PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-111.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 9, 2013
Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish: (1) a working group to assess and develop recommendations for improving the employee work credit and work management systems of the Veterans Benefits Administration, and (2) a task force to assess the retention and training of claims processors and adjudicators employed by the VA and other federal departments and agencies.
Requires the Secretary, in providing assistance to a VA benefits claimant, to make no fewer than two attempts to obtain needed records from another federal department or agency, and to notify the claimant of the inability to obtain all of the records sought. Requires a record sought before the adjudication of a claim but received after such adjudication to be considered part of the original record.
Authorizes the Secretary to recognize representatives of Indian tribes in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of VA claims.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) carry out a pilot program of including the participation of local governments and tribal organizations in improving the quality of disability compensation claims submitted to the VA, and (2) report quarterly through 2015 to the congressional veterans committees on the backlog of submitted claims.
Changes from one year to 180 days the filing period of a notice of disagreement to a decision on a claim, after which appellate review will be initiated. Allows the Secretary to waive such deadline for good cause shown, as long as such notice is filed within 186 days after the original deadline.
Revises the manner of appearance (in person, through picture and voice transmission, etc.) and appropriate location of a hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
Authorizes the Secretary to disclose VA patient medical records, as appropriate under an appeal, to the Supreme Court, a U.S. Court of Appeals, or the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Extends: (1) VA authority to operate a regional office in the Republic of the Philippines, (2) the period for the scheduling of VA medical exams for veterans receiving temporary disability ratings due to severe mental disorders, (3) the marriage delimiting date for surviving spouses of Persian Gulf War veterans to qualify for a VA death pension, and (4) the temporary authority for the performance of VA medical disability examinations by contract physicians.
Requires a report from the Secretary to the veterans committees on: (1) the furnishing of general and specialty medical examinations by the VA for purposes of adjudicating benefits claims, and (2) progress of the VA's acceptable clinical evidence initiative in reducing the necessity for in-person disability examinations and other efforts to comply with requirements concerning the acceptance of reports of private physicians.
People & committees
Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT] · I–VT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 113-111.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3338-3341)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3337-3338)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.928 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.928 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.928 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.928 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.