Defines closed period of eligibility for purposes of certain supplemental security income and includes such time period in the eligibility requirements of such…

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Rachel May says this is needed

Many senior New Yorkers and those with disabilities rely on the Supple- mental Security Income (SSI), a needs-based program available only to those with limited income and resources. In New York, SSI has a federal component and a state component, which is known as the State Supple- mental Program (SSP). The State took over administration of the SSP from the federal government in 2014 and realized a multimillion dollars savings annually as a result. Currently, New York's SSP provides a monthly benefit of $23 or $87 for individuals and $46 or $104 for couples, depending on living arrangement. People may be simultaneously eligible for both SSI and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which is based on their earnings, and may apply for both. If the SSDI claim is approved, the beneficiary will be subject to a five-month waiting period before receipt of the first SSDI payment, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.315. During this five-month waiting period, claimants with little or no other income may be eligible to receive SSI benefits, which are not subject to a waiting period. Eligibility for SSP benefits when people become eligible for SSI, and SSP benefits are payable as of the month that SSI payments begin. Some of these claimants will no longer be eligible for SSI or SSP payments once their SSDI benefits begin if the SSDI amount is higher than the SSI Federal Benefit Rate plus the SSP amount. Because of appeals and delays in the administrative process, the Social Security Administration does not typically make a determination regard- ing SSI eligibility until well after the five-month SSDI waiting period has run. Additionally, federal rules require that the agency process an SSI claim before processing any concurrent SSDI claim. As a result, many people who apply for both SSI and SSDI with SSDI benefit amounts greater than the SSI rate but who otherwise satisfy the financial criteria of SSI will invariably be granted SSI only to have it terminated when the SSDI claim is approved. They will be paid retroactive SSI by the Social Security Administration, which often encompasses the five-month SSDI waiting period time. In January 2021, OTDA adopted new SSP administrative regulations. These regulations make a number of so-called "clarifying" revisions, including a "clarifying" revision requiring an individual or couple to be in active receipt of SSI benefits to be eligible for SSP - including retro- active SSP payments. The OTDA regulations now preclude the receipt of the same retroactive benefits for a subset of potential SSP recipients, including those individuals or couples who would only be eligible for SSP benefits during their five-month waiting period for SSDI benefits. The estimated population of affected recipients is several thousand very low-income seniors and/or New Yorkers with disabilities. By limiting recipients to "active participants," the OTDA regulations undo decades of policy and practice with respect to the payment of retroactive SSP benefits. The changes also administratively subvert three Court decisions that directed the agency to pay SSP benefits to people who were eligible for SSI for a closed period. In addition, if the program was still being administered by the federal government, seniors and New Yorkers with disabilities would still be receiving SSP benefits during a closed period. Finally, when OTDA proposed assuming responsibility for the adminis- tration of New York's SSI State Supplement Program in 2012, it promised to put in place "an effective and efficient SSP project..., and that the vulnerable individuals served by this program will not be negatively impacted by this change." Once New York State took over administration of the SSP program, OTDA stopped paying these retroactive benefits that had previously been paid when the SSP was administered by SSA, despite being directed by both its own fair hearing bureau and the Courts to continue paying them. The resulting new regulations do not live up

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.