Carol Rapaport
Analyst in Health Care Financing
About 8.3 million children under age 19 in the United States, or 10.4% of children in this age group, had no health insurance for at least some of 2009. (Similarly, about 10.3% of children in this age group had no health insurance for at least some of 2008.) Children living in families below the poverty threshold, children not living with at least one parent, Hispanic children, and children whose parents did not have health insurance were especially likely to be uninsured. On the other hand, children whose parents had employer-sponsored coverage were themselves likely to have employer-sponsored coverage. An extensive body of research suggests that children without health insurance are, on average, less likely than insured children to have the recommended number of well-baby and well-child medical visits and less likely to receive standard immunizations.
This report examines the characteristics of insured and uninsured children in 2009 (the latest year for which data are available) using data from the (March) Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS). The first part of the report compares broad groups of children. Those particularly likely to be uninsured in 2009 included the groups mentioned above, as well as children between ages 13 and 18, children living in the South, and children who are not U.S citizens. Groups particularly likely to receive publicly funded insurance included children of single mothers, black children, and children in families with incomes lower than the federal poverty threshold.
The second section of the report compares two methods of measuring uninsured children. Using family structure as an example, the report analyzes uninsurance both in terms of the percentage of each family status in the total pool of uninsured children (e.g., 58.9% of the pool of uninsured children were in two-parent families) and in terms of the percentage of each family status who were uninsured (e.g., 8.3% of those in two-parent families were uninsured). This difference may be important for policy makers considering policy options to reduce the number of uninsured children.
The final part of the report examines the rate of uninsured children under 18 over the past 10 years (the years for which comparable data are available). The uninsurance rate has been relatively flat over this period. This relative constancy in the children’s uninsurance rate, however, masks a decline in children covered by employer-sponsored insurance and a concurrent increase in children covered by public insurance.
Date of Report: August 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: R41966
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Primer on Disability Benefits: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Umar Moulta-Ali
Analyst in Disability Policy
Generally, the goal of disability insurance is to replace a portion of a worker’s income should illness or disability prevent him or her from working. Individuals may receive disability benefits from either federal or state governments, or from private insurers. This report presents information on two components of federal disability benefits, those provided through the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The SSDI program is an insured program that provides benefits to individuals who have paid into the system and meet certain minimum work requirements. The SSI program, in contrast, is a meanstested program that does not have work or contribution requirements, but restricts benefits to those who meet asset and resource limitations.
The SSDI program was enacted in 1956 and provides benefits to insured disabled workers under the full retirement age (and to their spouses, surviving disabled spouses, and children) in amounts related to the disabled worker’s former earnings in covered employment. The SSI program, which went into effect in 1974, is a needs-based program that provides a flat cash benefit assuring a minimum cash income to aged, blind and disabled individuals who have very limited income and assets.
To receive disability benefits under either program, individuals must meet strict medical requirements. For both SSDI and SSI disability benefits, “disability” is defined as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment expected to result in death or last at least 12 months. Generally, the worker must be unable to do any kind of work that exists in the national economy, taking into account age, education, and work experience.
Both programs are administered through the Social Security Administration (SSA) and therefore have similar application and disability determination processes. Although SSDI and SSI are federal programs, both federal and state offices are used to determine eligibility for disability benefits. SSA determines whether someone is disabled according to a five-step process, called the sequential evaluation process, where SSA is required to look at all the pertinent facts of a particular case. Current work activity, severity of impairment, and vocational factors are assessed in that order. An applicant may be denied benefits at any step in the sequential process even if the applicant may meet a later criterion.
The SSDI program is funded through the Social Security payroll tax and revenues generated by the taxation of Social Security benefits, portions of which are credited to a separate Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund. In contrast, the SSI program is funded through appropriations from general revenues.
Date of Report: August 8, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: RL32279
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Analyst in Disability Policy
Generally, the goal of disability insurance is to replace a portion of a worker’s income should illness or disability prevent him or her from working. Individuals may receive disability benefits from either federal or state governments, or from private insurers. This report presents information on two components of federal disability benefits, those provided through the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The SSDI program is an insured program that provides benefits to individuals who have paid into the system and meet certain minimum work requirements. The SSI program, in contrast, is a meanstested program that does not have work or contribution requirements, but restricts benefits to those who meet asset and resource limitations.
The SSDI program was enacted in 1956 and provides benefits to insured disabled workers under the full retirement age (and to their spouses, surviving disabled spouses, and children) in amounts related to the disabled worker’s former earnings in covered employment. The SSI program, which went into effect in 1974, is a needs-based program that provides a flat cash benefit assuring a minimum cash income to aged, blind and disabled individuals who have very limited income and assets.
To receive disability benefits under either program, individuals must meet strict medical requirements. For both SSDI and SSI disability benefits, “disability” is defined as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment expected to result in death or last at least 12 months. Generally, the worker must be unable to do any kind of work that exists in the national economy, taking into account age, education, and work experience.
Both programs are administered through the Social Security Administration (SSA) and therefore have similar application and disability determination processes. Although SSDI and SSI are federal programs, both federal and state offices are used to determine eligibility for disability benefits. SSA determines whether someone is disabled according to a five-step process, called the sequential evaluation process, where SSA is required to look at all the pertinent facts of a particular case. Current work activity, severity of impairment, and vocational factors are assessed in that order. An applicant may be denied benefits at any step in the sequential process even if the applicant may meet a later criterion.
The SSDI program is funded through the Social Security payroll tax and revenues generated by the taxation of Social Security benefits, portions of which are credited to a separate Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund. In contrast, the SSI program is funded through appropriations from general revenues.
Date of Report: August 8, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: RL32279
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Upcoming Rules Pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Spring 2011 Unified Agenda
Maeve P. Carey
Analyst in Government Organization and Management
Curtis W. Copeland
Specialist in American National Government
Congress delegates rulemaking authority to agencies for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA; P.L. 111-148) is a particularly noteworthy example of congressional delegation of rulemaking authority to federal agencies. A previous CRS report identified more than 40 provisions in PPACA that require or permit the issuance of rules to implement the legislation.
One way for Congress to identify upcoming PPACA rules is by reviewing the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is published twice each year (spring and fall) by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC), a component of the U.S. General Services Administration, for the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The Unified Agenda lists upcoming activities, by agency, in five separate categories or stages of the rulemaking process: the prerule stage, the proposed rule stage, the final rule stage, long-term actions, and completed actions. All entries in the Unified Agenda have uniform data elements, including the department and agency issuing the rule, the title of the rule, its Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), an abstract describing the nature of action being taken, and a timetable showing the dates of past actions and a projected date for the next regulatory action. Each entry also contains an element indicating the priority of the regulation (e.g., whether it is considered “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866, or whether it is considered a “major” rule under the Congressional Review Act).
This report examines the most recent edition of the Unified Agenda, published on July 7, 2011 (the second edition that RISC compiled and issued after the enactment of PPACA). The report identifies upcoming proposed and final rules listed in the July 7, 2011, Unified Agenda that are expected to be issued pursuant to PPACA. (A previous CRS report identified the rulemaking actions that were listed in the December 2010 version of the Unified Agenda.) The Appendix lists these upcoming proposed and final rules in a table. The report also briefly discusses the longterm actions listed in the Unified Agenda, as well as some options for congressional oversight over the PPACA rules.
Date of Report: August 18, 2011
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R41963
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Analyst in Government Organization and Management
Curtis W. Copeland
Specialist in American National Government
Congress delegates rulemaking authority to agencies for a variety of reasons and in a variety of ways. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA; P.L. 111-148) is a particularly noteworthy example of congressional delegation of rulemaking authority to federal agencies. A previous CRS report identified more than 40 provisions in PPACA that require or permit the issuance of rules to implement the legislation.
One way for Congress to identify upcoming PPACA rules is by reviewing the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is published twice each year (spring and fall) by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC), a component of the U.S. General Services Administration, for the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The Unified Agenda lists upcoming activities, by agency, in five separate categories or stages of the rulemaking process: the prerule stage, the proposed rule stage, the final rule stage, long-term actions, and completed actions. All entries in the Unified Agenda have uniform data elements, including the department and agency issuing the rule, the title of the rule, its Regulation Identifier Number (RIN), an abstract describing the nature of action being taken, and a timetable showing the dates of past actions and a projected date for the next regulatory action. Each entry also contains an element indicating the priority of the regulation (e.g., whether it is considered “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866, or whether it is considered a “major” rule under the Congressional Review Act).
This report examines the most recent edition of the Unified Agenda, published on July 7, 2011 (the second edition that RISC compiled and issued after the enactment of PPACA). The report identifies upcoming proposed and final rules listed in the July 7, 2011, Unified Agenda that are expected to be issued pursuant to PPACA. (A previous CRS report identified the rulemaking actions that were listed in the December 2010 version of the Unified Agenda.) The Appendix lists these upcoming proposed and final rules in a table. The report also briefly discusses the longterm actions listed in the Unified Agenda, as well as some options for congressional oversight over the PPACA rules.
Date of Report: August 18, 2011
Number of Pages: 31
Order Number: R41963
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Disability Benefits Available Under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Veterans Disability Compensation (VDC) Programs
Umar Moulta-Ali
Analyst in Disability Policy
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Veterans Disability Compensation (VDC)— administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) respectively—are two of the largest federal disability programs, but strongly differ along several dimensions, including the populations served, how each program defines a “disability,” as well as varying eligibility requirements.
First, SSDI is an insurance program that replaces a portion of earnings for an eligible worker whose illness or injury—while not necessarily caused by a work-related incident—results in an inability to work. SSDI is one of several federal programs funded through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll tax and the Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA) tax to which all workers and employers in covered occupations (including military personnel) and selfemployed individuals make contributions. On the other hand, VDC is not insurance, but is a compensation program in that payments are made to veterans who develop medical conditions that are related to their service in the military. VDC is non-contributory and neither veterans nor active military personnel pay into the program, which is funded through a mandatory appropriation as part of the VA annual budget.
Second, while the purpose of both SSDI and VDC is to provide income security, SSDI provides a financial “safety-net” to eligible civilian and military workers due to their inability to work as a result of long-term or terminal injury or illness. Conversely, VDC provides veterans with tax-free, cash benefits specifically for service-connected illnesses or injuries. The ability to work is not factored into VDC disability determinations, although additional compensation is available for veterans who are unemployable as the result of a service-connected condition(s).
Third, SSDI only compensates workers that are fully disabled, whereas VDC compensates veterans for both partial and fully disabling injuries and illnesses. The VA is further guided by a principle that views disability compensation as an obligation, owed to veterans, for injuries impacting employment that were incurred or aggravated by their service to the country. SSDI benefits are granted solely on medical and economic grounds and other noneconomic factors are not considered. Eligibility requirements generally tend to be more stringent for SSDI than VDC, and most veterans will not likely meet the criteria for both programs.
Both SSA and the VA have faced challenges in the administration of benefits and have been criticized for a lack of interagency coordination, processes that are “out-of-sync” with modern conceptions of disability, and extensive processing delays for claims and appeals. These are a few issues which led, in part, to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation and determination of federal disability programs as “high risk.” Both agencies have made efforts to address issues surrounding pending claims and appeals, but differ in their responses to other recommendations.
This report provides a description and comparative analysis of the SSDI and VDC programs. These issues will be of particular interest to Congress because of the expected increase in the numbers of SSDI and VDC claims. The recent economic decline and aging baby-boomers have continued to place a strain on SSA’s resources. The aging of the veteran population and expansion of presumptive conditions policies have contributed to the increase in VDC claims.
Date of Report: August 8, 2011
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R41289
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Summary of Potential Employer Penalties Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
David Newman
Specialist in Health Care Financing
This report describes and illustrates the penalties, when applicable beginning in 2014, to employers under the new health insurance reform law—specifically, in Section 1513 and Section 10106 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, P.L. 111-148), as amended by Section 1003 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152). Hereinafter, PPACA will refer to PPACA as amended by the reconciliation act.
PPACA does not explicitly mandate an employer offer employees acceptable health insurance. However, certain employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees will face penalties, beginning in 2014, if one or more of their full-time employees obtains a premium credit through an exchange.1 As described in greater detail below, an individual may be eligible for a premium credit either because the employer does not offer coverage or the employer offers coverage that is either not “affordable” or does not provide “minimum value.”
Date of Report: August 9, 2011
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R41159
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
