Kansas committee hears dueling views on HB 22‑14 to regulate private veterans’ claims companies

The Committee on Veterans and Military heard testimony Feb. 5 on House Bill 22‑14, a proposal to regulate private companies that assist veterans with benefits claims by requiring written fee agreements, disclosures about free Veterans Service Organization (VSO) help and criminal‑history checks for anyone accessing veterans’ medical or financial information.

Supporters of the bill, including William Taylor, founder of Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, told the committee that a regulated private market gives veterans choice while protecting consumers. Taylor said his firm employs more than 200 people, posts a "90% success rate," and averages an 85‑day decision timeline, and that its fees are entirely contingent with no upfront charges and no direct access to veterans’ bank accounts. "We require written disclosure that free services exist," Taylor said, adding that his company does not invoice against back pay and does not use call lists.

Opponents — mainly representatives of accredited VSOs such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion — argued the bill would open the door to predatory actors and reduce protections for vulnerable veterans. David Kennedy, a VFW veteran service officer, warned that unaccredited "claim sharks" can charge excessive fees, solicit veterans’ personal information and fail to provide the in‑person assistance accredited VSOs deliver. Mike Kelly, state president of the Military Officers Association of America, said a key concern is that the bill would limit an individual veteran's right to sue and shift enforcement chiefly to the attorney general, citing provisions of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (chap. 50) and federal law (38 U.S.C. §5901 and following).

Lawmakers pressed witnesses on several specifics. Members asked how quickly VSOs can see veterans, with witnesses reporting variable wait times (Wichita offices can take walk‑ins; other locations have multi‑week waits). Taylor explained the bill's commonly used fee formula — "five times" the monthly increase in benefits in many contracts — with examples: if a veteran’s monthly benefit rose by $500, a five‑times fee would be $2,500, normally charged once. He said his company offers lump‑sum discounts, interest‑free payment plans and has an internal policy against pursuing veterans for unpaid fees. Opponents countered that veterans can be especially vulnerable (for example, those with PTSD or exposure claims) and that VSOs undergo accreditation, annual training and background checks administered through the VA.

The committee also heard estimates of administrative costs tied to state enforcement. A fiscal note cited in testimony suggested the attorney general might need roughly one additional non‑attorney FTE and associated costs (witnesses referenced an estimate in the neighborhood of $200,000), an item members asked the sponsor to clarify.

Several witnesses urged amendments rather than outright passage or rejection. Industry witnesses said they would accept language preserving an individual right of action to sue for misconduct; VSO witnesses pressed for stricter limits on fees, explicit privacy protections and enforcement mechanisms that cover both private firms and volunteer VSOs when appropriate.

The hearing concluded with the chair thanking witnesses for civil testimony, saying the committee plans to work the bill in the near term and adjourning the session.