A technical change has just been proposed that would affect the US social security network. We are talking about a reform proposal that, according to projections, could result in the rejection of disability assistance for more than 750,000 Americans over the next 10 years. Some critics do not hesitate to call it the biggest cut to disability insurance in the nation’s history.
At the heart of the controversy is one of the requirements that has been crucial for decades in determining whether a person is eligible for disability: the applicant’s age. Before going into detail, let’s first look at how the benefits system currently works.
What is Social Security Disability?
In the United States, disability benefits are divided into two programs: the first is Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). This is an earned insurance benefit, and it works exactly like a life or auto insurance policy. To qualify for this insurance, beneficiaries must have worked and paid payroll taxes to Social Security for a sufficient number of years.
On the other hand, there is Supplemental Security Income (SSI). This is a welfare program for blind, disabled, and elderly people over 65 with very little income and financial resources. Although the reform could affect both, the proposed change focuses on the disability eligibility rules that govern SSDI.
To determine whether a person is truly disabled, the Social Security Administration uses a five-step process. Most applicants are rejected or approved in the first four steps, but the real battleground is in the last step. This is where the SSA asks the following question: Can the applicant adjust to another type of work in the national economy?
The SSA and the Grid Rules
To respond to this approach, the SSA uses what are known as “Grid Rules.” These are vocational factors that combine four elements to arrive at a solution: your residual functional capacity (i.e., your physical limitations), your level of education, your past work experience, and, of course, your age.
The issue lies in recognizing the current reality of the labor market. Essentially, a 35-year-old man who has lost his job due to a back injury is not the same as a 56-year-old man with the same injury. According to the S.C.A., a person under the age of 50 is sufficiently adaptable and young enough to change careers, retrain, and find a new job. However, for a person over the age of 50, age discrimination (however covert and disguised it may be) works against them.
This is why the SSA assumes that age becomes a significant barrier. It classifies the population aged 55 to 59 as “advanced age.” It recognizes that at this age, it is extremely difficult for a person with limited education and no transferable skills to compete in the labor market.
A clear example is a 56-year-old construction worker with severe arthritis and only a high school diploma. Although technically he can only lift 5 pounds (which qualifies him for “Sedentary Work”), the Mesh Rules conclude that no employers will hire him for a new office job. In such cases, the combination of age, education, and previous work makes it possible for him to be classified as “Disabled.”
The Administration’s Proposal
Trump’s proposal advocates for a modernization of the system, given that the current rules are completely archaic. The S.C.A. lists still include jobs from the 1970s (such as “nut sorter” or “telephone quotation clerk”). In today’s predominantly service-based economy, there are many sedentary and remote jobs that older workers would be able to adapt to.
The plan is to raise the age threshold from 55 to 60. If this change takes effect, the 56-year-old worker in the example would no longer be considered “advanced age.” He would be seen as someone with the ability to adapt. The SSA would rule that, although he cannot be a construction worker, he could be hired as, for example, a security camera monitor. Although it is still a proposed reform, the modernization of the SSA’s standards would have an impact on the economy and the labor market.