Bill Overview
Title: Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill implements programs and policies related to veterans' benefit claims.
Sponsors: Rep. McKinley, David B. [R-WV-1]
Target Audience
Population: People who are veterans impacted by United States benefits
Estimated Size: 19000000
- The bill focuses on programs and policies related to veterans' benefit claims.
- Veterans who are applying for or currently receiving benefits will be directly impacted by this legislation.
- It potentially affects veterans' families, as changes to benefits may impact their financial and overall well-being.
- Veterans across the globe, who are eligible for U.S. veterans' benefits while living outside the U.S., might also be affected.
Reasoning
- The target population mainly includes veterans in the US who are applying for or currently receiving benefits.
- The Cantril wellbeing score provides a measure of the general wellbeing of individuals and can help to estimate the impact of policy changes.
- While the policy is limited by a substantial budget, the program aims to prioritize easing the benefit process and potentially enhancing the lives of veterans, their dependents, and those living abroad.
- We will include a varied demographic to account for differing levels of benefit-dependency and other socio-economic factors among veterans.
- We will simulate interviews to gauge perspectives based on age, gender, location, occupation, and prior experience with veterans' benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed Veteran (Houston, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements to the benefits process would take a massive weight off my shoulders.
- I'm constantly worrying about the next payment and how I'll make it through the month.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Part-time Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved benefits processing could provide more stability for me and my kids.
- There's often too much uncertainty when it comes to the benefits arriving on time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm generally satisfied with my current benefits, any added support is welcome.
- I hope any changes will not disrupt what we currently receive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Full-time Student (Denver, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in processing times would help to focus on my studies without financial worry.
- Sometimes the benefits are delayed, impacting my ability to pay for tuition and living expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Corporate Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am less impacted as I've never needed to use the benefits.
- It's reassuring to know the system is being improved should I need it one day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Healthcare Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved affordability and accessibility of benefits would be crucial.
- The current process sometimes leaves me paying more out of pocket than I can afford.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't typically rely on the benefits, but knowing they are well-managed can enhance my peace of mind.
- This policy might encourage more veterans to utilize their benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Intern (Boston, MA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important that these benefits streamline so I can focus on my career growth.
- Delays are frustrating when trying to access resources promptly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social Worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The improvements are essential to reduce bureaucratic barriers veterans face.
- I've seen firsthand how delays in benefits affect mental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Self-employed (Rural, MS)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Inconsistencies in benefits strongly affect our family's planning and stability.
- A smoother process would alleviate a significant amount of stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $190000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $240000000)
Year 3: $180000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $230000000)
Year 5: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- The reliability of administrative and technological improvements in reducing costs in the long run should be continuously assessed.
- A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis should consider the well-being of veterans against expenditure.
- Funding sources and alignment with federal budget priorities need clarification.