From a press release:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Senator Bill Cassidy, R-La., today introduced legislation to remove a Social Security work disincentive for Americans with disabilities. The Work Without Worry Act would allow Americans with disabilities to work to their full potential without causing them to lose out on higher Social Security benefits. ...
If an adult has a severe medical condition that began before age 22, they may be eligible for a Social Security benefit called the Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefit. Their benefits are based on their parent’s Social Security earnings, in the same way that benefits of a child under age 18 would be. However, under current law some of these young adults fear that if they try to work they will lose future DAC benefits, which are often higher than any benefit they may qualify on their own. This fear inhibits the ability of Americans with disabilities to explore their ability to work as they transition to adult life.
The Work Without Worry Act promotes financial security by ensuring that any earnings from work – no matter how much – will not prevent an individual from receiving a Social Security DAC benefit from their parent’s work history if they have an eligible medical condition that began before age 22. This bill treats all individuals with severe medical conditions that began before age 22 the same – no matter when their parents claim Social Security benefits. This change is estimated to increase Social Security benefits by $100 million and improve the lives of nearly 2,000 individuals with disabilities over the next 10 years.
Additional original co-sponsors include Senators Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., Pat Leahy, D-Vt., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Bob Casey, D-Pa. The House of Representatives introduced a companion bill today, led by Congressman John Larson, D-Conn.
Why don't we get rid of the marriage penalty for DAC recipients while we're at it.
No Republican co sponsors in either chamber. Dead on arrival.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised John Larson would get involved in a Social Security bill. He otherwise seems to have no connection to that area of law, at least based on his committee's near dormant status.
re marriage penalty-Once you get married you shouldn't be dependent on your parents anymore. Similar to divorced spouses losing their benefits on a prior spouse when they remarry. Lose dependency, lose benefits.
ReplyDeleteNever going to pass as no current Republi-con will ever support it (or any provision that expands Social Security in even the slightest way).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, in reality, this would only represent a minor incremental improvement to the current law.
Firstly, there has to be actual medical evidence of a pre-age 22 disability. Most people who get denied as DACs are mental disability cases and end up denied because the DDSes can't find any supporting medical evidence prior to age 22. This legislation wouldn't change that little loophole of a problem.
Secondly, termination due to work activity does not preclude re-entitlement to DAC benefits under the current law even after significantly substantial work has been performed. Further, termination due to work for CDB recipients also triggers the expedited reinstatement provisions that protect the claimant for reinstated benefits based upon the less restrictive medical improvement standard for medical review. Work performed is irrelevant to the DDS EXR evaluation. In all the years I worked for SSA after the EXR provisions became law, I literally only saw one EXR claim ever medically denied by DDS (and that one was reversed to approval by an ALJ in a written decision so confusing that it had to be deciphered by Central Office and took OCO - and later PSC after an age transfer - over a year to finally process it).
In short, I agree with Charles -- if they are going to risk wasting some political capital on changing Social Security, use it on a change that means something by eliminating the marriage restrictions instead of this bill. The current law is already mostly favorable to CDB recipients anyway.
Politicians just want to be able to say “look, I tried”. They don’t want real change, they just want us all to think it’s important to them.
ReplyDeleteCassidy is a Senate Republican. The House version has 9 Rs on it, including ranking member of the Social Security Subcommittee Tom Reed--it actually has more Rs than Ds. The bill isn't very expensive and it's a work incentive. I think it has a shot.
ReplyDelete