Simplifying SSI

It is nearly certain that change is coming for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program administered by Social Security. Income and resource requirements have not been adjusted for inflation in decades. There is widespread agreement that things have to change. The change may go well beyond an inflation adjustment. I have been hearing for some time that the Social Security Administration wants simplification of SSI, but I have heard little about exactly what Social Security wants. The latest issue of the Social Security Bulletin is out. The Bulletin is mostly a tedious statistical journal, but this issue has an article about what may be at the top of Social Security's list of desired SSI changes, a change in the in kind support and maintenance rules. Here is an excerpt from the article:

... [S]implifying policy on food or shelter support to recipients from family and friends is especially compelling. Current policy on such in-kind support requires that recipients answer detailed questions about household composition, household expenses, and any contributions from the recipient and members of the household toward household expenses. This detailed household information is collected not only for initial applications, but also when there are changes in address, household composition, or household expenses. Moreover, although this information is collected for most recipients, much of it is unverifiable. ... [T]here is a consensus among policymakers and program administrators that current SSI policies on in-kind support and maintenance (ISM) are complex, intrusive, and sometimes inequitable. In addition, these policies create a disincentive for families and friends who might otherwise increase food or shelter support to recipients. Finally, year-after-year ISM is shown to be a major source of payment error ...

Over the years, policymakers have evaluated several alternatives to ISM ... Of these alternatives, benefit restructuring has emerged as an interesting option because it simply eliminates all ISM-related benefit reductions, assuring program simplification. The benefit restructuring options considered here incorporate a cost neutrality constraint; that is, the cost of increasing benefits to recipients with ISM is fully offset by other benefit reductions. ...

Under benefit restructuring, benefit reductions for ISM recipients would be eliminated and, to offset the program cost increases, a smaller benefit reduction would be implemented for the large number of adult recipients who live with other adults.

A D'Oh Moment For Some Readers

Social Security is increasing the cap on representation fees charged to Social Security claimants under the fee agreement process from $5,300 to $6,000, effective in June. However, if an attorney or representative already has an agreement with their client that flatly limits the fee to $5,300, the fee will remain limited to $5,300, no matter when the case is finally resolved.

The last time the fee cap was raised almost eight years ago some attorneys and representatives asked their existing clients to sign a new fee agreement with the higher cap. A lot of people, including me, criticized those who did this, on the grounds that it was unethical. But there is something that could have been done to prevent this problem from ever arising. Here is an excerpt from Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) that points the way:

• SSA will accept language in a fee agreement that would apply if the Commissioner increases the limit after the date of the agreement. In the examples below, if the decision maker approves the fee agreement on or after the date the Commissioner increases the limit, and the agreement meets all conditions of the fee agreement process and no exceptions apply, SSA will authorize a fee of the lesser of 25 percent of past-due benefits or the increased cap limit:

EXAMPLE 3-1: If SSA favorably decides the claim, I will pay my representative a fee equal to the lesser of 25 percent of my past-due benefits or the dollar amount established pursuant to section 206(a)(2)(A) , which is currently $5,300, but may be increased from time to time by the Commissioner of Social Security.

EXAMPLE 3-2: If SSA favorably decides the claim, I will pay my representative a fee equal to the lesser of 25 percent of my past-due benefits or $5,300 (or such higher amount as the Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe pursuant to section 206(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act).

EXAMPLE 3-3 I will pay my representative a fee equal to 25 percent of any past-due benefits from my claim or, if less, the maximum dollar amount allowed pursuant to section 206(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act, based on the date SSA approves my fee agreement.

Man Charged With Threatening SSA Employee After Being Put On Hold For 30 Minutes

From the Associated Press:

KEENE, N.H. (AP) — A 69-year-old man angry about being put on hold has been charged with threatening to kill a Social Security Administration worker. Police said the man called a Social Security answering service in New York because he was upset about not receiving his check.

He told police he was on hold for more than 30 minutes, and when a supervisor finally told him she couldn't help, he said he was going to kill the first person he met at the Social Security office in Keene.

COBRA Assistance For The Disabled?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) includes assistance for individuals who elect to continue their health care insurance under COBRA after "involuntary termination" from employment. Section 3001, page 396. The unemployed individual need only pay 35% of the health care insurance premium. This applies only to individuals who become unemployed between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

Query: Does the term "involuntary termination" include people who cease work due to illness?

I am unable to find anything on the Department of Labor website that answers the question.

Before you say that "involuntary termination" cannot possible cover the situation of an individual who has to stop work due to illness, consider that unemployment benefits are denied to those who voluntarily leave employment without good cause attributable to their employer, but in many states, perhaps most, leaving employment due to illness is considered an involuntary leaving which does not disqualify one from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. (If that were not so, why would we keep having cases with the issue of whether receiving unemployment insurance benefits should disqualify one from receiving Social Security disability benefits?) Remember that the Department of Labor will probably be the agency most involved in interpreting the COBRA part of the ARRA. Unemployment insurance is partially federal and the Department of Labor administers the federal part. This "involuntary termination" language comes closer to the unemployment insurance laws than anything else I can think of. A New York Times article mentions issues concerned with the interpretation of "involuntary termination" although not this one.

The Act provides for expedited review by the Department of Labor or the Department of Health and Human Services for anyone appealing from a denial of coverage -- and they do mean expedited -- since the review is supposed to be completed within 15 business days.

Free PACER?

From Wired:

The head of a powerful Senate committee wants the federal courts to explain why its online database still charges 8 cents a page for court documents, and why many of those documents still contain Social Security numbers and other sensitive information. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), who helms the Senate's government affairs committee, is annoyed ...

He's asking Judge Lee H. Rosenthal to explain why in the age of Google the Public Access to Court Electronic Records, or PACER, system isn't free for citizens. He'd also like to know why federal courts still aren't blacking out sensitive information in court documents as required in the 2002 E-Government Act (a piece of legislation dear to Lieberman).

ABLE Account Legislation

From the Disability Policy Collaboration:

The bipartisan Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2009 (ABLE Act), H.R.1205/S. 493, was introduced in both the House and Senate on February 26. The bills would allow individuals and families to establish special accounts for meeting the future needs of children and adults with disabilities. Funds in the accounts and expenditures which meet the requirements of the bills would not affect the individuals' eligibility for federal benefits. Using these accounts, parents would be able to save funds for a child's future in a manner similar to the special "529 accounts" currently used to save for a child's future educational expenses. The House bill was introduced by Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) along with Representatives Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), and Kendrick Meek (D-FL). The Senate bill was introduced by Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA) along with Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Richard Burr (R-NC), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Edward Kennedy (D-MA). The bills were referred to the House Ways and Means and the Energy and Commerce Committees and to the Senate Finance Committee....

This sounds like an excellent idea. Your heart goes out to parents who want to provide resources to sustain their disabled children. They need and deserve something better than current law.

"They Need To Get More Employees Or Something"

The photograph is of a line outside the Social Security field office in Jersey City, NJ. The office did not open yesterday due to the weather. Here is a little of what the Jersey Journal wrote about the office closure:

When Asin Bashir, 25, called the toll-free information number engraved on the entrance door, he was transferred to an office in New Mexico. An employee at that office told him that to his knowledge, the Jersey City office was supposed to be open, Bashir said.

When a reporter called the same number several times, a recording played, announcing a 10-minute wait for service. Calls to the regional SSA press office in New York went unanswered.

Richard Turner, chief of staff to U.S. Rep. Albio Sires, said his office inquired about the closure, but couldn't get an answer. ...

Bashir, who came to replace an ID card he lost a few months ago, complained that even when the office is open, service is lousy.

"People can wait three to four hours to get a transaction done," he said. "They need to get more employees or something."

Update: The Jersey City office was not the only Social Security office in the area to be closed and locals are still upset, according to the Jersey Journal.

Further update: The area director has publicly apologized, saying that all Social Security offices in the state were closed. It looks like the area director made sure that employees knew the office was closed, but may have made no effort to notify the public.

Astrue On Solvency

From the Associated Press:

Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue is hopeful the Obama Administration will address the solvency of the system before the 2012 elections. But in a speech on Monday in St. Louis, Astrue declined to speculate on exactly how the administration plans to fix it. ...

Speaking to business leaders on the campus of Washington University, Astrue said the new administration is dealing with the economy and health care before turning its attention to Social Security.

"I do think the appetite with getting on with Social Security reform after that is very high and they will focus on trying to get something done before the next presidential election," Astrue said. ...

As for how specifically the administration will address Social Security's shortfall, Astrue said he isn't sure.

"This administration is still too new for it to really be clear to me which way they're going to go," he said.