Is This Accurate?

      I received this message from a reader.

In case you and NOSSCR are not aware of it, in the last few days SSA has reversed a long standing policy that will potentially have major implications and may introduce legal liability to 3rd party representatives. On claims, SSA will no longer recognize a protective filing for a spouse or children listed on a claim unless the NH puts a statement in the remarks of the application expressing an intent to file on behalf of the spouse/children. I haven't seen this POMS, and I don't know if it is being implemented retroactively or prospectively going forward. Legal reps might have liability if they list the spouse/kids but fail to add the intent to file language to the application remarks. This is obviously a thinly veiled attempt to deny a protective filing to spouses/children of people filing claims. The office I retired from told me they are planning a training session on it very soon.

POMS GN 00204.010 contains the new policy. It has apparently been in place since 04/27/2026. The prior policy applies up to 04/26/2026.

     The claims forms ask for a list of children and a spouse. I don’t know how you could not interpret that as an intention to file a claim for them. 

     There have been problems in the pst when a claimant fails to list all the children, usually for malicious reasons relating to a divorce, but sometimes because the child was born after the claim was filed. That problem is probably a direct result of the statute and regulations rather than anything intended to be harsh.

     If we’re talking about harsh and malicious, what the reader is talking about would definitely be a serious gotcha that I would call harsh and malicious. I have a hard time believing this could happen but it’s hard to put anything past this Administration. I think they could not prevail in Court on this.

Social Security Planning To Nationalize Claims Taking

      From Federal News Network:

The Social Security Administration is rolling out nationwide systems in the coming months that will impact how the agency schedules appointments for initial claims and triages its workload to employees.

SSA employees told Federal News Network that they’re used to processing claims submitted locally, but will soon tackle a nationwide inventory of cases.

Employees are wary that these changes will introduce more complexity to their workloads, as well as a higher risk of overpayments that SSA would have to claw back.

“Someone who applies in California could be speaking to an SSA rep in Maine,” one SSA employee said. …

[A] SSA employee said staff were briefed on these changes this week. The employee said staff submitted multiple requests to management seeking clarification on these points, but were told to “worry about today, not tomorrow.” …

Creating Obstacles For The Sake Of Creating Obstacles?

       From the Washington Post:

The Social Security Administration is considering adding a new anti-fraud step to claims for benefits that the agency acknowledges would force millions of customers to file in person at a field office rather than over the phone, according to an internal memorandum.
The change would create major disruptions to Social Security operations, the memo said, and could cause particular hardship for elderly and disabled Americans who have limited mobility. Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service also has announced plans to cut thousands of agency jobs and close dozens of regional and local Social Security offices.
Those applying for retirement and disability benefits by phone would be required for the first time to authenticate their identity through an online system that the memo refers to as “internet ID proofing.” But if claimants can’t verify their identity online, they would have to provide documentation in person at a field office, according to the memo, which was viewed by The Washington Post. The document was sent last week by Doris Diaz, acting deputy commissioner for operations, to acting Social Security commissioner Leland Dudek.
 …

The memo estimates that 75,000 to 85,000 customers per week would be diverted to local field offices because many of the elderly and disabled people that Social Security serves would be unable to complete a new identity verification requirement online.
“Increased challenges for vulnerable populations,” “longer wait times and processing time,” “increased demand for office appointments” and “increased foot traffic” at local field offices are the kinds of service disruptions the memo warns would happen if the change is implemented — as well as legal challenges and “operational strain.” ..