Ohio veterans groups ask for larger state subsidy, warn of rise in claims and urge protections against predatory claim preparers

Representatives of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Veterans (AMVETS) told the Ohio House Veterans and Military Development Committee on March 18 that state support for veteran service officers needs to rise to keep up with claim volume created by the federal PACT Act and to sustain local services.

David Root, state legislative chairman of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told the committee that “our total claims ... was up 75%,” and said the VFW currently has seven full‑time veteran service officers in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Dayton. He said the VFW is one of four large veteran service organizations that receive a line‑item subsidy in the executive budget and that “the VFW is one of the big 4 that receives $450,000 subsidy each fiscal year.”

Why it matters: Committee members heard that the higher caseload has increased staff workload and phone traffic for organizations that assist veterans with VA claims, and that the organizations rely on state funding to operate service offices and crisis lines that serve veterans statewide.

Root summarized three legislative priorities: state action on an “enhanced homestead exemption” for qualifying veterans (he said there are two bills in the House and one in the Senate), state penalties for attorneys or preparers the VFW calls “claim sharks” who prepare or charge for veterans’ claims without VA accreditation, and additional state subsidy to offset rising costs and demand. “Increasing the subsidy from $450,000 to $475,000 would overcome the cost of living increases,” Root said, adding that an increase to $500,000 would permit hiring an additional accredited service officer in Columbus.

Committee members offered support. Representative Willis (state representative) told Root he was “happy to sponsor and work with anyone in lehi legislature on making sure that we get that passed correctly,” referring to a state-level bill to address non‑accredited claim preparers. Root said the VFW national office circulated a model draft that a state senator is adapting as a companion bill.

Don McCauley, executive director of AMVETS Department of Ohio, described AMVETS’ programs and said the department employs seven service officers at six VA locations and issues about $41,000 in scholarships annually. He outlined charitable programs (including local posts’ use of electronic bingo/charitable gaming), ROTC and junior ROTC awards, and a 24‑hour veterans crisis line called 1 is Too Many (oneistomany.com). McCauley said those programs are supported in part by state appropriations that fund service‑officer positions.

On suicide prevention, committee members and presenters discussed coordination among veterans service organizations, county mental‑health boards and the statewide 988 crisis line. Vice Chair Matthews recalled the origin of a veteran crisis effort and said the group’s name reflects the goal: “as long as there's 1 veteran that commits suicide, that's too many,” a line used by presenters to describe the 1 is Too Many program. McCauley said AMVETS’ crisis line averages rapid answer times and that donated local hotlines supplement centralized resources.

Facts and figures offered to the committee: Root cited year‑end totals he received from the state Department of Veterans Service showing a 75% increase in claims (from roughly 1,463 to 2,196 in his cited comparison), a 32% rise in Board of Veterans’ Appeals hearings, a doubling of reviewed VA decisions for errors, and a 34% increase in phone and email contacts. Root said Ohio has roughly 600,000 veterans and that VFW service officers represent any of the state’s veterans regardless of VFW membership.

No formal committee action or votes were recorded at the meeting on the budget requests or pending bills; presenters requested legislative sponsorship and budget increases and committee members said they would consider those requests. Root asked committee members to publicize a veterans caucus event on March 18.

Ending: Presenters left committee members with contact information and offers to follow up. The committee did not adopt motions or vote on funding during the session; members thanked the organizations and adjourned after the presentations.