Committee passes modified 'Save Act' with fee caps, registration and confidentiality provisions amid sharp debate
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 22-14, proposed to limit compensation for private claims-assistance businesses, passed out of committee as amended after extensive debate and multiple amendments addressing fee caps, registration, data protections and private causes of action. Opponents urged delay pending litigation; proponents said amendments add guardrails.
After several hours of debate and multiple amendments, the Committee on Veterans and Military voted to send House Bill 22-14 (the Safeguarding American Veteran Empowerment Act or 'Save Act') to the House floor as amended.
Carly, committee staff, summarized HB 22-14 as legislation to "limit compensation for assisting in veterans benefits matters." The bill attracted contentious testimony and multiple floor-ready amendments. Representative Ruiz moved to table the bill until related litigation is resolved; that motion failed on a committee vote, and debate continued.
Opponents cited ongoing litigation and investigations involving claims-consulting companies and warned of potential harm to veterans. Representative Ruiz urged delay, saying congressional inquiries and whistleblower lawsuits are active and that "we should wait to see how it pans out." Representative Collins cited an NPR investigation and a whistleblower complaint alleging that some companies used automated dialing to check veterans' benefit statuses and then pursued payment. Collins said the whistleblower allegations were central to her opposition.
Proponents and some members argued the bill, as amended, contains guardrails that protect veterans and limit abusive practices. Among the amendments adopted were:
- Strike duplicate language and renumber sections (amendment 1). - Cap compensation structure to limit fees (committee discussion reduced language from a 5x cap to 400% and included an explicit $10,000 ceiling or federal limit in later drafting notes) and limit compensation to a one-time fee in practice (amendment 2; committee discussion clarified intent to cap onetime fee). - Insert a provision preserving individual causes of action under Kansas law so the bill would not preclude private suits (amendment 3, adopted). - Proposals to require businesses to register with the secretary of state, post fee schedules on their websites, provide aggregate reports to the Kansas Office of Veterans Services, and protect personally identifiable information from public records disclosure were offered in a large omnibus amendment (offered and debated; it ultimately failed on a division vote).
Representative Boatman and others said the bill creates guardrails (capping fees, clarifying timing of compensation, and requiring disclosures) that would prevent the most problematic practices such as repeat charges or automated exploitation of VA hotlines. Representative Boatman said a future floor amendment could make compensation contingent on demonstrable, provable increases that the company caused.
Representative Carlin and others expressed concern about whether the bill contains all the protections claimed by proponents, noting they could not find certain promises (prohibitions on employing doctors for secondary medical exams, prohibition on aggressive solicitation, guarantees against misleading advertising) in the bill text presented to the committee.
After adopting several amendments and rejecting others, the committee voted to pass HB 22-14 favorably as amended. The motion carried; a small group of members recorded 'nay' votes and asked for their names to be recorded. Committee members said they expect further floor debate and possible amendments as the bill moves forward.
The committee advanced HB 22-14 to the floor, but members on both sides said they will pursue additional clarifications and amendments during floor consideration.
