House VA subcommittee debates bills to curb paid claims consultants, expand accreditation

The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing to consider three proposals that would reinstate criminal or civil penalties for unaccredited firms that assist veterans with Department of Veterans Affairs disability claims and to change rules about when fees may be charged. The measures discussed were H.R. 1656 (the PLUS Act), H.R. 1732 (the Guard Act) and a committee discussion draft; the record was left open for the Department of Veterans Affairs to submit views.

The bills matter because witnesses and members said veterans are paying large sums to private companies for help with claims and because a 2006 statutory change removed penalties for unaccredited preparers. Ranking Member McGarvey said the hearing’s goal was “to ensure that our veterans can access their earned benefits without delay and without being ripped off.” Chairman Littrell opened the session and noted VA officials were not present; the subcommittee said it would keep the record open for VA views.

Witnesses split into two main camps. Veterans service organizations, accredited attorneys and agents pressed for reinstating penalties and for preserving the current VA accreditation system. Diane Boyd Raubord of the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates and Pat Murray of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said only accredited representatives should lawfully assist veterans because accreditation provides oversight and recourse. “There is currently no due process or recourse for veterans who have been harmed by unaccredited actors,” Raubord said. The VFW’s witness reiterated concerns about fee structures that assign future benefits and cited a VA statement warning that fee arrangements based on a product of future monthly benefits may be “unreasonable or worse predatory.”

By contrast, executives from private companies that help veterans said they want a pathway to accreditation and argued that outright bans would remove choices veterans seek. Joshua Smith, chief executive officer of Veterans Benefits Guide, testified in opposition to the Guard Act and in support of the PLUS Act and a committee discussion draft. Smith said his company would welcome accreditation and that the PLUS Act “provides the right balance between establishing guardrails to protect veterans and ensuring private companies are allowed to continue serving veterans.”

William (Bill) Taylor, co‑founder and chief operating officer of Veterans Guardian, described his firm’s contingent fee model and said his employees “do not represent the veteran before the VA.” Taylor told the panel his company charges a contingent fee equal to five times the monthly increase in benefits and invoices only after the veteran is receiving the new benefit amount. Taylor also cited an internal figure that “there are currently over 935,000 claims awaiting adjudication by the VA,” saying veterans need additional options while the system catches up.

Several witnesses and members flagged specific statutory and administrative references repeatedly during the hearing: Title 38 provisions governing accreditation and fee collection (sections cited in testimony included 38 U.S.C. provisions commonly referred to as 5901 and 5904), the PACT Act and the Appeals Modernization Act. Witnesses noted the Social Security Administration’s existing fee cap ($9,200) as a precedent discussed in testimony, and the VFW witness referenced state laws: nine states have laws requiring fee arrangements to adhere to federal rules while a few states have passed more permissive caps.

Members pressed company witnesses on whether they had applied for or received accreditation. Several witnesses said they are not currently accredited and said they seek a legislative path that would allow provisional or expedited accreditation so their businesses could operate under VA oversight. Ranking Member McGarvey and other members repeatedly emphasized that accreditation is available now and that companies should use current pathways while Congress considers statutory changes.

No formal votes were taken at the hearing. Committee leadership and members said they would continue deliberations and consider legislative amendments. Chairman Littrell and Representative Pappas closed by reiterating that the subcommittee’s objective is to protect veterans from predatory practices while improving veteran access to benefits and VA processing capacity.

Looking ahead, the subcommittee left the hearing record open for VA views and indicated further markup or legislative steps would follow in this committee process.