Action needed: SSA Proposes Raising Age Levels For Evaluating Disability

Please help...
Action may be taken and more info received at the source

SSA Proposes Raising Age Levels For Evaluating Disability
Tell SSA To Rescind The Rule, Write Them Now!

The Social Security Administration (SSA) proposed a new rule that could result in many people with disabilities (especially those with low work skills) applying for disability benefits (Social Security disability programs and Supplemental Security Income) to be turned down. The agency has proposed raising the age levels (age categories) it uses for determining whether an individual qualifies for these benefits. By raising the age levels, the SSA could determine that the person does not have a disability, solely for the reason that they have not achieved the appropriate age level.

The SSA believes that the age levels (categories) for determining disability should be raised to coincide with its evidence that the average health of older workers has improved and that many older persons are still working. The agency’s logic is faulty and this rule is misguided.

The new rule will save the federal government an estimated $5.8 billion over 10 years in Social Security, SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid costs, a savings that results from a loss of benefits for people who would otherwise be eligible.
<snip>
The SSA must receive comments on this proposed new regulation by January 3, 2006.

To make a disabled person ineligible for benefits based souly on age would hurt those who need it the most. I was a 29 y/o divorced mother of two when I was diagnosed with MS. Because of my age and low amount of work credits (due to staying home most of the time while married to be there for my daughters when they were very little) I barely made it onto SSD and even then it was only a few hundred dollars a month. Although that few hundred was a "god send" (and still is) it meant more then the money to me. This may sound odd to some but being accepted for SSD benefits was more then just a monetary thing for me... it also psychologically and socially lent legitimacy to my being permanently disabled.

A two year increase may not sound like much to some but if it were you suddenly disabled through no fault of your own and you were denied desperately needed benefits souly on the fact that you aren't 2 yrs older how would you feel? Now add to that that social services may base their decision for Medicaid, Food stamps, etc benefits on your disability being accepted as legit or not by SSA... how do you live?

Oh and if you're thinking it could never happen to you or a family member... I was brought up in an upper middle class family, both my husband and I were middle class workers until we were hit and taken down by our disabilities. Although before our own disabilities hit we were never lacking in empathy for those who were disabled or poor (I grew up as a caregiver to my very ill/disabled mother & went into nursing, my husband grew up helping with his grandmother & became a volunteer paramedic) we never really thought we'd need government help until life stuff happened. So please remember... "never say never" "there but by grace ..." go you or a dear family member.
:rant:

Thank you in advance to those who write. :hug: :yourock: :hug:

One would think that in a country as rich as ours and a society as "generous" as ours, that we would take special care to make sure all boats are raised. That we would take very special care to make sure children have very good health care, food, and education. One would think. I realized this year that only twice during the year we care about feeding the poor. It's time for a change.

Hope you have a great holiday season.

In Social Security practice, we would call 49 the "magic age". At 50 a claimant made it "onto the grid". Does this proposal raise the grid age from 50 to 52?

age is for seniors versus disabled so unfortunately I'm not sure if this applies or not. Hopefully someone will come along who knows though. :-)

The Listings are fairly stringent, and it is fairly uncommon for all but the super impaired to frankly meet the criteria.

The majority of allowances I find are using the Medical Vocational rules that this would affect. It wouldn't actually cut out the person but would cut off a couple years from their benefits.

Over the last 10 years of so there has been a gradual tightening of regulations so that where people who could have been allowed in say 92 or 93 are no longer eligible.

They totally did away with the obesity listings where people with severe obesity and 1 complication that was severe, but didn't meet the listings could be allowed.

They did away with allowing people with severe substance abuse problems, which in a way was good, but in another way a not. When they sent these cases back to us (those already allowed in the past) to see if there was anything we could continue them on not related to their substance abuse, I was intrigued to find many once they had some money coming in had stopped drinking and were on psych meds instead.

They changed the regs for kids with ADD and behavior problems to make them more strict. I thought this was good cause I noticed that the kids that had been allowed were mostly getting no benefit. Most of the kids parents had stopped taking them for treatment when they got allowed. The parents were just using the money for general stuff and not even using the medical card for their treatment.

On the other hand almost all of the above can usually still get it if they appeal to an Administrative Law Judge. The judges, a lot of them will put anybody on. People who in no way meet the criteria, the judges will allow because they don't have the Quality Assurance review or oversight on their decisions like the folks at the lower 2 levels have.

My wife got sick in 2001. She lost her job of course. She applied for a disability through Social Security, at 54 years of age, and was turned down as a matter of course.

I told her to find a lawyer. She did.

After 3 years and a $5,000 attorney bill (the amount of their fee is limited by law) and turning 55 years of age in the meantime the disability was just last month approved retroactively to her 55th birthday, which was about 7 months after her original filing.

The lawyer had told us that there was no chance she would be given a judgment in her favor unless she was old enough. What in hell did that have to do with the fact that she was dieing?

This is another example of bush policies of killing off the poor and/or disabled.