Problem Avoided

 

     From the Detroit Free Press:

The pandemic-related economic shutdown in 2020 triggered all sorts of anxiety, including oddly enough a fear that those who turn 62 next year would be stuck with drastic cuts to their Social Security benefits. ...

The reason? A key wage index that Social Security uses as part of the calculation of benefits looked like it was set to plummet during the 2020 economic slowdown. 

In Congressional testimony in July 2020, Social Security Administration Chief Actuary Stephen Goss suggested that benefits could be 9.1% lower for this specific group, for life. ...

Now, amazingly, there is good news for those baby boomers born in 1960. Things didn't turn out as horrible as the original headlines suggested.

The average wage index — which is calculated by Social Security to track wage growth in the overall economy — didn't fall as once projected. Instead, the Social Security Administration recently posted that the national average wage index was up 2.83% in 2020 from 2019 — not down.  ...

Delayed SSI Report

      From a press release:

U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Todd Young (R-Indiana), Ranking Member of the Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy, pressed the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on when Congress can expect to receive the annual report on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

The delay in reporting to Congress on the program relative to the statutory deadline of May 30 is the longest in the history of the report, and comes on the heels of the longest delay ever in the Social Security and Medicare trustees report.  ...

     I can't even imagine a political motivation for delaying this mundane report. Just accept the reality that I have to accept every day. Social Security isn't hitting on all cylinders. Work isn't getting done in a timely manner. This has to do with general understaffing and reduced efficiency because almost everyone is working from home. It sucks but there it is.

Long Covid And Social Security Disability

      From the New York Times:

Since she tested positive for the coronavirus in April 2020, Josie Cabrera Taveras has found herself sleeping for up to 15 hours a day, stopping in grocery store aisles to catch her breath, lapsing in and out of consciousness and unable to return to her job as a nanny.

She believes that she is one of thousands, possibly millions, of Americans who may have a condition known as “long Covid.” The Biden administration has said people with the condition could qualify for federal disability protections and benefits, which can include health care, housing and unemployment benefits.

But like many others who may have long Covid, Ms. Taveras, 31, has had a hard time proving it. ...

With no direct medical evidence of her condition, she has been turned down for disability coverage twice. Even a note from a prestigious post-Covid clinic in the Mount Sinai hospital system, attesting that Ms. Taveras “continues to experience daily symptoms and is currently unable to work,” was not enough. ...

Since December 2020, the Social Security Administration has determined that about 16,000 applicants were able to provide medical evidence supporting Covid-19 as one of their impairments, according to Nicole Tiggemann, a spokeswoman for the agency, which was not flagging Covid cases before that.

But she would not say how many of those 16,000 applicants had been approved for benefits, or how many people claiming long Covid as a condition had been denied. Many cases are probably still pending; wait times for a determination can stretch for five months or more. ...

Steven Trompeter, 49, was unable to perform his job as an industrial mechanic after getting sick with Covid symptoms, including cough, fever, muscle aches and loss of taste and smell, in February 2020. He applied for disability in December 2020 and was approved six months later. ...

     I'm glad Mr. Trompter got approved but surprised that he would have been approved based solely on long Covid. Maybe there are other health problems involved in his case.

     I'm not seeing any groundswell of long Covid cases. So far, I've got one such case and it could easily be described as a post-ICU syndrome case, an entity that was well known before Covid. I'm not hearing about many long Covid cases from other attorneys.

Reason For Concern?

     I had posted yesterday that extending SSI to U.S. territories is part of the budget reconciliation bill pending in the Senate. Apart from the general threat of last minute snags on the bill as a whole, there is some reason for concern about the SSI part. The problem is arcane Congressional rules. Generally, any bill can be filibustered in the Senate. Budget reconciliation bills are a major exception. Those can't be filibustered. However, you can't put just anything in a budget reconciliation bill. One major rule is that no provision can be part of reconciliation if it would increase the deficit more than 10 years out. Generally, drafters of budget reconciliation bills get around this by including sunset provisions for budget reconciliation items that cost money. Extending SSI to the territories definitely costs money. However, the provision extending SSI to the territories contains no sunset provision (page 1682).

     I think this means that any Senator or Representative can object to the SSI provision. However, there may be some budget reconciliation exception that might cover this. I don't know. I'm no expert in Congressional rules. However, I'm not the only one asking the question.

    Would someone object? I'm not so sure. My guess is that this legislative provision is part of a settlement of litigation on the subject. I'd say that it's a reasonable settlement looked at from either a Democratic or Republican stance. I think the government's posture in the case pending at the Supreme Court is weak. Settling the issue in this way allows for a much better implementation of SSI for the territories. Doing it immediately as a result of a Supreme Court opinion would be a real mess.

     If someone objects, what happens then? Do they pull the provision altogether? Add a 10 year sunset? What is the deal, if there is one, with those litigating with the government on this issue. I don't know.

Republicans Want Field Office Reopened

      Sixty-one members of Congress, all or almost all of them Republicans, have written a letter demanding that Social Security field offices be reopened.

Budget Reconcilation Bill Extends SSI To Territories

      I spoke too soon about SSI changes not being in the budget reconciliation bill. The legislative text is now available and it includes one SSI change (page 1682) -- extending SSI to U.S. territories effective January 1, 2024. However, a case pending at the Supreme Court could extend SSI to the territories a lot sooner than that.

     Update to include some speculation: Maybe there won't be an oral argument in U.S. v. Vaello-Madero. Maybe an agreement was quietly made in that case and related cases. If the Biden Administration gets SSI for territories legislatively, the cases get dropped. That allows for an easier implementation -- giving Social Security almost two more years. (And I really think the government is going to lose this case if it is argued.) However, such an agreement would deprive claimants of benefits for that time period. That kind of deal is what I would have urged if I had been in the Solicitor General's office. I guess we'll see soon. The oral argument in U.S. v. Vaello-Madero is scheduled for November 9.

SSI Reform Probably Won't Be In The Budget Reconciliation Bill

      There's a summary out of the current "framework" for the budget reconciliation bill pending in Congress. There had been some hope that this bill would include at least some limited SSI reform but, alas, that's not listed. I guess it's still possible that there will be some really small bore SSI changes in the final bill in the category listed as "Equity and Other Investments" but as much as this has been whittled down, I wouldn't expect it.

Social Security ALJs Want End To Quotas

      From Government Executive:

Officials at the Justice Department last week announced that it would suspend a controversial system for managing immigration judges’ performance based on the number of cases they decide, prompting judges at other agencies to request an end to similar quotas. ...

The decision has raised the hopes of another union of judges that its agency will abandon its own controversial quota system. The Association of Administrative Law Judges said they have been operating under an onerous requirement from the Social Security Administration to schedule at least 50 disability cases per month since 2017.

“We have to submit a calendar that demonstrates that we will hold at least 50 hearings in a month, and if you don’t, you have to make up the difference in other months,” said AALJ President Melissa McIntosh. “The consequences include discipline, and judges who have received proposed removal actions are cited for ‘not managing’ their docket . . . In addition to this scheduling rule, they repeatedly say that you must have between 500 and 700 legally defensible decisions per year.”

McIntosh’s organization is urging acting Social Security Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi to abandon the performance metrics, arguing that they effectively deprive claimants of their due process rights, particularly as cases have gotten more complex in recent years. ...