Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Benefits Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing proposals to rein in veteran benefits 'claim sharks' as AB145 is amended
Summary
Lawmakers heard extensive testimony for and against Assembly Bill 145, which would cap certain upfront fees for businesses assisting veterans with VA claims, require disclosures and a one‑year cool‑down after discharge; sponsor and veterans groups presented differing fee models.
The Committee on Ways and Means held a lengthy hearing on Assembly Bill 145 on proposals to regulate private entities that assist veterans with claims against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sponsor Assemblymember Ruben DaSilva told the committee he had taken the lead after the veteran community identified predatory actors as its top priority. He described the bill as an attempt to “rein in” operators that solicit recent veterans and impose high upfront fees for assistance that is regulated federally only for accredited representatives.
What the sponsor’s amendment would do: DaSilva offered a conceptual amendment that keeps entities accredited by the VA exempt, requires firms to disclose that they are not VA‑accredited and have no official relationship with state veteran services, imposes a one‑year cool‑down period after discharge during which solicitation is restricted, caps fees for initial claims at $1,000, allows unlimited compensation for appeal work, and assigns oversight duties to the Nevada Department of Veterans Services (NDVS).
Arguments from proponents: Multiple veteran service organizations and witnesses urged the committee to back safeguards. Doug Williams of the Division of Human Resource Management and others told members that codifying veteran hiring and mentor programs would not add fiscal costs after amendments removed fiscal notes. The Veterans of Foreign Wars and other groups moved from opposition to neutral after the sponsor’s amendments, saying they will continue to work with the Legislature to refine oversight.
Arguments from opponents: Representatives of private firms that assist veterans, including Veteran Benefits Guide (VBG) and other firms, strongly opposed aspects of the amendment. Francis‑co Morales and several witnesses testified these businesses employ hundreds of Nevadans and work on a performance‑based model—typically collecting a fee only if they obtain a benefit increase—and that a hard upfront fee cap could eliminate their business model and harm veterans who choose to pay for assistance. VBG representatives said most of the amendment’s text was born from language they proposed, but they objected to the $1,000 cap and recommended a fee tied to a percentage of net increase instead.
Legal and procedural notes: Sponsor DaSilva said Legislative Counsel Bureau reviewed the amendment and found no First Amendment issue with the draft language. He noted several other states have pursued similar legislation; four states have enacted related laws and more than 20 have considered the idea. Committee members asked for continued negotiation between stakeholders and state agencies; several witnesses and NDVS said they would continue to work on conforming language.
Outcome at the hearing: The committee closed the hearing on AB145 after extensive testimony. There was no final committee vote on the bill in this hearing record; sponsors and stakeholders were directed to continue negotiations on the amendment language and fiscal staff indicated several changes had removed prior fiscal notes.
