The VA disability benefits system was initially established to offer veterans a legal and organized means of receiving compensation for service-related issues. Over the years, as eligibility criteria have changed and awareness has grown, a wide array of support services has emerged in tandem with the benefits process. This growth has sparked ongoing discussions about how veterans access these services and where the boundaries should be set.

Eric Gang, the founder of Gang & Associates, brings a seasoned perspective to this debate, grounded in extensive experience with veterans’ disability law and a commitment to ethical practices. Gang argues that the core issue lies not with the VA’s disability system itself but with how some private service providers operate in its vicinity. He points out that the system is designed to work with accredited representatives and to offer clear consumer protections, especially during the initial phases of a claim.

Gang identifies a problem when non-accredited companies market themselves as indispensable go-betweens, charging for services that should be free. “These companies often describe their services as consulting or preparing medical evidence, even when their actions closely resemble tasks meant for accredited representatives,” Gang notes. “Veterans should have the freedom to seek help, but that freedom must come with transparency and fairness.”

According to existing federal regulations, Gang points out that only accredited agents and attorneys are allowed to charge fees, and this is only permissible after a claim has been denied and enters the appeals process. These rules are in place to protect veterans from financial strain while they initially seek acknowledgment for service-related conditions. When companies operate outside of these accreditation boundaries while charging fees similar to those of accredited representatives, ethical concerns arise.

Gang emphasizes the need for careful examination of fee structures. “Contingency-based fees, where payment is tied to future benefits, can lead to a disconnect between what is paid and the actual work done,” he says. This is particularly significant in cases involving presumptive conditions, where eligibility depends more on service history and diagnosis rather than legal intricacies. “When fees aren’t linked to the time and effort invested,” he explains, “it becomes challenging for veterans to determine if the charges are justified by the service provided.”

The expansion of presumptive eligibility under the PACT Act has further shaped this landscape. Gang stresses that the legislation itself remains vital for veterans exposed to toxic hazards, but observes that its streamlined standards have unintentionally created incentives for overcharging on relatively straightforward claims. From his perspective, the concern is not increased access, but the pricing models applied around it.

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.”