The reporting from various media sources last night on the Social Security provisions of the deal between the White House and Congressional leaders varied from confused to inadequate to completely wrong. We have the actual bill now. Here is some of the actual text of the bill with my interpretation, or maybe I should say questions, in brackets and bolded:
- Not later than October 1, 2022,
the Commissioner of Social Security shall take any necessary actions, subject to the availability of appropriations, to ensure that cooperative disability investigations units have been established, in areas where there is co-operation with local law enforcement agencies, that would cover each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. [Congress demands that Social Security extend cooperative disability reviews to every state and even to the Northern Mariana Islands but limits this to the extent that Congress appropriates money, dramatically undercutting the demand]
- Section 3 811(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1011(a)) ... is further amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘, except that in the case of a person who receives a fee or other income for services performed in connection with any determination with respect to benefits under this title (including a claimant representative, translator, or current or former employee of the Social Security Administration), or who is a physician or other health care provider who submits, or causes the submission of, medical or other evidence in connection with any such determination, such person shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both.’’. [I don't understand. It's now a crime to submit medical evidence in support of a disability claim? This doesn't make sense to me.]
- Section 1140(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
15
1320b-10(b)) is amended by inserting after the second
sentence the following: ‘‘In the case of any items referred
to in subsection (a)(1) consisting of Internet or other electronic communications, each dissemination, viewing, or accessing of such a communication which contains one or more words, letters, symbols, or emblems in violation of
subsection (a) shall represent a separate violation’’. [Even viewing an inappropriately used Social Security symbol is a crime?]
- The Commissioner shall
carry out a demonstration project ...[A]ny such benefit otherwise payable to the individual for such month (other than a benefit payable for any month prior to the 1st
month beginning after the date on which the individual’s entitlement to such benefit is determined) shall be reduced by $1 for each $2 by
which the individual’s earnings derived from
services paid during such month exceeds an
amount equal to the individual’s impairment-related work expenses for such month [OK, we're only talking about a benefits offset demonstration project.] ...
For purposes of paragraph (2)(A) and except as provided in subparagraph (C), the amount of an individual’s impairment-related work expenses for a month
is deemed to be the minimum threshold
amount. [This sounds like a stringent offset. Any earnings over impairment-related work expenses are subject to the offset. That would strongly discourage work by Social Security disability recipients]... In
this paragraph, the term ‘minimum threshold
amount’ means an amount, to be determined by
the Commissioner, which shall not exceed the
amount sufficient to demonstrate that an individual has rendered services in a month, as determined by the Commissioner under section
222(c)(4)(A). [What are you saying here? There is a threshold amount beyond the impairment-related work expenses? I don't understand what you're trying to say.] The Commissioner may test multiple minimum threshold amounts.[So lots of thresholds will be tried. Good.] ...
An individual who has authorized the Commissioner of Social Security to obtain records from a payroll
data provider under subsection (c) shall not be subject to
a penalty under section 1129A for any omission or error
with respect to such individual’s wages as reported by the
payroll data provider.’’. [You're going to enforce the benefit offset by getting electronic records from employers and you won't punish the claimant if these records are mistaken. Sounds fine if these electronic records are accurate. Are they? I don't think my firm is reporting wages to anyone other than the IRS. What about self-employment?]
- If an individual is eligible for a wife’s or husband’s insurance benefit (except in the case of
eligibility pursuant to clause (ii) of subsection
(b)(1)(B) or subsection (c)(1)(B), as appropriate), in
any month for which the individual is entitled to an
old-age insurance benefit, such individual shall be
deemed to have filed an application for wife’s or husband’s insurance benefits for such month. ...
If an individual is eligible (but for section
202(k)(4)) for an old-age insurance benefit in any
month for which the individual is entitled to a wife’s
or husband’s insurance benefit (except in the case of
entitlement pursuant to clause (ii) of subsection
(b)(1)(B) or subsection (c)(1)(B), as appropriate),
such individual shall be deemed to have filed an application for old-age insurance benefits. [I think they're ending file and suspend.]
- An initial determination under subsection (a),
(c), (g), or (i) shall not be made until the Commissioner
of Social Security has made every reasonable effort to ensure—
‘‘(1) in any case where there is evidence which
indicates the existence of a mental impairment, that
a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist has completed the medical portion of the case review and
any applicable residual functional capacity assessment; and
‘‘(2) in any case where there is evidence which
indicates the existence of a physical impairment,
that a qualified physician has completed the medical
portion of the case review and any applicable residual functional capacity assessment.’’. [This ends the Single Decision-Maker project. This modestly slows down disability determinations.]
- Section 201(b)(1) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ‘‘and (R) 1.80 per centum of the wages (as
so defined) paid after December 31, 1999, and so
reported’’ and inserting ‘‘(R) 1.80 per centum of the
wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1999,
and before January 1, 2016, and so reported, (S)
2.37 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid
after December 31, 2015, and before January 1,
10
2019, and so reported, and (T) 1.80 per centum of
the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31,
12
2018, and so reported,’’. [This would end the Disability Trust Fund problem but only for three years, at which point we may have to go through the same "crisis" again.]
- The Commissioner of Social Security
shall annually submit to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Finance of the Senate a report on the number of work-related continuing disability reviews conducted each year
to determine whether earnings derived from services demonstrate an individual’s ability to engage in substantial
gainful activity. [Is work supposed to trigger a continuing disability review, that is, if you do any work, is Social Security supposed to review your medical records to see if you're still disabled? If that were the case it would be a big deterrent to any attempt to return to work. I think, or maybe hope, that they are just talking about using employment records to determine whether a beneficiary's status under the work incentives.]
- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Office of Personnel Management shall,
upon request of the Commissioner of Social Security, expeditiously administer a sufficient number of competitive examinations, as determined by the Commissioner, for the
purpose of identifying an adequate number of candidates
to be appointed as Administrative Law Judges under section 3105 of title 5, United States Code. The first such examination shall take place not later than April 1, 2016
and other examinations shall take place at such time or
times requested by the Commissioner, but not later than
December 31, 2022. Such examinations shall proceed even
if one or more individuals who took a prior examination have appealed an adverse determination and one or more
1
of such appeals have not concluded ...[This is strong pressure on the Office of Personnel Management to assure that enough Administrative Law Judge candidates are available to be hired by Social Security. Why do I suspect that this problem won't go away?]
