Bill Overview
Title: Ensuring the Best Schools for Veterans Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes adjustments to the process by which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) evaluates programs of education for violations of the 85/15 Rule. The rule generally prohibits the VA from approving the enrollment of a veteran in any course at an educational institution where more than 85% of the students are having all or part of their tuition or other charges paid by the institution or the VA. The bill adds an exception for tuition or charges paid under a payment plan at an educational institution with a history of offering payment plans that are completed within 180 days after the end of the applicable term, quarter, or semester. The bill also requires the VA to establish a process by which an educational institution may request a review of a determination that the institution has more than 85% of enrolled students that have all or part of their tuition or other charges paid by the institution or the VA. The bill adjusts the existing 35% exemption by exempting courses from the 85/15 Rule if the majority of courses at the institution are approved by the state approving agency, and the total number of veterans, reservists, or eligible beneficiaries who are enrolled at the institution equals 35% or less of the total student enrollment at the institution. Additionally, the 85/15 Rule does not apply with respect to the enrollment of a veteran in a program of education with fewer than 10 students who are having all or part of their tuition or other charges paid to or for them by the educational institution or the VA.
Sponsors: Rep. Bost, Mike [R-IL-12]
Target Audience
Population: Veterans using educational benefits globally
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill affects veterans who are using their educational benefits to enroll in courses at educational institutions.
- It modifies the criteria under which the VA approves veteran enrollment in educational programs with a high percentage of students receiving VA or institution-funded tuition.
- By addressing the 85/15 Rule, the bill impacts educational institutions that have a high veteran student body and use VA benefits.
- The exemptions listed in the bill would potentially increase the number of programs veterans can access using VA benefits.
Reasoning
- Veterans are a diverse group with varying needs and circumstances which will affect how this policy impacts them.
- The policy mainly targets educational institutions and veterans pursuing education post-service, which is not the entire veteran population.
- The budget constraints imply that the policy must prioritize major institutions over smaller or niche schools unless specifically targeted by those exceptions outlined in the policy.
- Cost limitations also mean that while some veteran students will benefit significantly, others may not see as much difference unless their institution is directly impacted by these rule changes.
- A small subset of veterans not using educational benefits, those enrolled in institutions unaffected by the 85/15 Rule, or whose programs already adhere to the regulations will likely see no change.
Simulated Interviews
student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems beneficial if it opens up more programs for veterans, especially at larger universities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
nurse (Boston, MA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy means I can take more specialized programs without worrying about VA approval.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
retired (Houston, TX)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might not affect hobby courses that I'm interested in.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to a wider array of programs would definitely be an advantage if this policy is effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
small business owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think it will impact me much since I pay out of pocket for most courses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
teacher (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to better program approvals and choices at smaller educational institutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
project manager (Tampa, FL)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It may not change my situation as my program already complies with the 85/15 Rule.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
law student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might allow me to access additional law-related electives or courses not covered before.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
corporate consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could make a difference depending on the courses I choose to enroll in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
full-time student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy expands possibilities for programs at my liberal arts college.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $16000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $19000000)
Year 3: $17000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $21000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $23000000)
Year 100: $22000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $26000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill provides exceptions to the 85/15 Rule that may increase the eligibility of educational institutions for VA funding.
- Implementation costs for setting up new review processes and evaluating programs compliance with the updated rules.
- Potential increased demand for educational benefits under the new eligibility guidelines.
- The scalability of administrative processes to handle an increased volume of claims and reviews.