Input on Equity in SSA Programs: Hidden Barriers
Our next National Disability Forum (NDF) is scheduled for September 15, 2021, and is titled Equity in SSA Programs: Hidden Barriers. To prepare for the NDF, we are seeking feedback on questions related to the forum’s topics, Advancing Equity and Equity in Claimant Representation. We are using an online tool called Engage SSA to collect suggestions from claimants, advocates, the public, civil rights organizations, community-based organizations, representatives, and other governmental agencies about enhancing equity in SSA’s programs and services.
Below are some sample questions.
- Are you aware of any unique needs for people of color and other underserved communities that we should consider when evaluating our programs? If so, how can we meet these needs?
- How can we help underserved communities and their members overcome barriers they may encounter when enrolling in and accessing benefits?
- Are there incentives or other changes you suggest for encouraging attorney and non-attorney representation for claimants of color and other underserved communities?
You can provide input on the Engage SSA from now until Friday, August 20, 2021. Please see the Engage SSA guide for details on using the site.
Aug 16, 2021
SSA Wants Input On Hidden Barriers
From the Social Security Administration:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hmmmm....like closed FO's?
Thank you for sharing this! I will do likewise....to groups of reps and community leaders who have a feel for both the programs and needs of their communities. Stay safe!
Here is my submission. The cap of $6000 needs to be increased:
"Idea #3,702: The cap of $6000 needs to be increased..
Campaign: Equity in SSA Programs: Hidden Barriers.
Author: Community Member
I am not too concerned with the 25 percent cap. In California in workers compensation cases, the cap is 15 percent. Most personal injury claims can charge between 30-50 percent. I am not sure how the $6000 is calculate it is too low. Maybe increase it to at least $10,000 or just eliminate the cap to keep it at 25 percent."
I like hearing talk of raising the fee cap. This would help many of us be able to remain in business.
Let's not fool ourselves, though, that this will solve the problem with helping the under-represented obtain benefits from SSA. Raising the fee cap will mostly impact DIB claims. It's very, very rare when an SSI claim yields a max fee under the current fee rules. Raising the fee cap won't change this. (Don't take this as me saying I don't want the fee cap raised; it definitely should be raised to help representatives stay in business).
There needs to be more incentive to represent SSI-only claimants who are under 40. As the system current exists, it doesn't make any financial sense to take on these cases. Sure, we can accept a few here and there as our heart strings are tugged, but it's impossible to make sustainable profit margins on these cases. Take them on in volume and you'll go out of business.
For us to start representing SSI-only clients under 40 in significant numbers, there would need to be a minimum fee that we would be guaranteed for our work. It takes just as much time, and often even more time, to represent a 29 year old, SSI-only claimant than it does a 58 year old DIB claimant. At the hearing level, the 58 year old has a 30% greater chance of being approved and would yield a fee approximately double that of the SSI claimant.
More of the under-represented people in our country would be able to find representation and gain access to programs like SSI if there were an incentive for representatives to help them. Until this happens, fewer and fewer of them will get the help they need.
Or better yet let SSA out of the fee process altogether so you can charge as much as you are able to collect!
7:52 what's your pay rate? About 15%?
Hmmm...you want more people on disability you have to pay more to the people that get them on disability. That does sound like a government program that is broken.
SSA should be out of the fee payment process. We should, however, make the back pay check payable to BOTH the atty rep and the claimant. That way the atty won't (or shouldn't) get stiffed on their payment.
I am curious about the first bullet referring to the "unique Needs for people of color" statement. I wish someone could elaborate on why we are identifying a specific group of people for addtional help?
Post a Comment