Today, Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Ranking Member John Larson (D-CT) introduced the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2017 (H.R. 4547), bipartisan legislation to improve and strengthen the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) representative payee program. ...
The Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2017:
- Strengthens oversight by increasing the number of performance reviews of payees, requiring additional types of reviews, and improving the effectiveness of the reviews by the requiring the Protection and Advocacy system of each state to conduct the reviews, on behalf of the Social Security Administration (SSA).
- Reduces the burden on families by eliminating the requirement to file an annual payee accounting form for parents who live with their children and for spouses.
- Enhances personal control by allowing beneficiaries to designate their preferred payee in advance of actually needing one; and ensures improved selection of payees by requiring the SSA to assess the appropriateness of the preference list used to select payees.
- Improves beneficiary protections by increasing information sharing between the SSA and child welfare agencies, and by directing the SSA to study how better to coordinate with Adult Protective Services agencies and with state guardianship courts.
- Limits overpayment liability for children in the child welfare system.
- Ensures that no beneficiary has a barred payee by codifying the ban on individuals with certain criminal convictions from serving as payees and prohibiting individuals who have payees from serving as payees for others.
I don't like the idea of greater involvement of Protection and Advocacy systems. I think that's asking for trouble. Social Security isn't good at that sort of interface. Unfortunately, there will always be some representative payees who rip off the people they're trying to help. I strongly doubt that this sort of thing would help.
8 comments:
So how much is being appropriated for the extra reviews?
Wow. What a great idea! We have had a great experience working with our Protection and Advocacy agency in our state. We trust them. They go to bat for people with disabilities. It would be awesome to have this proven network running this program to restore accountability.
This is a great bill. Glad someone is trying to increase accountability with Rep Payees!
Contrary to the blog’s statement, the Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Network and SSA have interfaced successfully in two ways over the years. Through the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security (PABSS) program and the first iteration of using the P&A Network to perform representative payee reviews following abuse uncovered at Henry’s Turkey Farm, the P&A Network and SSA have a successful history of working toward a common goal. This past interaction would provide a framework to allow this new program to move forward in an effective and efficient way,
The blog is off base saying that having the P&As do this work will not have a noticeable benefit. This partnership will not only allow SSA to meet their responsibilities, but will allow the P&A systems to address health and safety issues and other issues important to the beneficiary but that fall outside of SSA’s purview. You can see examples and statistics of the benefit of this program in this report: http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Resources/NDRN_Rep_Payee_Overview_-_July_2016.pdf).
By funding the P&As to do this work, H.R. 4547 recognizes the benefits provided by the nationwide network of P&A systems to monitor representative payees and how they are administering the Social Security benefits received by beneficiaries.
How to make social services drop out of providing assistance as rep payees, make it more difficult, they don't get paid for it anyway. Brilliant!
My experience has been completely the opposite. I am a P&A advocate that provided rep payee reviews in our state. This was under the first version of using the P&A network to do payee reviews. It’s a natural fit to have P&A’s do payee reviews - we already have a great relationship with SSA, we are known and trusted in the community, and we have expert knowledge of disability services and on-the-ground realities.
There are plenty of issues that come up during these reviews that reach beyond the Rep Payee program, into potential neglect, safety, and rights violations. That is an awful lot to add to SSA’s plate, when they are not necessarily set up to best issue-spot or assist in those situations. Having the P&A do these reviews is simply more efficient, because we are equipped for that. It also allows SSA to focus on their core services, and better protects people with disabilities who have payees. That way, they are already connected to the help they may need when problems do arise.
Protection and Advocacy agencies can help when other fail to protect people who are financially exploited. In one example, Disability Rights Washington (DRW) was approached by a woman who had a problem with her representative payee. Her representative payee was her ex-husband and she thought he was misusing her social security checks which went directly to him as her payee. She complained to the local police and Social Security Administration but they declined to pursue criminal charges and did not find misuse of benefits, but neither provided reasons for their decisions. DRW reviewed the woman’s records, and the records of the police and Social Security Administration. DRW found evidence that her payee was not making payments on her debts as he should have been and she incurred insufficient funds charges on her account. DRW concluded Social Security did not do a thorough investigation of the client's benefits misuse complaint. DRW contacted the local prosecutor’s office, which indicated it would look into client's case for charging. DRW also filed a fraud report with the Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General. Without the P&A, no one would have taken any action on her substantiated concerns.
Enough with the astroturfing! I'm not allowing any more of it to post.
I suppose it's a compliment that someone, almost certainly a Congressional staffer, thinks that posting here could actually have an effect on this bill's prospects but, still, this is ridiculous.
Post a Comment