SSI vs. SSDI

SSI vs. SSDI

 

There are two different disability programs, one is Social Security Disability (SSDI) and one is Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Disability.  It is important to know that there are two programs.

 

Same:  Some rules for eligibility and receiving benefits are the same for both disability programs.

 

1. There must be medical (physical or mental) reasons that keep you from working.

 

2.  You cannot be earning $980 (2009) gross per month (as an employee).  There are other rules if self-employed.

 

Different:  Some rules for eligibility and receiving benefits are different depending the disability program.

 

Social Security Disability (SSDI) Under Title 2 of the Social Security Act Also called Title 2 Benefits*		Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Disability Under Title 16 of the Social Security Act Also called Title 16 Benefits*
3.  If you have worked recently and for enough time under Social Security and paid Social Security (FICA) taxes, you may be eligible for Social Security Disability. 4.  Other than Rule 2, above, there are no financial rules or tests for eligibility. 5.  This program is called Social Security Disability Insurance—SSDI—because your payment of FICA taxes is similar to paying into an insurance plan.  FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. 6.  This program is referred to as based on your contributions as a worker. 7.  You and, possibly family members, are eligible for payment because you are no longer earning income as a worker.		3.  If you have not worked and paid FICA taxes, or not worked recently or for enough time, you may instead be eligible for only SSI. 4.  In addition to Rule 2, above, SSI also has financial need (income and asset) rules for eligibility. This is a “needs based” program. 5.  You may be eligible for SSI even if you have never worked.  6.  Disabled children’s benefits fall under SSI. 7.  Sometimes a person might meet all the requirements of both programs and be eligible for both programs. 8.  Sometimes a person (or child) who would otherwise be only eligible for SSI might be eligible for SSDI family benefits under the account of another person (worker).

*Particularly by Social Security Administration staff.

All original content © 2009 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Local Office Social Security MA

For effective, personalized representation in your claim for disability benefits, please call Attorney Patricia A. Petow at 617-993-3051.

Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Disability new benefit entitlement cases are handled on a contingency fee basis.

You owe no attorney’s fee unless you receive benefits.

Visit www.petow.com

All original content © 2009 Patricia A. Petow. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Executive Bailout Pay

Billions in government bailouts have been approved for Wall St. and/or financial institutions and/or relief for mortgage lenders and/or homeowners and additional billions may be approved for the US automotive industry.

Despite some discussion, no regulations have been passed to limit executive compensation.

There is a simply way to find a figure appropriate for executives.  Congress should mandate that compensation for all executives of companies taking government bailout money should match what Social Security has estimated will be the average monthly  benefits to be paid as of January, 2009.  That average monthly amount is $1,153 for Social Security retirement beneficiaries (or $1,064 for workers collecting Social Security Disability benefits).

Choosing this amount will first of all resolve the issue of what should be paid to executives.  Secondly, using the average monthly Social Security benefits amount would focus on the importance of the Social Security safety net to its recipients.

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Bill in Congress to require speedy hearings & decisions

A bill has been introduced in Congress to require prompt hearings after a request for hearing is filed with the Social Security Administration.

Rep. Kathy Castor, a Democrat, announced that she is introducing a bill that would require that a hearing be held between 60 and 75 days from the date it is requested, and that a final decision be given no later than 15 days after the hearing.

 

See http://thedisabilitylawfirm.blogspot.com/2008/07/tampa-congresswoman-offers-bill-to.html

 

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

 

HR 5110 Should be Passed by Congress

The legislation recently introduced in Congress by Congressman Higgins, posted below today, would require the Social Security Administration to provide details of hearing backlogs to Congress by Congressional District.   Members of Congress, who increasingly receive requests for help from disabled applicants, would have information to evaluate the level of performance by the Social Security Administration given its actual resources and would then be in a better position to craft legislation and allocate additional resources.

Acknowledging that it takes government employees to deliver the services, HR 5110 also requires the Social Security Administration to report on staffing levels by exact job titles and number of staff at each hearing office and field office.  The annual budget information as to number of employees also requires that the Social Security Administration provide employment statistics:  “[f]or each field office, for each preceding year after 1979, including the number of employees hired, retired, transferred in and out, and dismissed during such year.”

Although some might regard the detail required by HR 5110 as micro-managing the hugh Social Security Administration, even with the reporting required by this legislation, the Social Security Administration would still be able to transfer cases from one hearing office or state disability determinations service office to another as Social Security representatives know only too well.  For example, Social Security recently transferred a large number of hearing office cases from Ohio to the Boston hearing office.  One would think that whenever cases are transferred into an office, its own workload would suffer (the local office workload might even be transferred out!).

Congressman Higgins should amend his legislation to require reporting on case transfers from one hearing or disability determinations service office to another (in and out of Congressional Districts).

The administrators of the Social Security Administration when attention is called to their shortcomings are quick to fashion a response.  The best interest of the disabled applicant is not necessarily the ultimate consideration.  For example, when responding to scrutiny regarding the long delays at the hearing office level, the Social Security Administration counts dismissals (along with actual decisions) as “dispositions.”  At the same time, in my opinion as a former employee of the hearings office, the Social Security Administration should do a better job of establishing formal procedures to attempt to contact claimants who do not respond to a notice of hearing.

I strongly recommend that Congressman Higgins’ bill be passed with the amendment that I proposed here.  I will be writing my Congressman to support this legislation, and I urge you to write to yours as well.

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Congressional Bill to Attack Hearing Office Backlog

This is the text of legislation introducted by Congressman Brian Higgins of New York that, among other things, requires the Social Security Administration to detail reports on Hearing Office backlogs according to Congressional District.

 

110th CONGRESS –  2d Session

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to require the President to transmit the annual budget of the Social Security Administration without revisions to Congress, and for other purposes.

 

January 23, 2008

Mr. HIGGINS (for himself, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. BACA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. MCNERNEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, and Mr. ELLISON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

---

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to require the President to transmit the annual budget of the Social Security Administration without revisions to Congress, and for other purposes.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. AMENDING SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BUDGETARY MATTERS.

 

(a) Annual Budget- Section 704(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:

 

`(b)(1)(A) The Commissioner shall prepare and submit an annual budget estimate for the Administration directly to the President and Congress.’.

 

(b) Contents of Budget- Section 704(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:

 

`(B) The Commissioner shall include in the annual budget prepared pursuant to subparagraph (A) the following:

 

•  
  `(i) An itemization of the amount of funds required by the Administration to combat fraud committed by applicants and beneficiaries.

 

•  
  `(ii) The total number of cases pending at each hearing office, listed by hearing office, and an aggregate total of all cases pending at all hearing offices.

 

•  
  `(iii) The total number of cases pending for over the preceding year at each hearing office, listed by both hearing office and presiding administrative judge, and an aggregate total of all cases pending for over such year at all hearing offices.

 

•  
  `(iv) The average duration of time to process each case at each hearing office, listed by hearing office.

 

•  
  `(v) The staffing levels at each hearing office and field office, including a listing of job titles, classifications, and the number of staff within each title and classification.

 

•  
  `(vi) Employment statistics for each field office, for each preceding year after 1979, including the number of employees hired, retired, transferred in and out, and dismissed during such year.’.

 

(c) Closure of Field Offices- Section 704(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

 

`(C) The Commissioner may not close or otherwise limit public access to a field office of the Administration until 180 days after the date on which the Commissioner submits to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a detailed report outlining and justifying the process for selecting field offices to be closed or otherwise have limited access. Such report shall include–

 

•  
  `(i) an analysis of the criteria used for selecting field offices for closure or limited access and how the Commissioner analyzes and considers factors relating to transportation and communication burdens faced by seniors and the disabled;

 

•  
  `(ii) a cost-benefit analysis for each field office closure that takes into account–

 

•  
  •  
    `(I) the anticipated savings as a result of the closure;

 

•  
  •  
    `(II) the anticipated burdens, including communication and transportation burdens, placed on elderly and disabled citizens; and

 

•  
  •  
    `(III) the anticipated costs associated with replacing the services lost by the closure.’.

 

(d) Comprehensive Work Force Plan- Section 704(b)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 904(b)(2)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `Not later than 90 days before a revision of the comprehensive work force plan, the Commissioner shall submit the document setting forth the revision to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate.’.

 A BILL

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H. R. 5110

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

 

McCain might cut Social Security benefits.

Entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, were the subject of Roger Lowenstein’s “The Way We Live Now: Entitled to What?” in Sunday’s New York Times.

Lowenstein, using language of “a budgetary straitjacket or possibly a looming social crisis,” stated that the population of seniors will almost double, to 72 million, over the next generation.

As to the three candidates for president, he noted that only Obama proposed that the cap on the Social Security payroll tax be lifted and that all three endorsed government efforts to encourage savings for retirement.

Lowenstein reported that McCain favored “bringing entitlement spending down rather than bringing revenues up” and was open to cutting Social Security benefits.  McCain’s approach to health care, Lowenstein said, would include tax credits and paying taxes for the value of an employer health plan as though it were income.  The article did not discuss McCain’s position on health care for those not employed and those whose income is so little that a tax credit is not relevant.

Lowenstein is the author of “While America Aged,” published this week.

 All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Social Security Disability Waiting Period & Medicare Waiting Period

 

Two waiting periods associated with Social Security Disability should be eliminated now.

Five months of non-pay.

Once a person is approved for Social Security Disability, he will not be paid until five months after his “onset” date.  [In the Supplemental Security Income Disability program, the waiting period amounts to only one month.]  The reasoning behind this non-pay period is that the disabled individual should be able to live on his savings for the first five months.  Congress also wanted to make sure that no one applied for disability unless he had a serious disability.

The reality is that very few disabled or non-disabled people have five months of savings to live on.

Secondly, the Social Security Administration does not make decisions in a timely manner on the applications for Social Security Disability [or Supplemental Security Income Disability].  Additionally many applicants are forced to appeal initial decisions and wait many months for a favorable decision.

Legislation to eliminate the five months waiting period can be by default, that is, the law should be changed so that if the Social Security Administration takes more that five months to finally approve the disability claim, the five months waiting period should be waived.

24 Months before Medicare.

Beneficiaries who have been found to have a disability severe enough to satisfy the Social Security Administration must now wait until they have been in pay status for 24 months before they can receive Medicare health benefits.  [In the Supplemental Security Income Disability program, applicants usually receive Medicaid benefits.]    One of the reasons for this waiting period is that Congress did not want people applying for Social Security Disability benefits just for the health insurance.  The elimination of the 24-month waiting period should be enacted now.

 

 

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

 

 

SSDI and SSI — what’s the difference?

As noted in my “in the news” post today, both Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, sounded a bit awkward in their references to the two distinct disability programs, Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Disability in response to a particular questionnaire.  Actually, their campaign staffs probably completed the questionnaire.  (I am sure that the US Senate staffs are more expert on the two programs as they deal with constituents.  So it is to the credit of the campaigns that they are apparently not using their official staffs to respond to campaign questionnaires.)  Additional information from both candidates is also posted on the website of the disability organization that participated in the questioning.  See http://www.aapd-dc.org/News/election/070604sbo.htm.

 

However, confusion about the programs, in part, may be based on the confusing names of each of the programs and the over reliance on the abbreviations of the programs.

Simply put Social Security Disability is one part of the Social Security program funded by the payroll tax of workers, the FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, tax.  The other two parts of the Social Security program are retirement benefits and survivor benefits.

The Supplemental Security Income program, on the other hand, which also has two components, benefits for the aged and for the disabled, is funded entirely by general tax revenue.

The threshold requirements for Social Security Disability and for Supplemental Security Income Disability are different, although the inability to work because of a medical disability requirement is exactly the same for each program.

To be eligible for Social Security Disability, generally the worker must have worked recently and for a certain amount of time with respect to his disability.  Therefore, a worker, who may not have worked recently or for a sufficient period of time or may have not worked at all such as a stay-at-home parent, might not be eligible for Social Security Disability and might then apply for Supplemental Security Income Disability.

Another big difference between the programs is that under Supplemental Security Income Disability, the government has set income and asset limitations and has created accounting rules such as retrospective monthly accounting and deeming (of other household income) systems. 

The major difference between Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Disability is that under the Social Security Disability program, a worker can be paid an amount based on his work record (not unlike his retirement benefit).  Under the Supplemental Security Income Disability program, all beneficiaries are limited to a maximum amount that is paid based on a “federal amount” and a state supplemental amount, if any. 

See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/statessi.html.

 

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.

Clinton and Obama on Social Security Disability and SSI Disability

 

In their campaigns to become the presidential nominees of their party, both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama endorsed the Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Disability programs.

 

One year ago, in response to a long questionnaire on disability, the presidential candidates also answered one question specific to the Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Disability programs.

 

Of the candidates still in the race as of April, 2008, Senators Clinton and Obama responded; Senator McCain did not.

 

The questionnaire on disability topics for the presidential candidates was put together by four organizations: ADAPT, the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), and Self Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE).  The responses on all the questions may be seen at http://www.aapd-dc.org/index.php.  Other candidate responses and statements are also posted on the website.

 

Both Senators Clinton and Obama endorsed work opportunities for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Disability (this was a focus of the questionnaire for all disabled). 

 

Senator Obama stated that people with disabilities who cannot support themselves through work should have adequate income and health insurance.  He noted that the “SSDI” and “SSI” programs must satisfy both goals.  Senator Obama endorsed access to health insurance for people who were able to return to work after being on the SSDI or SSI “rolls.”

 

Senator Obama denounced the “unconscionable delays” for individuals applying for disability benefits.  He also stated that he was committed to increasing Social Security Administration funding and “streamlining the current application and appeals procedures.”

 

In speaking of the delays in the application process, Senator Obama referred to the disability program (in the singular as only one program) as the “Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI)” program.  He then noted the “confusion that surrounds this important program.”

 

Senator Clinton stated that the programs provided an “invaluable safety net for those individuals that might need government assistance.”  She emphasized that she was committed to helping beneficiaries of “SSI and SSDI,” would look at how the programs should be improved, “including by increasing the benefit level.”  The website also contains a separate statement in which Senator Clinton addressed the Social Security Administration backlogs–http://www.aapd-dc.org/News/election/071210shc.htm.  In this questionnaire, Senator Clinton noted that she had cosponsored legislation to phase out the waiting period for disabled individuals to become eligible for Medicare benefits.  In reference to the disability programs, Senator Clinton identified them as “Social Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance.”

 

All original content © 2008 Patricia A. Petow.  All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.