Almost a year after it was submitted to them for review, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has finally approved proposed rules to omit food from in-kind support and maintenance SSI calculations. However, this does not mean that the proposed regulations will come into effect anytime soon. They must first be published in the Federal Register for public comment. Social Security must then consider the comments and prepare a final version of the regulations which must again be submitted to OMB for approval. This could easily take 24 months, especially if OMB is going to sit on it for a year.
Feb 6, 2023
SSI Regulations Advance
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Is this going to change much in the way of benefits? I have never charged anyone getting SSI with “food”. Maybe it’s different other places but most where I am get at least some money from food stamps. ISM here almost always consists entirely of shelter items. I’m not trying to stick it to people unnecessarily. Be interested to know if a lot of claims reps are charging food specifically.
This will make a huge difference to people living with relatives. At least $100 per month is taken away for food-even if they are receiving food stamps. When you are getting $914 a month, a $100 that is not taken away is a big deal!
I've heard that SSA jumps to cut 1/3 of the SSI benefits right off the top. Is that true?
I agree with 9:39. I don't see this making any difference at all. All the claimant's who can't pay for their own food are almost always getting food stamps although they might get housing from a friend of family.
I’m not sure why people are saying this isn’t a big deal. Would it not eliminate LA-B entirely? I didn’t have time to look at all of the adjoining affected regulations, but if it does, this would be one of the most significant changes to SSI policy in at least a decade. Has anyone looked into this? If I have more time this afternoon I will.
No it would not eliminate the LA “B”. I’m the original poster from the top. If you’re in a “B” you are living in someone else’s household and not contributing at all or not your fair share. Usually the amount for shelter alone is valued at 1/3 for the reduction. So good never comes into play on that situation.
Here is where it may matter -
Food and Shelter in the HH of another is VTR
If food is gone and may get rid of VTR.
Leaving PMV as the only way to do ISM.
And PMV is more flexible about the amount of the reduction.
Yes, I do a lot of work in this area
Yes, and you can rebut the PMV. But quite often food isn’t the issue in my area. The value of the shelter alone is usually the deciding factor unless you have housing assistance. In those cases, you’re usually on your own anyway.
The Law and CFR would have to be changed and that will take time. In Kind Support includes Food and Shelter. Yes over many years I have charged ISM for food unless excludable from social services or a non profit or a valid precedent. The amount of a food stamp contribution does not count, it is the cash expenditure for food that is used in the comp.
This is 1:04 again. Replying to 1:04. The definition of LA-B is receiving both good and shelter for every moment of the month in a home of another. That’s why someone with food stamps will never be in La-B. John Whitelaw is agreeing with me. The VTR is ONLY charged in La-B. So eliminating VTR is the same as eliminating La-B. Not counting food as ISM would fundamentally change the existence of La-B unless one of the associated regulations specifically changes that. In your example, not contributing your fare share/ pro-rats share is La-a with ISM charged at the AV or capped at the PMV. You can also live in La-A with no contributions at all and as long as you get food from outside the house from a statutorily excluded source like food stamps etc, you are also in La-a with ism. Food is present in both situations, and both living arrangements. the difference is getting Food and shelter AND getting it throughout the entire month.
It probably isn't going to change a lot of people's benefits--very few people get food and not shelter, and for those who get shelter its value is likely such that there will be a 1/3 reduction either way.
BUT it will save SSA and beneficiaries a lot of time in asking about food, and perhaps lead to there being a few less overpayments.
There isn't that much SSA can do about ISM--Congress really just needs to get rid of it (among other simplifications and improvements to SSI!). But within the confines of the law, a good next step would be for the agency to do more to identify public assistance households and apply ISM properly to them, and ideally expand the households that qualify for it.
If you're on food stamps, you buy your food separate from other household members. (beans and ramen can go a long way ... wink wink)
The biggest help would to change the resource limit to 6 times the FBR. Which it was back in the 1980's; the last time this amount was changed.
I don't understand the "rationale" behind SSI's insane rules. They seem to be punitive punishment for not being able to navigate your way through all the loopholes. They favor schemers who follow them to a t and disfavor honest people and those incapable of following them through the loopholes, such as, oh, people with severe mental disabilities (schizophrenia, especially) or learning disabilities). As such, I think these rules should be abandoned...which would ultimately make it simpler and cheaper to administer.
Living in a HH with no rental liability is a “B”. That is most people I deal with on regular basis. Those that are “A’s” are not getting food from another source. Yes you can be an “A” with a reduction for food but I have never seen that in 20 years. Mostly it’s people living with a family member and having no rental responsibility. That’s a “B”. Usually they say they use their food stamps for the household, but food stamps can’t be used to contribute towards the shelter cost.
I agree with you Tim. I’ve said for years, SSI should not even be a disability program. It should just be federal welfare plain and simple. A flat rate with no overly complicated rules for living arrangements.
@12:15: Yeah, tell that to the new Congress, whose sole “accomplishment” thus far has been passing a resolution acknowledging the “horrors” wrought by the very sorts of programs you’re suggesting. And their redneck constituents lap this kind of ignorant bulls**t up like pigs at a trough.
Many of the complicated rules make sense of someone clearly explains them. Would it be easier to administer with few rules? Sure. But some of those complicated rules allow for exceptions that seem really fair.
We’re supposed to be helping those in need like Tim said… it punishing them for being unable to work or less intelligent or with mental issues.
Just to clarify you can be in an A with no rental liability. La determination is not based solely on rental liability. Follow the sequential development down the 8008 and you will see that there are situations where you are in an a with no rental liability. The key for B is receiving both food and shelter throughout the entire month while in a household of another. Both the throughout the entire month requirement and the food requirement exist. That’s why intervening A exists, for situations where the throughout the entire month requirement isn’t met before someone goes into a B. Removing food will eliminate La-B. That’s pretty clear cut in policy.
Eliminate ISM entirely. Get us out of the business of policing household bills. We'd come out ahead on reduced administrative overhead alone.
This is just from Chapter 1 of my Big Book of Ways To Fix SSA. Stay tuned for other ideas like "treat SGA like early RIB so that it phases out gradually" and then "get rid of the work penalty for early RIB".
Chapter 2 is titled "Be A Freaking Human Being And Cut the Cruelty", and is full of tidbits like "Kill the 5 month waiting period" and "Give them Medicare immediately"
Chapter 3 is titled "Wait What Year is This" and it's nothing but screenshots of someone doing basic inputs into SSA's programs, displaying how many keystrokes, screens, and minutes it takes to do simple shit like "this SSI recipient has a new phone number".
Chapter 4 is titled Do Your Damn Job, and makes TSC answer all phone calls, makes the Field Offices take all claims, and takes a wrecking ball to the Payment Centers and puts CAs and BAs back into Field Offices.
Chapter 5 is called This Should Be Fun, and has the same theme as Chapter 4, except the whole thing is walking through Baltimore HQ and firing every GS-15 and SES you make eye contact with.
Chapter 6 is Now Pay For It, where we noogie every member of Congress until the cap on FICA taxes is lifted and we add a transaction tax to stock sales.
Chapter 7 is We Throw The Conservatives A Bone, where we eliminate SSI backpay and cash payments to children on SSI, but then we screw them over by using double the money saved to expand Medicaid coverage for things like dental, vision, and caregiver benefits.
Chapter 8 is I'll Quit Writing Chapters If You Make SSA A Cabinet Agency Again Or We'll Be Right Back Here Again in Twenty Years.
@12:12 I agree with the reply to your comment. La-B should not be super common. ORDP estimates that La-A should be roughly 81% of cases with varying levels of ISM. True B isn’t supposed to be the most common. If you are putting everyone there arbitrarily that’s incorrect and I am assuming you just are not being thorough enough to look for the possibility of separate purchase or consumption, or to look for sharing or earmarked or double earmarked sharing. This is why SSA needs to streamline La-Development to reduce errors like this. “La-B works for me” is the lazy mantra I used to hear when nobody wanted to take the time to do the actual work for a proper La-a determination.
Most claimants in my area do not have rental liability. That by definition is a “B”.
@11:36 that is wildly incorrect. Not having rental liability has nothing to do with LA-B. Receiving BOTH food and shelter while in the household of another throughout every moment of the month is the definition of La-B. If you have no rental liability but don’t get food from the house (aka anyone with food stamps) you are in La-A with ism. Rental liability is only s small part of La determination. Anyone who meets sharing or earmarked sharing doesn’t have rental liability and is in an a, people in shelters don’t have liability and they are in La-A, homeless individuals don’t have rental liability and they are in A. Rental liability alone doesn’t determine La.
I’m genuinely shocked by all the comments here from people who are making living arrangement determinations incorrectly and just putting people into La-B. It’s sad and speaks poorly for the agency and it’s accuracy.
In 1990 Commissioner Gwen King commissioned a study on SSI. There were several recommended reforms that made it so far as a Congressional hearing by the W&M Committee. Here we are almost 35 years later talking about a regulation to deal with ISM — just ONE of the 20 or so reforms you can find in the report
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssisummary.pdf. That is the state of Policy innovation at SSA.
Most people in my area have no ownership, no rental liability, no income of any kind and no loan agreement to repay any expenses because they have ent had income in a decade. It’s not that complicated.
Hold on, i thought that they were being unfairly limited because they could only have limited savings and we should raise that rate to $10,000. Which one is it?
Post a Comment