Hearing On SSI Child Benefits

     There was a hearing yesterday before the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Human Resources dealing with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for children. From the written submissions, it appears that the main focus was on the question of why more children are being approved due to mental impairments. Above is an interesting chart from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testimony at the hearing. As you notice the increase in allowances for various diagnoses, also notice the dramatic decline in allowances for mental retardation.

     Dr. Richard Burkhauser of Cornell University testified in favor of somehow giving the whole disabled children problem to the states. I don't think I would want to be a low income parent of a disabled child living in Texas if that happened.

     David Wittenburg testified on behalf of Mathematica, a major Social Security contractor, in favor of a study of adding educational and work requirements to SSI child benefits. Wow, a contractor that makes its living off doing useless, pointless studies for government agencies testifying in favor of a useless, pointless study. I didn't see that one coming!

     A child psychiatrist testified that SSI child's benefits for mental illness are given out as a result of fraud and actually hurt children. Reading her testimony, one has to wonder if she believes that children cannot suffer from serious mental illness. You can certainly argue that SSI children's benefits have their problems but her testimony is way over the top. There is not even a hint at the complexity involved. It's simple to the psychiatrist. It's 100% fraud. SSI children's benefits never help a child. They only hurt.

     Jonathan Stein also testified as the token defender of SSI child benefits.

Early Release Of SSI Checks Causes Problems

Social Security has just issued an Emergency Message to its staff concerning the early release of 27,000 checks for Supplemental Security Income. They were supposed to arrive on November 1 but were released on October 20. Social Security is telling recipients to hold the checks until November 1. If a recipient tries to cash the check and a bank makes marks on the check, the checks must be returned to Social Security. A replacement check will be issued in five to seven business days.

Protests Planned At Social Security Offices

     From WXIX:

Social Security advocates are planning to protest Thursday at Social Security offices around the county.

Thousands of American Federation of Government Employees Social Security employees, along with the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the Strengthen Social Security Campaign are protesting recent proposals from Congress that would cut the Social Security Administration's operational budget.

      I think that WXIX is in Cincinnati but you cannot tell from their website. Why is it that media websites withhold this basic information?

Answer To Quiz

Question: Mrs. D's husband died in 1999. The two had been married for 27 years. He was fully insured at the time he died. On September 6, 2011 Mrs. D files a claim for widow's benefits on the basis of age rather than disability. She is 62 at the time. She had stopped work on December 31, 2009. When does Mrs. D's entitlement to widow's benefits on account of age begin?

Possible Answers:

• January 2010
• September 2010
• March 2011
• October 2011

Correct answer: March 2011.

     Some of you have raised the question of whether Mrs. D should elect a later month of entitlement. That is a reasonable question. Mrs. D's widow's benefits are subject to an actuarial reduction. The earlier she goes on benefits, the less she gets a month. It may be wiser for Mrs. D to elect to start benefits now rather than retroactively. She will get no back benefits but she will get more per month for every month into the future. This option should be discussed with Mrs. D -- one of the many things that can't be done online. I should have phrased the question to read "What is the earliest possible month of entitlement?" But honestly, if you knew enough to quibble with the question, you knew what I was getting at!

Update: I knew this was going to happen eventually. You're right. I got it wrong. The month of entitlement would be September 2011. I was confused since it is done differently with aged widows than disabled widows. I thought I remembered an aged widow client of mine getting back benefits but I must be misremembering.

Making It Tougher For Those With Down Syndrome To Qualify For Disability Benefits

     Today's Federal Register has a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) that would change Social Security's listings for congenital disorders. The main change is to make it far more difficult for some individuals with Down syndrome to qualify for Social Security disability benefits. The change would affect those with mosaic Down syndrome, which is the less common variety.
     This is a microcosm of what has been happening with the Listings for about 15 years or so, seemingly small changes always designed to make it more difficult to qualify for benefits. The world does not notice because each change seems small and technical. Who is familiar with the differences between mosaic and non-mosaic Down Syndrome?
     Where does the impetus for this come from? Is it Social Security's medical staff? Is it Social Security's upper management? Is it the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)? My bet is on OMB but I just do not know.
     Does it not seem a bit surprising that they are trying to make it more difficult for people with Down Syndrome to be found disabled?

More Than 300 Remote Service Sites Closed

From the Daily Chronicle of DeKalb, Illinois:

Federal budget cuts have led to the discontinuation of Social Security services at the DeKalb Senior Services Center, ending a 32-year program that helped up to 200 people per month.

The DeKalb location is just one of more than 300 remote service sites throughout the country that have ended services because of a $1 billion cut to the Social Security Administration this year. Services had been declining in DeKalb as weekly visits turned biweekly a few years ago and finally became monthly visits in the spring.

Quiz

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Does This Make Sense To You?

     Is there some tension, or perhaps self-contradiction, in this section of Social Security's manual?

Section 207 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 407) states: “The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the monies paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.”...

Any arrangement in which the claimant shares control of the funds from his or her benefit with a person or entity that has an interest in charging or collecting money from the claimant is an assignment-like situation that violates SSA’s policy.  ...

Some representatives are authorized by third parties to ensure that debts beneficiaries owe to the third parties are repaid immediately after the beneficiary starts to receive benefits. There is no assignment-like situation if:

• The representative has no financial interest in the beneficiary’s direct deposit account (i.e.., he is not named on the account and/or has no authority to direct the money in the account); and
• The representative is not charging the beneficiary a fee; and
• The beneficiary pre-authorizes (according to his financial institution’s policy) a withdrawal of funds from his account to repay a debt to a third party; but
• The representative did not obtain the pre-authorization from the beneficiary through deceit, coercion, or intimidation; and
• The representative gets confirmation from the beneficiary (oral or written) of the pre-authorization to withdraw the money from the account after the funds are deposited into the beneficiary’s account and before a transfer of funds is made to pay the third party debt. This confirmation is necessary because a beneficiary may have signed the pre-authorization before learning whether he will receive benefits and the amount of past-due benefits he will receive (i.e., authorizing the representative to take benefit funds before the beneficiary has had any chance to exercise control over the funds). The beneficiary also may have signed the pre-authorization without specifying the amount of money that the representative will withdraw from the account. This circumstance is different than other pre-authorizations (e.g., mortgage payments, loan repayments, investments, nursing home fees, etc.) because, in most cases involving pre-authorizations, the beneficiary has an ongoing relationship with the organization that is making pre-authorized withdrawals, the beneficiary knows the amount of money they are pre-authorizing, and those pre-authorizations occur continuously after the beneficiary is receiving regular benefits.

     Right. Assignments are forbidden unless there is an ongoing relationship with the entity to which you are making the assignment and the assignments continue after you start receiving benefits.
     In my opinion, this is indefensible. This was a Bush era policy that should have never happened and which should be undone as soon as possible. If Long Term Disability insurers want this section of the statute amended, they need to lobby Congress.