies seeking regulated market access and veterans groups and service officers warning of predatory practices.
Representative Sean Poushey told the House General Laws committee that House Bill 1102 aims to protect veterans while preserving private-market options for assistance in pursuing VA disability benefits.
"House Bill 11 o 2, basically the premise of this is to protect the earned benefits of veterans but also providing them as many options as possible in order to obtain them," Poushey said while presenting the bill. He described guardrails in the bill including detailed contract terms, limits on marketing, U.S.-based operations, restrictions on access to veterans’ personally identifiable information, and a cap on fees.
Supporters including John Blumstrom, manager of government relations and public affairs at Veterans Guardian, said the legislation would regulate private companies that assist veterans and require disclosures directing veterans to free Veterans Service Organization (VSO) assistance. "We are here to compliment them," Blumstrom said of VSOs, adding that the bill makes fees contingency-based and that companies must be successful before charging a veteran.
Opponents included Troy Williams, a VFW Department service officer, and Arnie C. ACDinoff, state public advocate, who called the companies "claim sharks" and said the 38 CFR (federal VA regulations) places limits on paid preparers for initial claims. Williams testified that many VSOs provide free services and that allowing contingency-fee companies risks predatory practices and out-of-state money leaving Missouri. "I take offense when I hear these companies that charge outrageous fees... Charging 5 times the increased amount is a lot of money," Williams said.
Questions from committee members focused on fee caps and whether contingency fees create incentives to delay claims. Supporters said fee caps are tied to federal models (e.g., a $12,500 or $15,000 cap or five times a monthly increase, whichever is less) and that companies do not collect veterans' back pay; they said the model incentivizes faster resolution.
Witnesses on both sides urged stronger accreditation and oversight. Some veterans said they use paid services when free options do not meet their needs or when VSOs lack capacity. The committee closed the public hearing with substantial testimony both for and against the bill and no recorded vote that day.
