Friday, November 16, 2018
We all know that caregiving can be a 24/7/365 job. And many caregivers are working full time and caregiving part-time, while others leave their jobs to caregive. In those situations, it is no less important for caregivers to save for their own retirement, no matter how hard that may seem to be. US News ran a story, Caregivers Should Save for Retirement which focuses on caregiving for someone with special needs. The article highlights the issues
ADVANCES IN MEDICINE and technology are allowing Americans – including those with special needs and disabilities – to enjoy longer, fuller lives. Still, as a caregiver, the emotional, physical and financial toll can be draining and could potentially prevent you from being able to plan for your own future. Research shows 30 percent of caregivers are not saving and investing for their own retirement because of the time and cost required for caring for those with special needs.
The article suggests the following for the caregiver: check out the available programs and benefits, continue savings and don't forget to invest, consider the implications of your financial situation on the individual with special needs who is applying for means-tested assistance, be aware of the impact of well-meaning relatives making a testamentary gift for the individual, and housing options and their various levels of care to name a few. The article also discusses special needs trusts and ends with this:
The key takeaway is that planning for your financial future, while at the same time ensuring continuity of care for a loved one, can be extremely complex, but you don't have to do this alone. Leveraging professional resources and revisiting your plan periodically can help keep you on track as your needs, and the needs of your family, continue to evolve.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
The Washington Post recently ran an article about changes to the system of selecting Veterans law judges (or ALJs) within the Board of Veterans Appeals and whether that is affecting their impartiality. The story, I’ve never seen these positions politicized’: White House rejection of veterans judges raises concerns of partisanship is primarily about the rejection of candidates for positions within the Board of Veterans Appeals. This excerpt from the article gives you the background
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals has long filled a nonpartisan role in the federal government, run by dozens of judges charged with sorting through a thicket of regulations to determine whether an injured veteran is entitled to lifetime benefits.
But this summer, the White House rejected half of the candidates selected by the board chairwoman to serve as administrative judges, who make rulings on the disability claims. The rejections came after the White House required them to disclose their party affiliation and other details of their political leanings, according to documents viewed by The Washington Post.
Such questions had not been asked of judge candidates in the past, according to former judges and board staff.
As part of the process, the candidates were asked to provide links to their social media profiles and disclose whether they had ever given a speech to Congress, spoken at a political convention, appeared on talk radio, or published an opinion piece in a conservative forum such as Breitbart News or a liberal one such as Mother Jones, according to one candidate, who requested anonymity because the person is not authorized to speak to the media.The rejected applicants are three Democrats and an independent. Of the four accepted by the White House and sworn in last week, three are Republicans, and one has no party affiliation but has voted in GOP primaries, according to documents and interviews.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Social Security has released the 2019 numbers. Social Security Announces 2.8 Percent Benefit Increase for 2019 notes a 2.8% COLA and an increase in the SSA taxable maximum amount to $132,900. The indivdiual's amount for SSI for 2019 will increase to $771 per month. The detailed fact sheet is available here.
Friday, September 28, 2018
The Aging, Law and Society Collaborative Research Network (CRN) invites scholars to participate in a multi-event workshop as part of the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting scheduled for Washington D.C. from May 30 through June 2, 2019.
For this workshop, proposals for presentations should be submitted by October 22, 2018.
This year’s workshop will feature themed panels, roundtable discussions, and rapid fire presentations in which participants can share new ideas and research projects.
The CRN encourages paper proposals on a broad range of issues related to law and aging. For this event, organizers especially encourage proposals on the following topics:
- The concept of dignity as it relates to aging
- Interdisciplinary research on aging
- Old age policy, and historical perspectives on old age policy
- Sexual Intimacy in old age and the challenge of “consent” requirements
- Compulsion in care provision
- Disability perspectives on aging, and aging perspectives on disability
- Feminist perspectives on aging
- Approaches to elder law education
In addition to paper proposals, CRN also welcomes:
- Volunteers to serve as panel discussants and as commentators on works-in-progress.
- Ideas and proposals for themed panels, round-tables, or a session around a new book.
If you would like to present a paper as part of a the CRN’s programming, send a 100-250 word abstract, with your name, full contact information, and a paper title to Professor Nina Kohn at Syracuse Law, who, appropriately enough also now holds the title of "Associate Dean of Online Education!"
September 28, 2018 in Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, International, Programs/CLEs, Property Management, Retirement, Science, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics, Web/Tech, Webinars | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, September 27, 2018
First the bad -- or at least frustrating -- news. On Thursday, September 27, we received word that Senate Bill 884, the long-awaited legislation providing key reforms of guardianship laws in Pennsylvania, was now "dead" in the water and will not move forward this year. Apparently one legislator raised strong objections to proposed amendments to SB 884, amendments influenced by recent high-profile reports of abuse by a so-called professional guardian who had been appointed by courts in multiple cases in eastern Pennsylvania.
The objections reportedly focused on one portion of the bill that would have required both law guardians (typically family members) and professional guardians to undergo a criminal background check before being appointed to serve. The amendment did not condition appointment on the absence of a criminal record, except where proposed "professional guardians" had been convicted of specific crimes. For other crimes or for lay guardians, the record information was deemed important to permit all interested parties and the court to make informed decisions about who best to appoint.
What is next? Pennsylvanians will look to new leadership in the 2019-20 session in the hope for a new bill that resolves differences and that can make it through both houses. In the meantime, the courts are already moving forward with procedural reforms, adopted in 2018 at the direction of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
And that leads us to a more positive note about guardianship reform in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Common Pleas Judge Lois Murphy testified this week during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting about the Pennsylvania Courts' new Guardianship Tracking System (GTS). It is now operational in 19 counties (out of 67 total counties) in Pennsylvania, including coming online in the major urban counties for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Judge Murphy reported that GTS is "already paying dividends," and she gave the example of a case in which the reporting system triggered a red flag for an estate worth more than $1 million, much higher than originally predicted, making appointment of different guardian more appropriate.
Judge Murphy predicts that as the tracking system becomes operational statewide, it should generate valuable answers, such as how many persons are subject to guardianships at any point in time, how much in assets are under management, what percentages of the pointed guardians are family members (as opposed to professionals), and what percentages of those served are over or under age 60. The hope is that GTS will also permit coordination of information about appointed guardians in state courts with information in the federal system on those appointed as Social Security representative payees, thus, again, providing more comprehensive information about trustworthiness of such fiduciaries.
You can see Judge Murphy's testimony, and hear her reasons for criminal background checks and appointment of counsel to represent alleged incapacitated persons, along with the views of retiring Senator Greenleaf and Senator Art Haywood, in the recording of the September 24 hearing recording below.
Judge Murphy testifies from approximately the 35 minute mark to the 43 minute mark, and again from 1 hour 33, to one hour 44.
Bottom line for the week -- and perhaps the session? You can certainly grow old just waiting for guardianship reform in Pennsylvania.
September 27, 2018 in Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Property Management, Social Security | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Recently I was reading the SSA website on Rep Payees and learned that certain rep payees have an accounting/auditing requirement. Representative Payee Site Reviews Conducted By Protection And Advocacy System explains
On April 13, the President signed the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018. The law directs state Protection & Advocacy (P&A) system organizations to conduct all periodic onsite reviews along with additional discretionary reviews. In addition, the P&As will conduct educational visits and conduct reviews based on allegations they receive of payee misconduct.
The P&A conducts a review, which includes:
- an interview with the individual or organizational representative payee;
- a review of the representative payee’s financial records for the requested beneficiary or sample of beneficiaries served;
- a home visit and interview for each beneficiary included in the review; and
- an interview with legal guardians and third parties, when applicable.
Financial Records Representative Payees Should Have Available for Review
When the P&A schedules the review, the reviewer will request the records needed for each beneficiary. Some common financial documents that representative payees may be asked to provide are:
- a beneficiary budget;
- a beneficiary ledger;
- individual bank statements;
- Collective account bank statements;
- receipts of income;
- account balances;
- bank reconciliation records;
- cancelled checks;
- expense documentation including receipts, bills, and rental agreements;
- how the payee keeps conserved benefits (e.g., checking, savings, etc.); and
- any other financial documents that pertain to a beneficiary’s Social Security and/or SSI benefits.
As part of the review the P&A also visits the beneficiary as well as any guardian or any "third parties." Anyone have any experience with these "audits"?
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Women still tend to work fewer years and earn less than men, which leads to less income in retirement. One reason is that women are often still the main family caregiver. Traditionally, Social Security has recognized this role by providing spousal and widow benefits for married women. Today, however, many women are not eligible for these benefits because they never married or they divorced prior to the 10-year threshold needed to qualify. Even those who are married are less likely to receive a spousal benefit, as their worker benefit is larger. Thus, many mothers receive little to no support to offset lost earnings due to childrearing.
The 10 page brief looks at how the topic is handled in other countries and discusses two avenues for resolution in the U.S.: (1) "[i]ncrease the number of work years that are excluded from benefit calculations ... [and] (2) [p]rovide earnings credits to parents with a child under age six for up to five years." The article concludes in part
It is easy to understand the appeal of crediting Social Security records to reflect lost earnings due to caring for a child. In the past, this activity was usually compensated for by the spousal benefit, but changes in women’s work and marriage patterns have left fewer eligible for it. A credit is also more appealing than a spousal benefit if the goal is to compensate for the
costs of childrearing, independent of marital status.
Monday, August 6, 2018
Professor Reid Weisbord, who serves as vice dean and the Judge Norma L. Shapiro Scholar at Rutgers Law School in Newark, has a new and very timely essay posted on Stanford Law Review Online. The provocative premise should certainly spark responses!
From the abstract:
This Essay proposes a novel policy of "postmortem austerity" to address the unsustainable, rapidly escalating cost of federal entitlement programs following the 2017 tax reforms. If Social Security and Medicare continue on their current path to insolvency, then they will eventually require austerity reforms absent a politically unpopular tax increase.
This Essay argues that, if austerity becomes necessary, federal entitlement reforms should be implemented progressively in a manner that minimizes displacement of benefits on which individuals relied when saving for old age. A policy of postmortem austerity would establish new eligibility criteria for Social Security and Medicare that postpone the effective date and economic consequences of benefit ineligibility until after death.
All individuals would continue to collect federal entitlements during life, but at death, wealthy decedents would be deemed retroactively disqualified from part or all of Social Security and Medicare benefits received during life. The estates of such decedents would then be liable for repayment of disqualified benefits.
For the full essay, read Postmortem Austerity and Entitlement Reform, published July 16, 2018.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
We blogged last week about the July 10, 2018 executive order that exempted the hiring of ALJs from the competitive process used up until then. NPR and the Washington Post did stories about the impact of the executive order on the ALJ hiring process, offering to some extent, two competing views of the outcome.
In Trump moves to shield administrative law judge decisions in wake of high court ruling explains the process typically used by federal agencies: "[w]hile individual agencies generally post their job vacancies and then assess and select candidates, they hire ALJs from a central list of applicants the Office of Personnel Management deems qualified." Referencing the recent Supreme Court decision that held that an ALJ for the SEC was not correctly appointed, the ALJ "therefore was not authorized to decide in the case, which involved a penalty against an investment adviser. [Further] [t]hat decision opens the door to similar challenges across all agencies since their ALJs were selected in the same way, often by a lower-level official who had relatively little choice of candidates from the list, said James Sherk, special assistant to the president for domestic policy" who indicated in an interview that a large number of challenges on that point have been filed and that the executive order will hopefully "protect agencies against challenges to the legitimacy of their ALJs." The article also discusses the potential for politically-based hiring decisions. It also notes that certain hearing offiers are called ALJs; but the executive order won't "apply to hiring of immigration judges or other agency-level hearing officers who in some contexts are generically referred to as administrative law judges...."
NPR's story, Trump Changes How Federal Agency In-House Judges Are Hired notes that the ALJs covered include Medicare. Focusing more on the potential political ramifications of the executive order which basically makes the ALJs political appointees, the NPR story quotes "the president of the American Constitution Society [who] in a statement specifically pointed to possible repercussions with the Social Security Administration. 'Administrative law judges handle Social Security disability cases. This administration is on record as wanting to lessen benefits. It's likely that a political ALJ appointed by this administration would rule against the beneficiaries and deny claims.'"
Monday, July 30, 2018
On July 26, 2018, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a trial judge was wrong in refusing to fund a severely injured adult's special needs trust with $6.75 million in funds from settlement of tort suit.
The trial judge had resisted, saying he disagreed with the legislative policy for special needs trusts, calling it a "legal fiction of impoverishment" that unfairly shifted costs of care to taxpayers. The trial judge would allow only $1 million in settlement funds to be placed in trust.
In the final paragraphs of In re Matter of Guardianship of Robbins, the appellate court concluded:
The trial court may well have a genuine disagreement with the policy decisions of our state and federal legislators, but it is still bound to abide by them. . . .
Here, there are no constitutional concerns preventing the legislature's policy choices from being enforced. Both our federal and state legislators have made an express policy decision to allow for a “legal fiction of impoverishment” by placing assets in a special needs trust, knowing full well that it has the potential to shift expenses to the taxpayer, but trying to ameliorate that cost by requiring that any remaining trust proceeds be repaid to the State upon the disabled person's death. While the trial court is free to disagree as to the wisdom of the legislature's policy choices, the trial court exceeded the bounds of its authority by refusing to enforce this policy choice based on that disagreement.
The trial court also refused to place the full amount of the settlement proceeds into the special needs trust because it concluded that the trust was solely for the benefit of the Guardian and Timothy's descendants. This is a mistake of law. As a matter of law, a special needs trust must contain a provision declaring that, upon the death of the disabled trust beneficiary, the total amount of Medicaid benefits must be paid back first, before any distributions to heirs are made. 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A); I.C. § 12-15-2-17(f). Additionally, the special needs trust must be administered for the exclusive benefit of the disabled individual beneficiary for his or her lifetime. . . . Consequently, it is a legal impossibility that Timothy's special needs trust is designed to “benefit” either the Guardian or Timothy's descendants, and the trial court's conclusion in this regard was erroneous.
The trial court's ruling on the special needs trust was reversed and the case was remanded "with instructions to direct that the full, available amount of settlement proceeds be placed in Timothy's special needs trust."
July 30, 2018 in Cognitive Impairment, Current Affairs, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Medicaid, Medicare, Property Management, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Karen Vaughn, a woman living with quadriplegia in her own apartment for some 4o years, was held against her will in a care facility after hospitalization for a temporary illness. She wanted to go home. The state argued it could no longer find a home care agency that could provide the level of services Ms. Vaughn needed following a tracheostomy in 2012.
Ms. Vaughn's case gave a federal district judge in Indiana the opportunity to revisit the Supreme Court's landmark Olmstead decision from 1999. In ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, the court rejected the state's arguments as based on complexity in reimbursement rates, not availability of appropriate care providers. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson observed, in ruling in favor of Ms. Vaughn, that
The undisputed medical evidence establishes that at or near the time of the filing of this Complaint, Ms. Vaughn’s physicians believed that she could and should be cared for at home—both because home healthcare is medically safer and socially preferable for her, and because Ms. Vaughn desires to be at home. . . . That support has continued throughout the pendency of this litigation, through at least April of 2018 when Dr. Trambaugh was deposed. Based on the evidence before this Court, it concludes as a matter of law that Ms. Vaughn has established that treatment professionals have determined that the treatment she requests—home healthcare—is appropriate.
[State] Defendants' own administrative choices—namely, the restrictions they have imposed on Ms. Vaughn’s home healthcare provision pursuant to their Medicaid Policy Manual—have resulted in their inability to find a caregiver, or combination of caregivers, who can provide Ms. Vaughn’s care in a home-based setting. It may be the case that other factors, such as the nursing shortage or inadequate reimbursement rates, contribute to or exacerbate the difficulty in finding a provider. But, at a minimum, Ms. Vaughn has established that Defendants' administrative choices, in addition to their denials of her reasonable accommodation requests, have resulted in her remaining institutionalized.
June 28, 2018 in Current Affairs, Discrimination, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Housing, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
The Medicare Trustees have released their 2018 annual report, which is chock-full of empirical data. Reporting on this, the New York Times puts things in perspective with their story:Medicare’s Trust Fund Is Set to Run Out in 8 Years. Social Security, 16. This is less time than was reported last year, as the story explains:
The Medicare trust fund will be depleted in 2026, the administration said. By contrast, the government said last year that the trust fund would be exhausted in 2029.
In a companion report, federal officials said the Social Security Trust Funds for old-age benefits and disability insurance, taken together, could be depleted in 2034, the same year projected in last year’s report. The fund that helps tens of millions of retirees is expected to be depleted a year earlier than projected last year, while the outlook for the disability trust fund is more favorable.
A good economy doesn't seem to be enough to extend the programs' solvency, according to the article:
The report said the less favorable outlook for Medicare’s hospital trust fund resulted from “adverse changes” in program income and costs. Income to the Medicare fund is expected to be lower than estimated last year because of “lower payroll taxes attributable to lowered wages in 2017 and lower levels of projected gross domestic product,” the Treasury said in a “fact sheet” accompanying the report.
At the same time, it said, outlays from Medicare’s hospital trust fund “are expected to be higher than last year’s estimates due to higher-than-anticipated spending in 2017, legislation that increases hospital spending” and higher payments to private Medicare Advantage plans.
The Trustees report explains why the trust fund's time line has sped up:
The estimated depletion date for the HI trust fund is 2026, 3 years earlier than in last year’s report. As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years HI income is projected to be lower than last year’s estimates due to (i) lower payroll taxes attributable to lowered wages for 2017 and lower levels of projected GDP and (ii) lower income from the taxation of Social Security benefits as a result of legislation. HI expenditures are projected to be slightly high er than last year’s estimates, mostly due to higher than expected spending in 2017, legislation that increased hospital spending, and higher Medicare Advantage payments .
The full Trustees' report is available here.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
A recent issue of the Michigan Bar Journal offers interesting practitioner perspectives on disability law and elder law issues. The January 2018 issue includes:
- Elder Bankruptcy
- Coordinating Representation: How Business and Elder Law Counsel Can Work Together to Meet Clients' Needs
- The Impact of Aging on Consumer Law
- The Intersection of Estate Planning, Family Law, and Elder Law
- Significant Regulatory Changes for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income
- Considerations When Settling a Lawsuit for an Individual Lacking Legal Capacity or a Minor
Introducing the theme of the issue, attorney Christine Caswell writes:
While there may be a perception that the section focuses on helping clients qualify for public benefits, its mission is actually much broader. Elders and those with disabilities have many of the same issues as the rest of the population— divorce, consumer problems, bankruptcy, business ownership, and litigation—but these issues are magnified when questions arise concerning competency, the need for ongoing care, and discrimination. Moreover, these different legal areas may conflict when determining what is in the best long-term interests of these clients.
June 7, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
NAELA celebrated its 30th year with its annual conference in New Orleans, LA on May 17-19, 2018. The conference consisted of three tracks: legal tech, advocacy and public benefits. The well-attended conference packed in a great amount of programming in two and a half days. Speakers included leaders from the field of elder law, consultants, cyber security experts, researchers and more. NAELA members unable to attend may check the NAELA website for more information.
In addition, Michael Amoruso was sworn in as the next NAELA president by outgoing president Hy Darling. Congrats NAELA!
(In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a former president of NAELA and co-chair of the planning committee for this conference.)
May 22, 2018 in Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Federal Statutes/Regulations, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Programs/CLEs, Property Management, Social Security, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Kiplinger offers a quiz for you to test your knowledge of Social Security. Do You Really Understand Social Security? offers a ten question quiz with explanations. After you take that quiz, then take the Do You Know the Best Social Security Claiming Strategies? another 10 question quiz with explanations. These would also be really good to have students take to test their knowledge after you have covered Social Security in your courses.
Thursday, April 12, 2018
I know it's near the end of the semester, so tuck this resource away for your classes for next fall. Justice in Aging has released Supplemental Security Income 101 : A Guide for Advocates.
Here's the reason for this guide: "This Guide is designed to introduce advocates and individuals who provide assistance to older adults to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. This Guide is focused on the basics of the SSI program for those who may qualify based on age (65 years or older): the benefits, key eligibility criteria, and the application and appeals processes. This Guide is intended to serve as a complement to other practice guides that focus on issues involving SSI disability determinations, eligibility, and benefits."
The guide is perfect for law students and others who need to gain familiarity with SSI, starting with an explanation of SSI and explaining the distinction between SSI and SSDI.
Great job Justice in Aging!
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
The Washington Post ran an article looking at the longer-term impact of the increasing costs of health care on any COLAs from SSA. Out-of-pocket health-care costs likely to take half of Social Security income by 2030, analysis shows discusses a recent Kaiser Family Foundation which "found out-of-pocket health-care costs for Medicare beneficiaries are likely to take up half of their average Social Security income by 2030." The KFF report, Medicare Beneficiaries’ Out-of-Pocket Health Care Spending as a Share of Income Now and Projections for the Future was published January 26, 2018. Here is the executive summary
Medicare helps pay for the health care needs of 59 million people, including adults ages 65 and over and younger adults with permanent disabilities. Even so, many people on Medicare incur relatively high out-of-pocket costs for their health care, including premiums, deductibles, cost sharing for Medicare-covered services, as well as spending on services not covered by Medicare, such as long-term services and supports and dental care. The financial burden of health care can be especially large for some beneficiaries, particularly those with modest incomes and significant medical needs. Understanding the magnitude of beneficiaries’ current spending burden, and the extent to which it can be expected to grow over time, relative to income, provides useful context for assessing the implications of potential changes to Medicare or Medicaid that could shift additional costs onto older adults and younger people with Medicare.
In this report, we assess the current and projected out-of-pocket health care spending burden among Medicare beneficiaries using two approaches. First, we analyze average total per capita out-of-pocket health care spending as a share of average per capita Social Security income, building upon the analysis conducted annually by the Medicare Trustees. Second, we estimate the median ratio of total per capita out-of-pocket spending to per capita total income, an approach that addresses the distortion of average estimates by outlier values for spending and income. Under both approaches, we use a broad measure of Medicare beneficiaries’ total out-of-pocket spending that includes spending on health insurance premiums, cost sharing for Medicare-covered services, and costs for services not covered by Medicare, such as dental and long-term care. We present estimates of the out-of-pocket spending burden for Medicare beneficiaries overall, and by demographic, socioeconomic, and health status measures, for 2013 and projections for 2030, in constant 2016 dollars.
A pdf of the report is available here.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
The Social Security Advisory Board recently released a report, Improving Social Security's Representative Payee Program, January 2018. Here is the summary of the report:
More than two years ago, the Social Security Advisory Board (board) committed itself to exploring how to strengthen the representative payee (rep payee) program of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which serves more than eight million vulnerable beneficiaries/recipients. This paper summarizes the board’s recommendations for both immediate changes by SSA and a plan for broader government-wide action. The board found broad interest in improving SSA’s rep payee program and reached bipartisan agreement on how to do so.
The report provides short-term recommendations to SSA and Congress which the board believes will strengthen the current administrative process and create a more manageable monitoring role. The board also advocates for the Office of Management and Budget to pursue long-term structural changes which will involve comprehensive government-wide coordination efforts and cross-agency reforms.
This report is organized into five parts. Part I highlights the size and expected growth of SSA’s rep payee program. Part II examines the processes for determining the need for and the selection of rep payees. Part III provides an overview of SSA’s program monitoring. Part IV discusses the need for inter-agency collaboration. Part V lists all the board’s recommendations discussed and contained within each of the aforementioned sections. The appendices of the report provide a brief history of the rep payee program, a summary of the National Academies study on financial capability, an overview of the board’s work on rep payee issues and of the board’s 2017 forum on rep payees, and a description of an online chart collection that accompanies the report.
The 46 page report, available for download as a pdf here. The report is divided into 5 parts: (1) the projected demand for the rep payee program; (2) the way SSA determines if a beneficiary needs a rep payee, (3) SSA's monitoring of the program, (4) inter-agency collaboration, and (5) the Board's recommendations.
Check it out!
Friday, December 15, 2017
Are you familiar with the National Center on Law and Elder Rights? If you are an academic teaching courses about any aspect of elder law, disability law, Medicare or Medicaid, you will want to know more about this resource. If you are working in a legal services organization that represents older clients or disabled adult clients, you will want to now about this resource. If you are a young lawyer and just handling your first case involving home-based or facility-based care for older persons who are can't afford private pay options, you will definitely want to know about this resource. In fact, if you are a long-time lawyer representing families who are struggling to find their way through an "elder care" scenario, you too might benefit from an educational "tune up" on available benefits. And the very good news? This is a free resource.
The National Center on Law and Elder Rights (NCLER) was established in 2016 by the federal Administration for Community Living. The new entity is, in essence, a partnership project, with the goal of providing a "one-stop resource for law and aging network professionals" who serve older adults who need economic and social care assistance. Justice in Aging (formerly the National Senior Citizens Law Center) which has primary offices on the east and west coast is a key partner, working with the American Bar Association's Commission on Law and Aging, the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), and the Center for Social Gerontology (TCSG). Attorneys at these four NCLER partners provide substantive expertise, including preparation of materials available in a variety of formats, such as free webinars on a host of hot topics. The Directing Attorney is Jennifer Goldberg from Justice in Aging and the Project Manager is attorney Fay Gordon.
It strikes me that a very unique way in which NCLER will be a valuable resource is through what the offer as "case consultations" for attorneys and other professionals. Think about that -- you may have long-experience with one branch of "elder law" such as Medicaid applications, but you have never before handled an elder abuse case with a bankruptcy problem. Here is the way to potentially get experienced guidance!
The web platform for NCLER offers a deep menu of resources, including recordings of very recent webinars and information on future events. I recently signed up for a January 2018 webinar program on elder financial exploitation and even though it is a "basics" session I can tell I'll hear about a new tools and possible remedies, as the presenters are Charlie Sabatino and David Godfrey. I just watched a recording of another recent webinar and it was very clear and packed with useful information. There is a regular schedule for training sessions -- with "basics" on the second Tuesday of every month and more advanced training sessions on the third Wednesday every month.
I confess that somehow NCLER wasn't on my radar screen until recently (probably because my sabbatical last year put me about a year behind on emails -- seriously!) but I'm excited to know about it now.
December 15, 2017 in Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Ethical Issues, Federal Cases, Health Care/Long Term Care, Legal Practice/Practice Management, Medicaid, Medicare, Programs/CLEs, Social Security, Web/Tech, Webinars | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, October 15, 2017
That's similar to the title of a news story on Kaiser Health News Social Security Giveth, Medical Costs Taketh Away, reporting on the amount of Social Security is spent by beneficiaries on out of pocket hospital costs. On Friday SSA announced its 2018 figures, including the COLA increase. However, Medicare's 2018 premium amounts haven't yet been announced, but speculation is that the premium raises will wipe out the COLA increase. The Washington Post reported Social Security checks to rise 2 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in years reports a 2% increase in Social Security for 2018 and noted that "[h]ealth care is their biggest expense, and it's one of the fastest rising costs in America. Medicare Part B premiums are expected to rise in 2018, eating up much of the Social Security increase for some seniors." Forbes reported similarly in its article, Gotcha! Social Security Benefits Rising 2% In 2018, But Most Retirees Won't See Extra Cash, "many recipients will find most or all of that increase eaten up by a jump in the Medicare Part B premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security checks...."
The Forbes article explains why beneficiaries won't really come out ahead with the COLA increase.
By law, normal Part B premiums are supposed to cover 25% of Medicare's costs for providing doctor and outpatient services. But about 70% of Social Security recipients have been protected in the past two years by a “hold harmless” provision which provides no increase in Medicare premiums can reduce a Social Security recipient's net monthly check below what it was in the previous year. (Recipients who are considered “high income” and those who don’t have their premiums deducted from Social Security aren’t protected by this hold harmless provision.) Since retirees got no Social Security increase in 2016 and a measly 0.3% hike in 2017, the 70% are now paying an average of $109 a month, instead of the $134 per month premium that would be needed to cover 25% of costs.
While Medicare Part B premiums for 2018 haven’t yet been announced, they’re expected to remain at around $134----meaning the 70% will see about $25 per person---or $50 per couple---of any Social Security benefits increase consumed by higher Medicare premiums.
With open enrollment starting, expect the 2018 premiums to be announced.