News

Using this approach would put low to middle benefit recipients on more equal footing. The draw- back however, is that people with higher benefits would experience a benefit cut. They would not receive a COLA based on the benefit that they actually receive, and the dollar amount would be lower than what they would have received under current law. While that loss would be relatively small at first, it would compound and rapidly grow deeper over time. It would tend to lower the total amount of income that retirees with higher benefits could expect to receive from Social Security. This sort of proposed change to the COLA would quite likely encounter fierce push back, particularly from those affected, and even from middle-income people who delayed their retirement perhaps by as much as 4 years or more to allow their benefit to grow to its maximum..Hospitals are not required to tell patients whether they are inpatients or outpatients, so frequently beneficiaries never learn of their status until after they have been released. If you believe the services your mother received should have been billed as inpatient services check your mother's Medicare Summary Notice and follow the instructions to challenge the charges from the hospital listed under Part B of the notice. You may also challenge any charges from the nursing home for outpatient services..Preventing the "double-dipping" of disability and unemployment benefits, since eligibility for the two programs should be mutually exclusive the DI program is for individuals who are unable to work, and the unemployment program is for individuals who can..COLAs became automatic with the one that became payable on July 1, 1975 and continued to average 8.7% annually from 1975 through 198Then the bottom seemed to fall out. From 1983 through 2009 COLAs averaged 3.1%. From 2010 to Do you see a pattern here? I do. We may never know the full details, but what we do know is that our government economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed the way they measured price changes. The Consumer Price Index Handbook of the Bureau of Labor Statistics contains an extensive list of ongoing changes to their methodology in measuring price change. Since the 1980s the BLS has implemented 30 changes, and many of those changes reduce the measured rate of inflation. That in turn means slower growth in Social Security benefits over time..First, one new cosponsor Representative Debbie Dingell signed on to the bipartisan Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers Act, bringing the total up to fifty-one. If adopted, the bill would base Social Security cost-of-living adjustments on the more fair and adequate CPI-E. Currently, COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners, and they fail to keep pace with the inflation experienced by older Americans..These three-decade-old policies have been proven to be harmful and unhelpful, which is why I introduced H.R. 141, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2019, which will eliminate these counterproductive policies. Nationwide, nearly 1.5 million people are affected by the WEP, meaning those who receive a public pension from a job not covered by Social Security see those benefits reduced. For example, a teacher who spends his or her summers working a second job, or a first responder who leaves the force after years of service, but is not ready to retire, can see their benefits reduced by as much as 40 percent..You can also get one-on-one counseling and assistance in applying through your State Health Insurance Program. Find the contact for your area online at: shiptacenter.org..The confirmation of Marilyn Tavenner marks a major milestone for CMS, and like those Senators who voted in her favor, TSCL is hopeful that her leadership will provide the Medicare program with increased stability..According to the new Medicare Trustee Report released in April of this year, Medicare Part B premiums for 2020 are expected to rise .80 from 5.50 to 4.30 in 2020. That would swallow the entire COLA of Social Security recipients with benefits of about 5 or less. According to Social Security data, roughly 4 million low benefit Social Security recipients could be at risk of seeing no growth in their net Social Security benefit due to rising Part B premiums.