 |
| The two sisters |
From the Albany Times Union:
A Greene County woman, who is the estranged sister of Grammy Award-winning singer Mariah Carey, is seeking help in getting her Social Security benefits restored after they were cut to $30 a month in an apparent error by the Social Security Administration.
Alison Carey, 60, says she has struggled with homelessness and the impacts of a brain injury she received from a home-invasion robbery.
She was getting $794 a month in Supplemental Security Income (SSI) until she received a letter dated July 20 saying her benefits were being cut because of an overpayment.
The letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) claims Carey was incorrectly paid $3,176 from April through July when she was in a "medical facility" and should have only been receiving $30 a month. Carey's SSI was then reduced to $30 a month to pay back the SSA. …
This is SOP. Declare the overpayment but don’t explain it. Seize the entire monthly check leaving the claimant destitute. Don’t worry about whose fault it was. Don’t even try too hard to make sure there really was an overpayment. Just inflict maximum punishment on the claimant. Make them figure out how to cope. And, of course, make it incredibly hard to contact the agency to try to find out what you can do.
And estrangement from family? That's kinda common for those suffering from brain damage and other forms of mental illness.
Never fear, though. The problem is now solved for Ms. Carey. All it took was publicity. How do we get publicity for every claimant mistreated by Social Security?
12 comments:
Actually due process notice is required prior to stopping someone's SSA benefits. There are sometimes errors made but this is hardly SOP for SSA to stop benefits without warning.
And most overpayments are legitimate, I've seen overpayments of over 100K where the clamant knew full well they were not due that money but cashed the checks anyway. SSA must sometimes recoup the money to protect the trust fund.
Well it did say why she was overpaid. It said she was in a medical facility. Facilities report admissions to SSA on a regular basis. If Medicaid is paying the cost of their stay, the monthly payment is reduced to $30.00. These reports create SSI diaries (actions) that need to be resolved.
It does sound like the employee that "resolved" that alert did no develop it and rather just imposed the reduction by placing her in the reported facility. This is normally easily worked with a phone call to the facility to verify the admission and discharge dates. But with staffing shortages, the "efficient" way is to impose the reduction and force the beneficiary to provide the evidence. SSA is all about numbers, not quality of work.
If the facility sent the wrong information to SSA, then the facility should be under fire as well.
I am pretty sure the press got it wrong. $30.00 per month is the amount SSI eligible individuals receive when they spend the entire month in a medicaid facility. Absent fraud, SSI overpayments are recovered by withholding no more than 10% of the full SSI benefit amount. I suspect this individual was overpaid because she was paid $794/month for several months when she should have been paid $30/month and that the proposed rate of recovery was $79.40 per month. That certainly is bad enough when a person is trying to live on $794 per month.
The pendulum has swung too far on recouping OPs. In the beginning, we took miniscule amounts with lifetime repayment periods (but payment was $174 a month!) and rightfully got dinged for that. But destituting a person who by definition is destitute isn't the answer either. I blame OIG, which never considers human impact but just numbers in their reommendations.
So what do you want? No rules? Just pay them no matter what?
She broke the rules. She was not due the welfare check. She was stealing from the American tax payer.
If you want universal income, then get it voted in. Until then, SSI is and will remain a WELFARE program.
SSI still limits the amount that can be taken for an overpayment to 10% per month. However, that only applies to current payments. Any payments held or released as an underpayment can be recouped in full.
Lifetime repayment periods are too far in the other direction. In addition, SSA does not charge interest on OP's like other agencies.
SSI and it's rules are unforgiving and while the purpose of the program is noble, the effect is far from advantageous for recipients. It keeps the destitute in the control of the government under the guise of helping those in need.
@9:29
How about you actually read the article before spouting off nonsense? SSA realized they were wrong, objectively. She informed SSA 3 times that she was only in a medical facility for some of the time alleged, SSA ignored those notices and suspended her benefits (more than even is even permitted under SSI), but once SSA got kicked in the pants by the press, they realized their error. She did literally everything right.
As to whether we should "pay them no matter what," we do that in the case of an appeal of a finding of cession of disability (if the claimant asks for it). I see no reason why someone shouldn't have that same opportunity to avoid the financial harm caused by seizing their benefits. Almost like SSA is dealing with people who are barely surviving, even WITH their benefits, and maybe it's a BAD idea to cut off a benefit "program of last resort" without first exhausting any appeal. Absurd.
8.02
Dear God
Such hatred of SSI recipients.
I have no words.
If that is how you feel please feel free to keep those thoughts to yourself.
I would think anyone familiar with SSI would know that the standard procedure for an overpayment is withholding 10%.
Unpopular opinion, no one should be paid while they appeal the decision. If you're found not be "no longer disabled" why should you continue to get paid only to then be charged with an overpayment you cannot pay back if the appeal in not reversed? Benefits can always be paid retroactively.
This happens a lot when children on SSI turn 18 and have to be evaluated under the adult guidelines rather than the childhood guidelines. The parent usually elects to have the benefits continued and when it's all said and done you have a 19 or 20 year old kid with a $10,000.00 plus OP charged to their SSN. Very unfortunate for them because we don't charge the parent with the OP unless they misused the money.
No hate for SSI recipients here. I think making it a universal income would get rid of a lot of the issues. Someone's income doesn't make them "not disabled" right? So just make it a universal income and then everybody wins.
@11:44
Because SSA is not infallible and it's cruel to terminate, at a minimum, a previously-determined disabled person's benefits when they are ultimately successful in their appeal, even if their benefits are restored after half a decade. Does SSA pay for the harm done by inability to afford treatment? What about interest? How would a delay of YEARS be cured?
As to your example of children turning 18, that's not the same thing. There is an actual change in standards, and in many many cases, there could be no change in impairment of the child, yet the now adult would not qualify.
No one is infallible so mistakes will always be made, correct? So is the answer just to ALWAYS give the benefit to the person being harmed no matter the situation. If so and you apply that across the board I have no issues with it.
However, the system as set up no cannot sustain that type of logic. Again, if you want to hold people harmless, sweet, make a universal income not subject to such rules and everyone wins.
The problem with this blog is that SSA and it's employees are painted as this evil empire. SSA is made up of regular people who in the majority of cases are trying to help claimants in the best way they can. I have zero personal feelings involved in it. That allows me to to do my job without prejudice. I simply apply the laws as the government has set for the program. Do I agree with all of them...nope. Do I agree with most of them regarding SSI...nope. But they don't pay me to inject my personal feelings in my decisions nor do they allow mw to bend the laws. I do bend over backwards to give people extensions to turn in things requested and I personally try never to suspend a benefit if I don't have to. often times claimant's tie our hands and we have no choice.
You guys really have to get off your soap boxes and try to make some real changes rather that just complain because you think it's a corrupt system. If it's that corrupt, just end it!
And before anyone accuses me...I'm off today so I'm not ion the taxpayer's time.
Post a Comment