Dec 20, 2007

Congressional Opposition To Procedural Changes

Below is a press release from the House Ways and Means Committee. Make sure to read both letters linked in this press release. The letter from Social Security's chief actuary says that the real estimate of the effect of the proposed regulations is not $1.5 billion over 10 years, but over $2 billion. Is Michael Astrue bold enough to try to buck this much pressure?

WASHINGTON, DC – The Social Security Administration is proposing to sharply restrict appeal rights for severely disabled individuals applying for Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

If the proposed regulation is adopted, severely disabled persons will be denied access to over $2.0 billion in benefits over the next ten years – not because they do not meet the eligibility criteria in the law, but because they could not successfully navigate the complex new procedural requirements established by the proposed rule.

Nearly two decades ago, the Social Security Administration attempted to put forth a similar rule restricting appeal rights and instituting new procedural complexities. It was quickly abandoned in the face of public outcry.

Today, a letter objecting to the regulation was filed by eleven House Committee and Subcommittee chairs, including the chairs of the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Please click here to read the letter. Please click here to read the proposed regulation.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel:
"It would be grossly unfair to deny critical benefits to severely disabled people simply because they lack the sophistication and legal expertise to navigate the complex new appeals rules and limitations the Social Security Administration is proposing," said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). "No one should lose out on an appeal because of procedural technicalities. The Committee on Ways and Means intends to further investigate the impact of this regulation on people with disabilities early in the next session of Congress."

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell:
“We should be making it easier, not more difficult, for disabled individuals to access the benefits they need,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-MI). “The proposed rule would create cumbersome and unnecessary obstacles for those seeking an appeal. The most vulnerable among us deserve better, and my Committee will be working to ensure that this regulation does not become a roadblock for disabled individuals seeking health care and support services.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:
"We must ensure that the hearing and appeals process for disabled persons seeking Medicare and Medicaid benefits is fair and equitable," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI). "By proposing a rule that would essentially reduce access to benefits, the Social Security Administration is ignoring the real reason for the administrative backlog they now face, which is the severe and chronic underfunding of the agency."

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman:
“We have a critical problem of a backlog in the hearings and appeals process at the Social Security Administration,” said Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA). “That backlog effectively denies benefits and rights to disabled persons. But Social Security is moving in the wrong direction with these proposals. Cutting claimants’ rights, and adding procedural barriers, will only compound the damage. Mere administrative efficiency can’t trump the obligation of SSA to fully and fairly consider the claims.”

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

How about changing the time frame for requesting an appeal to 180 days, with a requirement that evidence must be submitted within 60 days after requesting the appeal? Those who need to could use the full 240 days to obtain evidence if they wait to request their appeal, while those who want a quicker decision could request an appeal earlier and submit their evidence more quickly. Those who need time to obtain an attorney would not be disadvantaged, while those who are "good to go" could get an expedited hearing.