From a press release:
Today, Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-LA) announced that the subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, “Protecting the Safety Net from Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.” The hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 3 ...
In view of the limited time available, oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include Members of Congress with reform proposals as well as experts on the operation of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs. ...
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Boustany stated, “The SSI and UI programs annually waste billions of dollars due to improper payment rates that average around 10 percent year after year. It’s long past time that we identify the causes and start implementing real reforms to improve the integrity of these programs. That will benefit taxpayers, but especially those who most need this assistance.”
So are they using the term "SSI" to also mean SSD benefits as well? If they are specifically addressing SSI improper pay rates, any "reforms" should involve hiring more people to better monitor the receipt of other benefits that should reduce or offset SSI receipt.
ReplyDeleteActually the recently published SSI overpayment rate was 7.57%, with most of that due to administrative difficulties and errors, not fraud. See page 13-16 http://www.ssa.gov/finance/2014/Improper%20Payments.pdf. The complicated SSI rules on in-kind support and maintenance, and the need to modify the monthly SSI benefit rate due to income and resources makes it difficult for SSA to avoid some over and underpayments. This is especially true if there is inadequate staffing, making it difficult to timely get to and adjust SSI rates even if changes are promptly reported.
ReplyDeleteThe report documents a 1.66% underpayment rate. Is Mr. Boustany also concerned with reducing that?
Isn't two days notice a little unusual for a hearing of this nature? Usually you would see at least a week's notice. Is this a sign of things to come?
ReplyDelete10:06: I suppose cuts to the SSI program would be easier politically than going after SSD. After all, SSI is straight welfare and the recipients didn't "earn" the benefit. With the complicated payment rules, slashing SSI rates could be sold in the fight against so-called "fraud."
ReplyDeleteHere's a questions to which I'm sure I should know the answer: is SSI paid from the same SSD trust fund? Could cuts to SSI satisfy the rule barring reallocation of the SS trust funds without savings to the SSD trust fund?
10:06 No SSI payments come out of general revenues not the SSDI Trust fund.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am betting the chairman incorrectly used the term SSI and he meant to include SSDI as well. Yes these are our leaders.
The action e-mail I received from NOSSCR indicated that SSDI would be discussed, too, along with reform proposals. The fact that unemployment is specifically mentioned means I'm sure that the UI/SSD offset will be discussed again. I wonder what else will be proposed?
ReplyDeleteIf the "official" payment error rate is 7.57%, then the actual rate is certainly at least two-to-three times that rate. All statistics issued by SSA are subject to fudging, adjustment or outright faking, as anyone who works in these programs can tell you.
ReplyDelete@ 9:52
ReplyDeleteNo doubt they miss some overpayments, although I would consider a claim of being off the mark by a factor of 2-3x to be a hyperbole absent proof. I doubt they would blatantly fake on figures being carefully scrutinized by a Congressional majority and Presidential hopefuls looking for any such error with an upcoming campaign season.
Let's face it, SSI rules are complicated. Read 20 CFR Part 416 and the POMS SI section if you have any doubts on that point. Even legal experts and the politicians in charge of the Congressional Committees overseeing the agency struggle in understanding some of rules. Expecting an SSI beneficiary population that includes many people with mental disabilities and lower educational attainment to understand and follow such rules is totally unrealistic.
We should not be surprised when many beneficiaries inadvertently get hung up on technicalities, fail to understand their obligations, and run afoul of the rules even when trying to comply. The result is inevitable: plenty of over and underpayments of benefits. Is there an easy, cost neutral solution that would simplify the system to minimize such errors? Likely not. Any change will either involve paying less to some beneficiaries or greater costs to eliminate or simplify the most complex, overpayment generating rules (in-kind support and maintenance, deeming, etc.).
Well said, 6:59
ReplyDelete