The Social Security Administration announced on Thursday that the COLA for 2024 will be 3.2%, which beneficiaries will see reflected in their statements come January. That means retirees would see an average increase of $59 each month, according to the AARP.

The adjustment is significantly less than last year’s, which at 8.7% was the largest bump in four decades following a period of high prices for consumer goods during the COVID-19 pandemic. About 7.7 million veterans and retirees receive some sort of stipend affected by the announcement, and Social Security benefits account for about 30% of income for people over the age of 65.

In May, Congress approved legislation guaranteeing that veterans receiving disability and support benefits will see the same cost-of-living boost in 2024 as Social Security recipients.

The move was non-controversial but required annually so veterans’ payouts will keep pace with other federal stipends. Military retirees will also see the same increase in their benefits.

COLAs are applied each year if there are changes to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, which tracks the costs of essential goods over time.

This year, financial advisers have said a smaller COLA is a good thing because it means inflation is trending down. Still, retirees and veterans should keep in mind that a COLA is not likely to completely counteract lingering high prices, especially for medical care, which has also become more expensive over the last decade.

“Those living off fixed incomes and retirement savings are some of the most vulnerable in our society to rising costs, and recent years of high inflation have placed a significant burden on retirees,” said William Shackelford, national president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, in a statement. “While inflation has cooled relative to recent years, the pain is still considerable.”

In years when there are no increases in the CPI-W, there are no adjustments, which underscores the fact that COLAs are not pay raises. They merely help retirement benefits keep pace with inflation.

Federal employees also may receive a smaller version of the increase if they are a part of the Federal Employee Retirement System, which covers most civil servants who were hired after 1983.

Those under FERS get the full amount if the CPI-W increase is less than 2%. If it increased between 2% and 3%, the COLA is a flat rate of 2%. If it increased more than 3%, the COLA is the value of the CPI-W minus one.

Social Security begins notifying people about their new benefit amount by mail starting in early December. Individuals who have a personal my Social Security account can view their COLA notice online, the agency said.

Last week, a group of 14 Democrats and Republicans sent a letter to House Appropriations Committee leaders urging them to set a “pay floor” of roughly $31,000 a year for all troops as part of future budget discussions, saying that anything lower hurts “junior enlisted service members who are struggling to make ends meet.”

Under the current military pay table, enlisted troops with less than two years of military experience earn less than $22,000 annually in base pay. It can take up to four years in service before that total goes above $32,000 a year, roughly equivalent to $15 an hour, the minimum wage that federal contractors are required to pay their workers.

“As wages and salaries increase across many industries economy-wide, the military is now falling behind in the competition for quality recruits, in large part to the base pay issue,” wrote the group, led by Reps. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., and Don Young, R-Alaska.

“As the number of qualified and willing people to serve continues to diminish, the ability of our military to recruit top talent is starting to become a national security issue. Congress must address this pay issue now before it becomes a more significant area of concern.”

Last summer, during budget debate in the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Mike Garcia, R-Calif., offered a similar proposal as part of the fiscal 2022 spending plan. At the time, he called service members getting paid less than the defense contractor minimum wage rates “an insult” to military families.

That plan was scuttled because of technical issues, although appropriations committee leaders promised to raise the idea for debate in future budget discussions.

But military base pay totals do not factor in other stipends such as housing allowances, specialty pays and subsistence (food) assistance. Depending on where troops are stationed, the housing and food payouts combined can effectively double younger troops’ total military compensation.

For example, an Army private 2nd class (E-2) without dependents at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is entitled to a housing allowance of $16,488 a year, and $20,988 a year of they have dependents. A Marine private first class (E-2) at Camp Pendleton, California, without dependents is entitled to a housing allowance of $25,236 a year, and $30,888 a year of they have dependents.

The latest letter comes as lawmakers prepare to start their work on the fiscal 2023 federal budget in early spring, although Congress still has yet to finalize a full-year spending bill for fiscal 2022, which began on Oct. 1.

In addition, as part of the annual defense authorization bill passed by Congress last week, lawmakers approved plans for a new Basic Needs Allowance to give additional financial support to some low-income service members. An E-3 with a family of four and a single military income for his or her household would qualify for the allowance.

But lawmakers lobbying for the salary boosts said those other offerings aren’t enough to make up for the low base pay.

“Not everyone receives full [housing stipends] or [food stipends], which results in many service members having wildly different discretionary incomes,” they wrote. “Service members and their families make an enormous sacrifice for our country, and inadequate compensation should not be one of these sacrifices.”

All service members are scheduled to see a 2.7 percent pay raise as of Jan. 1. For junior enlisted troops, that equals about $790 more a year in pay over 2021 levels.

The measure, if approved, would avoid a partial government shutdown set for Friday night but would also force Pentagon planners to move around about $240 million in personnel accounts early next year to cover the pay hike, potentially creating funding shortfalls elsewhere.

In a statement, House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., said the plan would keep government operations funded through Feb. 18, more than four months through the new fiscal year.

But she also warned her colleagues that passing a full year spending plan for fiscal 2022 is critical.

“This agreement allows the appropriations process to move forward toward a final funding agreement which addresses the needs of the American people,” DeLauro said. “Instead of short-term funding patches like this, working families, small businesses, veterans, and our military need the certainty that comes with passing a [full year budget].”

Lawmakers have been at an impasse for months over the federal budget. In September, they passed a similar two-month budget extension to keep government operations running while negotiations continued.

That extension runs out on Dec. 3.

House and Senate lawmakers will have to rush the new budget extension through to avoid a partial government shutdown, but several Republican lawmakers have suggested they may try to block the action to protest President Joe Biden’s coronavirus vaccine mandates for military members and private businesses.

DeLauro said that only a few accounts saw increases above current spending levels in the new budget extension. That includes money for Afghanistan evacuees, a priority of lawmakers since the end of U.S. military operations in the country in August.

Of the $7 billion added for that purpose, $4 billion would be set aside specifically “to care for Afghan evacuees on U.S. military installations.”

Another $1.6 billion would be assigned to efforts led by the Department of Homeland Security to help resettle those individuals in America and overseas.

But appropriators opted not to include money needed to cover the costs of the planned 2.7 percent pay raise for troops for 2022. Even without new budget legislation from Congress, that salary boost will go into effect automatically on Jan. 1, complicating Pentagon personnel accounting efforts.

For junior enlisted troops, the raise will amount to roughly $790 more a year in pay over 2021 levels. For senior enlisted and junior officers, it’s about $1,400 more. An O-4 with 12 years service would see more than $2,600 extra next year.

All told, the pay raise will cost the Defense Department about $240 million for January and February. Lawmakers said they hope to make up that shortfall in the full-year budget plan, but until then the money will have to be redirected from other accounts to cover the increased costs.

DeLauro said to get to that agreement, “Republicans must join us for bipartisan, bicameral negotiations to resolve our differences and keep government working for the people.”

In a statement, Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., praised the short-term agreement but said Democrats now must “get serious” about passing a full-year budget for fiscal 2022.

“That means maintaining legacy riders, eliminating poison pills, and getting serious about the funding we are going to provide for our nation’s defense,” he said. “If that doesn’t happen, we’ll be having this same conversation in February.”

House lawmakers were expected to vote on the budget extension by Thursday evening, and the Senate sometime on Friday. If either chamber sees a delay, a partial government shutdown would begin on Saturday morning.

Reporter Joe Gould contributed to this story.

The $715 billion plan represents a 1.6 percent increase in spending from fiscal 2021 but would amount to a decrease of about 0.4 percent when inflation is factored in. Unlike past years, when overseas operations were funded through a different account, the $715 billion total includes all Defense Department spending.

Republicans on Capitol Hill for weeks have decried rumored plans for a flat or reduced defense budget as dangerous for national security, while progressive Democrats have publicly urged lawmakers to significantly cut back on defense spending after years of growth in military equipment purchases and personnel plus-ups.

In their initial budget submission to Congress released Friday, White House officials said the compromise number will provide “resources to defend America and deter adversaries” while still allowing the federal government to better balance defense spending with other domestic priorities

The budget plan released Friday provides only a broad overview of President Joe Biden’s defense spending plans. The White House did not release service-specific information, or outline its plans for military pay for 2022.

But an administration official said that “a large chunk” of the defense spending increase will go towards a scheduled pay raise for troops next year, as well as more money for “the civilians that support them.”

Under the federal formula used to calculate annual pay raises for service members, troops should expect to see a paycheck boost of about 2.7 percent starting next January. Each 1 percent of pay raises adds about $6 billion in new defense spending over five years.

Officials also said that programs supporting military families would also be prioritized in their budget plan.

“Military families are key to the readiness and well-being of the all-volunteer force, and therefore are critical to national security,” the White House wrote in their budget outline document sent to lawmakers Friday. “The discretionary request supports military families by prioritizing programs that directly support military spouses, caregivers, survivors and dependents.”

For the first time in two decades, the president’s fiscal 2022 budget plan does not include a separate section for overseas contingency funding.

That account has been used to cover the costs of military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflict regions. But critics have argued for years that Defense Department leaders have used it to obscure military spending totals, moving questionable costs like equipment replacement and troops’ benefits there instead of accounting for them in the base defense budget.

An administration official said the decision to end that contingency fund came after consultation with lawmakers who saw the account as a “gimmick” and after ensuring that all ongoing military missions could be safely included in the base budget request.

In the White House message to Congress, officials said the budget plan “continues to ensure that U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and guardians remain the best trained and equipped force in the world.”

They also promised “executable and responsible investments in the U.S. Navy fleet” and more investment in “breakthrough technologies that would drive innovation and underpin the development of next-generation defense capabilities.” No further details were given.

Unlike budget proposals under President Donald Trump’s administration, where the Department of Defense was one of the few agencies to see annual spending increases, Biden’s first spending plan includes sizable increases for a host of domestic spending priorities.

While total defense spending (including agencies other than the Department of Defense) would rise about 1.7 percent, money for non-defense agencies would grow more than 16 percent.

Members of Congress are expected to spend the next several months debating the budget priorities and making their own adjustments before settling on a compromise plan later this year.

Reporter Joe Gould contributed to this story.

Even before the new White House and Congress begin their work on the next military budget, the federal formula for next year’s pay raise has already been set. Under the latest employment cost index calculation — which estimates the expected growth in private-sector wages next year — the military pay raise will be set at 2.7 percent for 2022.

However, that slight dip in pay raises may appear generous given the uncertain economic outlook facing much of the country after nine months of lockdowns, layoffs and other financial problems related to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

And the 2.7 percent figure isn’t completely locked in. The White House and Congress can still increase that amount, if they feel the gap between military and civilian wages has grown in recent years, or decreases it, as a way to save military funding for other priorities.

Officials from the new administration led by President-elect Joe Biden and the new session of Congress which begins in January are expected to debate the issue over the next few months. Biden’s first proposed military budget plan is expected to be released sometime this spring.

Over the past five years, lawmakers have opted to stick with the federal formula for pay raises and not make any changes, citing the need to keep military salaries competitive with private-sector pay.

For junior enlisted troops, a 2.7 percent raise in 2022 would amount to roughly $790 more a year in pay over 2021 levels.

For senior enlisted and junior officers, that hike equals about $1,400 more. An O-4 with 12 years service would see more than $2,600 extra next year under a 2.7 percent increase.

Pentagon leaders have warned that raises above the federal formula can drain resources from other military needs. A 0.5 percent boost in the pay raise equals about $3 billion in additional spending over five years, given the number of troops and the way each year’s raise stacks upon the previous one.

The changes are just two of dozens of new initiatives in the bill, which was unanimously approved by both chambers and is expected to be signed into law by President Donald Trump in coming days.

The legislation — named for former Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and outgoing House Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — lifts cap for the Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance program from $10,000 to $40,000 in a move that advocates say is long overdue.

“The program was adopted in the 1950s to help address the growing population of veterans left without insurance due to an inability to pass a life insurance physical,” said Derek Fronabarger, a legislative director with Wounded Warrior Project.

“The pay-out amount has not changed since the program was established, and the benefit was significantly attrited over the years by inflation. This change will greatly improve life insurance benefits for service-disabled veterans.”

The S-DVI program is designed to give access to low-cost life insurance to individuals who likely otherwise would not qualify because of their medical status. By raising the cap, lawmakers hope to provide more financial assurances to their families, and better match the program with current veterans’ needs.

Similarly, provisions related to the Traumatic Injury Protection Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance program included in the bill are designed to provide more clarity to families when claims are rejected. The provision was inspired by the case of Sgt. 1st Class Cameron Corder, who spent four years fighting with Army bureaucracy for TSGLI payouts after his back injury in Afghanistan.

The new legislation requires that troops or veterans denied the benefits — which can total up to $100,000 for some injuries — get a detailed explanation of the reasons for the denial, and that those same criteria be used in subsequent appeals of the claims.

In Corder’s case, Army officials gave multiple, sometimes contradictory, reasons for denying his claim. The money was ultimately approved only after intervention from his congressman, Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich.

Kildee, who was one of the authors of the new language, called the changes necessary to make sure troops are receiving the benefits they have earned.

“An injured servicemember should never have to go through a difficult and lengthy bureaucratic ordeal to get the benefits they deserve,” he said in a statement. “Our men and women in uniform, who defend our freedoms, represent the best of this country, and we owe them our full support when they return home.”

Both of the insurance changes are set to go into effect early next year, pending the president’s signature on the legislation.

The $740.5 billion defense policy bill is expected to easily pass both the House and Senate in coming days but could face a White House veto after President Donald Trump vowed to halt the bill over the Confederate bases requirement and the lack of any provisions rolling back legal protections for social media companies.

The base name fight has been lingering for months, while the social media issue was introduced by Trump in just the last few days, following months of negotiations over the voluminous military policy legislation.

It has passed Congress for 59 consecutive years, an imposing streak in an increasingly politically fractured legislature. Both Republican and Democratic leaders in recent days have chastised Trump for the veto threats, calling them an attack on force readiness and military members.

The bill “sends a clear signal to our troops that we support them, their families, and their mission: that we have their back,” said House Armed Services Committee ranking member Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.

“It also sends an unmistakable message to our adversaries: America is united behind a military that is engaged with the world, that supports our allies, and will resolutely defend our interests and freedoms. Those are messages we cannot send often enough.”

Pay priorities

The 3 percent pay raise outlined in the bill matches the expected pay boost prescribed under federal statute. Even if the measure is vetoed, the pay raise will still go into effect next year.

It’s the first time in a decade that troops have seen consecutive years with salary boosts of at least 3 percent. This past January, military pay increased by 3.1 percent.

For junior enlisted troops, the raise would amount to roughly $860 more a year in pay. For senior enlisted and junior officers, the hike equals about $1,500 more. An O-4 with 12 years service would see more than $2,800 extra next year under the increase.

Also under the bill, service members who qualify for hazardous duty pay would see maximum payouts increase from $250 a month to $275 a month. The increase would not apply to troops serving in hostile fire areas and combat zones, who are already eligible for up to $450 a month in extra pay.

The measure also includes reauthorizations of dozens of other specialty pay and bonus which would be halted if the measure doesn’t become law by the end of December.

Personnel moves

The Navy would see an end strength of almost 7,000 sailors under the plan, while the Army would see a boost of almost 6,000 soldiers.

The Air Force would increase by about 700 airmen, while the Marine Corps would be the only service to see a decrease in personnel (down about 5,000 from current force levels).

Lawmakers also included language limiting any reduction in U.S. forces stationed in Germany below 34,500 for at least four months, until after the Defense Department submits an assessment of the possible changes. Trump in recent months has pushed for significant reductions there, to reposition American military forces elsewhere in Europe.

It also prohibits reducing the number of troops deployed to South Korea below 28,500 “unless numerous certifications and requirements are met.”

And the bill requires defense officials to submit a risk assessment to Congress on Afghanistan once troop levels drop below 4,000 or current levels there and again when they drop below 2,000.

Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller announced on Nov. 17 that forces in that country would draw down from 4,500 to 2,500 by Jan. 15, continuing on a Trump administration plan laid out earlier this year that would bring the number to zero by May.

Congressional officials said the Afghanistan language was not specifically in response to Trump’s vows to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan in coming months, but instead basic oversight of the 19-year-old military mission there.

Pandemic response

Under the final draft of the legislation, defense officials would be required to maintain a 30-day supply of personal protective equipment “sufficient for every active and reserve service member” for the foreseeable future.

It also includes extra protections for reservists and Guard members, tens of thousands of whom have deployed across the country in recent months to assist state pandemic response efforts.

Troops whose drill weekends were postponed or cancelled due to coronavirus restrictions would not be penalized for the lost time in their retirement eligibility. Individuals mobilized for pandemic response missions would be guaranteed at least 14 days of quarantine housing following those activations.

The legislation also creates a registry of Tricare beneficiaries diagnosed with coronavirus for potential future medical tracking, and calls for additional resources for department medical laboratories “to facilitate rapid research and development of vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics in case of future pandemic.”

Family assistance

Child care is a major focus of the bill, following lawmakers’ vows earlier in the year to put more emphasis on military family and military children needs.

The legislation requires defense officials to provide child care to any service member or defense civilian employee who works on rotating shifts at a military installation. Families with two or more children at military day care facilities would also be guaranteed discounts in their current bills.

Lawmakers also are requiring defense officials to better track and respond to incidents of child abuse involving dependents of service members, after complaints from advocates about a lack of sufficient oversight to the problem in the ranks.

Building on military housing reforms included in last year’s defense authorization bill, the legislation requires better response from private-sector landlords to tenant complaints and requires assistance for families who have been displaced because of privatized military housing issues.

For military spouses seeking jobs, the bill includes improvements to the Military Spouse Employment Partnership Program and allows military officials to reimburse any costs incurred to maintain professional licenses and credentials amid military family moves.

Base naming fight

The most controversial aspect of the bill is the Confederate names issue. Lawmakers will require the Defense Department to establish a commission “to study and provide recommendations, within three years, concerning the removal of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia” related to the Confederacy.

Members from both parties and chambers supported the language in initial drafts of the bill, but several Republicans have decried the renaming move since Trump’s veto threats.

Advocates for the changes have called it a matter of respect for minority troops forced to serve on bases honoring individuals who supported slavery and racism. Trump has called it an attempt at political correctness that erases an important part of American military history: the names of bases that have been used for several decades.

Lawmakers expect to pass the measure in both chambers next week and send it to Trump for his final signature, even with some defections over Trump’s objections.

If Trump follows through with his veto threat, lawmakers will likely only have a few days before the end of the current session — Jan. 3 — to hold a veto override vote, and will have to recall members from their holiday break to Capitol Hill for the action.

Failing that, lawmakers could try and introduce a new version of the legislation in the next session of Congress in early January to ensure that some critical pay and policy provisions are reauthorized. But officials said they have not started any such work, hoping instead to avoid the presidential veto.

But a host of other specialty pays and bonuses would be delayed if the legislation isn’t signed into law this year, potentially harming troops’ wallets.

The issue of military compensation has become a talking point on Capitol Hill in recent days following Trump’s latest veto threat of the sweeping defense budget policy bill, this time over lawmakers’ decision not to add in a repeal of social media company’s legal protections.

On Thursday, Trump tweeted out that the issue “must be put in Defense Bill!!!” even after key Republican and Democratic lawmakers said they plan to move ahead with the legislation without that provision.

Earlier this year, Trump threatened to veto the authorization measure — which has passed in Congress for nearly 60 consecutive years — because of provisions requiring the renaming of multiple Army bases which honor Confederate military leaders.

Democrats in Congress have responded by accusing Trump of endangering the annual military pay raise with his demands. On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the chamber floor to criticize Trump for “threatening to veto a pay raise for our troops” with his rhetoric.

The authorization measure does include plans for a 3 percent boost for all troops, set to go into effect the first pay period in 2021.

But this year, that language is largely redundant, according to Todd Harrison, director of Defense Budget Analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Under federal statute, military pay raises are automatic unless the president or Congress opts to deviate from the expected rise in military salaries, based on a formula which centers on the Employment Cost Index, an estimate of private-sector wage growth.

In some years, lawmakers have decided to raise or lower that mark, which requires congressional action. This year, however, since a different figure has not been proposed, the pay raise can go into effect without any intervention from Capitol Hill.

At least 30 other military specialty pays, however, will not automatically renew without the authorization bill language. They include some hazardous duty pays for overseas deployments and other dangerous job assignments, recruiting and retention bonuses, and adjustments to housing allowances.

If Congress finalizes the measure and can’t override a veto, those payouts would stop. Harrison noted that lawmakers may later pass legislation to retroactively pay troops that money, but the gap could cause short-term financial problems for some families.

Lawmakers are hopeful that they won’t have to do that, because Trump won’t follow through and block the authorization bill.

“The (bill) is about making sure our troops are cared for,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon.

“If we don’t have this defense authorization bill passed by Dec. 31, our pilots are not going to get flight pay. The kids are not going to get hazard pay. The whole thing will fall apart … It’s got to be done.”

The authorization bill also includes provisions to extend presumptive disability status to about 34,000 Vietnam veterans suffering from illnesses linked to Agent Orange exposure during that war and a series of new military housing reforms designed to give tenants better response to their complaints. A veto would also cancel out those items.

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled in favor of thousands of “blue water” Navy veterans and their survivors who had charged they are being wrongly denied benefits as part of a deal reached by Congress last year.

Under that plan, the Department of Veterans Affairs was required to grant presumptive benefit status for chemical defoliant exposure to veterans who served on ships off the coast of Vietnam during that war. Advocates for years had lamented that VA required direct proof of exposure that was difficult to obtain decades after veterans’ tours on ships.

Since the start of the year, VA has been processing those claims, granting new benefits to more than 24,000 veterans and survivors by the start of October.

But the new law did not automatically require VA officials to go back and review cases denied before 2020. Veterans who reapplied for benefits could have their cases considered again, but officials from the National Veterans Legal Services Program argued that all of the cases should be resurfaced and reviewed by VA benefits offices.

“These veterans and their surviving family members have already been waiting years for benefits to which they are entitled,” Bart Stichman, executive director of NVLSP, said in a statement.

In an interview with Military Times last week, Under Secretary for Benefits Paul Lawrence said no decision has been made by VA and Department of Justice officials on an appeal.

However, he did note that the lawsuit was discussed as part of VA’s preparations for the new benefits processing at the start of this year. If the decision stands — either upon further appeal or if the government opts to simply accept the latest ruling — Lawrence said he is confident the department can begin reviewing those cases without any significant disruption to operations.

“We’ve done some of the behind the scenes processing, tagging of files and things like that,” he said. “So if this does become the law of the land, there will be some legwork, but it will not be something we hadn’t thought about before.”

VA has already paid out about $700 million in retroactive benefits related to the “blue water” veterans benefits this year. NVLSP officials estimate the new group could add more than $400 million in additional payouts.

For more information on the lawsuit, visit the NVLSP web site.

Veterans Affairs officials announced the expected change in the Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers Thursday afternoon after leaders officially notified Congress that the department’s information technology systems were ready for the new applications.

The move could give thousands of dollars in stipends each month to caregivers who for years have assisted elderly and infirm veterans without any financial assistance. Prior to today, only caregivers of veterans injured after Sept. 11, 2001, were eligible for the program.

“Caregivers provide stability and security to our most vulnerable veterans, allowing them to stay in their homes with their loved ones for as long as possible,” VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said in a statement. “Through this expansion, VA is able to give more family caregivers access to essential resources so we can support them as they care for veterans of earlier eras.”

Advocates have pushed for the change for years, arguing that the current program excludes too many caregivers providing valuable and life-changing assistance to disabled veterans.

Congress mandated the change in the Mission Act, signed into law in June 2018, but VA officials delayed the start date by a year because of concerns about processing the expected influx of new applications.

About 20,000 veterans were participating in the VA program at the start of this summer. Officials have estimated the expansion could grant monthly stipends to more than 41,000 new veteran families in coming years, and cost about $3 billion over the next five years.

Under the expansion rules, caregivers of veterans injured on military duty before May 7, 1975, will be eligible to receive the stipends after their applications are approved. Veterans in the remaining group — those injured in the line of duty between May 7, 1975, and Sept. 11, 2001 — will have to wait until October 2022 to apply for the benefit.

Only veterans with a service-connected disability rating of 70 percent or higher are eligible for the program, but their disability can be the result of an in-service injury, or a connected illness or disease.

In anticipation of the program’s growth, VA officials have grown their Caregiver Support Program staff to about 1,100 personnel, and expect to hire about 700 more staff in the next six months.

In a statement, the department said the changes will “ensure veterans and caregivers receive timely, accurate assessments and eligibility determinations, as well as an improved customer experience.”

More information on applying for the program is available on the VA’s web site.