Why Are Fewer People Drawing Disability Benefits Now?

     From What Factors Explain the Drop in Disability Insurance Rolls from 2015 to 2019? by Siyan Liu and Laura D. Quinby for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

In 2015, the number of individuals receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) benefits began to drop for the first time in two decades. This drop was caused by a wave of terminations, as beneficiaries aged into the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program, combined with a steep decline in the incidence rate (the number of new DI awards relative to the insured population). ...

The paper found that:

• A strong economy accounted for about half of the drop in the incidence rate.
• Policy changes – specifically the retraining of Administrative Law Judges – also accounted for about half the drop.
• Population aging put slight upward pressure on the incidence rate.
• In terms of the total number on the disability rolls, the impact of aging on terminations far exceeds its impact on new awards.

The policy implications are:

• The time may have come to somewhat rebalance the goals of DI from encouraging labor force participation to protecting vulnerable people.
• Congress may want to consider merging the DI and OASI trust funds. ...

    I'll pull out some interesting charts from this paper over the next few days.

54% Of Adults Read Below The Sixth Grade Level

     According to a recent study 54% of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth grade education.

    Why does this matter for Social Security? That 54% account for the vast majority of disability claims, particularly those disability claims which are most likely to generate appeals. The thing is that if you develop serious health problems, you have something to fall back on if you become disabled if you've got good mental abilities. If you're a fire fighter, for instance, and your knees give out but you're not too old, you may be able to switch to being a 911 operator, for instance, because you have a little background in the field and you probably have enough intellectual ability to learn a new job. However, if  you're a roofer, you may not be able to make the transition to being a roofing estimator, for instance, because you may not have the innate intellectual ability. (I'm sure there are plenty of smart roofers but it's hard, dangerous work with poor pay so who do you think ends up in these jobs, for the most part? Did you think people take roofing jobs simply because they like working outside?) Add in increased age, which reduces adaptability, and switching to work with fewer physical demands but requiring more intellectual ability becomes extremely difficult. Don't think that age makes a difference in adaptability? You're almost certainly young. Wait until you're older. You'll understand.

    There are those on the right who honestly believe that way too many people are approved for Social Security disability, that those people may have some health problems but that they could easily switch to less demanding jobs if it wasn't so easy to get Social Security disability benefits. Well, it's not at all easy to get Social Security disability benefits nor is it easy for most of the workforce to switch to less physically demanding jobs.

    

Far More Poverty Among Disabled People In U.S. Than In Other Developed Countries

 

From the OECD. Click on image to view full size

Maybe It Helps Them Get Tenure

      Take a look at this academic study, Beyond Health: Non-Health Risk and the Value of Disability Insurance by Manasi Deshpande of the University of Chicago and Lee M. Lockwood of the University of Virginia, and tell us what you make of it. They are asking the question "Should people who are 'less disabled' but still drawing Social Security disability benefits really be drawing some sort of 'welfare' benefit anyway because they're facing other serious stresses in their lives even if they're not all that disabled?"

     My first question on looking at this study is "How did you determine who was less disabled but still drawing Social Security disability benefits?" As best I can tell they answered that question for their purposes with these four questions:

Severity (PSID)

 (1) Do you have any physical or nervous condition that limits the type of work or the amount of work you can do?
- Yes
- No
- Can do nothing

(2) For work you can do, how much does it limit the amount of work you can do { a lot, somewhat, or just a little?
- A lot
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all

More-severe if \Yes" in (1) and \A lot" in (2), or \Can do nothing" in (1) Less-severe otherwise

Severity (SIPP)

 
(1) Does ... have a physical, mental, or other health condition that limits the kind or amount of work ... can do at a job or business?
- Yes
- No

(2) Does ... health or condition prevent ... from working at a job or business?
- Yes
- No

More-severe if \Yes" in both (1) and (2)

     I find it amazing that two academics would premise a 101 page study on a base as inadequate as this. Disability determination is a hard, perhaps impossible, task. Determining degrees of disability based upon four question is laughable. These authors know a lot about statistics and other abstruse stuff but pretty much zip about disability determination.

     I think the basic, unstated premise of this study is the assumption that many people drawing Social Security disability benefits aren't really that disabled. Exploring whether this assumption is a myth might be a better starting point for research that these authors had.

SSAB Recommendations On Disability Claims Improvement

      In 2018 the House Social Security Subcommittee requested that the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) examine Social Security's reinstatement of the reconsideration stage of appeal in disability claims and to recommend improvements at the initial and reconsideration stages. SSAB is only now getting back to the Subcommittee with a full report.

     SSAB assembled five panels to discuss possible improvements. What the panels recommended mostly seems vague to me. For instance, one recommendation is "Simplify SSI eligibility for children." That's certainly a worthy goal but if you know any history of SSI child disability, you know that if you want "simplification" you'd better say exactly what you have in mind -- and then duck because whatever you have in mind will be extremely controversial. Recommendations that are more specific, such as "Simplify the SSI program by eliminating the living arrangement eligibility requirement, windfall offset, dedicated accounts, and in-kind support and maintenance" can only happen if there are major changes in the political environment. We'll see about that after November 3.

Does It Sound Like She's Describing Social Security Disability?

      From an interview with Pamela Herd, a public policy professor at Georgetown University and the co-author of Administrative Burdens: Policymaking by Other Means, conducted by Sean Illing for Vox:

... Pamela Herd

... Most of our social welfare policies are designed in such a way where they’re a lot more concerned about preventing people who aren’t eligible from accessing benefits than ensuring that those who are eligible actually receive them. We’re fixated on fraud and abuse, which is extremely low in social welfare programs — something like 1 to 2 percent of cases. And even then, it’s not what people mean when they think of “fraud and abuse.” It’s mostly people making mistakes because they didn’t understand eligibility rules.

The problem with this unjustified obsession with fraud and abuse is that it means 20 to 30 percent of people are unable to access these programs even when they’re clearly eligible for them, because they’ve created all these administrative burdens designed to target people they don’t want on the programs. So it’s a huge disconnect in terms of trying to meet the broader goals of these programs. ...

I want to push a little on this point because I don’t think a lot of people who claim to be concerned about fraud and abuse are really concerned about fraud and abuse. As far as I can tell, this is about trumping us these accusations in order to undermine programs they fundamentally don’t believe in, just as a lot of Republicans disingenuously complain about voting fraud as a cover for depressing voting numbers.

Pamela Herd

You’re right about that. Partly, this is a way conservatives justify the use of administrative burdens. They make these sorts of arguments all the time, whether it’s about voting or social welfare programs. The pretense is always about preventing fraud and abuse. But think about a program like SNAP, or food stamps. The goal of that program was to prevent hunger, was to ensure people had adequate nutrition. If you think about that goal and you realize the way that you’re running that program means that 20 percent of people eligible for that benefit aren’t getting that help that they really need, then you’re fundamentally undermining these programmatic goals. You’re allowing all those people to go hungry. ...

Sean Illing

What are the simplest, most effective things we could do to improve this process right now for people in need?

Pamela Herd

There are technocratic things like requiring state governments and the federal government to quantify how many people who are eligible for benefits aren’t getting them. Right now they’re required to report on fraud and abuse, but they should also be required to report how many people they’re failing to reach. This would be a good start....

Forum On Social Security Disability

     The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has scheduled what they call "a conversation with some of the nation’s top disability experts and policymakers" for June 6 in Washington. Two of the speakers have focused their attention on ways to encourage disabled people to return to work. One speaker is a Democratic staffer for the House Ways and Means Committee and another is a career staffer at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Two Senators may speak.

Job Opening

     Social Security has posted a job opening for the Deputy Associate Commissioner for Disability Policy position.  This is in the Senior Executive Service (SES) which means that while the position doesn’t require Senate confirmation, it can be filled on a political basis. Most SES positions, however,  are not political. Here’s the job description:

As full deputy and alter ego to the Associate Commissioner (AC) for Disability Policy, the Deputy Associate Commissioner (DAC) for Disability Policy oversees the development of broad medical concepts and disability program policies for medical issues governing the administration of the Title II and Title XVI programs. Included in this responsibility is the formulation of medical evaluation policies, interpretive guidance, and development of training programs for personnel involved in disability adjudication and decision-making.   

In consultation with the AC for Disability Policy, the DAC leads development, coordination and oversight of disability policies, procedures, and process requirements in support of the creation of an effective and efficient disability claims processing system consistent with policy. S/he oversees development and oversight of claimant representative policies and program integrity reporting requirements for the administration of Title II and Title XVI disability programs. The DAC leads the development and oversight of a vocational policy framework supporting accurate and consistent application of disability program policy through all levels of disability claims adjudication and the quality assurance process. The incumbent also ensures development of clear guidance for non-attorney representatives and requirements for sufficient training, as well of disability program fraud and similar fault policy. 

S/he oversees case analysis, studies, research and data analysis to provide an evidence base for proposed policy modernization, e.g., impairment severity and other medical disability issues, vocational and other non-medical disability issues, and studies on the disabled population relative to specific operational program issues. Accordingly, the incumbent develops automated data tools and maintains statistical databases.

     Which are the other current political SES positions at Social Security? What kind of people fill them?

National Disability Forum

     An announcement from Social Security:

Social Security’s National Disability Forum, Enhancing the Reconsideration Process
Wednesday, November 28, from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. EST
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20005

You may also participate via live stream.

We are seeking feedback on improving the disability claims process - especially at the reconsideration step. Panelists Include:

• Moderator - Darlynda Bogle, Executive Secretary, Office of the Commissioner, Social Security Administration
• Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist, National Council on Disability · Cheryl Bates-Harris, Senior Disability Advocacy Specialist, National Disability Rights Network
• Dr. Sharon Bland-Brady, President, National Association of Disability Examiners
• Lisa Ekman, Director of Government Affairs, National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives
• Trudy Lyon-Hart, Policy/Quality Committee Chair and Board Member, National Council of Disability Determination Directors
• Christopher Mazzulli, Treasurer, National Association of Disability Representatives

Please register online by Monday, November 26, and note whether you will be attending in person or via live stream. Additional details will be provided to live stream participants prior to the event. We hope you can join us and look forward to your participation. To learn more about the National Disability Forum, please click http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ndf/ .

     I don't know that this announcement itself is on the interwebs. I found out about it from the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR).

From The Republican Fantasy World

     From The Hill:

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) introduced a bill that addresses many of the [Social Security disability] program’s functional shortfalls. His Making DI Work for All Americans Act of 2018 (H.R. 6352) would also make the program solvent over the long run, setting the stage for a significant payroll tax cut. ...

[T]he bill would add reviews for “outlier” administrative law judges (something that would have applied to a now-imprisoned administrative law judge). And to promote a more equitable determination process, it would subject SSDI judges to a code of ethics similar to those applied to other judges.It would also empower disability applicants by cutting the SSA out of the representative/client relationship. Instead, applicants would be in charge of their own money. ...

In terms of the standards for determining who’s eligible for benefits, the bill would require the SSA to update the archaic list of jobs that exist in the national economy ...

The bill seeks to improve return-to-work rates by having the SSA conduct more frequent and more comprehensive continuing disability reviews, using the most appropriate standards available to determine continued disability status.Finally, the bill would help restore the program to its original goal of preventing poverty without tapping the regular Social Security trust fund. To this end, it establishes a flat, anti-poverty benefit for all new SSDI beneficiaries. ...

     By the way, Rokita isn't running for re-election in the House of Representatives. Instead, he's running for the Senate. An old poll showed him running way behind incumbent Democrat Joe Donnelly.

House Budget Chairman Wants To Raise Medicare Age And Make Social Security Change

     From the Times Record which may be in Fort Smith Arkansas, although that's hard to tell from the newspaper's website (emphasis added):

A new congressional budget proposal dubbed Brighter American Future would not privatize Social Security or Medicare, but it would raise the age of eligibility for Medicare up to two years and provide alternatives that could help drive Medicare costs down, U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, told a group of citizens Tuesday at a town hall meeting in Fort Smith.

Womack, the 3rd District congressman from Rogers and new chairman of the House Budget Committee, addressed the concerns over Social Security and Medicare presented by Mona Harper of Fort Smith and a group of five others at the University of Arkansas  ... 

The only recommended change to Social Security the budget proposal would make is “closing a loophole with disability insurance” that “allows someone to collect unemployment,” Claire Burghoff, communications director for the House Budget Committee, wrote in an email Wednesday. ...

Can You Help?

     Can anyone help me interpret this report from the Social Security Bulletin on variation in Social Security disability participation? I know I'm in trouble when I'm trying to interpret something that starts out with this sort of thing:

The variance relationship is given in equation (7):

Var[ln(part)]=Var[ln(disprev)]+Var[ln(partdis)]+2Cov[ln(disprev),ln(partdis)]

     If I had been interested in this sort of thing maybe I would have gone to grad school in my undergraduate major, political science (which, at least at the graduate level, is a lot sciencier than you might think). There are reasons people go to law school and some of them have to do with figuring out what you don't want to do.
     I think this report shows that persons of Hispanic origin and those who live in households where English isn't spoken at home are less likely to be on Social Security disability (take that, Donald Trump!) but there's a lot more in this report that I'm struggling to interpret.

National Disability Forum

     From the Social Security Administration:

Social Security’s National Disability Forum is April 18 at 1100 New York Avenue in Washington D.C. The Disability Forum gives all interested stakeholders an opportunity to share their unique insights on topics of particular interest to Social Security. This allows an exchange of ideas early in the process and directly with policy makers.

With the theme of Financial Independence: Directing the Management of One’s Social Security Benefits, the forum will serve as a listening session that brings public awareness to disability and retirement policy stakeholders. Through this dialogue, we will gain insight into how our representative payee policy affects the disability and retirement communities we currently serve and the potential affect it may have in the future.

You and your clients can learn more at www.socialsecurity.gov/thirdparty/whatsnew.html.

Study On Social Security Disability Benefits

     From Trends in SSDI Benefit Receipt: Are More Recent Birth Cohorts Entering Sooner and Receiving Benefits Longer? by Yonatan Ben-Shalom, David Stapelton, Alex Bryce, Mathematica Policy Research Working Paper 55: 

We provide the first publicly available statistics on the extent to which recent successive birth cohorts enter Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and on cross-cohort trends in the average number of years of SSDI benefit receipt among cohort members. We find that the percentage of each birth cohort entering SSDI by ages 45, 50, and 55 is increasing. Mean years of benefit receipt among all individuals in the birth cohort has grown even more rapidly, due to the combined effects of entry at younger ages and lower mortality after entry. Our findings account for immigration, an important factor that is often ignored in discussions about growth in the SSDI rolls. Annual SSDI awards have declined sharply since 2010, after rising rapidly on the heels of the Great Recession. During the same period, the birth cohort data show a decline in SSDI entry by age 40, and a diminished rate of growth by age 55. Still, in 2014—the last year of our data—the rates of entry by ages 45 and 50 are well above what they were 10 years earlier. Viewing the data from the perspective of cohorts shows that there remains an urgent need to test and adopt policies to reduce avoidable labor force exit and SSDI entry by workers who experience work-threatening medical problems. 

Trends in SSDI entry by age 40, 45, 50, and 55, as percentage of the size of the birth cohort in the SSA area population at age 20. Click to view full size.

     Those on the right will say that this proves that it's too easy to get on Social Security disability. However, it's not. It never has been and it's certainly not now.
     The problem is the near demise of manufacturing in the United States. People with low cognitive abilities or chronic psychiatric problems or other nagging health problems used to be able to hold down jobs in manufacturing, perhaps not as steadily as they would have liked but well enough to avoid having to file disability claims. Without manufacturing, these people have only a marginal ability to be employed. Jobs like Certified Nurse Attendant (CNA) at a nursing home or maintenance mechanic doing minor building repairs are hard to do if you have a bad back. Employers in these fields are less likely to put up with depressed employees with spotty attendance or employees with limited cognitive abilities who just can't seem to understand or remember how the job is supposed to be done. Those "simple, routine, repetitive" jobs aren't plentiful these days.
     If you work in an office, you may think that anyone can but that's not so. Those people you went to high school with who just barely managed to graduate or who didn't graduate, you probably didn't hang out with them. You didn't understand their problems then. You certainly don't understand them now. Sometimes, the problems that forced those students to the margins in high school go away or get better. Mostly, they stay the same or get worse. Those people are prime candidates for becoming disabled.
     The decline is American manufacturing has been properly blamed for the opioid epidemic, Rust Belt unemployment and the election of Donald Trump. This study is just finding another effect of the decline in manufacturing.

Playing Trump

     From Politico:

Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s budget director, walked into the Oval Office in early May on a longshot mission. The slash-government conservative wanted to persuade the president to break one of his most popular campaign promises.

During his populist run for the White House, Trump had vowed to leave Social Security and Medicare alone. But Trump had also vowed to rein in America’s national debt, which Mulvaney didn’t think was possible without reining in the two biggest chunks of the federal budget. So Mick the Knife brought a cut list to his meeting in the Oval. 

“Look, this is my idea on how to reform Social Security,” the former South Carolina congressman began.

“No!” the president replied. “I told people we wouldn’t do that. What’s next?”

“Well, here are some Medicare reforms,” Mulvaney said.

“No!” Trump repeated. “I’m not doing that.”

“OK, disability insurance.”

This was a clever twist. Mulvaney was talking about the Social Security Disability Insurance program, which, as its full name indicates, is part of Social Security. But Americans don’t tend to think of it as Social Security, and its 11 million beneficiaries are not the senior citizens who tend to support Trump.

“Tell me about that,” Trump replied.

“It’s welfare,” Mulvaney said.

“OK, we can fix welfare,” Trump declared.

Sure enough, the Trump budget plan that Mulvaney unveiled a few weeks later would cut about $70 billion in disability benefits over a decade, mostly through unspecified efforts to get recipients back to work. That may sound like welfare reform, but the program isn’t welfare for the poor; it’s insurance for workers who pay into Social Security through payroll taxes. The episode suggests Trump was either ignorant enough to get word-gamed into attacking a half-century-old guarantee for the disabled, or cynical enough to ditch his promise to protect spending when it didn’t benefit his base.

The story is also revealing about the source who told it on the record: Mulvaney himself, an ideological bomb-thrower from the congressional fringe who has become an influential player in the Trump administration. ...

Exits From The Social Security Disability Rolls

     Lakshmi K. Raut has written a research piece for the Social Security Bulletin, the agency's scholarly publication, on exits from the disability rolls. Judge for yourself but I don't see any policy implications. Here are a few charts from the study (the conversion he's talking about here is conversion to retirement benefits at full retirement age):

Cumulative probability of DI program exit, by reason and duration on the rolls

Cumulative probability of DI program exit because of recovery or death over the first 9 years on the rolls, by age at entitlement

Cumulative probability of DI program exit because of recovery or death over the first 9 years on the rolls, by selected disability type and age at entitlement

Declining Labor Force Participation Not Caused By Social Security Disability Benefits

     From Kathy Ruffing at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

Labor-force participation — the share of adults 16 and older who are working or looking for work — peaked at just over 67 percent in 1996-2000 and has fallen since then. Some analysts observe that the number of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries grew steeply after 2000, and assume the two trends are related. But evidence for that connection is weak. ...

Rising SSDI receipt and falling labor-force participation aren’t affecting the same age groups. SSDI receipt has grown modestly among older people, especially older women (see graph) — but so has their labor-force participation, as older workers postpone retirement. The drop in labor-market activity is concentrated at younger ages, particularly men, where SSDI receipt has not risen.

      I'd call that chart a definitive answer to the question.

It Has Nothing To Do With "Character"

     Someone posted this comment on this blog recently:

Not everyone can be Stephen Hawking ALS or not, that is a once in a generation mind. On the other hand medical billing and coding, data processing, social services work and countless other positions can and are done by those with disabilities every day. Programs like HBWD (Health Benefits for Workers with Disability) help bridge the gap of healthcare, the highest priority for those with chronic conditions. You can make a difference or make excuses, you cannot legislate character.

     I think this is worthy of a reply.
     Why do people take low end jobs as a Certified Nurse Attendant (CNA), kitchen helper, assembler, construction helper, etc? These jobs are physically demanding, the working conditions aren't so great and the pay is lousy. Why strain your back as a CNA lifting 200 pound patients for little more than minimum wage when you can work in a data processing job that pays better?
     The answer is that people take these harder low-paying jobs because they're not able to perform those more desirable jobs. The problems that keep people in physically demanding, low-paying jobs vary from person to person but the two most important reasons are limited cognitive abilities and chronic psychiatric problems. If you're reading this blog, you probably didn't hang out in high school with the kids who barely made it through high school, much less the kids who didn't make it through high school. Those kids became adults who went to work at these physically demanding low-paying jobs. They're almost invisible to most of us who work in offices but they're a significant part of the workforce. They file a lot of disability claims because once they get sick or injured they have little to offer an employer. Having low cognitive abilities or chronic psychiatric problems isn't a sign of lack of character. It's bad luck.
     Contrary to the poster, not anyone can work in medical billing and coding or data processing. I don't even know what sort of "social services" work the poster is talking about. To do office jobs you have to have basic computer literacy and the ability to type. You have to be able to learn. You have to be able to work with other people. You have to meet some minimum standards for hygiene and social conduct. Those with low cognitive abilities or chronic mental illness usually have problems with several of these requirements. This may seem incomprehensible if you work in an office and never mingle with poorly educated or chronically mentally ill people but I'm talking about real problems that force people to take low-paying, physically demanding jobs and that make it very difficult for them if they become sick or injured. Talking about these practical problems as if they were merely a matter of "character" is a "let them eat cake" approach. And, no, additional education isn't a solution either. If these folks could have benefited from additional education, in most cases they would already have gotten it. They already have plenty of incentive.

From Trump's Budget Proposal

     From Donald Trump's budget proposal for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (page 111), which begins on October 1, 2017.

Reform Disability Programs. Currently, people with disabilities have low rates of LFP [Labor Force Participation]-20 percent-which is less than a third of the LFP rate of the overall working age population. There is a common expectation that receipt of disability insurance benefits results in a permanent exit from the labor force. The Budget challenges this assumption by evaluating alternative program designs that will help individuals with disabilities remain attached to the labor force and individuals with temporary work disabilities return-to-work.

As part of this reform effort, the Administration would call on the Congress to establish an expert panel that would identify specific changes to program rules that increase LFP and reduce participation on disability programs based on the results of successful demonstrations and other evidence. This panel would be responsible for making recommendations to reduce participation levels that would be directly tied to reaching a 5 percent reduction in Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) projected outlays by 2027.

To maximize the potential of success, the Administration would simultaneously test a variety of strategies. The Administration is calling on the Congress to mandate participation by applicants and program beneficiaries in these projects including:

1) Test "time limited benefits" for beneficiaries for a period when they would be more likely to return to work;

2) Require applicants to engage in job-seeking activities before their application is considered;

3) Push existing State vocational rehabilitation offices to intervene earlier with individuals on a track to end up on DI;

4) Replicate welfare-to-work strategies in State TANF offices to provide wellness care and vocational services to welfare applicants that cannot work due to a short-term or uncontrolled health condition; and

5) Mandate that lower back pain and arthritis sufferers engage in rehabilitation traditionally used in occupational health treatment services before receiving benefits.

On a separate track, the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) at the Department of Labor would lead the implementation of a demonstration project to test the effectiveness of Washington State's Centers of Occupational Health and Education (COHE) program to improve labor force participation and attachment of individuals with temporary injuries and disabilities. While COHE is focused on workers' compensation related injuries, the demonstration will test the effects of implementing key features of the model in other States or municipalities, and/or for a broader population beyond workers' compensation. Some of the key features include care and service coordination, population screening and monitoring, increased access and targeted vocational rehabilitation and work supports, workplace accommodations, and technical assistance to healthcare providers and employers.

Reduce 12 month retroactive DI benefits to six months. New DI beneficiaries are eligible for up to 12 months of benefits before the date of their application, depending upon the date they became disabled. This proposal would reduce retroactivity for disabled workers, which is the same policy already in effect for Medicare eligibility.

Create sliding scale for multi-recipient SSI families. Currently, families receive an equal amount for each SSI child recipient. However, economies of scale in some types of consumption — housing, in particular — reduces per capita living expenses and therefore means that two children generally do not need twice the income as one child. Federal poverty guidelines and other means-tested benefits take into account these efficiencies. The Budget proposes to create a sliding scale for SSI disability benefits that considers the number of additional family recipients. It would keep the maximum benefit for one recipient the same as in current law but reduce benefits for additional recipients in the same family.

Offset overlapping unemployment and disability payments. The Budget proposes to close a loophole that allows individuals to receive Unemployment Insurance (UI) and DI for the same period of joblessness. The proposal would offset the DI benefit to account for concurrent receipt of UI benefits. Under current law, concurrent receipt of DI benefits and unemployment compensation is allowable. UI is intended to compensate individuals for short-term bouts of unemployment while they look to return to work while DI is intended to compensate individuals who cannot return to work on a long-term basis due to a disability, allowing double dipping that is unnecessary and wasteful.

Reinstate the reconsideration review application stage in 10 States. The Budget proposes reinstating reconsideration in 10 States, conforming these States with the practices used in the rest of the Nation. This reform requires a second review by the State Disability Determination Services (DDS) before an appeal goes to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Other States already require disability applicants to have their claim "reconsidered" before they can appeal to an ALJ.

Eliminate Workers' Compensation (WC) Reverse Offset. The Budget proposes to eliminate reverse offsets in 15 States where WC benefits are offset instead of DI benefits. Currently, in most States, the combination of benefits from WC and DI is limited to 80 percent of the recipient's earnings before they were disabled. If necessary, DI benefits are usually offset to meet the limit. However, 15 States currently reduce the benefit from WC rather than DI in order to achieve the 80 percent limit, creating an unjustified inequity across States. This option would eliminate the reverse offsets in these States.

Create a probationary period for Administrative Law Judges. The Budget proposes to create a probationary period for ALJs. This option would create a one-year probationary period, similar to the Senior Executive Service, to ensure an ALJ is performing at a satisfactory level. Following the one-year probation, the ALJ would convert to a lifetime appointment. individuals receiving retirement benefits. This proposal will not modify retroactivity for Medicare eligibility.

Why Disability Benefits Are Especially Important Fro Less-Educated Workers

     The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has a report up on 4 Reasons Why Disability Insurance Is Especially Important to Less-Educated Workers.

     Let me be less diplomatic than the folks at CBPP. Less-educated workers are frequently people with lower cognitive abilities. We do not live in Lake Woebegone. All the children are not above average. Some are born with lower cognitive abilities. The cognitive abilities of others are permanently stunted by difficult childhood circumstances. Lower cognitive abilities lead to lower educational achievements. Adult education is of only limited use for people with low cognitive abilities. They lack the ability to profit from it. People with lower cognitive ability are at a huge disadvantage when they develop medical or psychiatric problems. All they are suited to do is to work at jobs with low skill requirements and those jobs aren't in offices. Those jobs generally involve significant exertional requirements and offer limited tolerance for psychiatric issues. If all you ever had to offer an employer was a strong back and a good attitude you're in big trouble if your back loses its strength or your good attitude isn't so good.