From an article by Jack Smalligan and Chantel Boyens of the Urban Institute in The Hill concerning Social Security overpayments and how to reduce them:
... [W]e proposed that the Social Security Administration adopt a prospective eligibility and certification process. Under this approach, the agency would review a beneficiary’s eligibility and benefit level periodically and certify the beneficiary’s benefit level for a fixed period of time. If a beneficiary’s income changed, their benefits would be revised when they were due for recertification — but the agency would not be able to claw back past payments. ...
This is not a radical proposal: It is how other safety net programs, such as SNAP, already work. This approach also aligns with the Social Security Administration’s own practice for redetermining benefits for disability beneficiaries when they experience a medical improvement that might decrease their need for benefits. ...
I suppose this would be nice but I don't know where the manpower for doing all those Title II redeterminations would come from. Well-meaning people such the authors of this piece cannot grasp the depth of the staffing crisis at Social Security.
3 comments:
I worked with Jack Smalligan when he was at OMB and SSA was one of his agencies that he covered. A smart man, a realist. And an idea that on the surface has merit. But as Charles points out, doing redeterminations on people requires manpower and does seem reminiscent of how one manages a needs based program and not an entitlement program like SSA benefits are. SSI is a prime example of reexamining eligibility and that should be a warning sign in and of itself, given how hard it is to manage that program just from a redet perspective.
Under this proposal I could see someone receiving their full DIB benefit for several months while working above SGA. Or for RIB beneficiaries, working over the limit while under FRA. But soon after a redetermination is done lowering or stopping their benefits, they could cut back or stop working and be in quite a financial bind until the next redetermination.
Disability overpayments seem to be the most that can be considered unfair, such as barely exceeding SGA and losing the full benefit. In cases like this, where the beneficiary is overpaid for two or three years because an SGA decision is not worked timely, maybe if they reapply and are found disabled social security could automatically waive the SGA overpayment even if the person had the ability to repay.
@11:40: bingo.
The process described is pretty close to what is already done with TWP, EPE, CDR diaries. The issue is the lack of staffing to process the work, straight up.
The inability to keep staff is because it's assembly-line work with literal life or death consequences, for barely above minimum wage in a toxic environment. There are too many rules to appropriately perform the work vs. the production quota, so burnout is through the roof. Add the number of errors or logical impossibilities that have to be corrected 17 times within the system, largely because disability decisions are primarily based on laypeople playing doctor without understanding what the words mean.
Yay for more hearings!
Post a Comment