VA Rating Changes: 2025–2026
Most of what circulates about VA rating changes is rumour. This page tracks what actually happened, cited to the Federal Register and the M21-1, and says plainly which items are final and which are not.
Rating criteria and adjudication guidance change several times a year, and the gap between what changed and what people believe changed is where a lot of bad decisions get made. Every item below is dated and sourced. Where something is only proposed, it says so.
The tracker
Newest first. Verified 2026-09-07.
Sleep apnea, tinnitus and mental health proposals — still not final
Affects: Sleep apnea (DC 6847), tinnitus (DC 6260), mental disorders
The rating schedule revisions proposed on 15 February 2022 for the respiratory, auditory and mental disorders sections have never been finalised. As of mid-2026 VA has indicated no changes are planned or imminent and that the proposal would require significant revision before it could become final.
Why it matters: Query volume on this is enormous and almost entirely rumour-driven. Two things are true: nothing has changed, and if a final rule ever issues there is normally a grace period protecting claims already filed. That is a reason to file when you are ready rather than to wait — not a reason to panic.
M21-1 insomnia service connection guidance reorganised
Affects: Insomnia claims, including insomnia claimed as secondary
VA reorganised its insomnia service-connection guidance at M21-1 V.iii.13. A Higher-Level Review exception for complex medical opinions was added at IV.i.2.A in the same period.
Why it matters: Insomnia is among the most searched conditions in the category and is frequently claimed secondary to tinnitus, PTSD and chronic pain. Veterans have reported proposed reductions and severance actions touching standalone insomnia ratings — if you hold one, know where you stand before filing anything new.
Spicer v. McDonough incorporated into M21-1 — secondary service connection
Affects: All secondary service connection claims under 38 CFR §3.310
VA revised M21-1 sections V.ii.2.D, V.ii.3.A, V.ii.3.C and VIII.iv.6.C to replace the 'proximately due to' language with the but-for causation standard adopted by the Federal Circuit in Spicer v. McDonough. Exam-necessity standards for aggravation claims were updated at IV.i.1.B at the same time.
Why it matters: A rumour circulated widely in 2026 that VA had eliminated secondary claims. It did not. The analysis standard changed, and there is a credible argument that a blanket but-for test raises the bar for ordinary multifactorial secondary claims even as it helps treatment-interference cases.
Medication effects and evaluative ratings — interim rule rescinded
Affects: Musculoskeletal, hypertension, and potentially 500+ diagnostic codes
VA published an interim final rule on 17 February 2026 directing examiners not to estimate disability severity absent medication, amending 38 CFR §4.10. VA said it potentially touched more than 500 diagnostic codes and around 350,000 pending claims. The rule was issued to counter Ingram v. Collins, which had required the opposite. VA halted implementation on 19 February and formally rescinded it on 27 February 2026.
Why it matters: VA's appeal in Ingram remains pending, so the underlying law is unsettled. Any veteran rated on a medicated baseline for a musculoskeletal or hypertension condition during this period may have an argument on an increase claim or, in some cases, a CUE claim. Watch this one.
Proposed: minimum evaluation for bradycardia
Affects: Bradycardia, DC 7009
VA proposed providing a minimum evaluation for bradycardia.
Why it matters: A minimum evaluation means a compensable floor rather than a possible 0% grant.
Proposed: removing the laparoscopy requirement for endometriosis
Affects: Women veterans claiming endometriosis
VA proposed eliminating the requirement for laparoscopy to establish service connection for endometriosis.
Why it matters: The laparoscopy requirement has been a substantial barrier. If finalised, this would make service connection achievable on clinical diagnosis alone.
Proposed: objective evidence of pain for painful scars (DC 7804)
Affects: Scar ratings under diagnostic code 7804
VA proposed requiring objective evidence of pain for painful scars rated under DC 7804.
Why it matters: Second-degree burn scars were among the most commonly filed first-time claims in FY2025. A tightening rule on one of the most-filed conditions is significant and has been almost unreported.
New presumptives — leukemias, multiple myelomas, MDS, myelofibrosis
Affects: Veterans with qualifying fine particulate matter exposure
A final rule established presumptive service connection for leukemias, multiple myelomas, myelodysplastic syndromes and myelofibrosis based on exposure to fine particulate matter.
Why it matters: This is a real, enacted change that received very little coverage. Presumptive status removes the nexus requirement, which is the element most claims fail on. If you were previously denied one of these conditions, a supplemental claim may now succeed on the same facts.
Proposed: stricter accreditation and CLE requirements for agents and attorneys
Affects: Accredited claims agents and attorneys
VA proposed requiring qualifying continuing legal education before application, raising ongoing CLE to three hours annually, requiring the agent examination to be passed before character and fitness review, and capping examination attempts. The comment period closed on 10 December 2024 and no final rule had published as of the date on this page.
Why it matters: Relevant if you are choosing representation. Every legislative and regulatory current in this area is moving toward more accreditation-gating, not less.
How to read a proposed rule
A proposed rule is a plan. It has no legal effect, it may change substantially before it is finalised, and many never are — the February 2022 sleep apnea and tinnitus proposals are still sitting unfinalised more than four years later. A final rule has an effective date and binds VA from that date.
Where a final rule would reduce evaluations, VA has historically applied it only to claims filed after the effective date, protecting claims already pending. That mechanic is the reason the sensible response to a rumoured tightening is to file when your evidence is ready, rather than to rush an unprepared claim or to wait indefinitely.
What is not a rating change
- M21-1 revisions are adjudication guidance, not regulation. They direct how VA staff process claims, and the Board is not bound by them. They still matter, because they change what happens to your file in practice.
- Court decisions change how the law is interpreted, sometimes retroactively. They are often more consequential than a rule change and get far less attention.
- The annual COLA changes payment amounts, not criteria. A COLA never changes your percentage.
If a change affects a decision you already have
A new presumptive or a favourable court decision can make a previously denied claim winnable on the same facts. Depending on the situation that is a supplemental claim, an increase claim, or occasionally a CUE claim. Effective dates differ sharply between those routes — see effective dates and back pay before choosing.
We can file your appeal for you
You don't have to navigate the VA alone. As your accredited claims agent, we pick the right review lane, build the evidence, and argue your case — start to finish.
Appeal Your DecisionKeep reading
This page is educational information, not legal advice. VA rules and deadlines change — always confirm details with the official source (38 CFR, M21-1) or your accredited claims agent. Borne Accredited Claims is an accredited VA claims agent under 38 CFR §14.629 and is not part of, or endorsed by, the Department of Veterans Affairs. We do not guarantee any specific outcome.