Some Info On ABLE Accounts

     The Social Security Administration has released the following set of questions and answers to help its staff in dealing with inquiries about the new ABLE accounts:

A. Purpose of this EM [Emergency Message]

This EM provides important information regarding the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act (P.L. 113-295) and ABLE accounts. Specific guidance on how to treat ABLE accounts for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) income and resources purposes will follow in future instructions.

B. Background

On December 19, 2014, the President signed into law the ABLE Act. The ABLE Act was established to encourage and assist individuals and families with saving funds for the purpose of helping individuals with disabilities to maintain health, independence, and quality of life. Qualified ABLE programs will provide secure funding for disability-related expenses for qualified individuals with disabilities that will supplement, but not replace, benefits provided through private insurance, Medicaid, SSI, the individual’s employment, and other sources.

C. Information regarding ABLE accounts

1. What is an ABLE account?

An ABLE account is a tax-advantaged account, similar to a Section 529 qualified tuition program (QTP). ABLE accounts are administered by the State in which the individual resides and they must be established for the benefit of the individual. The designated beneficiary is also the owner of the account.

2. Who is eligible for an ABLE account?

To be eligible for an ABLE account, a person must be blind or disabled according to the Social Security definition of disability by a condition or conditions that began before age 26. Eligible individuals are limited to one ABLE account.

3. What is the maximum contribution for ABLE accounts?

Generally, ABLE accounts may not receive aggregate contributions during a taxable year in excess of the annual gift tax exemption (which is $14,000 for 2015). Each State will set a maximum balance for ABLE accounts.

4. Will ABLE account balances count towards the SSI statutory resource limit?

For SSI purposes, we will exclude as a resource the first $100,000 in an ABLE account.

5. What happens if an SSI recipient has excess resources held in an ABLE account?

If an individual is ineligible due to excess resources held in an ABLE account, we will suspend the SSI benefits without a time limit, but not terminate the benefits. The SSI recipient would remain eligible for Medicaid while in suspense.

6. Are ABLE accounts transferrable?

ABLE accounts are transferrable to family members who are also qualified individuals.

7. What distributions are allowed from ABLE accounts and what is their impact on SSI benefits?

Some qualifying distributions are education, housing, transportation, employment support, assistive technology, health and wellness. Qualifying distributions from the ABLE account would not generally affect SSI eligibility or payment amount. Distributions from an ABLE account for the purpose of housing expenses will be countable income for SSI purposes.

8. What happens upon the death of an ABLE account beneficiary?

Subject to certain outstanding debts, the State can file a claim against the ABLE account for reimbursement of any medical assistance paid on behalf of the account beneficiary after establishment of the ABLE account.

9. When will there be POMS instructions on ABLE accounts?

The Department of the Treasury will publish regulations early this summer and many States will have to pass legislation to establish the ABLE account program. After we receive more guidance from Treasury, we will issue specific instructions on how to treat ABLE accounts for income and resources purposes.

10. What should we tell the public if they ask how to establish an ABLE account?

ABLE accounts must be established under a program established and maintained by the individual’s State of residence. Refer individuals to their State Comptroller or Tax Office for questions concerning ABLE accounts.

Direct all program–related and technical questions to your RO [Regional Office] support staff or PSC [Program Service Center] OA [? This acronym isn't even on Social Security's own list of its own acronyms!] staff. RO support staff or PSC OA staff may refer questions or problems to their Central Office.

Class Action On Consultative Examinations In Bay Area

     From a press release:

A class action lawsuit was filed today in federal district court in San Francisco against the Social Security Administration (SSA) by three plaintiffs who were deprived of disability benefits because of SSA’s continued reliance on medical reports from a doctor who has been disqualified. The grossly deficient reports were based on cursory examinations (often lasting ten minutes or less), referenced tests that were never performed, and were inconsistent with plaintiffs’ medical records. On the basis of these faulty reports, plaintiffs who were no longer able to work were denied Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, essential to their well-being....

 Kevin Hart is a San Mateo County resident who was sent to Dr. Frank Chen for a medical exam to determine if he was still disabled and thus still eligible for his SSI and SSDI benefits. Dr. Chen, didn’t review Hart’s medical records, didn’t ask him about his condition, repeatedly interrupted Hart when he attempted to explain his diagnosis, and only spent approximately 10 minutes on a perfunctory examination. Dr. Chen’s report referenced tests he didn’t perform and failed to mention Mr. Hart’s primary disability, a leg and foot injury he sustained after being hit by a car— even though Hart needed a cane to stand during his exam. After Dr. Chen’s evaluation, Hart was notified that his benefits were being terminated because he was no longer disabled. He was never notified that Dr. Chen had been disqualified, even though Dr. Chen’s report was an important reason for the decision in his case. ...

The lawsuit seeks to require the SSA to reopen all prior determinations that terminated or denied SSI and/or SSDI benefits and that relied on a consultative examination report from Dr. Chen, and offer Plaintiffs an opportunity for a new exam from a qualified medical professional. ...

Plaintiffs are represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP, the National Senior Citizens Law Center and the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.

Appropriations Hearing Scheduled

     The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee has scheduled a hearing for February 26 at 10:00 on "The Vital Responsibility of Serving the Nation's Aging and Disabled Communities."Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin is scheduled to testify.

"To Ensure Full DI Benefits Continue To Be Paid"

     A press release from the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee:

 U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing focused on the financial status of the Disability Insurance (DI) and Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Funds, and the available legislative options to ensure full DI benefits continue to be paid. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 25, 2015 in B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 2:00 p.m.

Netherlands No Model For U.S. On Disability Benefits

     The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities gives a primer on why the Netherlands probably won't be a model for the United States when it comes to disability benefits. Here's the gist as well as a chart:

 Even after reforms, the Netherlands spends far more than the United States on disability benefits. ...

Until the mid-1990s, the Netherlands spent six to eight times as much on disability programs as the United States, relative to GDP; even now it spends about twice as much.  The gap has shrunk because the Dutch cut spending, not because the United States expanded it.

      If the GOP wants to "reform" U.S. Social Security disability so that it looks like the Dutch program, I'm all in favor. I think such a proposal would get a lot of Democratic sponsors. Bring it on!

Where's The Outrage?

     From the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) newletter (not available online) this is a report on Social Security hearing office processing time as of the end of January. Note that the "fastest" office is processing requests for hearings in 295 days while the slowest is taking more than two years. Tell me again how Social Security is using video hearings to even workloads around the country. The bigger problem, though, is that there is little public notice of these disgraceful backlogs.

Cutting Social Security Disability Will Be Tough

     The "Monkey Cage" at the Washington Post details some of the reasons why "reform" of Social Security disability, if "reform" means cutting, will be almost impossible. Maybe the most important reason listed is that there's no constituency lobbying for cuts in Social Security disability. The only ones lobbying for cuts are a few "scholars" at "think tanks" and the right's Social Security "scholars" are an unimpressive group.

Rep. Johnson Introduces Bill

     Sam Johnson, the Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee, has introduced a bill that would prevent a person from receiving both unemployment insurance benefits and Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits at the same time. The President has included the same proposal in his budget for the next fiscal year. That sounds great to many people. However, there are a few problems.

• All but two states limit unemployment insurance to 26 weeks or less. There's a five month waiting period for Disability Insurance Benefits. You do the math.
• Many, perhaps most, states already reduce unemployment insurance due to the receipt of Disability Insurance Benefits, leading to the possibility of a double offset.
• A high percentage of Disability Insurance Benefits recipients also get Supplemental Security Income (SSI). SSI benefits are already reduced due to the receipt of unemployment benefits, leading to the possibility of a double or even triple offset.

     The potential savings from this proposal are trivial. My guess is that it will be difficult to draft a bill that doesn't cause double or even triple offsetting of benefits. Even if you can get a bill drafted, implementing it will probably cost more than it can save. Other than these problems, it's a great idea.