The New York Post has published a letter from a woman seeking help with a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) problem. Her circumstances are a bit unusual but the problem or at least the reduced payment problem is common. Here’s an excerpt from the letter:
Maria [her disabled daughter] turned 18 in November, and we applied for her disability on Sept. 5, 2019. At the request of the Social Security office, we returned for a follow up on Dec. 5. During the visit, I had explained to the officer that Maria would be paying $325 a month for rent and an additional $145 for utility expenses.
The officer told me not to worry about the delay in receiving payments, and that the Social Security office would pay retroactively to October 2019.
Yesterday, I received an SSI check dated Dec. 27, 2019, for Maria for $514. I have tried to contact both the local office and the main Social Security office to find out why the payment is for the reduced amount and why there is no payment for October or November.
I’m seeing more and more of these one-third reduction problems. It’s like the field offices are being told to apply a one-third reduction regardless of what they’re told about the financial relationships.
10 comments:
For as long as I can remember, field offices have generally been applying the 1/3 reduction to past-due benefits, regardless of the what the claimants state, and routinely discount when the claimants explain that they have an agreement to pay back for their share of living expenses. Theses loan statements are routinely ignored by the District offices who then write on the applications that claimants have no loan obligation. It seems that the only way they won't automatically apply the one third reduction to past-due benefits is if the household is a public assistant household.
Depends what the fair market rent is to decide whether there's ISM here (and how much of it), right? Also, if Maria's getting free or below-market food from her mom.
Not denying that field offices screw up ISM all the time, and ISM really needs to be changed (or better yet, eliminated)...there's things SSA could do on its own and stuff Congress would have to do. But here it's possible that there should be a 1/3 reduction.
Also, when the mom said she'd taken on a lot of debt in her adoptions and wanted the SSI to help her make ends meet, I hope someone is counseling her on what her daughter's SSI can be used for and what documentation she should be keeping if she is the rep payee.
4:16 PM Which, of course, are nearly impossible to get... And are located in the most crime-filled areas of major cities. It's one if the major reasons, plus the cost/difficulties of administration, that I am for a fixed amount at the fullest part for SSI. ANYTHING less is inhumane!
The ISM rules are ridiculously complicated. I have trained SSI Claims Specialists over my career and they all struggled through the ISM section more than anywhere else. I have read studies about the feasibility of eliminating ISM, but there seemed to be no way to make it revenue neutral, citing economy of scale in sharing lodging. It is possible to have a loan of ISM, but the agreement often does not meet one of the tests, owing the money no matter what.
Ongoing benefits can increase once there is evidence that money is being paid. It is subject to the two month rule, Retrospective Monthly Accounting.
ISM is complex, but for a loan to exist, the agreement must be established at application and there must be some way for the claimant to repay the loan without SSI. This is usually not applicable as most claimants do not declare other income or resources that can be used to repay the loan. Generally, most claimants will have some sort of ISM applied as they are receiving in kind assistance from a family member or friend. The only way to change this is through appealing to congress to change the laws
In this situation it sounds appropriate to asses the VTR to this case. If the child isn’t paying anything at the time she is getting in kind support. Once she starts receiving the checks she can go to the office and adjust the living arrangement to show she is now paying her fair share. This should increase the check. Situations where a bona fide loan is claimed is fairly complicated. The FOs are not ignoring it, it’s that in 9 out of 10 cases the claimant is not meeting the requirements for a loan agreement to exist. If a claimant has representation or is represented by us, we submit all the appropriate loan information and documentation for them to the FO prior to the allowance and have no trouble getting the FO to pay the full rate.
@5:22
ISM is a horrific system. The mother's letter is unclear. I think what she is saying is the daughter is going to start paying rent and a share of the utilities to the household once she begins receiving SSI, which would free up funds for the mother to start paying down debt. While I disagree with ISM, if these are the circumstances, it pretty clearly applies. Also, that would make the loan of ISM conditional on receipt of SSI, which makes the loan agreement invalid under POMS SI 00835.482.
I wish the author had explained DAC benefits to the mother, but given all the potential twists (adopted from a foreign country, mother's age/disability status is unknown, father's age/disability status is unknown, etc.), it would be pretty complicated. It's also not exactly a silver lining that in a decade or two the family's financial situation might improve.
@Tim
The issue is, ISM is statutory(42 U.S.C. § 1382a(a)(2)(A)), meaning Congress would need to act to get rid of it, and they've been ignoring the issue for decades. I agree though, the costs and difficulties of administrating it properly are demonstrated by the failure of it for decades.
because the arrangements are a lie, worked out to the dollar to get the max benefit.
@8:55
I'm unclear why you think the figures are "worked out." Assuming the field office doesn't believe ISM applies, the total SSI benefit is paid. There is no increase due to financial hardship. If the field office does believe ISM applies, the benefit is reduced by 1/3, regardless of the figures reported by the mother.
If the child turned 18 in November, and assuming that the parents' income and resources make the child ineligible prior to age 18, the first month that SSI no longer counts parental income and resources is December. December is the "E02" month (waiting month) and the first potential month of payment would be January. There's no need to develop a loan of ISM, just set up a room rental effective with January and the full SSI rate would be payable in January.
All this being said, many of these "age 18" cases are for families with substantial income and resources who could easily afford to provide the child's food and shelter, but instead allege that they charge the child rent in order to get the maximum possible SSI payment. I have always wondered if they claim the "rental income" on their tax return.....
Post a Comment