The bill
Veterans STAND Act
S. 3988, 119th Congress — read as touching Medical Devices.
Sponsored by
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
ID: M000934
Follow the money
The bill
S. 3988, 119th Congress — read as touching Medical Devices.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 679-681 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held.
April 28, 2026
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the geniuses in Congress. The Veterans STAND Act, because who doesn't love a good acronym? Let's dissect this farce and uncover the real motivations behind it.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to provide annual preventative health evaluations for veterans with spinal cord injuries or disorders, as well as increase access to assistive technologies. How noble. In reality, it's just a vehicle for manufacturers of assistive technologies to get their products pushed through the VA system, lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 38 of the United States Code to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to offer annual evaluations, which will include assessments of various health complications, chronic pain management, and prosthetic equipment. It also expands access to assistive technologies, such as spinal cord neuromodulation devices, because who doesn't love a good gadget? The real change is the mandatory consultation with manufacturers of assistive technologies before issuing any guidance or regulations, ensuring that their interests are protected.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Veterans with spinal cord injuries or disorders will supposedly benefit from this bill. However, it's more likely that they'll be used as pawns to justify the increased funding for assistive technologies, which will ultimately benefit the manufacturers and their lobbyists. The VA system will also be affected, as they'll have to navigate the bureaucratic red tape created by this bill.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of "follow the money." Manufacturers of assistive technologies will see increased profits, while veterans may or may not receive actual benefits. The VA system will be burdened with additional administrative tasks, and taxpayers will foot the bill. It's a win-win for everyone involved, except for the veterans and taxpayers, who will be left to deal with the consequences of this legislative disease.
In medical terms, this bill is a symptom of a deeper illness: corruption and greed. The sponsors of this bill are merely symptoms of a larger disease, one that infects the entire political system. It's a metastatic tumor of self-interest, fed by the constant flow of money and power. And we're all just along for the ride, watching as our elected officials pretend to care about veterans while lining their own pockets.
So, let's give this bill the diagnosis it deserves: a terminal case of legislative stupidity, with a healthy dose of corruption and greed thrown in for good measure. The prognosis? More of the same, until we, the voters, decide to stop electing our own poison.
Sen. Moran, Jerry [R-KS]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 47 nodes and 20 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $81,200
Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.
Section 2(d)(1)-(E) directs the VA to provide annual preventative health evaluations that include assessment of prosthetic equipment and assistive technology, such as spinal cord neuromodulation technology, powered exoskeletons, speech generating devices, and implantable spinal cord stimulation systems. This creates demand for medical devices used by veterans with spinal cord injuries, benefiting manufacturers.
Section 2(d)(1) requires the Secretary to furnish preventative health evaluations through direct provision of service, referral, or telehealth programs operated by the Department. This increases utilization of VA hospital care and medical services under section 1710(a), benefiting VA health systems and potentially contracted providers.
Section 2(d)(1) and (4) specify that evaluations and follow-up for assistive technologies may be provided through telehealth programs operated by the Department, increasing demand for broadband and telehealth infrastructure.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo, — 647 — Department of Veterans Affairs reimagine the health care footprint in some locales, and spur a realignment of capacity through budgetary allocations. Specifically: 1. Embrace the expansion of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) as an avenue to maintain a VA footprint in challenging medical markets without investing further in obsolete and unaffordable VA health care campuses. 2. Explore the potential to pilot facility-sharing partnerships between the VA and strained local health care systems to reduce costs by leveraging limited talent and resources. Personnel l Extend the term of the Under Secretary for Health (USH) to five years. Additionally, authority should be given to reappoint this individual for a second five-year term both to allow for continuity and to protect the USH from political transition. l Establish a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of VHA Care System Chief Information Officer (CIO), selected by and reporting to the chief of the VHA Care System with a dotted line to the VA CIO. l Identify a workflow process to bring wait times in compliance with VA MISSION Act–required time frames wherever possible. 1. Assess the daily clinical appointment load for physicians and clinical staff in medical facilities where wait times for care are well outside of the time frames required by the VA MISSION Act. 2. Require VHA facilities to increase the number of patients seen each day to equal the number seen by DOD medical facilities: approximately 19 patients per provider per day. Currently, VA facilities may be seeing as few as six patients per provider per day. 3. Consider a pilot program to extend weekday appointment hours and offer Saturday appointment options to veterans if a facility continues to demonstrate that it has excess capacity and is experiencing delays in the delivery of care for veterans. 4. Identify clinical services that are consistently in high demand but require cost-prohibitive compensation to recruit and retain talent, and examine exceptions for higher competitive pay.
— 646 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Section 121 (developing and administering an education program that teaches veterans about their health care options available from the Department of Veterans Affairs). 4. Section 152 (returning the Office for Innovation of Care and Payment to the Office of Enterprise Integration with a joint governance process set up with the VHA). 5. Section 161 (overhauling Family Caregiver Program expansion, which has gone poorly, so that it focuses on consistency of eligibility and awareness that the most severely wounded or injured may require the program indefinitely). l Require the VHA to report publicly on all aspects of its operation, including quality, safety, patient experience, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness, using standards similar to those in the Medicare Accountable Care Organization program so that the government may monitor and achieve continuous improvement in the VA system more effectively. l Encourage VA Medical Centers to seek out relevant academic and private- sector input in their communities to improve the overall patient experience. Budget l Conduct an independent audit of the VA similar to the 2018 Department of Defense (DOD) audit to identify IT, management, financial, contracting, and other deficiencies. l Assess the misalignment of VHA facilities and rising infrastructure costs. The VHA operates 172 inpatient medical facilities nationally that are an average of 60 years old. Some of these facilities are underutilized and inadequately staffed. Facilities in certain urban and rural areas are seeing significant declines in the veteran population and strong competition for fresh medical staff. In 2018, Congress authorized an Asset Infrastructure Review (AIR) of national VHA medical markets to provide insight into where the VA health care budget should be responsibly allocated to serve veterans most effectively. However, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee lacked the political will to act on the White House’s nominations of commission members, and this ultimately led to termination of the AIR process. The next Administration should seek out agile, creative, and politically acceptable operational solutions to this aging infrastructure status quo,
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.