Treatment of ABLE accounts in HUD-assisted programs

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued guidance regarding treatment of ABLE accounts for HUD-assisted programs.  ABLE accounts are savings accounts to provide for qualified disability expenses for the beneficiary.  For determining eligibility and continued occupancy, HUD will disregard the amount in an ABLE account.  The entire value of an ABLE account is excluded from the household’s assets.  Actual or imputed interest on ABLE accounts is not counted as income.  Distributions from ABLE accounts are not counted as income.  Wage income directly deposited into an ABLE account does not count as income.  Contributions from a third party directly to an ABLE account do not count as income.

The guidance applies to Housing Choice Voucher program, public housing, Project-based Section 8, Section 202, Section 811, Section 236 and Section 221(d)(3)(4)(5) properties.

Housing Authorities and owners should verify the name of the designated beneficiary of an ABLE account and state program administering the account to verify that the account qualifies as an ABLE account.  (PIH Notice 2019-09 and H Notice 2019-06, April 26 2019.)

CalFresh denials for missing verification

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued instructions regarding denials of CalFresh applications for failure to provide requested verification.  California has been granted an extension of a waiver by the federal government that allows counties to choose to deny CalFresh applications for failure to submit requested verification within 10 days of the written request even if 30 days have not passed since the application date.  The new waiver is in effect until April 30, 2024.  42 counties have chosen to implement this waiver.

Counties must meet several conditions to deny an application for failure to submit requested verification within 10 days of the written request even if 30 days have not passed since the application date including the county completed an interview with the applicant, inform applicants of the 10 day standard both verbally and in writing, the county must assist the applicant in obtaining verification, counties must act on verification submitted within 60 days of the application date without a new application and grant benefits from the date verification is submitted, and if verification is submitted within 30 days of the application date, the county must reopen the application and grant benefits from the original application date.

In addition, the notice of denial must state the reason for the denial and inform of the right to submit verification within 30 days of the date of application, and if eligible receive benefits from the application date.  (ACL 19-57, June 11, 2019.)

CAPI text messages

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued instructions regarding text messages and enotices for the CAPI program.  This guidance implements AB 1957 for the CAPI program.

Counties are not required to communicate with clients using text messages but are encouraged to do so if they have the capacity to do so.  Counties or CAPI consortia that want to communicate with clients by text messages must get permission from the client in advance.  Questions have been added to the CAPI Statement of Facts and redetermination forms to facilitate getting permission for text messaging.  The client can withdraw permission for text messaging at any time.

Text messages sent to clients can only use the client’s first or last name and cannot include identifying information such as Social Security Number or case number.

If the county cannot accept return texts, the county’s text message must include do not reply language.

Notices of Action cannot be sent via text message.  The county can send a link to a secure online portal via text message for the client to obtain a Notice of Action.

Any automated text messages from county with a substantial number of non-English speakers must be sent in the client’s primary language.  When a translation is not feasible or when the language character set is not available on the client’s phone, the county must use an alternative form of communication.  (ACL 19-54, June 3, 2019.)

Effect of Lucia v. SEC on cases pending at Social Security Appeals Council

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued a ruling explaining how cases pending at the Appeals Council will be adjudicated when the claimant has raised a timely challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.

In Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 138 S.Ct. 2044 (2018), the United States Supreme Court held that the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution requires that administrative law judges be appointed to their positions by either the President, a court of law of the department head.  On July 16, 2018, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ratified the appointment of Social Security administrative law judges and administrative appeal judges and approved those appointments on her own.

The Appeals Council will grant a claimant’s request for review in cases where the claimant timely requests Appeals Council review of an administrative law judge decision or dismissal issued before July 16, 2018 and raises, either at the Appeals Counsel level or previously at the administrative law judge level, a challenge under the Appointments Clause to the authority of the Administrative Law Judge who issued the decision or dismissal in the case.

When the Appeals Counsel grants review in this situation, the Appeals Council will conduct a new and independent review of the claims file and either remand the case to an administrative law judge other than the judge who issued the decision under review, or issue its own new decision about the claim covering the period before the date of the administrative law judge’s decision.  In its review, the Appeals Counsel will not presume that the prior decision was correct.

In cases where the administrative law judge dismissed a request for hearing, the Appeals Council will vacate the dismissal order.  It will then either decide whether the hearing request should be dismissed or remand the case to another administrative law judge to determine that issue.

In these cases, the claimant may ask to file briefs with the Appeals Council.

When the Appeals Council grants review, it will mail a notice to all parties stating the reasons for the review and the issues to be addressed.  The Appeals Council will either remand the case to a different administrative law judge, issue a new, independent decision, or issue an order dismissing the hearing request.  (SSR 19-01p, March 15, 2019.)

Posted in SSI

Social Security disability evaluation of cases involving obesity

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued a new ruling about evaluating disability cases involving obesity.  This ruling rescinds and replaces Social Security Ruling 02-01p.

Obesity can be a medically determinable impairment when established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.  Social Security will not use a diagnosis or a statement of symptoms to establish a medically determinable impairment.  Signs and laboratory findings that may establish obesity as a medically determinable impairment include measured height and weight, measured waist size and body mass index, each measured over time.

Obesity is defined as a body mass index of 30.0 or higher.  No specific weight or body mass index establishes obesity as a medically determinable impairment or a severe impairment for purposes of the Social Security disability program.  If a person’s body mass index is within the normal range, they may still have obesity if their waist measurement is high.

In determining whether obesity is a severe impairment, Social Security considers all symptoms such as fatigue or pain that could limit functioning.  Social Secuity also considers functional limitations from obesity and any other physical or mental impairment.  If a person’s obesity, alone or in combination with other impairments, significantly limit physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, the impairment is severe.

Although obesity is not a listed impairment, the functional limitations caused by medically determinable impairment of obesity, alone or in combination with another impairment, may medically equal a listing.

Social Security must consider the limiting effects of obesity when assessing a person’s residual functional capacity.  Social Secuity assesses residual functional capacity to show the effect of obesity upon the person’s ability to perform routine movement and necessary physical activity within the work environment.  The combined effects of obesity with another impairment may be greater than the effects of each impairment considered separately.  (SSR 19-02p, May 20, 2019.)

Posted in SSI

Cal-OAR performance measures

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has issued instructions regarding the CalWORKs Outcomes and Accountability Review (Cal-OAR).  Cal-OAR establishes a local, data-driven program management system to facilitate improvement in the CalWORKs program.  Cal-OAR has three main components: performance measures, county self-assessment and county systems improvement plan which includes a peer review component.

Cal-OAR is structured into three year cycles with self assessment and systems improvement plans required from each county every three years.  The first three-year cycle is from July 2019 to June 2022.

The Cal-OAR performance measures will be calculated and reported in a staggered manner based on availability over the first three-year cycle.  Counties are not responsible for tracking data elements until fields are available in the consortia computer systems and CDSS provides technical training.

All Cal-OAR performance measures will be calculated by CDSS.  Beginning in July, 2019, or when programming is completed, the computer consortia are required to submit necessary data to CDSS.  CDSS, the computer consortia and counties will work collaboratively to ensure the accuracy, consistency and quality of the data.  After CDSS calculates the performance measures, counties have a 30 day review period before they are posted online.

All counties will be provided training on Cal-OAR.  Online training began in May, 2019.  Regional in-person training will be provided at a later date.  (ACL 19-40, April 26, 2019.)