U.S. Retirement Systems Score Poorly

     From Michael Hiltzik writing for the Los Angeles Times:

Back in my school days, a “C” grade was a certification of rank mediocrity. That’s the right way to think about a recent scorecard on which the U.S. retirement system scored an inexcusably deficient C+.

That grade placed the U.S. behind Netherlands, Iceland and Israel (all A’s); and Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Finland, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland (all solid B’s or B+). If you’re looking for bragging rights, the U.S. came in about even with France.

The scores come to us from the business consulting firm Mercer, which ranked 47 national pension systems for its Global Pension Index on standards such as adequacy, sustainability (including the reliability of funding) and integrity (such as the regulation of private pension providers). ...

Among the particular shortcomings of the American system identified by the Mercer team is that it leaves too many workers out in the cold, including gig workers and lower-income blue-collar employees. ...

But if you’re hoping that things will improve for American retirees in the near future, the accession of Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) to the post of House speaker should give you pause. Johnson is a long-term advocate of cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits through changes such as raising the retirement and eligibility ages for the programs.

He also has advocated scrutinizing the cost of those programs through a “bipartisan debt commission” that inevitably would place them in the deficit-reduction cauldron along with other spending. After his rise to the speaker’s chair Wednesday, Johnson immediately promised to create this panel. ...

Brute Force Needed

    At yesterday's House Social Security Subcommittee hearing all of the members were struggling under the illusion that agency management could seriously address agency backlogs. I have my own ideas for what the agency could do but I'm not under the illusion that they would seriously address backlogs. More money is the only thing that will work; "brute force" as former Commissioner Astrue described it when the agency was in a backlog situation not as serious as the current one.

Hearing Scheduled For O'Malley Nomination

    The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing on the nomination of Martin O'Malley to become Commissioner of Social Security for 10:00 on November 2.

Congressional Hearing

     The written materials submitted by witnesses at today's House Social Security Subcommittee are now available online. They're mostly predictable and uninteresting to me. I didn't have the time to watch but please post your summary if you did.

It Never Stops

     There's an op ed in the New York  Times pushing for increasing Social Security's full retirement age. I think the authors never encounter anyone working at a job requiring standing all day other than employees at Starbucks. The people who clean their offices, repair their cars, care for their elderly relatives and mow their yards are invisible to them. They're under the illusion that everyone is like them and works in an office, which is not true. They don't realize that most people don't make it to full retirement age now and the major reason isn't laziness, but illness. People live longer but bad knees, bad backs, diabetes and many other health conditions still reduce people's ability to work at any job as they age. To say they can just apply for disability benefits is a "let them eat cake" solution. Do they have any idea how brutal Social Security's disability programs are?

    Politically, any further raise in full retirement age isn't going to fly, now or later. You can't win on this. Give it up.

Cutting Off SSI Disability Benefits At Age 18 Leads To Adverse Life Outcomes

    From The Impact Of Losing Childhood Supplemental Security Income Benefits On Long-Term Education and Health Outcomes by Priyanka Anand and Hansoo Ko, a study for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

Many youth with disabilities rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) as an important source of income for their families, but they must go through a redetermination process at age 18 if they are to continue receiving those benefits into adulthood. Our project uses data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) to examine the long-term impact of losing child SSI upon turning 18, due to the 1996 welfare reform, on education and health outcomes. We compare the long-term outcomes of those who turned 18 just after August 1996 with those who turned 18 just before, given that the reform increased the strictness of medical reviews for 18-year-old beneficiaries. Because the respondents are in their 30s and 40s in the later waves of the survey, we also examine the health outcomes of their children.

The paper found that:

• Those who were likely to lose SSI at age 18 have fewer years of education and are less likely to attend college than those who were less likely to lose their benefits.
• There is suggestive evidence of worse health outcomes for the children of those who were likely to lose their SSI benefits at age 18.

The policy implications of the findings are:

• Discontinuing benefits at age 18 has a negative impact on the human capital attainment of child SSI beneficiaries, which may explain their lower long-term earnings relative to other disadvantaged populations.
• The negative impacts of discontinuing child SSI benefits may continue into the next generation.
• Moderate amounts of cash transfers to children of vulnerable families may lead to lasting positive impacts. ...
  

    Wouldn't it be possible to do these age 18 redeterminations in a less harsh way, even without a legislative change? Give at least a little weight to the prior finding of disability? Where the claimant was approved based upon a child Listing and that child Listing is almost identical to the adult Listing, create a presumption that the disability hasn't ended? The current process seems to me to be designed to be as harsh as possible. Can't Social Security do better?

EM On Musculoskeletal Disorders

     The Social Security Administration has issued an Emergency Message titled Additional Guidance for Evaluating Evidence in Cases Involving the Musculoskeletal Disorders Listings. It's designed to convey the news of the Temporary Final Rule on "close proximity of time" published recently in the Federal Register but it also addresses the need for assistive devices, such as a cane or walker or motorized wheelchair.

Senators Seek Answers On SSI Overpayments

     From a press release:

U.S. Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore.[Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security], Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio [Chairman of the Finance Committee's Social Security Subcommittee], and Bob Casey, D-Pa., urged the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide additional information on the scope and magnitude of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries who had their benefits suspended and were assessed an overpayment due to receiving Economic Impact Payments (EIPs)[a pandemic program]. ...

Between April 2020 and July 2021, these payments were disregarded as countable resources for 12 months for purposes of SSI eligibility. In August 2021, SSA announced that  EIPs would not be counted toward eligibility and payment amount for SSI purposes indefinitely. However, SSA suspended benefits and assessed overpayments to individuals receiving SSI benefits because of the stimulus payments.

Senator Wyden previously raised this concern with SSA in two separate hearings in 2021, and the agency responded stating they had updated its policy guidance for SSA staff.  However, recent reporting has shown that SSI beneficiaries continue to receive overpayment notices because of the EIPs. 

To understand the scope and magnitude of beneficiaries affected, and the actions SSA has taken to resolve such suspensions and overpayments, the senators asked the SSA Acting Commissioner to provide the following information:

1. The number of individuals who had their benefits reduced or suspended because of the EIPs during the following periods: 

a. March 2020 to July 2021; 

b. August 2021 to December 2022; and 

c. January 2023 to September 2023.

2. Of those individuals identified in Question 1:

a. The number of individuals whose benefits were reinstated without an appeals hearing.

b. The number of individuals whose benefits were reinstated due to an appeals hearing.

c. The number of individuals whose appeals are pending.

d. The number of individuals who appeals were denied.

3. A list of the agency’s past and ongoing actions to address people who received overpayment notices resulting from EIPs?

4. The number of claimants who were denied SSI benefits because of the EIPs.

5. Whether SSA has required each beneficiary impacted to file an appeal.