Tag Archives for SSDI

How to Keep Social Security off the GOP Chopping Block

Published in Woonsocket Call on April 6, 2015

One of the first political skirmishes to protect the nation’s Social Security program, 589 days before next year’s Presidential election, took place on March 24th in the U.S. Senate during budget debate. Leading the charge, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse called up Senator Wyden (D-OR)’s budget amendment, requesting a Senate point of order against legislation to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatize Social Security.

During the debate, “Social Security benefits are a solemn promise that our seniors have earned over a lifetime of work,” said Whitehouse, a founding member of the Senate’s Defend Social Security Caucus. “Sadly, Republicans have made it their mission for decades to dismantle that promise, attempting to turn it over to Wall Street and cut benefits through misguided ideas like the so-called ‘chained-CPI’,” he charges, noting that the Democratic sponsored amendment protects Social Security from right-wing attacks and ensure that retirees can count on their earned retirement benefits.

Republican Senator Enzi from Wyoming raised a point of order, calling Wyden’s amendment non germane to the budget resolution being debated. With the Democrats rallying 51 Senators to vote yea, 60 votes were required to wave Enzi’s point of order.

Although his attempts to protect Social Security in the Senate budget failed, Richard Davidson, Whitehouse’s Rhode Island Press Secretary, tells this columnist that the Senator plans to continue his efforts to keep Social Security off the GOP budget chopping block and from being privatized by supporting legislation like the Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act, legislation that would raise the income cap on the payroll tax to ensure the program’s solvency.

Davidson also states that the Social Security trust funds are projected to be fully solvent though 2033, and there’s no immediate funding crisis. But, in the longer run, Whitehouse believes the program must be bolstered by applying the payroll tax, which currently only applies to income up to $118,500, to higher levels of income, he says.

Protecting SSDI

One month before the Senate Budget debate, the GOP-controlled Senate Budget Committee put a spotlight at a hearing on the impending insolvency of the nation’s Social Security Disability Trust Fund (SSDI). The federal government has predicted that SSDI fund reserves will run low by the end of 2016, at which point millions of disabled beneficiaries could see up to a twenty percent cut in benefits.

At the Senate hearing, entitled “The coming crisis: Social Security Disability Trust Fund Insolvency,” Democrats called for an easy quick fix to the problem, specifically the shifting of a small percentage of the Social Security payroll tax from the retirement trust fund to the disability trust fund. No big deal, they say, because these transfers have occurred 11 times in the past with bipartisan support without political bickering. But, from this hearing it seemed clear that GOP Senators, who control the Senate, now see things differently and are threatening to block the infusion of funds to SSDI.

Approximately 10.2 million Americans received SSDI benefits in 2013, including roughly 42,000 Rhode Islanders. In order to qualify, beneficiaries are required to have worked in a job covered by Social Security, and must have been unable to work for a year or more due to a disability.

A February 9 posting on the Plum Line blog, penned by Greg Sargent for the Washington Post web site, takes a look a look at this SSDI entitlement debate.
In his opinion blog, Sargent says that GOP lawmakers claim that a “restricting a fund transfer is all about forcing a necessary discussion on how to improve Social Security’s long term finances, rather than merely “kicking the can down the road.” On the other hand, the Washington Post blogger believes Democrats see the Republicans as “exaggerating the sense of crisis to realize one of two political goals. Either they want to force immediate, and unnecessary, cuts – or they want to hold the disability fund hostage, in order to have another run at cuts to the broader program [Social Security].”

Gathering the Troops

At a March 23rd panel discussion hosted by the Providence-based Headquarters of Community Action Partnership , Whitehouse and Congressman Jim Langevin with Rhode Island Senator Donna Nesselbush, a disability attorney, along with SSDI recipients, disability groups, and the Social Security Administration, came to discuss the solvency of SSDI and its impact on the Ocean State. The lawmakers called for shifting Social Security payroll taxes to financially shore up the ailing SSDI program. Both lawmakers also supported a long-term solution, fully funding the federal retirement and disability programs by lifting the cap on the amount of income that is subject to the payroll taxes that fund the program.

“Right now, a millionaire hedge-fund manager pays the same amount of taxes into the Social Security system as someone who makes $118,500,” said Whitehouse. He called for “wealthiest Americans to pay a fair share into the program, so that it’s not funded disproportionately on the backs of middle-class workers.”

Congressman Langevin stressed “SSDI is not only a critical safety-net for disabled workers, their children and spouses, it is also a promise we make to everyone who pays into the Social Security trust fund that they won’t be impoverished if they are left with a debilitating condition or disability.”
Although Whitehouse’s efforts to protect the nation’s Social Security and Disability programs were derailed in the Senate Budget debate because of a GOP procedural call, it’s only the first of many political skirmishes to come. The upcoming 2016 Presidential elections will firmly put this entitlement issue on the nation’s radar screen, hopefully to address once and for all.

But, here’s my message to Whitehouse: Even if you lose a skirmish, or battle, you can always win the war. Keep pushing.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket-based writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com.

Inaction on RIPAE Proposals Would Be a State Tragedy

Published in the Pawtucket Times on May 20, 2002

Lawmakers are rushing to finalize the state’s business, hoping to adjourn as early as the end of May.

With thousands of proposals in the legislative hopper, each representative was directed by House leadership to choose three of their own sponsored bills to push for in the Senate.

All legislative proposals that do not make the “priority” lists are as good as dead for the year.

At press time, one proposal, Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Elderly Program (RIPAE) moves closely to passage.

The House Finance Committee has put the proposal (H 7291) into the state budget article. Susan Sweet, a consultant and aging advocate said she expects full House passage of the state budget article by the end of the week.

Once passed by the House, the state budget article goes to the Senate for their consideration and approval. Sweet told All About Seniors that she believes that the Senate will quickly pass the budget, too.

With passage, the final state budget will be  forwarded to Governor Lincoln Almond.

Under H 7291, the state Department of Human Services would seek a waiver from the federal government, allowing Rhode Island to use Medicaid funding to pay for prescription drugs for low-income seniors with incomes up to $ 17,720 and couples with incomes up to $ 23,880.

The legislative proposal, authored by Lt. Governor Charles Fogarty and sponsored by Rep. Constantino and House Finance Chairman Gordon Fox, would enroll about 90 percent of the 37,000 seniors now enrolled in RIPAE. Because seniors would now qualify for prescription drug coverage under Medicaid all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drugs would be covered not just those currently covered by RIPAE.

Seniors would pay a small copayment rather than the 40 percent co-payment currently charged.

With the passage of the state budget article, then “cleanup” begins on all legislative proposals, Sweet noted, adding that the two other RIPAE proposals have not been acted upon yet.

These legislative proposals would make prescription drugs more affordable to seniors and persons with disabilities who are not covered by the Medicaid waiver.

One bill (H 7290) would allow seniors enrolled in the RIPAE program to buy prescription drugs not currently covered by RIPAE at the discounted state price.

The other (H 7524) would allow low-income disabled persons on Social Security Disability Income who are between ages of 55 and 65 to become members of RIPAE and purchase prescription medications at the state discounted rate. Under booth, the state would be able to obtain the manufacturer’s rebate available through RIPAE.

Sweet along with other aging advocate groups, has called on the Rhode Island General Assembly to pass the three RIPAE proposals, which don’t cost the state one penny.

Not acting on them will continue a tragic trend that is well-documented in Rhode Island and nationwide.

That is, the high cost of prescription drugs forces many seniors on fixed incomes into not taking their prescribed medications at all or using only partial doses.

Moreover, noncompliance can lead to unnecessary hospitalization, nursing home admission and premature death.

Even in the shadow of a huge state budget deficit, lawmakers have the opportunity to lower the spiraling out-of-pocket costs of costs of prescription drugs, at no cost to the state.

The Ocean State is now posed to enact sound public policy that will result in no fiscal impact to state coffers.

If Congress is not ready to tackle this aging policy issue through the creation of a Medicare pharmaceutical benefit, then the Rhode Island General Assembly must take the lead and pass the three RIPAE proposals.

Simply put, it is the right thing to do on behalf of older and disabled constituents.

Lawmakers Consider Proposals to Reduce Costs of Prescription Drugs

Published in the Pawtucket Times on April 15, 2002

Amid the political bickering over the separation of powers bill and the controversy over allowing Rhode Islanders to vote next November on bringing gambling to the Ocean State, the Rhode Island General Assembly is getting around to considering three legislative proposals with broad public and bipartisan political support.

In the shadow of a huge state budget deficit, bills strongly endorsed by both senior and disabled advocates, would make pharmaceutical costs affordable while not costing the state one penny.

It was standing room only last Wednesday in Room 35 at a House Finance Committee hearing, chaired by Chairman Steven Costantino (D-Providence), of the subcommittee on human services. The legislative hearing, lasting almost four hours, drew the attention of the Rhode Island Commission on Aging, the Forum on Aging, the Gray Panthers, and Choices, to name a few.

Dozens of aging and disability advocacy groups, staffers of the Department of Elderly Affairs and the Department of Human Services, and lobbyists for the powerful pharmaceutical industry came to listen to testimony that would officially kick of the state’s debate on lowering pharmaceutical costs for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Under on legislative proposals (H 7291/S 2729), the state Department of Human Services would seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Rhode Island to use Medicaid funding to pay for prescription drugs for low-income seniors with incomes of up to $ 17,720 and couples with incomes up to  $ 23,880.

This bill, authored by Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty and sponsored by Rep. Constantino and House Finance Chairman Gordon Fox, would enroll approximately 90 percent of the 37,500 seniors now enrolled in the Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Elderly Program (RIPAE) – the state’s pharmaceutical program. Because these seniors would now quality for prescription drug coverage under Medicaid, all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drugs would be covered, not just those currently covered under RIPAE. Seniors would likely pay small co-payments, probably less than $ 10, rather than the 40 percent co-payments currently charged.

At this hearing, testimony was gathered on two other Fogarty legislative proposals that would make prescription drugs  more affordable to seniors and persons with disabilities who are not covered by the waiver. One bill (H 7290) would allow seniors enrolled in the RIPAE – approximately 5,000 seniors – to buy prescription drugs not currently covered by RIPAE at the discounted state price.

The second (H 7524) would allow 4,300 low-income persons on Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) who are between ages 55 and 65 to become members of RIPAE and purchase prescription medications at the state discounted rate.

Under both of these legislative proposals, the state would be able to obtain the manufacturer’s rebate available through RIPAE. Rebate funds gained from drug purchases by persons in the new SSDI part of RIPAE would accrue in a special fund to be used to subsidized the cost of these drugs in the future. This legislative initiative, like the other two, would be of no cost to the state.

There’s a very good reason why these proposals should be enacted, says Fogarty, who chairs the state’s Long-Term Care Coordinating Council. “Far too many of our seniors still face great burdens in paying for their medications. If your income is less than $ 10,000 per year – which is the median income for a person on RIPAE – having to pay $ 1,000 or more out of pocket for one’s prescription is a big problem.

“This year, in spite of our budget woes, we have a tremendous opportunity to greatly expand our prescription assistance program for seniors and persons with disabilities. By taking advantage of federal Medicaid dollars, we can save seniors millions and we can do these expansions with no added costs to the state,” Fogarty adds.

Susan Sweet, who represents CHOICES, a home and community advocacy agency and the Rhode Island Minority Elderly Task Force, says the expansion of RIPAE is critical, especially in light of the federal government’s failure to create a federal Medicare pharmaceutical benefit.

“Being able to pay for prescriptions avoids sickness, unnecessary hospitalizations and admissions to nursing homes, saving millions of dollars and many years of productive lives for seniors,” says Sweet. “Pharmaceutical products are the current and future medical miracles, and health insurance is inadequate without adequate drug cover, she says.

Shirley Kaiser, president of the Rhode Island Gray Panthers, whose group has battled years for putting the brakes on rising pharmaceutical costs, says seniors are giddy with the news that Rhode Island may finally move to addressing the problem.

The Gray Panthers strongly endorse the legislative proposals, and she believes this is the year for enactment of a legislative remedy.

At the Rhode Island General Assembly, some bills are enacted while many die during the legislative process, even those with great merit.

In light of the state’s fiscal uncertainties, lawmakers now have a rare opportunity to assist older Rhode Islanders and persons with disabilities in obtaining affordable prescription drugs at no cost to the state coffers.

With the widespread support and endorsement of these legislative proposals from state officials, aging and disability advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry, for me it’s a no brainer – pass these bills and quickly sign them into law, says Kaiser.

It is now time to put this longtime aging issue behind us and move forward to other pressing matters like creating and paying for a seamless long-term care system.

Ensure passage of the three bills by telling your representatives and senators how important these three proposals are for you, and request their passage.