May 23, 2017

From Trump's Budget Proposal

     From Donald Trump's budget proposal for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (page 111), which begins on October 1, 2017.
Reform Disability Programs. Currently, people with disabilities have low rates of LFP [Labor Force Participation]-20 percent-which is less than a third of the LFP rate of the overall working age population. There is a common expectation that receipt of disability insurance benefits results in a permanent exit from the labor force. The Budget challenges this assumption by evaluating alternative program designs that will help individuals with disabilities remain attached to the labor force and individuals with temporary work disabilities return-to-work.
As part of this reform effort, the Administration would call on the Congress to establish an expert panel that would identify specific changes to program rules that increase LFP and reduce participation on disability programs based on the results of successful demonstrations and other evidence. This panel would be responsible for making recommendations to reduce participation levels that would be directly tied to reaching a 5 percent reduction in Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) projected outlays by 2027.
To maximize the potential of success, the Administration would simultaneously test a variety of strategies. The Administration is calling on the Congress to mandate participation by applicants and program beneficiaries in these projects including:
1) Test "time limited benefits" for beneficiaries for a period when they would be more likely to return to work;
2) Require applicants to engage in job-seeking activities before their application is considered;
3) Push existing State vocational rehabilitation offices to intervene earlier with individuals on a track to end up on DI;
4) Replicate welfare-to-work strategies in State TANF offices to provide wellness care and vocational services to welfare applicants that cannot work due to a short-term or uncontrolled health condition; and
5) Mandate that lower back pain and arthritis sufferers engage in rehabilitation traditionally used in occupational health treatment services before receiving benefits.
On a separate track, the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) at the Department of Labor would lead the implementation of a demonstration project to test the effectiveness of Washington State's Centers of Occupational Health and Education (COHE) program to improve labor force participation and attachment of individuals with temporary injuries and disabilities. While COHE is focused on workers' compensation related injuries, the demonstration will test the effects of implementing key features of the model in other States or municipalities, and/or for a broader population beyond workers' compensation. Some of the key features include care and service coordination, population screening and monitoring, increased access and targeted vocational rehabilitation and work supports, workplace accommodations, and technical assistance to healthcare providers and employers.
Reduce 12 month retroactive DI benefits to six months. New DI beneficiaries are eligible for up to 12 months of benefits before the date of their application, depending upon the date they became disabled. This proposal would reduce retroactivity for disabled workers, which is the same policy already in effect for Medicare eligibility.
Create sliding scale for multi-recipient SSI families. Currently, families receive an equal amount for each SSI child recipient. However, economies of scale in some types of consumption — housing, in particular — reduces per capita living expenses and therefore means that two children generally do not need twice the income as one child. Federal poverty guidelines and other means-tested benefits take into account these efficiencies. The Budget proposes to create a sliding scale for SSI disability benefits that considers the number of additional family recipients. It would keep the maximum benefit for one recipient the same as in current law but reduce benefits for additional recipients in the same family.
Offset overlapping unemployment and disability payments. The Budget proposes to close a loophole that allows individuals to receive Unemployment Insurance (UI) and DI for the same period of joblessness. The proposal would offset the DI benefit to account for concurrent receipt of UI benefits. Under current law, concurrent receipt of DI benefits and unemployment compensation is allowable. UI is intended to compensate individuals for short-term bouts of unemployment while they look to return to work while DI is intended to compensate individuals who cannot return to work on a long-term basis due to a disability, allowing double dipping that is unnecessary and wasteful.
Reinstate the reconsideration review application stage in 10 States. The Budget proposes reinstating reconsideration in 10 States, conforming these States with the practices used in the rest of the Nation. This reform requires a second review by the State Disability Determination Services (DDS) before an appeal goes to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Other States already require disability applicants to have their claim "reconsidered" before they can appeal to an ALJ.
Eliminate Workers' Compensation (WC) Reverse Offset. The Budget proposes to eliminate reverse offsets in 15 States where WC benefits are offset instead of DI benefits. Currently, in most States, the combination of benefits from WC and DI is limited to 80 percent of the recipient's earnings before they were disabled. If necessary, DI benefits are usually offset to meet the limit. However, 15 States currently reduce the benefit from WC rather than DI in order to achieve the 80 percent limit, creating an unjustified inequity across States. This option would eliminate the reverse offsets in these States.
Create a probationary period for Administrative Law Judges. The Budget proposes to create a probationary period for ALJs. This option would create a one-year probationary period, similar to the Senior Executive Service, to ensure an ALJ is performing at a satisfactory level. Following the one-year probation, the ALJ would convert to a lifetime appointment. individuals receiving retirement benefits. This proposal will not modify retroactivity for Medicare eligibility.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am intrigued by a few of the changes. The 12 months retroactive period, I thought, was established under the Social Security Act itself. I have attempted to determine the specific source of my presumption...and I cannot find it...am I correct?

Also, eliminating the unemployment-disability "loophole" seems like it could do more harm than good from Trump's perspective. In my experience, receipt of unemployment benefits, while "allowable" generally results in a significant credibility issue as most states require the individual to swear they are able to work. Although this issue would remain, a second concern I've seen expressed by some ALJs is that receiving unemployment benefits and simultaneously disability benefits is in conflict and indicated an amended onset date is appropriate. The latter situation would be resolved by instituting an offset provision and could easily result in more awards.

Also, I'm not sure it is within SSA's authority to eliminate the states' statutes that offset worker's compensation benefits.

In regard to the "probationary period" for ALJs, I'll be intrigued to hear what AALJ has to say about it. It is weird that this proposal is in a budget as even Trump doesn't suggest this would result in any savings. In my experience, the newer ALJs are not extreme one way or another.

Finally, throughout the budget Trump appears to go after other government programs which interact with disability benefits. Veterans benefits are offset by SS benefits, as are FERS benefits. Cutting these benefits seem like it would just force more individuals to rely on SS benefits, and not result in any significant savings.

Anonymous said...

Veterans benefits are NOT offset by SS benefits! Every day I see retired military who are getting $5 - 10K per month in Veteran Retirement and / or Veteran Disability pay, and want SSD on top of it. What is worse, is that we have to give those folks "Critical" status, so even though they are making more now than when they were actively serving, they get put to the front of the line before other folks who have no income or assets.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying veterans have not earned these benefits? What's the average compensation of a hedge fund manager on Wall Street? Maybe we should all reconsider voluntarily putting our lives on the line for our country. If police or firefighters receive retirement benefits should they be excluded from social security payments also? Kinda reminds me of some of the hippies who were spitting on our vets when they got off the planes from Vietnam. Funny how it's okay if you frame in Wall Street Journal editorial terms. I'll stop while I'm remaining civil in tone.

Anonymous said...

The only thing I agree with is the elimination of the WC reverse offset. It is not fair that some states get this and others don't. Either give it to all states or eliminate it for all states.

One other note: Call me a cynic, but when I hear Republicans talk about "Labor Force Participation", I translate it like this: "Oh my God, the labor market is getting tight and the workers are starting to get raises. We need to increase labor force participation (competition for jobs) to put an end to this!

Am I too cynical? Well, the Republican President just proposed cutting 20% of the budget for the program that provides medical care for poor children. Of all the programs to be cut, I honestly thought the CHIP program would be spared. I don't think it is possible to be too cynical about the Tea Party, Libertarian Republicans! Thankfully, there are a few moderate Republicans left.

Anonymous said...

I'm ok with the sliding scale for multi-recipient SSI households. Hell, eliminate SSI backpay. If we're paying based on a snapshot of your need on the first of every month, why go back two years because you were in need in 2015?

Also eliminate SSDI auxiliary pay when the wage earner isn't in the household. It was intended to make up for the reduced earnings when the breadwinner of a household lost his work income. If he's not in the the household anyway.....

Anonymous said...

3:35 is referring, I think, to things like P151, where vets getting both SSA benefits and individual unemployability will lose the individual unemployability upon getting ssa benefits.

Anonymous said...

6:14 exactly right; not to mention that the SCD percentages are incredibly abstruse and lack any insight into what actual functional limits are. But, before long, we won't have to contend with those in our decisions

Anonymous said...

Also eliminate SSDI auxiliary pay when the wage earner isn't in the household. It was intended to make up for the reduced earnings when the breadwinner of a household lost his work income. If he's not in the the household anyway.....

Uh, have you heard about something called child support?

Absent disabled parent are likely still responsible to pay child support and the auxiliary benefit is pretty much the only way they can do that.

Anonymous said...

@720

It should be VA benefits or SSD not both. No one has been drafted for the military in decades. Although honerable, everyone in the military voluntarily signed up. When your VA + SSD exceeds your highest annual salary thats obscene, especially when there are millions of others who have nothing

Anonymous said...

No way anyone has the courage to do a dollar for dollar VA offset. Just a partial offset is a political hand grenade.

AALJ will oppose the one year probationary period. The devil is in the details. What metrics will determine retain/release and what sort of notice will be given? Get an email on day 364 to turn in their stuff and pack?

AALJ has advocated for the time limited benefit award that shifts the burden to the claimant if it is projected the claimant should improve.

Requiring job seeking activity just seem silly. Who intends to pay for the increased use of vocational rehab? Most states the programs don't have the resources to provide training to anyone other than the safest bets or the first X applicants each year. I have visions of people who can probably work tossing their letter from voc rehab denying their request for training into the file bolstering their claim.

Anonymous said...

Reducing the retroactive benefit period from 12 months to 6 months may just result in more claims being filed and being filed earlier to prevent the loss of potential benefits This could lead to more initial denials and hearings. The 12-month retroactive period is designed in part to allow workers more time to determine if they are in fact disabled before they file.

The offset of DI for receipt of UI only really becomes an issue during times of peak unemployment and extended UI. Generally UI lasts only 26 weeks which is a period mostly covered by the 5-month waiting period. This will have more of an impact on disabled workers receiving DI who return to work but then subsequently receive UI while still eligible for DI.

Anonymous said...

Do these suggested changes need the SS Act to be amended by Congress or could they be implemented via regulatory change via CFR rule making?

Anonymous said...

re: 7:20pm,

I have an uncle that receives $5500 per month in "service connected" VA benefits on top of $1400 in Social Security benefits. He served two years in the military, and didn't even serve in a combat zone. However, he did happen to work on a base where they stored what was later determined to be Agent Orange.

Of course, when he developed heart disease and diabetes, he jumped up and filed for that VA serviced connected pension.

Of course, what you don't know (and apparently the VA didn't care about) is that he went from the military straight to driving a truck. He then spent the next 25 years as an OTR truck driver living on chili cheese dogs, hamburgers, french fries, and every other unhealthy food you can imagine 6 days a week in quantities big enough to have given two people heart disease. Of course he developed diabetes and heart disease.

The truth of the matter is that the VA compensation system has very little in the way of common sense in determining "service connected" disabilities. I don't have a problem paying benefits to people who deserve it, but the amounts and who they hand some of it to is just ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

I take it you and your uncle don't get along.

Anonymous said...

8:43 stated:

"Also eliminate SSDI auxiliary pay when the wage earner isn't in the household. It was intended to make up for the reduced earnings when the breadwinner of a household lost his work income. If he's not in the the household anyway....."

Yes, why should children, who have been abandoned by a parent, have any advantage!!! Well, 8:43, perhaps you would be satisfied if we sent those children to workhouses.

I honestly believe that a large segment of our population now considers the poor and disabled to be "useless eaters". Sad.

Anonymous said...

@5:41 What you think you know about one case means the whole system has very little in the way of common sense?

Anonymous said...

I take it nobody has a problem with legitimate benefit awards as long as they get to define the definition of legitimate. Additionally, nobody minds their disability award but they sure do mind the guy down the street who is clearly not entitled. For added fun highlight the verifiably sparse amount of fraud and never focus on the well served who escape poverty as a result of programs that help define first world, humanatarian civilizations. What the heck let's shake things up a bit! Seriously do not expect 60 votes. I find it good the proposal is so extreme. If it was somewhat less hateful it would be less likely to be DOA.

Anonymous said...

5:14 I think it would do you a load of good over this long holiday weekend to get together with your uncle and have a few bears and lay it all out on the table about how you feel. I will guarantee you will both feel so much better!

Anonymous said...

The majority of service connected disabled vets I know are very ill (often mentally). There had to be substantial VA records to qualify for that designation. Some were able to work when they left the service but not usually at the same level as before the service. I represented a service connected disabled vet who was very mentally ill but worked successfully as a security guard at a hospital at night. As long as he could be by himself, he was fine, but he couldn't handle interaction with anyone else and lost the job when that became part of it.
As to the unemployment, I don't know of instances when one draws both at the same time, but individuals who qualify for disability sometimes get retroactive pay that covers time they were drawing unemployment. I don't see a problem. We're not talking about lots of money here. Why do disability claimants have to starve or be made homeless why they wait for benefits they should have had in the first place?

Anonymous said...

And yet, there is no problem spending millions of taxpayers dollars to relocate an entire Hearings Office solely to appease an obviously powerful former ROCALJ? It would be much easier to demand Administrative accountability in the first place, save millions of taxpayers dollars, then waste such a hideous amount of time figuring out how to save the meager amounts of money we are talking about in the small number of cases where there may be a short overlap of benefits.

The Administrative Bloat is where the millions and millions of taxpayers dollars could easily be saved, as opposed to spending hideous amounts of time and resources trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip, questionably cease benefits and the labor cost of the incessant appeals and remands that will cause only to see benefits eventually reinstated in a majority of these cases.

I simply cannot understand why others seemingly ignore and overlook the cost and waste of the Administrative Bloat. I believe it is because TPTB are a huge part of the Administrative Bloat, and the last thing they are going to do is restructure in such a way which hurts those in their inner circle. This is why it is wrong, OMB, to place the money and decisions about restructuring in the hands of these individuals. This is NOT how any effective and efficient restructuring, and cost savings initiatives should be conducted. In fact, this is the very reason why so many of these efforts have failed in the past, as I lived through 3 decades of them in the Agency. You must start at the top to address the Administrative Bloat and work your way down if you truly want to save taxpayers money, and create an efficient, leaner Agency. Giving these individuals the money and power is the ABSOLUTE WORST THING YOU ARE DOING! Here's another hint, many at the top in this Administrative Bloat do not have the appropriate educational background which should be required for such positions, e.g., law degrees and licenses for any such positions pertains to the Hearings process elements of SSA. To the contrary, most are favorites who have simply been promoted through the ranks.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:51 5/24 wins post of the month in my opinon.

SSI TE said...

Regarding the sliding scale for multiple recipient SSI families ... While from an economic standpoint I agree with the logic, however from the scope of an SSI technician I dread how the agency would attempt to implement this. I can only imagine how messy and complicated developing living arrangements for DC cases will become. Think of how couples split now because their benefit goes from the individual FBR to the couple's FBR. This would be done on a much larger scale and make it nearly impossible for the SSI claims specialists to handle (at current staffing levels). Start dates will be needed for each case where a child moves from one parent to the other, a process that by the way involves an unscheduled redetermination and peer review. What FO has the time or resources for all that? We better pray for a MSSICS rewrite to handle these systems limitation or the elimination of living arrangements altogether. -- SSI TE