Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Claims topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rhode Island veterans groups urge ban on unaccredited 'claims consultants'; for-profit firms press alternatives
Summary
Veterans service organizations, union leaders and VFW officials urged the House Corporations Committee to pass House Bill 5043 banning unaccredited, for‑profit claims consultants; for-profit firms and some industry groups urged adoption of alternative safeguards that would allow fee‑for‑service companies to operate under limits.
On March 25 the House Committee on Corporations heard more than two hours of testimony on competing bills about private firms that assist veterans with Department of Veterans Affairs disability claims.
Supporters of House Bill 5043 — chiefly state and national Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) leaders, county service officers and the Rhode Island AFL‑CIO — told the committee that unaccredited “claims consultants” charge veterans large fees, make misleading promises and sometimes encourage veterans to skip free VA‑accredited representation. Mark Turner, state commander of the VFW of Rhode Island, said the state’s 2,162 accredited veteran service officers produce trained, accountable assistance and that $32 million in benefits flowed to Rhode Island veterans through accredited services in fiscal 2024.
"We come here to protect veterans from predatory practices," said Matthew McCoy, who identified himself as a member of the VFW national legislative committee. Multiple witnesses described business models in which companies charge contingent fees equal to a multiple of a veteran’s monthly increase; several witnesses said a five‑times multiplier is common. Autumn Guillot, political director of the Rhode Island AFL‑CIO, said unions representing thousands of veterans endorse HB5043 to curb “exorbitant fees” when free services are available.
Companies that provide paid claims help also testified. William Taylor, CEO of Veterans Guardian VA Claims Consulting, said his firm is veteran‑owned, works on a contingent basis and aims to prepare "fully developed claims" so raters have everything they need; he said his clients receive faster decisions and higher awards. Greg Silio of Veterans Benefit Guide and Bob Jacquard of Veterans Benefit Group asked the committee to adopt Representative O’Brien’s alternative (House Bill 5419), which would allow for‑profit firms to operate under written guardrails: limits on upfront fees, clear disclosures that free services exist, caps tied to outcome, and prohibitions on overseas call‑center solicitation.
Witnesses on both sides said they were trying to protect veterans; the disagreement centered on whether a blanket ban (HB5043) or a regulatory compromise (HB5419 or proposed federal reforms) better protects veterans’ choice while deterring bad actors. Director Kasimyan (identified in testimony as the state Director of Veterans Services) described the accreditation process for recognized service officers, including training and 16 hours of continuing education, and warned that accreditation provides accountability and consumer protections that private for‑profit models lack.
No committee vote occurred on either bill at the March 25 hearing. Several committee members noted the bills had previously been considered in the General Assembly and urged further review of draft language and possible compromises. Witness lists and written submissions were posted or to be posted on the committee’s website.
