Information Requested

    From a Request for Information posted today by Social Security in the Federal Register:

... This request for information (RFI) seeks public input to inform how Federal agencies can support broader State and local efforts to improve the outcomes of children in the child welfare system who are eligible for Federal benefits. The input we receive will inform our deliberations about potential policy changes. ...

 Application

• For children who have contact with the child welfare system but who are not in foster care, what opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to assist with screening children for SSA benefit eligibility and applying for benefits?

• What opportunities or challenges exist for child welfare agencies to apply for SSA benefits on behalf of children in foster care or living away from their parents with other caregivers? Are there differences depending on whether the child or their family are eligible for other public benefits, such as preventative child welfare services, TANF, SNAP, or title IV–E foster care payments?

SSA Benefit Use and Conservation
• Current SSA rules allow payees, including child welfare agencies, who serve children in foster care to use SSA benefits to pay for the child’s current needs, including the cost of monthly foster care maintenance payments. Payees must conserve SSA benefits for future use only after meeting all of the child’s current and foreseeable needs. How effectively do these rules contribute to the ability of child welfare agencies to serve children in foster care? Are there differences depending on whether the child receives Social Security benefits or SSI payments?

• Please describe if it would be beneficial to offer additional guidance or clarification related to when Social Security benefits or SSI payments must be conserved by payees, including, as applicable, child welfare agencies, or expand on what kinds of factors should be considered in a conservation decision.

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, how do you make decisions about the use and conservation of the children’s SSA benefits? What do you do with SSA benefits that are not used as part of the monthly foster care
maintenance payment?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, a child may be eligible to receive benefits from various sources, including Federal, State, and local. What are the benefits in using SSA benefits before or after other sources of funding to cover the costs of the child’s foster care maintenance?

• For child welfare agencies, if you were required to conserve SSA benefits on behalf of eligible children in foster care, would that affect the agency’s decision about whether to screen or apply for SSA benefits on behalf of a child?

• What would be the implications or challenges if child welfare agencies are restricted from using SSA benefits for foster care maintenance and required to conserve SSA benefits?

• For child welfare agencies that serve as payees for children in foster care, do you conserve any amount of the children’s SSA benefits for future use? If not, why not? If you do, how do you determine how much to conserve? Do you hold the funds, such as in a savings account or a trust account? Do you use Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) accounts or special needs trusts to conserve funds? What are the benefits of and impediments to using ABLE accounts or special needs trusts? Does the decision on whether to conserve benefits depend on the type of benefit provided to the child (e.g., Social Security, SSI, foster care maintenance payments, etc.)?

• For current and former foster youth, what current needs would be met if you had access to your conserved SSA benefits? Are there examples of current needs that are not commonly met by the monthly foster care maintenance payments? If so, which needs?

General

 
• Are there other aspects of HHS’s or SSA’s programs where guidance, technical assistance, or information can be offered or improved to better support children in foster care or otherwise in contact with the child welfare system. ...

Ways And Means Republicans Oppose Recent Decisions By Commissioner Of Social Security

     From a press release issued by the Republican majority on the House Ways and Means Committee:

Four recently finalized rules from the Social Security Administration (SSA) are the latest examples of the Biden-Harris Administration’s expansion of federal power at a substantial cost to taxpayers, write House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO), Work and Welfare Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-IL), Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Drew Ferguson (R-GA), Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), and Budget Committee Oversight Task Force Chair Jack Bergman (R-MI) in a new letter to Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley.

Over the next decade, these Biden-Harris rules from the SSA, which circumvent the fiscal accountability requirements of the bipartisan Fiscal Res    ponsibility Act, will add $37 billion in new, unpaid-for spending within the Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) programs. 

The Biden-Harris Administration’s failure to offset the costs of these rules will both run up the already unsustainable national debt and further harm the financial health of the Social Security programs. Further, these rules were finalized at a time when the combined Social Security Trust Funds are expected to go bankrupt and be unable to pay full benefits in the next decade. ...

    The rules in question are:

• Expand the Definition of Public Assistance Household: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $15 billion
• Omitting Food from In-Kind Support and Maintenance Calculations: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $1.6 billion
• Expansion of the Rental Subsidy Policy for SSI Applicants and Recipients: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $837 million
• Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: Including How We Consider Past Work: Estimated 10 Year Cost: $19.7 billion

Listen To The Voters Part II

      From Data For Progress

I Have Been Seeing More Of This Problem In The Last Year

      From a recent report by Social Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG):

… [W]e reviewed a sample of 274 cases from a population of 1.5 million recipients SSA placed in non-payment status codes from March 2020 through May 2022 after determining the recipients failed to provide requested information or take requested actions. Additionally, we identified 61,176 recipients who were placed into 7 non­payment status codes during periods SSA had prohibited their use. 

Results 

SSA did not act in accordance with its policy and procedures when it processed SSI ineligibility determinations and suspensions based on applicants’, recipients’, or representative payees’ failure to provide information. SSA’s employees did not complete all required steps for 156 (57 percent) of the 274 sampled cases placed in non-payment status, which led to 96 of the 156 recipients not receiving $203,133 in SSI payments they should have received. Projecting these results to our population, we estimate SSA did not follow its policy before it denied or suspended SSI payments for 871,330 recipients. Of these recipients, we estimate 536,203 did not receive $647 million in SSI payments they should have received. …

     It’s way too easy for field office employees to deny on the basis of failure to provide information without making any serious effort to contact the claimant.

It’s Hard To Administer SSI

      From a recent report by Social Security’s Office of Inspector General:

… SSA’s SSI financial account validation process for applicants and recipients who alleged having less than $400 in financial accounts did not always lead to accurate SSI determinations. SSA’s process led it to make inaccurate SSI resource determinations for 27 of the 140 recipients reviewed. Based on these determinations, SSA paid the recipients $130,430 in SSI payments they were not eligible to receive. Based on these sample results, we estimate SSA incorrectly made SSI resource determinations that led to 198,960 recipients receiving $718 million in SSI payments for which they were not eligible because applicants/recipients under­reported their financial account balances by $100 or more. 

SSA’s policy did not require that it validate the recipients’ financial account balances because they alleged they had less than $400 in liquid resources. The AFI reports we requested identified 102 of 140 applicants/recipients under-reported their financial account balances by $100 or more. Additionally, the AFI reports showed 28 of the applicants/recipients owned financial accounts of which SSA was unaware. Based on these sample results, we estimate 800,140 applicants/recipients under-reported their financial account balances by $100 or more, with 219,640 failing to report all the financial accounts they owned to SSA. ..

 

Why Change?

     A tweet from Social Security:

Starting October 2024, SSI check recipients will receive their SSI checks in a WHITE envelope instead of a BLUE envelope. It’s quick and easy to get your payments electronically. ...

     Yes, there are still SSI claimants receiving paper checks. Unfortunately, they are, on the whole, a group of people who can be confused by small things.

Limited Ability To File SSI Claims Online To Begin In December

    From a press release:

Today, the Social Security Administration announced a large step in a multi-year effort to simplify processes for people who are applying for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) by starting to offer an online, streamlined application for some applicants starting in December. SSI provides monthly payments to people with disabilities and older adults who have little or no income and resources.

The initial step – known as iClaim expansion – aims to establish a fully online, simplified iClaim application that leverages user-tested, plain-language questions, prepopulated answers where possible, seamless step-by-step transitions, and more. The online application aims to reduce the time spent applying as well as the processing time for initial claim decisions. ...

The rollout of the iClaim expansion will generally be available to first-time applicants between 18 and almost 65 who never married and are concurrently applying for Social Security benefits and SSI. A goal of the second phase – currently targeted for late 2025 – is to expand this to all applicants. ...

    This rollout is quite limited -- concurrent claims for people who have never married. Why is it limited in those ways other than to hold down the number of claims filed in this manner?  It's like they want to say they're doing it even though they're only barely doing it.

SSI Underpayments

Social Security Lump Sums Create Medicaid Problems

 

    Newsweek reports on a problem associated with Social Security that Social Security policymakers probably aren't aware of. The woman in the story had to fight for years for Social Security disability benefits. Finally, she was approved and paid but immediately lost her Medicaid. For SSI purposes, when she received that lump sum of back benefits, she had six months to spend it but there's no six month grace period for purposes of Medicaid. She became ineligible immediately. 

    There are things you can do to spend this sort of lump sum rapidly that give you lasting improvement in your life while retaining Medicaid or at least minimizing your period of ineligibility. You can pay off debts, repair your home which is probably in disrepair since you've been so poor, you can pay down your mortgage, replace worn out appliances and furniture, purchase new clothes, visit family members you haven't seen in years, etc. Just don't give any of it away! The problem is that most people who receive a large sum of money from Social Security or from some other source, such as an inheritance or personal injury settlement, don't see the problem coming and have no idea how to cope with it when it arrives. Often, they give the money to a relative or friend to hold for them which is much worse that useless.

They Could Do A Much Better Job If They Weren't So Understaffed

     From Challenges in Recovering Supplemental Security Income Overpayments, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

... SSA made errors on overpayments for 189 (47 percent) of the 400 sampled SSI recipients because it did not follow policies or use all available tools, to prevent, detect, or recover SSI overpayments. For example, overpayments could have been prevented or detected earlier, but employees made errors when they redetermined SSI eligibility. A redetermination is a review of a recipient or couple’s non-medical eligibility factors (that is, income, resources, and living arrangements) to determine whether the recipient or couple is still eligible for, and receiving, the correct SSI payment amount.

Errors also occurred because employees did not always (1) send recipients complete and accurate due-process notices before they initiated recovery of overpayments; (2) follow policy when they processed waivers of overpayments; or (3) follow policy and use available tools to recover overpayments. When SSA identifies an overpayment, it sends the overpaid person written notification of the overpayment’s cause and amount. Overpayment recovery can begin 60 days after SSA notifies the recipient of the overpayment if they have not requested a waiver of the overpayment collection or a reconsideration of the overpayment facts. If the individual is receiving SSI payments, SSA should begin recovery by withholding from ongoing payments. If the individual is no longer receiving SSI payments, SSA should attempt collection through various means including withholding from ongoing payments to a liable representative payee or spouse, cross-program recovery, referral for external collection through the Department of the Treasury or pursuing recovery from estates.

We estimate SSA did not follow its policies or use all available tools to prevent, detect, or recover SSI overpayments for 1.9 million recipients. For 1.7 million of these recipients, we estimated error amounts totaling over $7 billion. ...

    Not only does Social Security lack the manpower to do what OIG recommends, OIG fails to recognize that most of these SSI overpayments are small so going after all of them using every possible mechanism would not be cost-effective.

Not Now, Not Later, Not Ever

     A Richmond, VA television station reports on a local case. SSI disability benefits were approved almost immediately for a child with a rare genetic disorder but the case has been sitting at the local Social Security field office for five months awaiting payment. 

    Undoubtedly, there's some complication. Anything complicated goes into the "Not now, not later, not ever" pile. They'll get to it when they have time but they never do. Why spend the time to complete action on one difficult case when you can easily process five uncomplicated cases in the same amount of time? Except that in this case they will because the case has been publicized.

    Is this happening because the Social Security employees are lazy? No, they're just overwhelmed with work and they're judged based upon the raw number of cases they complete. There's constant pressure to produce numbers. The easiest way to produce numbers is to work on the easiest cases first and let the difficult cases pile up. It makes sense from the point of view of an individual employee or manager but it's a horribly unfair situation as I expect those employees and managers know.

    By the way, when I say we're at the "Not now, not later, not ever" stage, I'm not exaggerating. I've got a fee petition pending at a payment center for more than three years. It's gathering dust because they're busy with other things, like answering Social Security's 800 number and the agency isn't tracking fee petitions. When are they ever going to be not so busy? It would take a major political change.

SSA Trying To Improve Payment Of Back SSI Benefits

     From a Social Security blog:

... Underpayments, typically back payments from the time of applying for SSI to the date the application is approved, represent money we owe for months past. People waiting on approval of SSI can experience economic insecurity while they wait for a decision.

In fiscal year 2024, our agency prioritized addressing the barriers that prevent timely payment of underpayments, not a large share of the total payments we administer under the SSI program (less than 1% annually). Overall, the SSI program has released $901 million in underpayments as of June 2024, which includes $209.1 million of our most complex and aged underpayments to roughly 81,000 people, who count on SSI as a vital lifeline. We are committed to finding solutions to challenges, such as peer reviews and installment and dedicated account processes, that have hindered timely payments.

 This year we updated a policy that required underpayments over $5,000 to be reviewed by another employee – a peer review – before we released the underpayment. In March 2024, we increased the amount from $5,000 to $15,000. Underpayments less than $15,000 can now be released without peer review. This policy change means the time it takes for SSI recipients to receive their first installment is now dramatically reduced. ...

    I wish I could say that I'm seeing improvement in this situation but I'm not. I've got a ton of backed up SSI cases awaiting payment and I see little movement. If your case gets even the least bit off the tracks, it's almost impossible to get it back on the tracks. We can't get the field offices to answer the phone. When they do answer the phone, we tell them about the problem but then nothing happens. It's a frustrating situation for us but horrific for the claimants. I'm sure it's discouraging for Social Security employees as well.

"I Never Inherited Anything"

Kristy Strong

     From Newsweek:

Kristy Strong, a 45-year-old disabled woman in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, was shocked when her Supplemental Security Income benefits were stopped in January. ...

"They claim I was overpaid," Strong told Newsweek. "I was sleeping behind dumpsters [and] eating out of trash cans, so I had nothing."

When Strong received the letter saying she owed the money, she immediately appealed and contacted legal counsel, but she said she has been waiting for a court date for more than six months, even though her lawyer told her the case has been expedited, she said. ...

Strong didn't even know what assets the SSA had been referring to but was informed the agency was under the impression that Strong had inherited property when her grandmother died in November 2021.

"I told them I did not," Strong said. "My grandma left everything to my aunt, who didn't have money to probate her will, and had asked me to sign a paper agreeing not to have to probate it. I never inherited anything."

She was told by Social Security she would have to prove she didn't own the property, despite it never being in her name. ...

"I wish people knew that real peoples' lives are at stake, and this isn't just a debate in an election year," Strong said. "So much more is at risk than votes."

SSI Resource Limits Are Brutal

     From National Public Radio:

The thing that got Karen Williams into trouble was that she tried to do the responsible thing and bought a life insurance policy that would pay for her funeral. ...

Williams, who is disabled and doesn’t work, relied upon a little-known federal assistance program — Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, run by the Social Security Administration. ...

Williams, 63, thought her life insurance wouldn’t be used until after she died. She didn’t understand it had a cash value and that she could turn it in and collect $1,900. That was far less than the $10,000 in funeral expenses she bought the policy to cover when she died.

For Williams, the cash value of her policy along with the $260 she had saved in her checking account pushed her over SSI’s $2,000 limit on how much a recipient is allowed in savings and other assets. ...

That $2,000 asset limit hasn’t changed since 1989. If it had kept up over 51 years with inflation, it would be $10,000 today.

“I would have definitely went by the rules,” Williams says. “I didn’t know I was breaking them.”

The penalty was stiff: Williams was kicked off SSI, her primary source of income, and told by Social Security to pay back two years of benefits totaling $20,385. ...

“You’re telling me I owe you $20,000?” Williams remembers thinking in the Social Security office. “I can’t even pay my bills. … Where am I going to live?” ...

Ultimately, she sought out the help of Gregory Burrell, president and CEO of the Terry Funeral Home, an institution in West Philadelphia that has served Black families for generations.

Burrell let Williams turn the policy over to the funeral home.

“We see that all the time,” Burrell, a former president of the National Funeral Directors and Morticians Association, the largest group of Black funeral directors, said of the confusion that caught Williams. “Unfortunately, people don’t know any better. And they’re stressing, and these insurance policies — they’re considered assets.” ...

 

Op Ed On The SSI Marriage Penalty But It's More Complicated Than Presented

    There's an op ed in the New York Times on the marriage penalty in the SSI program which is preventing a couple who each have Down Syndrome from marrying. 

    The author completely misses or at least doesn't write about the strong possibility that the couple will soon be eligible for Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits, if they're not already. Marriage won't be a problem for DAC as long as both are eligible for DAC, which is itself crazy! DAC pays benefits on the Social Security account of a parent but the parent must be deceased or on benefits on their own account. Since the man with Down Syndrome is 44 and the woman is 40, their parents are at or near retirement age. Usually marriage ends DAC but not if you marry someone who is also eligible for DAC.

    I hate, hate, hate counseling someone newly entitled to DAC that they probably don't want to get married because it will probably end their DAC but it's my job. This may be the worst provision in the Social Security Act.

Results Of An SSI Outreach Project

 

    From The Hill:

... SSA mailed outreach letters to individuals informing them of potential eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a program that provides modest cash benefits and access to Medicaid for low-income disabled and elderly individuals. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) forcefully pushed for the outreach during a Senate Finance hearing in 2021.   

Wyden’s push and SSA’s actions did much to help impoverished disabled and elderly citizens, with SSA indicating the outreach will increase lifetime SSI payments to these individuals by about $530 million. 

The cost of the outreach totaled $32 million, implying the ratio of benefits received by the public to the cost of the outreach is 17 to 1. Mailing informational letters, part of SSA’s Equity and Outreach initiatives, proved to be a highly efficient mechanism to help individuals in poverty.  ...

SSA’s outreach was targeted to Social Security beneficiaries who had very low Social Security benefit amounts and, therefore, might qualify for some SSI benefits. ...

    Here's a link to Social Security's report on this project.

Creamy Or Crunchy?

     From Nextgov/FCW:

...The longer arc of this agency is a phenomenally dedicated, committed, compassionate culture. [SSA staff has] been traumatized by the increased volume and nine years of steady staff reductions, given the lack of any Congressional attention to our budget or even the decency of our own appropriations hearings, said [Social Security Commissioner Martin] O'Malley” ...

The SSI program “purports to be a program of last resort,” but “forces the poorest of people to jump through hoops, stand on their head and gargle peanut butter in order to qualify for it,” he told lawmakers at a recent hearing. ...

Detecting Overpayments Due To Marriage

     From Impact of Undetected Marriages on Social Security Administration Payments, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

... Marriage can impact a Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) beneficiary’s payment. We randomly selected 1 of 20 segments from the Supplemental Security Record (SSR) and Master Beneficiary Record (MBR). We identified 3 populations with name changes and sampled 250 individuals ...

SSA did not always take the necessary manual actions to properly update 38 of the 250 payment records for SSI recipients or OASDI beneficiaries when there was a name change because of marriage. Furthermore, SSA had not taken manual action on 11 SSI recipients or OASDI beneficiaries who changed their name via the iSSNRC application. We estimate SSA improperly paid 16,631 SSI recipients and OASDI beneficiaries approximately $240.9 million when there was a name change because of marriage. ...

When a person changes their name, SSA systems do not automatically determine whether they are receiving benefits. SSA does not know about a marriage until an individual reports it. ...

SSA explored the feasibility of using electronic marriage data to determine if OASDI beneficiaries changed their marital status. However, not all states/jurisdictions have a central repository of electronic marriage data, and many do not require, or collect, the marriage applicants’ Social Security number. ...

    There's a lot that Social Security could do to prevent overpayments if it had an adequate workforce. A different Inspector General might want to issue a report detailing how much money is being wasted due to inadequate staffing at the Social Security Administration.

    By the way, there's also the question of whether marriage should have as many effects as it does on Social Security and SSI benefits but that's another topic.

New SSI Regs

     From a notice that Social Security will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow:

We are finalizing our proposed rule 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. We are also revising the definition of a PA household from a household in which every member receives some kind of PIM payment to a household that has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at least one other household member who receives one or more of the listed PIM payments (the any other definition). If determined to be living in a PA household, inside in-kind support and maintenance (ISM) would no longer need to be developed. The final rule will decrease the number of SSI applicants and recipients charged with ISM from others within their household. In addition, we expect this rule to decrease the amount of income we would deem to SSI applicants and recipients because we will no longer deem as income from ineligible spouses and parents who live in the same household: the value of the SNAP benefits that they receive; any income that was counted or excluded in figuring the amount of that payment; or any income that was used to determine the amount of SNAP benefits to someone else. These policy changes reduce administrative burden for low-income households and SSA. ...

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.