Anomaly Requested For Social Security

     The federal fiscal year ends on September 30. Without Congressional action there will be a government shutdown. It's clear that individual appropriation bills will not be passed before the end of the month. A Continuing Resolution (CR), which permits the continuation of spending at the previous rate, will be needed. Every time there's a CR, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submits a list of "anomalies" -- government functions that require something beyond the prior rate of spending. The OMB anomalies list this time includes a request that the Social Security Administration be funded at the full rate of the President's budget request for FY 2025 -- $15.4 billion instead of the $14.2 billion in the FY 2024 appropriation, warning that:

... Without the anomaly, SSA would be required to reduce funding for core information technology operations including SSA's network support. In addition, SSA would likely reduce the hours field offices are open to the public and would need to close field offices over time, extending wait times or seniors and individuals with disabilities. ...

    Government Executive calls the OMB request for Social Security an "unusual step."

    It's unlikely that Social Security will receive anything like what is requested. The House funding bill doesn't include an increase for Social Security. In fact, it cuts Social Security's appropriation below the current FY.

Final Regs On Law Firms Representing Claimants Cleared For Publication

     The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has cleared Social Security's proposed final rules on the recognition of law firms representing claimants. To this point, the agency has insisted that only individuals can represent claimants. In the real world, however, there are these things called law firms and they like to do things like shift responsibility for a case from one of the firm's attorneys to another, something that is now difficult both for the law firm and Social Security. There's also the problems that ensue when an attorney leaves a law firm. Who gets the fee? This is a nice step forward for everyone, including Social Security. Expect these final regulations to be published in the Federal Register before long.

Help For SSI Recipients

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved final rules to add Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Benefits (SNAP or Food Stamps) to the definition of means-tested assistance programs for the purposes of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) computation. This will help reduce Social Security workloads and it will increase benefits for many SSI recipients. Expect to see this in the Federal Register soon.

Past Relevant Work Regs Advance

     The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved final regulations on Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process, Including How we Consider Past Work. When published as a proposal these included a reduction in the time period for considering past relevant work from 15 years to 5. Expect to see the regulations in the Federal Register soon. 

    I hope the effective date isn't six months into the future.

New SSI Regs Approved

      The final rules on the Nationwide Expansion of the Rental Subsidy Policy for SSI Recipients have been approved by OMB and should appear in the Federal Register soon.

Definition Of Public Assistance Regulations Advances

      The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve these final regulations:

We propose to expand the definition of a public assistance (PA) household for purposes of our programs, particularly the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, to include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as an additional means-tested public income maintenance (PIM) program. In addition, we seek public comment on expanding the definition to include households in which any other (as opposed to every other) member receives public assistance. We expect that the proposed rule would decrease the number of SSI applicants and recipients charged with in-kind support and maintenance (ISM). In addition, we expect that this proposal would decrease the amount of income we would deem to SSI applicants or recipients because we would no longer deem income from ineligible spouses and parents who receive SNAP benefits and live in the same household. These policy changes would reduce administrative burden for low-income households and SSA.

Two Important Sets Of Final Regs

     The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve two sets of proposed regulations.

     Here's a description of the first for which approval has been requested:

We propose to update our regulations to reflect that we may authorize direct payment of representative fees to an entity itself, not only to representatives working for an entity, as required by the decision of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Marasco & Nesselbush v. SSA. In accordance with the Marasco ruling, we propose a process for paying an entity directly, which involves requiring registration for all entities who wish to receive direct payment of assigned fees. We also propose several measures to standardize registration, appointment, and payment processes for all representatives who wish to be appointed on a claim, matter, or issue with us. These proposed changes will enable us to pay fees directly to entities in a timely and efficient manner. In addition to helping us implement the Marasco decision, these provisions will increase appointed representatives’ access to our electronic services, reduce delays, and thus improve program efficiencies for all representatives.

    Here's a description of the second set of proposed regulations for which approval has been requested:

We propose to develop intermediate improvements to reduce the burden in our current disability adjudication process as a step towards longer-term reforms to ensure our disability program remains current and supports equitable outcomes. Actions could include decreasing the years of past work we consider when making a disability determination, as well as other potential regulatory changes.

The development of this regulation was informed by a listening session conducted by our Office of Communications with advocacy groups representing claimants and beneficiaries.

Proposed Regs On Consideration Of Past Work Advance

     The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) -- the most important government agency you've never heard of -- has approved proposed Social Security regulation changes with the title, Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: Including how we Consider Past Work. There's no way to know for sure at this point since we have no more than vague descriptions of what's included but the proposed regulations will likely reduce the number of years of past work considered in determining disability.

    The proposal will now be published in the Federal Register and the public will be able to comment. Social Security must consider the comments before publishing the regulations in final form so they go into effect. This process will take months at the least.

    When I posted about this proposal going to OIRA there were several comments posted here by those who felt this proposal would hurt Social Security disability claimants. If you think this is the case, don't make comments here on Social Security disability issues. You don't have enough knowledge to offer meaningful comments. If this proposal reduces the time frame considered from 15 years to, let's say, 5 years, that's a modest improvement from the point of view of disability claimants. And, no, this isn't some controversial loosening of standards.  I don't think that 15 years ever made sense. It certainly doesn't make sense now. With a nomination for Social Security Commissioner pending, the agency and OIRA are being extremely careful to avoid doing anything the least bit controversial. That's probably an important reason why I've had so little Social Security news to post lately. This proposal wouldn't be going forward now if it were controversial.

New Regs In The Works

    After a long break, the Social Security Administration is advancing proposed regulations. The agency has now asked the Office of Management and Budget to approve regulations to "implement the Commissioner’s access to and use of wage and employment information held by payroll data providers ...  to help  administer the title II Disability Insurance (DI) and title XVI Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs and prevent improper payments."

New Proposed Regs In Pipeline

     The Social Security Administration has sent a set of proposed regulations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Here's the description, limited as it may be:

We propose to develop intermediate improvements to reduce the burden in our current disability adjudication process as a step towards longer-term reforms to ensure our disability program remains current and supports equitable outcomes. Actions could include decreasing the years of past work we consider when making a disability determination, as well as other potential regulatory changes.

Signature No Longer Required On One Form

     From Emergency Message EM-23054:

This emergency message (EM) notifies technicians that we no longer require a signature on any version of the SSA-455 [a Continuing Disability Review form sent to claimants]...

SSA recently received OMB [Office of Management and Budget, whose pro forma OK is required before changing forms] approval to discontinue the requirement for a signature on the CDR Mailer form SSA-455 and SSA-455-OCR-SM. The latest inForm Library version of the SSA-455 has been updated to remove the signature box. ...

     If we can dispense with the signature requirement on this form, can't we dispense with some other signature requirements or at least verification of electronic signatures? There's a lot of field office time wasted on this.

Proposed Rule Recognizing The Fact That There Are Such Things As Law Firms

     A Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) from today's Federal Register:

We propose to revise our regulations to enable us to directly pay entities fees we may authorize to their employees, as required by the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit) in Marasco & Nesselbush, LLP v. Collins. To make direct payments, issue the necessary tax documents, and properly administer these rules, we propose to require all entities that want to receive direct payment of assigned fees and all representatives who want to be appointed on a claim, matter, or issue to register with us. We also propose to standardize the registration, appointment, and payment processes. We expect that this proposed rule will help us implement the changes required by the Marasco decision, increase accessibility to our electronic services, reduce delays, and help us prepare for more automation, thereby improving our program efficiencies.

    This should have been done over 30 years ago but better late than never. 

    By the way, I have no idea how this got into the Federal Register. These things have to be approved by the Office of Management and Budget and OMB never listed this as pending approval on its website. I don't think I've ever seen this before. It's not listed now as having been approved by OMB even though the NPRM itself shows that OMB was involved.

Another Set Of Proposed Regs To Decrease The Number Of SSI Recipients Charged For In-Kind Support And Maintenance

     Social Security has asked the Office of Management and Budget to approve proposed regulations to:

We propose expanding the definition of a Public Assistance (PA) Household to include additional means-tested assistance programs. This will decrease the number of applicants and recipients charged in-kind support and maintenance, which will simplify living arrangement development within the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

    This has to be approved by OMB and then published in the Federal Register for comments. The agency must consider the comments and possibly revise the proposal. Then they must again obtain approval from OMB before it can again be published in the Federal Register as a final rule. This can easily take two years or more. If a Republican is elected President in 2024, this proposal may die.

Proposed Regs On Rental Subsidy Execption

     This is the description given for proposed new regulations that the Social Security Administration has sent to the Office of Management and Budget for approval:

We propose expanding the rental subsidy exception beyond the 7 states to which it already applies so that it applies nationwide. Accordingly, our nationwide policy would be that a business arrangement exists when the amount of monthly rent required to be paid equals or exceeds the presumed maximum value or the current market value, whichever is less. We expect that the proposed change would improve service delivery by making our policy uniform throughout the country and reducing administrative burdens for individuals seeking access to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

    I'm not familiar with this. Could someone explain it? Why is it only in seven states now? How has it worked in those seven states? 

    The only thing available to the public now is this brief description.

    At the rate that proposed regulations have been advancing, it will be two years or more before this could become a final rule and that's assuming there's no change in the party controlling the White House after next year's election

Action On Listings

     Action on new or amended regulations at Social Security has been almost non-existent at Social Security for years so it was a surprise to me to see that something had finally happened.  The agency has received approval for new Listings for Digestive and Skin Disorders. Expect to see them in the Federal Register soon.

    Social Security now has zero new or amended regulations pending approval at the Office of Management and Budget. I don't remember that happening before.

SSI Regulations Advance

     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.

SSI Regulatory Proposal Hung Up At OMB

     Before publishing proposed new regulations in the Federal Register for public comments, agencies must obtain the approval of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On February 8, some seven months ago, Social Security asked OIRA for approval of proposed regulations that would omit food from consideration as in-kind support and maintenance in computing Supplemental Security Income benefits. This is a not insignificant proposal. The proposal is still pending. That's a long time for a proposed regulation coming from Social Security to stay pending at OIRA. 

    I have no idea what is causing the delay. I don't think this would be a complicated proposal. Anything that would help SSI claimants would be a big deal, though. For decades, Congress has failed to update SSI income and resource limitations.

I Think This Is Mostly Aimed At You, Social Security

    From a blog post by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House:

Long forms, long lines, and lots of documents – these are the hurdles that can make it difficult and frustrating for individuals and communities to access government programs and services.

Today, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is taking action to cut down on these “administrative burdens” by issuing new guidance for Federal agencies to help them better understand, identify, and reduce the burdens people experience when accessing public benefits programs. The guidance outlines how agencies should apply the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), which governs how Federal agencies collect information, including the forms and paperwork people have to fill out when accessing government programs. ...

The memo directs Federal agencies in two key areas:

• Identifying administrative burdens. The PRA already requires agencies to document, analyze, and justify the information they collect on each form and gather public input on these points. This memo calls on Federal agencies to further engage with the public to fully understand their experience when applying for or submitting information to a benefits program. The memo also directs agencies to consider how other burdens in the process impose time, financial, and psychological costs on people.

• Reducing administrative burdens. The guidance also instructs agencies to consider policy, communication, technological, and design reforms that can make it easier for the public to access services. While there are no one-size-fits-all answers because of the unique purposes and populations served by each program, the memo encourages agencies to follow leading practices to reduce the challenges we already know make it harder for people to access services. ...
  

Social Security Directed To Stop Requiring So Many Wet Signatures

      From an Executive Order signed by President Biden on December 13:

... (k)  The Commissioner of Social Security shall:
            (i) within 120 days of the date of this order, provide a report to the Director of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] that analyzes all services of the Social Security Administration that currently require original or physical documentation or in-person appearance as an element of identity or evidence authentication, and that identifies potential opportunities for policy reforms that can support modernized customer experiences while ensuring original or physical documentation requirements remain where there is a statutory or strong policy rationale;
            (ii) develop a mobile-accessible, online process so that any individual applying for or receiving services from the Social Security Administration can upload forms, documentation, evidence, or correspondence associated with their transaction without the need for service-specific tools or traveling to a field office;
            (iii) consistent with applicable law and to the extent practicable, maintain a public policy of technology neutrality with respect to acceptable forms of electronic signatures;
           (iv) consistent with applicable law and to the extent practicable, revise any necessary regulations, forms, instructions, or other sources of guidance (to include the Program Operations Manual System of the Social Security Administration) to remove requirements that members of the public provide physical signatures; and
            (v) to the maximum extent permitted by law, support applicants and beneficiaries to identify other benefits for which they may be eligible and integrate Social Security Administration data and processes with those of other Federal and State entities whenever possible. ...

     Should anything at Social Security really require a wet signature? I'd say "no."

Social Security Reopening Plan Pending At OMB

      FCW (which used to be called Federal Computer Weekly, I think) has a piece up on labor relations at Social Security. It's mostly union griping that there hasn't been enough change since Trump and Saul left office. However, buried 20 paragraphs down is the news that Social Security submitted its reopening plan to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on July 26. Previously, we knew that Social Security had obtained an extension of time to submit a plan but we didn't know when it was due. It's apparent from the FCW piece that the unions know nothing about the reopening plan. They would have preferred to negotiate it before any plan was submitted to OMB and still hope to negotiate it after a plan is approved.