The VA disability benefits system, originally designed to provide veterans with a structured path to compensation linked to their military service, has undergone significant changes over the years. As eligibility criteria have broadened and awareness has grown, a wide array of support services has emerged to assist veterans through the claims process. This development has sparked discussions on how veterans interact with these supports and where the lines should be drawn to protect them.

Eric Gang, founder of Gang & Associates, brings a wealth of experience in veterans’ disability law to this conversation, emphasizing the importance of ethical practices. Gang argues that the core issue lies not within the VA’s disability framework itself but in the operations of certain private service models that have developed around it. He points out that the system was originally intended to work with accredited representatives and to include consumer protections, especially during the initial stages of filing a claim.

According to Gang, the tension arises when non-accredited firms market themselves as indispensable intermediaries, charging fees for services that should be free of charge. “These firms often position their roles as consulting or preparing medical evidence, even though their activities closely resemble those reserved for accredited representatives,” Gang notes. He believes veterans should have the freedom to seek assistance, but this should come with transparency and fairness.

Gang highlights that under current federal regulations, only accredited agents and attorneys are allowed to charge fees, and this can only occur after a claim has been denied and enters the appeals process. These rules were put in place to prevent veterans from facing financial burdens when initially seeking acknowledgment of service-related conditions. When companies operate outside of accreditation while charging fees akin to formal representation, ethical concerns naturally arise.

Fee structures are a particular area of concern for Gang. “Contingency-based arrangements, where fees depend on future benefit awards, can create a mismatch between compensation and the actual services provided,” he explains. This is particularly relevant for claims involving presumptive conditions, where eligibility is based more on service history and diagnosis than on legal intricacies. “When fees are not tied to the time and effort invested,” Gang says, “it becomes hard for veterans to evaluate whether the cost is justified by the service rendered.”

The introduction of the PACT Act, which expands presumptive eligibility for veterans exposed to toxic hazards, has further influenced this environment. While Gang acknowledges the importance of the legislation in supporting affected veterans, he notes that its simplified standards have inadvertently led to opportunities for overcharging on straightforward claims. His concern is not with the increased access itself but with the pricing strategies that have emerged in response.

Beyond individual costs, Gang notes broader implications for system trust. Heavy filing strategies and outcome-based medical opinions may contribute to skepticism around evidence and increase administrative strain. He explains that medical opinions, when tied to financial outcomes, risk appearing less objective, which can affect how evidence is evaluated overall. “Medical experts should be independent,” he says. “Their role is to inform, not to gamble on outcomes.”

Despite these concerns, Gang does not advocate eliminating private assistance altogether. Instead, he outlines a middle-ground approach that preserves consumer choice while reinforcing ethical boundaries. His proposal would allow private firms to operate while prohibiting contingency fees tied to VA disability benefits. Fees would instead be flat or hourly, paid upfront, and clearly correlated to work performed, models already common in other regulated services.

Such an approach, Gang explains, allows market forces to function transparently. Veterans would be able to evaluate costs in advance, determine affordability, and make informed decisions without future benefits serving as leverage. “When pricing is clear and paid upfront,” he notes, “the market naturally adjusts to what people can reasonably pay.”

Looking forward, Gang encourages legislators to clarify and strengthen existing protections while avoiding rhetoric that frames regulation as anti-business. In his view, thoughtful oversight is consistent with long-standing practices across professional services and reflects respect for veterans as a protected population. “This is not about limiting choice,” Gang says. “It’s about ensuring integrity, fairness, and respect for the people the system exists to serve.”