Does "Temporary Disability Insurance" Reduce Social Security Disability Claims?

     From Does Temporary Disability Insurance Reduce Older Workers’ Reliance On Social Security Disability Insurance? by Siyan Liu, Laura D. Quinby, and James Giles:

Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) provides workers with wage replacement while they recover from a serious medical condition. Proponents of a national paid leave program argue that these benefits allow workers to adjust to health shocks and return to the workforce, reducing reliance on Social Security Disability Insurance (DI). Yet, TDI could also encourage DI application by providing income during the lengthy qualification period. This study uses the 1992-2020 Health and Retirement Study to evaluate how access to TDI benefits affects the likelihood that older workers end up on DI after a work-limiting health shock. Specifically, it compares the experience of workers in states with mandated TDI benefits to those living in states without such policies.

The paper found that:

TDI helps workers with severe impairments stay in the labor force.

Specifically, workers who develop severe disabilities are 26 percentage points more likely to be employed and 16 percentage points less likely to apply for DI when they have TDI benefits.

However, workers whose impairments do not qualify for DI may use TDI to facilitate early retirement. ...

Click on image to view full size

     I have serious problems with this study. First, the authors didn't realize that the generally used term isn't Temporary Disability Insurance but Short Term Disability which suggests that they didn't get very far into anything other than abstruse math, such as "𝑈𝑆=𝑈(𝑤𝑆(𝐻)+𝑦)+𝜑𝑆𝐻." Second, and far more important, the authors are comparing states like New York, California and Rhode Island with states like Iowa, Louisiana and Georgia. There are major demographic and economic differences between these states that likely explain most if not all the differences they're finding. You could easily produce a study demonstrating that disability claims are more common in areas where college football is highly popular but do you think that means that following college football causes disability claims?

    In general, I'm highly, highly skeptical of those who think they can manipulate sick people into working longer. That might or might not be in their best interests but I don't think it's possible anyway. The factors that go into producing disability claims such as illness often combined with adverse vocational factors such as age and lack of work skills can't be manipulated out of the way. Even if you can get people back to work it's usually only postponing the inevitable by a few months.

Homelessness Soars Among Older People

    From Yahoo Finance:

Many baby boomers across the country are now coming to terms with the hard reality that working for your entire adult life is no longer enough to guarantee you’ll have a roof over your head in your later years.

Thanks in part to a series of recessions, high housing costs and a shortage of affordable housing, older adults are now the fastest-growing segment of America’s homeless population, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, based on data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. ...

Now, the over-50 demographic represents half of the homeless single adults in the U.S. — with no sign of their numbers slowing, leaving baby boomers (those aged 57 to 75) particularly vulnerable.

“Elderly homelessness has been rare within the contemporary homeless problem. We’ve always had very few people over 60 who’ve been homeless historically,” Culhane from the University of Pennsylvania told PBS NewsHour. ...

    I'm sure there are many reasons for this increase in homelessness among older people but the failures of Social Security's disability programs have to be a major factor. There are far, far too many disabled people in homeless shelters.

New Instructions On Transferability Of Skills

     The Social Security Administration has issued new instructions in its POMS manual on transferability of skills for purposes of determining disability. The sections affected are:

• DI 25015.015
• DI 25015.017 
• DI 25015.019

    At first glance I don't see anything that makes a difference but this is a sensitive enough subject that it bears a closer reading than I have given it to this point. 

    My longstanding opinion is that transferability of skills should only be found quite rarely. Those who really did have transferable skills almost certainly transferred them and didn't file disability claims.

PRW Time Period To Be Reduced From 15 Years To 5 Years

     From a notice that Social Security has scheduled for publication in the Federal Register:

We propose to revise the time period that we consider when determining whether an individual’s past work is relevant for purposes of making disability determinations and decisions. Specifically, we would revise the definition of past relevant work (PRW) by reducing the relevant work period from 15 to 5 years. This change would allow individuals to focus on the most current and relevant information about their past work, better reflect the current evidence base on changes over time in worker skill decay and job responsibilities, reduce processing time and improve customer service, and reduce burden on individuals.

    This is overdue by about 40 years but better late than never. It never made sense to tell disability claimants that they are not disabled because they can return to jobs they last held 12 years ago. Work skills just don't stick with people that long.

Good News For SSI Claimants

     From a notice that Social Security has scheduled for publication in the Federal Register:

We propose to expand the definition of a public assistance (PA) household for purposes of our programs, particularly the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, to include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as an additional means-tested public income maintenance (PIM) program. In addition, we seek public comment on expanding the definition to include households in which any other (as opposed to every other) member receives public assistance. We expect that the proposed rule would decrease the number of SSI applicants and recipients charged with in-kind support and maintenance (ISM). In addition, we expect that this proposal would decrease the amount of income we would deem to SSI applicants or recipients because we would no longer deem income from ineligible spouses and parents who receive SNAP benefits and live in the same household. These policy changes would reduce administrative burden for low-income households and SSA.

    Again, I'm not going to try to explain this. Just understand that it's good news for many SSI claimants.

"Close Proximity Of Time" Extension Made Permanent

     From a notice that Social Security has scheduled for publication in the Federal Register:

On July 23, 2021, we issued a temporary final rule (TFR) with request for comments to lengthen the “close proximity of time” standard in the Listing of Impairments (the listings) for musculoskeletal disorders because the COVID-19 national public health emergency (PHE) caused many individuals to experience barriers that prevented them from timely accessing in-person healthcare. That prior TFR is effective until six months after the effective date of a determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) that a PHE resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic no longer exists. The Secretary of HHS made that determination, and the COVID-19 national PHE ended on May 11, 2023. However, healthcare practices in a post-PHE world are still evolving. We are therefore issuing this new TFR to extend the flexibility provided by the prior TFR until May 11, 2025, so we can evaluate changes in healthcare practices and determine the proper “close proximity of time” standard for the musculoskeletal disorders listings. ...

    I'm not going to try to explain this other than to say that it's modestly good news for disability claimants with orthopedic problems -- a slight reduction in harshness is how I would put it.

Let Me Circle Back To This

     Let me circle back to the article I posted about yesterday concerning a man being asked to repay money allegedly overpaid in 1978. Here's a part of the article I didn't quote yesterday (emphasis added):

Byrd's father died when he was 4 years old. So his mother received social security for him while he was a minor. 

"This is not money I ever saw. I was not even living at home at the time," he said.

    This suggests how the overpayment occurred.  His mother wasn't entitled to the child's benefits she received on him because he wasn't living with her. So how is this an overpayment to him? His mother took money from him. He was the one injured back in 1978 and you're now compounding the injury by trying to force him to repay money that was taken from him?

Nobody Mentioned Waiver But The Bigger Issue Is The Lack Of A Statute Of Limitations On Overpayments

     From KDFW:

...  [A]n Arlington [TX] man is being told he owes back money that was paid to his mother — in 1978.  ...

The SSA is asking Jimmy Byrd to pay them more than $1,400 that was paid 45 years ago to his mother who died back in 2011. He could not believe his eyes when he opened a letter from the SSA last month. 

"I read the paperwork, and it was from January to June of 1978," he said. "Back in 1978, I was only 17 years old." ...

Byrd filed an appeal.

"Two weeks ago, I received a second letter stating I'm going to have to pay it, and I thought that's not right," he said. "I got in my car, went back down to the social security board."

Bryd told his story again.

‘The gentleman looked at me from behind the counter and said, 'You know, that is just the way it is,’" he said.

Byrd signed an agreement to have $100 a month deducted from his $1,800 social security check for the next 14 months.  ...

    Why, oh why, is there no statute of limitations on overpayments? These cases happen all the time. Of course, this overpayment would have been wiped out with a waiver request but it's easier to tell someone "that is just the way it is" than it is to help with a waiver request.