Saul Nomination Moves Forward

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled an Open Executive Session for tomorrow to consider reporting out the nomination of Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security. The final step in the nomination process would then be consideration by the entire Senate.

Hearing Backlog Decreasing Rapidly

     From the Social Security Administration's explanation of the Trump Administration's fiscal year 2020 budget:

Click on image to view full size

Budget Proposals

     From the Trump Administration's detailed budget proposal for fiscal year 2020: 

• Simplify administration of the SSI program. The Budget proposes changes to simplify the SSI program by incentivizing support from recipients’ family and friends, reducing SSA’s administrative burden, and streamlining requirements for applicants. SSI benefits are reduced by the amount of food and shelter, or in-kind support and maintenance, a beneficiary receives. The policy is burdensome to administer and is a leading source of SSI improper payments. The Budget proposes to replace the complex calculation of in-kind support and maintenance with a flat rate reduction for adults living with other adults to capture economies of scale. The Budget also proposes to eliminate dedicated accounts for past due benefits and to eliminate the administratively burdensome consideration whether a couple is holding themselves out as married. The proposal saves $648 million over 10 years.
• Exclude SSA debts from discharge in bankruptcy. Debts due to an overpayment of Social Security benefits are generally dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Budget includes a proposal to exclude such debts from discharge in bankruptcy, except when it would result in an undue hardship. This proposal would help ensure program integrity by increasing the amount of overpayments SSA recovers and would save $274 million over 10 years. 
• Establish replacement Social Security card fee. The Budget proposes to collect fees on replacement Social Security cards. First-time Social Security cards including cards issued at birth would not be subject to the fee. The new fee would offset some administrative costs of processing Social Security card requests. While having a Social Security Number is required for many public and private sector transactions, individuals rarely need to display the physical Social Security card.

SSI Work Incentives Not Working

     From the Social Security Administration:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) offers a set of work incentives for Supplemental Security income (SSI) beneficiaries. Work incentive employment supports help SSI recipients go to work by minimizing the risk of losing their SSI or Medicaid benefits (Social Security Administration, 2018). One such incentive, the Plan to Achieve Self-Support (PASS), allows approved individuals to set aside earned or unearned income and resources to achieve an employment goal. The money or resources set aside are excluded from SSI income and resource tests and can be used to pay for goods or services needed to reach the goal, such as education, vocational training, starting a business, or purchasing work-related equipment (Social Security Administration, 2017).  

The number of recipients enrolled nationally in any SSA work incentive program between 2000 and 2016 remains low and has been declining. In particular, the PASS incentive program has seen decreased enrollment in the last fifteen years - a 50% decrease from 2000 to 2016 in the number of individuals who enrolled. This is especially notable considering SSA reported providing benefits to 4,845,735 blind and disabled* SSI recipients aged 18-65 in 2016. Furthermore, there are only 692 PASS users enrolled nationwide, making it the least used incentive of those offered. Please refer to Table 1 for more details on three SSI work incentives. 

Despite SSAs investment in the Work Incentive Planning and Assistance (WIPA) program, SSI work incentives remain profoundly underutilized as a path towards employment for SSI recipients.

Click on image to view full size

Pre-Effectuation Reviews Of ALJ Decisions

     From the Social Security Administration's explanation of the Trump Administration's fiscal year 2020 budget proposal:

To improve oversight of the quality of decisions issued by the Office of Hearings Operations (OHO), we are finalizing plans to perform a pre-effectuation review of OHO decisions in FY 2019 that will provide feedback at the national level. We will provide feedback on deficient cases, and the Appeals Council will take corrective action on individual cases as needed. Using the FY 2019 data, we will assess potential review changes to provide additional information and determine resources needed to expand the review or conduct targeted reviews in FY 2020.

Probably Benign

     The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the publication of new regulations:

... to create a Security and Suitability Files system to cover any additional security and suitability related information generated by SSA that is not sent to the Office of Personnel Management. We will use the information we collect to conduct background investigations and establish that applicants or incumbents, either employed by SSA or working for SSA under contract, are suitable for employment with us. ...

     This is just a proposal. The public can comment on it once it is published in the Federal Register. To me, it sounds a bit sinister but it's probably benign.

Trump Budget Calls For Staffing Increases At Most Agencies But A 1% Staffing Cut At Social Security

     From Government Executive:

Click on image to view full size

Smith v. Berryhill Oral Argument Summary

     SCOTUSblog has posted a detailed summary of yesterday's Supreme Court oral argument in Smith v. Berryhill, a case concerning whether judicial review is available for Appeals Council dismissals. There's a lot of attention to major Supreme Court cases, as well there should be, but the Supreme Court's docket contains plenty of straightforward cases like this one where the political leanings of justices have little or no effect on the outcome.