Bill Overview
Title: Restoring Benefits to Defrauded Veterans Act of 2022
Description: of 2022 This bill requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to pay certain reissued benefits (i.e., benefits that were misused by a fiduciary) to a beneficiary's estate in situations where a beneficiary predeceases a payment. The VA must pay such benefits to an individual or entity in the following order: the estate of the beneficiary, a successor fiduciary serving the beneficiary when the beneficiary died, or the next inheritor determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Sponsors: Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]
Target Audience
Population: Defrauded veterans and their estates
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill is designed to restore misused benefits to the estates of veterans who have passed away before the benefits could be reissued.
- Veterans who required fiduciary assistance to manage their benefits are a subset of all veterans; these are likely to be veterans who are older, have disabilities, or have financial management difficulties.
- According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, as of 2022, there were approximately 19 million veterans in the United States.
- Of these, a small percentage would have fiduciaries, suggesting that this bill would impact a specific subgroup of potentially a few hundred thousand veterans and their estates.
- The global population of veterans would be larger, as the total number of veterans worldwide is hard to estimate due to variations in military service definitions in different countries.
Reasoning
- The policy targets veterans who have been defrauded by their fiduciaries. This subset is very specific and does not encompass all veterans.
- Given the focus on estates, the impact is likely on families or successors of defrauded beneficiaries, often impacting their financial stability.
- A budget limit implies that only a fraction of the affected may see relief within the initial years, focusing perhaps on the most severe or clear cases first.
- The survey includes individuals not directly impacted to provide context for overall wellbeing changes in the veteran community.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Veteran (Texas)
Age: 78 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time these wrongs were made right. My late brother lost a lot due to the mishandling of benefits. This money can help settle some outstanding family debts.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Veteran Advocate (California)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is clearly needed, but I'm worried the budget won't cover all the veterans who need this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired, not directly impacted (Florida)
Age: 82 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I didn't personally face this issue, but I know others who could benefit. It's essential to help those families.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Lawyer specializing in veteran services (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is a step in the right direction. Having legal backing helps my clients in seeking justice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Evaluating the impact will take time, but initial implementation seems to return dignity to affected families.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Widow of a veteran (Pennsylvania)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy brings some closure. The financial gap left by my husband's fiduciary is significant.
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 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Child of veteran (Illinois)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act offers hope. I've been fighting to get justice for my dad's estate.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Government Employee (Oregon)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is complex to administer but crucial. It restores trust in the system for veterans.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Veteran, not affected by fraud (North Carolina)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope those affected receive the help they need. It's unfortunate some have to deal with such issues.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired, former VA worker (Virginia)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Decades of seeing veterans struggle with these issues. I'm relieved for those this helps.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $4500000 (Low: $3500000, High: $5500000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4000000)
Year 5: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $200000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of affected veterans entails those with documented misuse of benefits under fiduciary arrangements.
- Legal proceedings to identify and authenticate claims might present challenges requiring coordination between the VA and legal entities.
- The initial administrative load to process and rectify past benefit misuses may be substantial in the initial years but should dwindle over time.