Tag Archives for SNAP

Medicare and Medicaid at 60: Historic Milestones, Looming Changes

Published in RINewstoday on August 4, 2025

As 68 million Medicare beneficiaries recognize the 60th anniversary of Medicare, changes are coming to these landmark programs. Presented as efforts to slash costs and combat fraud, the thought of change to Medicare in almost any way leaves many older Americans feeling threatened that their health and financial security will be impacted in a negative way.

A Legacy Under Threat – or Repair?

On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed H.R. 6675 into law during a ceremony at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri. Lasting between 45 and 60 minutes, the event marked the official creation of Medicare and extended guaranteed health coverage to 16 million Americans aged 65 and older—coverage that had not previously existed.

Former President Harry Truman, who had fought for national health insurance two decades earlier, was present for the ceremony. He was enrolled as Medicare’s first beneficiary and received the first Medicare card at the event.

Speaking at the bill signing, President Johnson declared, “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime… No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents.” Johnson concluded, “When the final chapter of this generation is written, it will be said that we met the needs of the old, and that we did not abandon them to the despair and loneliness and hardship that comes when illness strikes the aged.”

Today, Medicare provides universal health coverage to Americans age 65 and older—though, as the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) humorously noted in its blog, “Ironically, the program is not yet old enough to qualify for itself.”

 The law created Part A to provide hospital insurance funded through payroll taxes and Part B to cover doctor visits and outpatient services on a voluntary basis. Part C, known as Medicare Advantage, offers a privatized, for-profit alternative to traditional Medicare. Part D (coverage through private, for-profit insurers rather than through the traditional Medicare program), added in 2003, provides coverage for prescription drugs. Over the years, Medicare has evolved to offer a wider range of services, yet it still falls short in some areas. Efforts to expand coverage to include essential benefits like dental, hearing, and vision have repeatedly failed to pass Congress.

Medicaid is a federal-state program that offers health coverage to low-income individuals, including children, pregnant people, and those with disabilities — in addition to covering long-term care for eligible seniors. It is a key funding source for U.S. safety net healthcare providers.

NCPSSM’s President and CEO, Max Richtman said that, “We should take a moment to marvel at the fact that — like Social Security — Medicare was created by national leaders who had a vision of a more just society, where, instead of leaving older people to get sick and die in poor houses or becoming a burden to their children, America would commit itself to providing basic health (and financial) security to our most vulnerable citizens.  Through the foresight of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, these benefits (Medicare Part A and Social Security) would be earned through workers’ payroll contributions, giving Americans a true stake in insuring themselves against the hardships of aging.”

What’s at Stake

Despite Medicare’s broad support, it has frequently come under political attack, often rationalized by concerns over its long-term financial viability. The most recent Medicare Trustees report projects that the program’s Part A trust fund could be depleted by 2033 if Congress does not act. At this point the fund’s reserves would only be able to pay 90% of the total scheduled benefits in what there is to spend on Part A.

In 2025, following weeks of political discourse, the “Big Beautiful Bill” was signed into law on July 4, 2025. Known formally as H.R. 1, the sweeping 900-page legislation passed the House on May 22 by the razor-thin margin of 215–214–1. Every House Democrat opposed the measure. Two Republicans joined them. Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland voted “present.” Two Republican members abstained.

Richtman, sharply criticized the law, saying it “rips health coverage away from as many as 16 million Americans and food assistance from millions more.” Its Richtman’s opinion to warn that 7.2 million seniors who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, and another 6.5 million who rely on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), stand to lose vital support for health care and nutrition.

The Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA) also raised serious concerns. CMA is a national, non-profit law organization, working to advance access to Medicare and quality health care through advocacy on behalf of older and disabled people. They warn that Medicare is being steadily privatized. More than half of all beneficiaries now receive their care through Medicare Advantage plans, which costs taxpayers approximately 20 percent more than traditional Medicare. These plans often restrict access to care through networks and pre-authorization requirements. CMA estimates that the $84 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans this year alone could instead have funded comprehensive dental, vision, and hearing coverage for every Medicare recipient.

CMA further maintains that H.R. 1 strips Medicare coverage from certain lawfully present immigrants who had earned eligibility through their work histories. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicare. It also blocks implementation of enhancements to the Medicare Savings Program that would have helped low-income beneficiaries afford care, stops new federal nursing home staffing standards estimated to have the potential to save 13,000 lives per year, and limits Medicare’s ability to negotiate lower drug prices for some of the most expensive medications.

Medicaid, enacted alongside Medicare in 1965 to serve low-income individuals and families, faces even steeper reductions under H.R. 1. The law’s new eligibility restrictions are projected to cause from 10-16 million people to lose coverage.

Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse

Medicaid fraud, like other forms of healthcare fraud, involves intentionally submitting false information to receive payment for services not rendered, unnecessary services, or inflated claims. This fraudulent activity has serious consequences, harming patients, honest providers, and taxpayers. In 2024, the national Medicaid improper payment rate was estimated at 5.09%, translating to $31.1 billion in federal Medicaid improper payments. Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) recovered $1.4 billion in FY 2024, representing a return of $3.46 for every $1 spent. Criminal recoveries in FY 2024 were the highest in 10 years, reaching $961 million, more than double the five-year average.

In 2024, 8% of Medicaid claims were deemed improper payments due to fraudulent practices. Fraudulent billing for services not rendered or exaggerated in complexity (upcoding or ghost billing) was a common theme in 2024 fraud cases. Misuse of telehealth and the involvement of third-party billing firms were also notable trends in Medicaid fraud cases in 2024. Prescription drug scams, especially involving opioids and controlled substances, remain among the most significant Medicaid fraud cases. Medicaid fraud in managed care settings increased by 30% in the past five years.

Examples of recipient fraud include lending or sharing a Medicaid Identification card; forging or altering a prescription or fiscal order, using multiple Medicaid ID cards, re-selling items provided by the Medicaid program, and selling or trading the card or number for money, gifts or non-Medicaid services.

Examples of provider Fraud, Waste, and Abuse include billing for Medicaid services that were not provided or for unnecessary services, selling prescriptions, intentionally billing for a more expensive treatment than was provided, giving money or gifts to patients in return for agreeing to get medical care, and accepting kickbacks for patient referrals.

Rhode Island Senators React 

In response to the changes in H.R. 1, Rhode Island’s U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse joined the entire Senate Democratic caucus to introduce S. 2556 on July 30, the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. This three-page bill seeks to repeal the health care cuts included in H.R. 1 and permanently extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. Full Democratic caucus sponsorship of legislation—led in this case by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—is exceptionally rare and underscores their urgent need to call out the Big Beautiful Bill for its healthcare changes.

S 2556 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee and at press time no House companion measure has been introduced.

Senator Reed emphasized the wide-reaching impact of H.R. 1, saying that millions of people are expected to lose health coverage under the combined effects of the bill’s Medicaid and ACA cuts. The repercussions, he said, will be felt by health clinics, hospitals, seniors, nursing homes, and patients across the country.

According to an analysis by KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) 43,000 Rhode Islanders could lose health coverage due to the bill. Of those, 38,000 would lose insurance as a result of Medicaid cuts, and another 5,500 due to changes in the Affordable Care Act. The same analysis projected that Rhode Island would lose $3 to 5 billion in federal Medicaid funding over the next decade due to the law’s provisions.

Reed also noted that the bill includes cuts to the SNAP (food stamps) program—reducing federal funding by 20 percent through 2034. States would have the option to pick up the difference using their own funds.  In Rhode Island, where 1/3 of the population is on social welfare assistance of some kind, including Medicaid and SNAP, an estimated 144,000 Rhode Islanders are expected to lose SNAP benefits entirely. To maintain SNAP provisions in Rhode Island, the estimated cost could be as high as $51 million.

Reed explained that without ACA premium tax credits, younger workers will also face rising health insurance premiums beginning in 2026, putting additional financial strain on working families. When people lose access to health insurance, they are more likely to delay or skip care, leading to poorer health outcomes and higher overall costs. Federal law would still require hospitals to provide emergency care, meaning hospitals will absorb the financial burden when patients cannot pay. There are also new limits on how medical costs can be held against individuals, especially in Rhode Island, with provisions against destroyed credit ratings, liens, and bankruptcy moves.

BBB Supporters Say It’s a Pill We May Need

According to supporters of H.R. 1, recent changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP may be seen as fearful, but positive, because they improve affordability, access, and long-term health outcomes.  They says that H.R. 1. Medicare’s new $2,000 cap on drug costs protects seniors from crushing out‑of‑pocket expenses. Medicaid’s pilot coverage for obesity treatments like GLP‑1 drugs supports preventative care and could reduce chronic illness. Meanwhile, efforts to modernize SNAP enrollment and target benefits more effectively aim to reduce administrative waste and better serve low‑income families. However, the introduction of new SNAP work requirements, while controversial, is intended to encourage workforce or volunteer participation among beneficiaries. These reforms reflect a broader commitment to updating essential safety net programs, making them more efficient, equitable, and responsive to today’s health and economic realities—without sacrificing core benefits, supporters add.

A New Reality

As aging advocates and policymakers mark the 60th anniversaries of Medicare and Medicaid, they are forced to address a new reality in both programs. Rather than continually expanding to meet growing needs of older adults, these programs now face reductions that could lead to challenges in access, lower quality care, increased paperwork, disruption in treatment, higher premiums, and fewer covered services. Provider reimbursements are also expected to be cut, which may further limit access to care.

Instead of being a milestone for celebration, the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid has become a turning point for aging advocate groups—marking not progress, but threat for millions of older Americans who depend on these essential programs to live with dignity, independence, and health.

Trump’s Big Bill, Big Promises – But a Bust for Seniors

Pubished in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on July 8, 2025

After 48 relentless days of political maneuvering—marked by cajoling, backroom bargaining, strategic threats, and last-minute incentives to win over stubborn holdouts—President Donald Trump finally got his wish: Congress passed his prized “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R. 1), which he triumphantly signed into law on July 4, 2025.

On May 22, 2025, the House narrowly approved the sweeping 900-page bill by a vote of 215–214–1. Every House Democrat opposed the measure. Two Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH), joined the opposition, while Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-MD) voted “present.” Two GOP lawmakers did not vote.

What’s In the Bill: Tax Breaks Up, Safety Nets Down

The legislation extends the 2017 individual tax cuts and adds new deductions for tips, overtime pay, auto loan interest, and “Trump Accounts” for children. It raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 for five years, increases the child tax credit, imposes a remittance levy, and taxes college endowment income.

On the spending side, H.R. 1 raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, slashes over $1 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, expands work requirements for  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, and allocates $150 billion each to defense and border enforcement—boosting ICE funding to over $100 billion by 2029.

Senate Republicans spent more than five weeks reviewing the House bill’s provisions to comply with the Byrd Rule, walking a tightrope between deficit hawks and moderates. After a marathon “vote-a-rama” that saw 46 amendment votes (only six of which passed), the Senate approved the bill 51–50 on July 1, with Vice President J.D. Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

The reconciliation process allowed the Senate to pass the bill with a simple majority rather than the standard 60-vote threshold. When the bill returned to the House Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump personally lobbied holdouts, linking support to other legislative priorities and negotiating procedural rules. Early on July 3, the House adopted the Senate version in a 218–214 vote, with only Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) voting with Democrats. The bill was sent to the White House and signed into law the following day.

Despite Republican praise, public reaction to Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has been largely negative. A KFF Health Tracking Poll found that 64% of Americans view H.R. 1 unfavorably, compared to 35% in support.

President Trump and GOP leaders hailed the bill as a historic conservative win that fulfills “America First” promises—cutting taxes, slashing regulations, boosting border security, promoting energy independence, and reducing federal spending. “This is a major victory for hardworking families,” said Rhode Island GOP Chair Joe Powers in a statement, praising the bill for delivering middle-class tax relief and real border control.

But Congressman Gabe Amo (D-RI), representing Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District, sees it differently and warns of the devastating consequences to aging programs and services.

“Trump’s big, ugly bill” shows that Republican lawmakers, following Trump’s marching orders, voted for “the largest theft in American history to further enrich the richest among us,” he says.

“Simply put, because of this horrific legislation, Americans will be poorer, sicker, hungrier, and further away from economic opportunity,” says the Rhode Island Congressman.

Deep Cuts and Dire Warnings from Aging Advocates

SACRI Policy Advisor Maureen Maigret emphasized the need for swift action in Rhode Island, stating, “It is crucial for the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services to promptly convene the advisory group outlined in Section 8 of the state’s FY 2026 budget bill.”

“For years, SACRI has worked to ensure a balanced system of long-term services—supporting quality nursing home care, expanding access to affordable home and community-based services, and collaborating with the Office of Healthy Aging and other aging advocacy groups to promote healthy aging,” says Maigret.

SACRI, a statewide coalition advocating for older Rhode Islanders, has partnered with other organizations to make significant strides in these areas, according to Executive Director Carol Anne Costa. “We cannot allow this progress to be reversed, especially as older adults are the fastest-growing segment of the state’s population,” Costa says.

“We have sent a letter to Secretary Charest requesting that SACRI be included in the advisory group established by Article 8 of the state’s FY 2026 budget bill.”

Now accounting for nearly 20 percent of the total population, the number of Americans age 65 and older is steadily increasing.

“Make no mistake: this harmful, cold-hearted bill will wreak havoc on our country’s fragile aging services infrastructure—at a time when demand for the Medicare and Medicaid-supported services it delivers is growing,” warns Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge.

“This legislation deals a significant blow to a core element of our country’s social safety net: Medicaid,” adds Sloan, emphasizing that the consequences “will not be pretty.”

She further warns, “Due to the level of deficit this bill will create, Medicare payments to providers may be reduced by 4% for the next ten years.”

According to Sloan, the bandaids included in H.R. 1—such as freezing (but not reducing) nursing home provider taxes and creating a rural health transformation fund, both touted as protections for older adults and aging services providers—will soon prove ill-equipped to prevent the bill’s damage. As states begin to grapple with budget shortfalls caused by reduced federal Medicaid contributions, the suffering, she says, will begin.

Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, warned that 16 million Americans may lose health coverage, and millions more could lose access to food assistance. He stressed the bill’s devastating effects on the 7.2 million seniors dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid and the 6.5 million older adults who rely on SNAP benefits.

“These beneficiaries are some of the most vulnerable members of our society — and Republicans have put them at risk in order to pay for another tax cut mainly for the rich,” he says.

AARP: Safety Nets Shredded, Protections Undermined

Although AARP expressed strong opposition to many provisions in the reconciliation bill, the organization did support several key measures. These included increased investment in affordable housing through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, raising the additional senior standard deduction to $6,000, and expanding the Section 45S tax credit for paid family and medical leave.

Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond criticized the bill’s cuts to Medicaid, ACA Marketplace coverage, and food assistance, calling them particularly harmful to older adults, rural residents, and family caregivers. She emphasized that over 17 million Americans aged 50 and older rely on Medicaid to remain in their homes and manage chronic health conditions.

“This is a moment to strengthen—not weaken—the supports that help people stay in their homes, access needed health care, and live with dignity and independence,” said LeaMond, representing nearly 38 million members nationwide.

She stressed that AARP remained strongly opposed to Senate provisions that would slash Medicaid, Marketplace coverage, and food assistance, making it harder for older adults to get by.

“More than 17 million Americans age 50 and older rely on Medicaid as a critical safety net to stay in their homes, manage chronic conditions, and afford long-term care,” says LeaMond. “By limiting how states fund their Medicaid programs, the new law threatens health care access—particularly for people in rural and underserved areas and through safety-net providers,” she adds.

LeaMond also expressed concern over delayed implementation of nursing home staffing standards, which are estimated to save 13,000 lives annually, and provisions allowing drug companies to continue charging high prices for certain orphan drugs—even while selling the same medicines overseas at far lower costs.

AARP opposes H.R. 1’s new burdens that could cost people their health care or food assistance when they are unable to work due to age discrimination, caregiving responsibilities, or chronic illness. “This will only make it harder for many older adults to access needed health care and to put food on the table,” she says.

She also warns that the new SNAP cost-sharing formula could shift billions in expenses to state budgets, forcing states to restrict eligibility, reduce benefits, or withdraw from the program entirely.

Finally, AARP strongly opposed the bill’s 10-year moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that it undermines consumer protections in employment, housing, and health care—leaving older adults more vulnerable to harm from biased or untested AI systems.

For additional information on H.R. 1’s impact on senior programs and service, visit: aarp.org/advocacy/fight-senate-cuts-medicaid-snap
aarp.org/advocacy/support-budget-bill-tax-proposals

Social Security changes expand access to SSI

Published in RINewsToday on May 20, 2024

Last week, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced good news for Supplemental Security recipients.  The federal agency published a final rule on April 19, 2024, to – “Expand the Definition of a Public Assistance Household.” The regulation announces one of several updates to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regulations that will help people receiving and applying for SSI.  

SSA continuously examines programmatic policy and makes regulatory and sub-regulatory changes as appropriate. SSI is a means-tested program providing monthly payments to adults and children with a disability or blindness, and to adults aged 65 and older. These benefits help pay for basic needs like rent, food, clothing, and medicine. People applying for and receiving SSI must meet eligibility requirements, including income and resource limits.

According to SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary, once this rule is implemented and the effects have stabilized, in fiscal year 2033 its estimated that roughly 277,000 federal SSI recipients (4 percent of all SSI recipients) will have an increase in monthly payments compared to current rules, and an additional 109,000 individuals (1% increase) will receive Federal SSI payments who would not have been eligible under current rules.  As of December, 2022, there were approximately 30,500 people in Rhode Island receiving SSI benefits. 

SSA expands access to SSI program

Under SSA’s final rule (20 CFR Part 416), beginning September 30, 2024, the agency will expand the definition of a public assistance household to include households receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments and households where not all members receive public assistance. The expanded definition will allow more people to qualify for SSI, and increase some SSI recipients’ payment amounts. It also reduces reporting burdens for individuals living in public assistance households.

The SSA revised rule also changes the definition of a public assistance household when determining who in a household receives public assistance. The new rule defines a public assistance household as one that has both an SSI applicant or recipient, and at least one other household member who receives one or more of the listed means-tested public income-maintenance (PIM) payments (the any other definition).

The previous policy required all household members to receive public assistance. This change benefits SSI recipients living in households where only some members receive public assistance.

“I’m committed to making systemic changes to help people access the critical benefits they need, including SSI,” said Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security, in a May 9, 2024 statement announcing the release of the final rule. “By simplifying our policies and including an additional program geared towards low-income families, such as [those receiving] SNAP, we are removing significant barriers to accessing SSI. These changes promote greater equity in our programs.”

SNAP is the first PIM benefit added to the agency’s public assistance household definition since it was established in 1980. This change helps ensure the agency’s policies better represent the current landscape of means-tested programs in the United States, according to SSA.

These changes are key because if an applicant or recipient is determined to be living in a public assistance household, the agency assumes they are not receiving assistance from other household members that would otherwise be counted as income. This will allow more people to qualify for SSI and in some cases, receive a higher SSI payment.

Thumbs Up from aging network

“I commend the Biden administration for this needed expansion of the SSI program.  It is a recognition that those in the greatest economic need in our nation need help.  By expanding the definition of a public assistance household, it will not only allow more people to qualify for SSI but can also increase some existing SSI recipient’s payment amounts,” says Robert B. Blancato, Executive Director of the Washington, DC-based National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Program, noting that programs such as SSI and SNAP are safety net programs for those who are truly [in need].  

“It is disingenuous to lose qualification for one safety net program because of being eligible for another.  The role of the federal government is to assist those most in need while minimizing bureaucratic red tape.  This final rule shows a level of compassion we need to see more of in federal policy,” adds Blancato.

According to Maria Freese, Senior Legislative Representative at the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, this new rule will take an important step toward simplifying some of the most complicated and burdensome rules governing the SSI program. SSI’s in-kind support and maintenance (ISM) rules reduce benefits dollar-for-dollar for the value of support from family or friends, such as a place to sleep, or help with groceries, up to one-third of benefits. SSI is the only federal program to reduce benefits in this manner. “While fewer than 1 in 10 SSI beneficiaries receive ISM, the current ISM rules make the program more complicated for nearly every SSI beneficiary.  SSA is required to ask detailed, personal, and complicated questions concerning living arrangements, other household members and budgeting, not only once but repeatedly as family circumstances change,” she says.

Freese added: “Groups living together who qualify as ‘public assistance households’ are exempt from these reporting requirements, but the previous definition, which required that every member of the household receive public assistance, limited the ability of low-income beneficiaries to take advantage of the exemption.  The new rule requires only one SSI beneficiary and one additional member of the household be a recipient of public assistance, and expands the qualifying programs to include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps).” 

“This new rule will lessen hardship for struggling, low-income families, simplify the administration of the SSI program and lower costs and staff time for the Social Security Administration, which has been chronically underfunded.  It represents good public policy, and reflects well on an agency working hard to provide the benefits working families deserve,” notes Freese.

According to Nancy Altman, President and CEO of the Washington, DC-based Social Security Works, this rule is an important step towards improving the Supplemental Security Income program (“SSI”). “Currently, SSI forces the most disadvantaged Americans to jump through numerous time-consuming, complicated, and burdensome hoops simply to get below-poverty level benefits. Simplifying the numerous burdensome requirements will not only ease the lives of those whom government is intended to serve, it will also reduce administrative costs,” she says. 

“Ultimately, Congress needs to act to improve SSI, as well as adequately fund the SSA so it can hire and train enough staff to properly administer the program. In the absence of action from Congress, the Biden administration is doing what it can on its own, including this and other rule changes, says Altman.

Altman suggests that if Congress and the Social Security Administration truly want to save administrative costs and provide more accurate and timely payment amounts, more rules like these should be adopted and the laws governing SSI should be updated and simplified.” 

With Social Security’s long-term purchasing power dwindling and heightening financial uncertainty for recipients, the League supports updating the definition of public assistance for beneficiaries receiving SSI, says Shannon Benton, Executive Director of the Alexandria, Virginia-based Senior Citizens League. “’The increased inability of seniors to make ends meet remains a pressing concern of The Senior Citizens League, and it should also be a pressing concern of Congress,” she says.

Adds Associate Director Kathleen Holt, of the Connecticut-based Center for Medicare Advocacy, “The expanded definition of ‘public assistance household’ is a thoughtful, focused way to ensure the dignity and needs of individuals in a residence are upheld.”

For more information on the SSI program, including who is eligible and how to apply, visit https://www.ssa.gov/ssi.

To read the final rule “Expand the Definition of a Public Assistance Household,” visit  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/19/2024-08364/expand-the-definition-of-a-public-assistance-household.

For further details about the final rule, contact Tamara Levingston, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 Security Blvd., Robert M. Ball Building, Suite 2512B, Woodlawn, MD 21235, 410-966-7384.