Is the VA Cutting Sleep Apnea and Tinnitus Ratings? What HR 9237 Actually Does — and Why Your Filing Date Matters

The short answer

Nothing has changed. No law has passed. If you are drawing compensation for tinnitus or sleep apnea today, that check is not being cut today, and the bill everyone is posting about could not cut it even if it passed tomorrow — the bill says so in its own text, and two separate provisions of existing law say so independently.

What the bill would change is the criteria used to rate claims filed after it becomes law. That is the whole story, and it is a much narrower story than the panic suggests.

If you want the two-sentence version: your existing rating is protected. The rating criteria that would apply to a claim you have not filed yet are not.

The rest of this article is the part nobody seems to be writing down — what the text actually says, where the bill actually is, which protections come from the bill and which come from statute, and what any of that means for a decision you might be making about your own file this month.

Where the bill actually stands (verified August 31, 2026)

The legislation is the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, introduced June 10, 2026 by House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Mike Bost and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Jerry Moran. It exists in two versions:

• H.R. 9237 in the House. The Rules Committee reported a closed rule on June 23, 2026, the floor vote was rescheduled, and on July 16, 2026 further proceedings were postponed under clause 1(c) of House Rule XIX. It has not been rescheduled.
• S. 4744 in the Senate. Read the second time on June 11, 2026 and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders as Calendar No. 433, where it still sits.

Neither chamber has passed it. It is a roughly 600-page package folding in more than 60 separate veterans bills — the Major Richard Star Act, survivor benefit increases, caregiver provisions, community care codification, and a long list of claims-processing changes. Section 108 is one section of that package, and it is the reason the floor vote stalled.

Being on the calendar is not the same as being scheduled. A bill can sit under General Orders for the rest of a Congress and die there. It can also be called up on short notice. Congress returns in September, so this is live rather than dead — but "live" and "about to happen" are different things, and a lot of the content circulating right now blurs them.

Every unpassed bill dies at the end of the 119th Congress in January 2027. If Section 108 does not move before then, it starts over.

What Section 108 would do to sleep apnea

Today, sleep apnea is rated under Diagnostic Code 6847, and the criterion that matters to most veterans is the third one: a 50 percent evaluation where the condition requires the use of a breathing assistance device such as a CPAP machine. That is the rating the majority of compensated sleep apnea cases fall into.

Section 108(a) would direct the Secretary to replace that with a scale built around whether treatment works:

The bill defines a qualifying comorbid condition narrowly: one that, in the opinion of a qualified medical provider, directly impedes or prevents the use or implementation of a recognized treatment intervention normally shown to be effective.

Read the 0 percent line carefully, because that is where the substance is. Under the current schedule, needing the machine is the compensable event. Under Section 108, using the machine successfully is what moves you toward zero. A veteran who is compliant with CPAP, sleeps better with it, and would be dangerously impaired without it could land at 0 or 10 percent rather than 50.

That is the objection the VFW, DAV, and a coalition of veteran and military organizations have raised: treatment is not a cure, and a rating scheme that pays less because a veteran follows the prescribed treatment plan creates an obvious perverse incentive. The coalition letter in June put the projected shift at roughly $57 billion moved onto about 1.5 million future claimants. Supporters of the package counter that the money funds long-delayed wins elsewhere in the bill, including concurrent receipt for combat-injured retirees. Both of those are fair characterizations of the trade being made. We are not going to tell you how to feel about it.

One thing worth knowing about where this came from: the criteria in Section 108 did not originate in Congress. They track a VA rulemaking proposal from 2022 that drew more than 2,600 public comments and was never finalized. VA has said publicly that no changes are planned or imminent. Section 108 would put the outcome of that unfinished rulemaking into statute directly.

What Section 108 would do to tinnitus

Tinnitus is currently rated under Diagnostic Code 6260 at a flat 10 percent — a single evaluation whether it is in one ear or both. It is the most frequently compensated disability in the VA system, held by millions of veterans, and for a lot of people it is the 10 percent that pushed a combined rating over a bracket line.

Section 108(b) would end the standalone rating. Under the proposed language, tinnitus generally could not be assigned a separate compensable rating at all. The one surviving exception: a 10 percent evaluation where tinnitus is diagnosed as associated with service-connected hearing loss that is otherwise noncompensable.

Read that exception literally, because it is narrower than it first appears. It requires service-connected hearing loss, and it requires that hearing loss to be noncompensable — a 0 percent evaluation. A veteran with tinnitus and no service-connected hearing loss would have no pathway. A veteran whose hearing loss is already rated at 10 percent or higher would not meet the exception either, because their hearing loss is compensable.

If you already have a rating, you are protected — three separate ways

This is where most of the coverage goes wrong, in both directions. Some of it tells veterans their checks are about to be cut, which is not what the text says. Some of it waves the question off without showing the language. Here is the language.

1. The bill's own protection clause. Section 108(c)(2) is titled "Protection of existing ratings," and it states that the revisions to the rating schedule made under that section may not serve as the basis for reducing, discontinuing, or otherwise adversely affecting compensation that was in effect on the day before the date of enactment.

2. The statute the bill is amending already says it. Section 108 directs the Secretary to revise the rating schedule adopted under 38 U.S.C. § 1155. That same section already contains its own guardrail: in no event shall a readjustment in the rating schedule cause a veteran's disability rating in effect on the effective date of the readjustment to be reduced unless an improvement in the veteran's disability is shown to have occurred. This protection has been in the statute since 1991 and does not depend on this bill.

3. The regulation implementing it. 38 CFR § 3.951 carries the same rule in two parts. Subsection (a): a readjustment to the rating schedule is not grounds for reduction of a rating in effect on the date of the readjustment unless medical evidence establishes actual improvement. Subsection (b): a disability continuously rated at or above a given evaluation for 20 or more years cannot be reduced below that evaluation except on a showing of fraud.

Why does it matter that there are three and not one? Because a regulation can be rewritten by the agency and a statute can be overridden by a later statute. If the only protection were 38 CFR 3.951, a skeptic would be right to point out that Congress can legislate past a regulation. But here the protection is written into the bill itself, and it is also in the statute the bill amends and does not touch. All three would have to be worked around.

Some early coverage suggested existing ratings could be cut at the next routine re-examination. We searched the full text of both the House and Senate versions for language supporting that reading and did not find it. The applicability clause reaches claims filed after enactment; the protection clause covers compensation in effect before it.

That does not mean a rating can never be reduced. Ratings can be reduced for actual medical improvement, under the separate procedures in 38 CFR 3.105(e) and 3.344, with due process and notice. That has always been true and Section 108 does not change it. What Section 108 could not do is use the new criteria as the reason.

The part almost nobody is saying clearly: it is the filing date, not the decision date

Section 108(c)(1) is one sentence long, and it is the operative one for anyone who has not filed yet. The revisions apply with respect to claims filed after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Filed. Not decided, not adjudicated, not rated.

That distinction matters because of how long VA takes. If you file a claim under today's schedule and VA decides it fourteen months from now, you are judged under the criteria in effect when you filed, even if the law changed in between. The clock that matters is the one that starts when your claim goes in.

Two honest caveats on that, because you will not get these from a page that is trying to scare you into signing up for something:

The bill text has not been finalized. Applicability and effective-date clauses are among the most commonly amended parts of any bill during negotiation. The current language reads the way we have described it. That could change in a manager's amendment, a Senate substitute, or a conference between the chambers.

An Intent to File may not be the same thing as a filed claim here. VA Form 21-0966 preserves an effective date for compensation purposes — file the actual claim within a year and your benefits date back to the ITF. That is a well-established mechanic and it is worth using regardless. But Section 108(c)(1) says "claims filed," and an intent to file is expressly not a claim under 38 CFR 3.155. Whether an ITF on file before enactment would lock in the old criteria for a claim submitted after enactment is an open question that no one has answered, because there is nothing to answer it with yet — no enacted statute, no implementing regulation, no General Counsel opinion, no case law. Anyone telling you with confidence that an ITF is sufficient here is guessing. The conservative reading is that only a completed claim — the 21-526EZ — is a claim.

We would rather flag that ambiguity than let you rely on it.

What this actually means for your file

We are going to be careful here, because "file before the law changes" is exactly the kind of line that gets used to push veterans into filing things they should not file. A weak claim filed fast is worse than a strong claim filed later. A pointless increase request can trigger a re-examination you did not want. Neither of those becomes a good idea because a bill exists.

If you have never filed for a condition you believe is service-connected. File it because it is service-connected, not because of a bill. That was true in May and it will be true in November. The bill is a reason to stop putting off something you had already decided to do — it is not a reason to file something unsupported. If sleep apnea is on that list, know that it is frequently claimed as secondary to PTSD, sinusitis and rhinitis, GERD, or service-connected weight gain, and a secondary claim lives or dies on the nexus. Filing it without one is not "getting in under the wire," it is generating a denial with an earlier date on it.

If you are already rated for tinnitus or sleep apnea. Your rating is protected. Filing an increase request to "lock something in" accomplishes nothing here — you cannot lock in criteria you are already protected under, and an increase claim invites a re-examination. If there is real work to do on your file, it is almost always on conditions you have never claimed, not on the ones you have.

If you have a claim pending right now. It was filed under the current schedule. Section 108 as written would not reach it.

If you have no idea what is already in your file. That is the most common situation, and it is the one worth fixing. Most veterans have never read their own C-File — the complete record VA holds on them, including exams already performed, conditions already noted in service treatment records, and diagnoses that were documented and never claimed. It is your record and you are entitled to it. You can request it directly from VA at no cost.

What would have to happen for Section 108 to become law

A realistic sequence, so you can judge the odds yourself instead of taking anyone's word for it:

1. Senate floor time. S. 4744 has to be called up from General Orders. Floor time in the fall of an election year is scarce and contested.
2. A House vote. H.R. 9237's proceedings are postponed, not withdrawn. The House would need to bring it back up, and the reason it stalled — Section 108 — has not changed.
3. Reconciliation between the chambers. Both bodies have to pass identical text. Section 108 is currently identical in both versions, but that is precisely the provision under pressure to be stripped or amended. The VFW's public position is removal of Section 108 from both versions.
4. Signature. The administration's Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 9237 was supportive of the package overall.

The most likely outcomes, in no particular order, are: the package moves with Section 108 stripped or softened, the package stalls out and dies with the Congress, or a version passes intact. The fight is not over the 60 other provisions. It is over how they get paid for.

Frequently asked questions

Is the VA cutting sleep apnea ratings? No. VA has not changed the schedule and has said no changes are planned or imminent. A bill in Congress would direct a change. It has not passed.

Will I lose my 50 percent sleep apnea rating? Not because of this bill. Section 108(c)(2), 38 U.S.C. § 1155, and 38 CFR § 3.951(a) each independently prevent a schedule revision from being the basis for reducing a rating already in effect.

Is tinnitus going away? The standalone 10 percent rating would end for claims filed after enactment, with a narrow exception where tinnitus accompanies otherwise noncompensable service-connected hearing loss. Existing tinnitus ratings would not be touched.

Should I file before the law changes? File if you have a service-connected condition and evidence to support it. Do not file something unsupported because of a bill that has not passed. If you are unsure, an accredited VSO will review your situation with you for free.

Does an Intent to File protect me? It protects your effective date for compensation, which is valuable on its own. Whether it would satisfy Section 108's "claims filed" language is untested. Do not treat it as certain.

What if my claim is pending when the bill passes? As written, the new criteria apply to claims filed after enactment. A pending claim was filed before.

Where can I read the bill myself? Congress.gov, under H.R. 9237 or S. 4744 in the 119th Congress. Section 108 begins around page 59 of the introduced text. We would encourage you to read it rather than take our summary or anyone else's.

What we are watching

We will update this page when the status changes rather than writing a new one, because the useful version of this article is the current one.

• Whether the Senate calls up S. 4744 after Congress returns in September
• Whether Section 108 survives in either chamber's text
• Any change to the applicability clause in 108(c)(1)
• Any CBO score attaching a number to the Section 108 offset

Update log

• August 31, 2026 — Published. Bill status, Section 108 text, applicability and protection clauses, 38 U.S.C. § 1155, and 38 CFR § 3.951 verified against congress.gov, govinfo.gov, and eCFR. H.R. 9237 proceedings postponed July 16, 2026; S. 4744 on Senate Calendar No. 433.

Related reading

• VA Rating Schedule — the current criteria for sleep apnea (DC 6847) and tinnitus (DC 6260)
• 38 CFR and M-21-1 — including 38 CFR 3.951, 3.105(e), and 3.344
• Filing Your First VA Disability Claim
• The Quiet Tightening: How M-21-1 Updates After Spicer v. McDonough Raised the Bar on Secondary Claims — relevant if you are considering sleep apnea secondary to PTSD

Read your own record first

Every decision described above depends on knowing what is already in your file — which conditions are documented, which exams were performed, and which diagnoses were noted and never claimed. Most veterans have never read that record.

The C-File Analyzer reads your claims file and service treatment records and tells you what is in there, including conditions you have never claimed. Ask Six will answer follow-up questions about what it finds. If a secondary claim looks supportable, the nexus letter and personal statement tools will help you build the evidence — and will tell you when the evidence is not there.

$25 a month, flat. Never a percentage of your benefits.

Free accredited help exists. A VSO will help you file at no cost and can advise on your specific claim. We cannot, and we will keep saying so, including in an article that ends with a link to our own product. Find a VSO →

VeteranAI is a self-service AI platform used by 70,000+ veterans to independently prepare VA disability claim documentation. This article is educational and is not advice about your specific claim. Legislative status can change quickly — verify current status at congress.gov before making a filing decision based on bill timing.