December 20, 2005


Office of Regulations
Social Security Administration
100 Altmeyer Building
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401

Re:  Comments Regarding Proposed Rule on Age as a Factor in Evaluating Disability, 70 Fed. Reg. 67101 (November 4, 2005)

To Whom It May Concern:
      
These comments are submitted on behalf of AARP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization that helps people age 50+ enjoy independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. We produce AARP The Magazine, AARP Bulletin, AARP Segunda Juventud, NRTA Live & Learn, and provide information via our website, www.aarp.org.  AARP publications reach more households than any other publication in the United States.  

AARP advocates policies that enhance and protect the economic security of individuals as they move from work to retirement.  Through its research, publications, advocacy, and training programs, AARP seeks to eliminate ageist stereotypes; encourage employers to hire and to retain 50+ workers; and help 50+ workers overcome obstacles in the workplace.  These activities are vital to AARP because approximately 45 percent of our more than 35 million members are working.  

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is a key component of the U.S.s social insurance system.  In 2004, it provided income support for nearly 7 million workers with disabilities and their families.  The SSDI program is important to AARP members because the incidence of disability increases beginning at age 50, and disabled workers aged 50 to 65 are less likely than younger workers to recover and become reemployed.  
      
AARP urges the Commissioner to withdraw the proposed regulations altering the age categories used to determine eligibility for disability insurance benefits.  These regulations are unnecessary, are not based on appropriate research, and would adversely affect more vulnerable individuals with disabilities who have the greatest need for the income insurance protection provided by both SSDI and SSI benefits.  

The incidence of disability significantly increases at age 50, a fact that has not changed since the age category definitions were initially implemented.  Declines in the incidence of disability due to advances in health care and employment opportunities that are cited as the basis for the new regulations are concentrated among persons with higher levels of education and income, and are largely evident among persons who are 65 and over.  

It must be recognized that the legislated increase in the age of eligibility to receive unreduced retirement benefits under Social Security cited as one justification for the proposed regulations does not apply to the age for disability determination.  While life expectancy has increased, and is expected to continue to increase, that fact reveals nothing about ability to work.  As AARP pointed out in 2003:

More years of life expectancy do not necessarily translate into more years of active life expectancy, the number of years one might expect to live without a disability.1

Implementing these regulatory changes would have a significant adverse impact on those people with disabilities with limited means for whom disability benefits are a crucial source of support for themselves and their families.

The research cited does not provide a basis for the proposed changes.

In the proposal to revise the definitions of the age categories used to determine disability under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration (SSA) incorrectly asserts that age has become less of a factor in determining whether [disabled] individuals can make an adjustment to work. The proposal relies on selected studies that analyze only the condition of persons age 65 and over and generally reflect improvements that are concentrated among persons with greater socioeconomic advantages.  The evidence SSA offers does not support the proposed regulations; therefore, implementing such changes would be an unreasonable exercise of the agencys rulemaking authority.  
The Manton and Gu study, cited at fn 7 in the Federal Register notice, on which SSA primarily relied to support its proposed regulations, does not address the situation of 50+ workers who would be most adversely affected by these changes.  SSA used this study to demonstrate that disability is decreasing among people 65 and over, but such evidence does not provide a rationale for changing the age categories used in the disability guidelines in the manner proposed.  In fact, among workers age 45 to 64, disability rates remained nearly constant from the mid-1970s through the 1990s.2  The current age guidelines continue to reflect accurately the increased likelihood of disability among 50+ workers.  
	
SSAs experience clearly demonstrates the consistent, substantial increase in the incidence of disability among workers at ages 50 to 54 compared to workers 45 to 49. The incidence of disability among workers 50 to 54 has averaged close to 40 percent higher than the incidence of disability among workers 45 to 49 between 1980 and 2004.3  This pattern has persisted since the age categories were implemented and has continued through 2004.  

A 2005 SSA actuarial study stated that the incidence of disability increases considerably among workers beginning at age 50.4  While 50+ workers are active workforce participants making significant contributions to economic growth, the increase in the incidence of disability among members of this group has not changed in several decades.  The Congressional Budget Office found that among the 4 million members of the baby-boom generation who left the workforce in 2004, the oldest of whom were 58, the most common reason cited was disability.5  As recently as June 2005, SSA acknowledged that increases in disability applications (up 43 percent from 1998 to 2004) were due to the aging of the baby-boom generation, which continues to progress through the peak ages of disability.6  The proposed regulations do not comport with SSAs experience with, and knowledge of, disability trends among 50+ workers.  



The proposed increase in age categories would unduly burden lower income persons with disabilities and minorities.

Declines in disability rates are concentrated among workers 65 and over who
have completed more than a high school education, not the average SSDI recipient.7  The Manton and Gu study cited by SSA found that the disability rate among more highly educated workers is half the disability rate among workers with less education.  Likewise, people who have attained higher socioeconomic status enjoy access to more life-enhancing services and treatment options than lower income individuals.8 Further, they are more likely to have other income sources on which they can rely if they become disabled and can no longer work. 

Although SSA reports that rates of disability among workers 65 and over are decreasing, such results reflect the experience of those with higher levels of education and greater access to advanced health care resources. They do not reflect the experience of the average disabled worker.   

In fact, former Acting Commissioner Massanari acknowledged SSAs vital role for disadvantaged 50+ workers, stating before Congress in 2001 that:

The typical SSDI disabled worker is over age 50 and has fewer than 12 years of education. The average monthly benefit for a disabled worker, and his or her spouse and children is $1,311. Nearly half of these families rely on Social Security for at least half of their family income. Without Social Security, 55 percent of these families would live in poverty.9

The burden of the proposed changes would fall most on those who are least able to do without these benefits.  SSA would implement these regulations to the detriment of a large portion of the group that it is charged to serve  those who are disabled and who rely on such benefits to support themselves and their families.
      
Several rapidly growing segments of the population stand to lose needed benefits as a result of these changes.  The two largest minority groups in the U.S., Hispanics and African Americans, tend to earn lower wages10 and are disproportionately represented among workers with disabilities.11   The higher rates of disability among minority workers, which largely reflect persistent racial disparities in education, skill levels and other socioeconomic factors, have been consistent over several decades. Further, the racial disparities are greater among women and continue with advancing age.12  

The denial of disability benefits due to the proposed age increases would fall most heavily on Hispanic and African American workers with a disability who rely on SSDI and SSI benefits. Taking into consideration the existing economic status of this group of workers, and in light of the projected growth in the Hispanic workforce in the coming years,13 the adverse effects of denying disability benefits to them would be particularly unfair. It is even more unjustified because it would be due solely to a regulatory change based on unsound reasoning and inappropriate evidence.   

Conclusion

Both SSAs experience and the available research evidence demonstrate the appropriateness of the existing regulations.  There is no reasoned basis for SSA to implement the proposed changes.  Doing so would run contrary to the stable trends in disability rates among 50+ workers and the needs of millions of disabled workers. Therefore, AARP believes that the proposed regulations increasing the age criteria for determining disability should be withdrawn.

AARP appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations, and we will follow the development of further proposed changes in the disability determination process closely.  For more information, please do not hesitate to contact Ridge Multop of the AARP Federal Affairs Department at (202) 434-3760.

Sincerely,


David Certner
Director
Federal Affairs


1 AARP, Beyond 50 2003:  A Report to the Nation on Independent Living and Disability. (2003). Page 39.
2 H. Stephen Kaye, Mitchell P. LaPlante, Dawn Carlson and Barbara L. Wenger, Trends in Disability Rates in the United States, 1970-1994.  Disability Statistics Abstract no. 17 (November 1996).  pp. 3-4. 
3 See Tim Zayatz, Social Security Disability Insurance Program Worker Experience (Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, 2005). p. 16.
4 Tim Zayatz, Social Security Disability Insurance Program Worker Experience (Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, 2005). p. 7.
5 U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Disability and Retirement: The Early Exit of Baby Boomers from the Labor Force (Washington, DC: CBO, 2004).
6 Tim Zayatz, Social Security Disability Insurance Program Worker Experience (Washington, DC: Social Security Administration, 2005). p. 5.
7 Donald L. Redfoot and Sheel M. Pandya, Before the Boom: Trends in Long-Term Supportive Services for Older Americans with Disabilities (Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute, 2002). p. 12; see infra, Acting Commissioner Massanari quote.
8 Id.
9 Acting Commissioner Massanari, Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee (June 28, 2001). Available at: http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_062801.html.
10 Kilolo Kijakazi, Low-Wage Earners: Options for Improving their Retirement Income. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (January 2001).  The Census Bureau reports in QT-01. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000, which reports that approximately 12.5 percent of the U.S. population is of Hispanic origin and approximately 12 percent is African American.
11  Carlos F. Mendes de Leon, et. al., Racial Disparities in Disability.  The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences vol. 60 (2005). pp. S263-S271; Kenneth G. Manton and XiLiang Gu, Changes in the Prevalence of Chronic Disability in the United States Black and Nonblack Population above Age 65 from 1982 to 1999.  Proceedings of the Natioanl Academy of Sciences vol. 98, no. 11 (May 22, 2001). pp. 6354-6359.
12 Carlos F. Mendes de Leon, et. al., Racial Disparities in Disability.  The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences vol. 60 (2005). pp. S263-S271. 
13 Mitra Toossi, Labor Force Projections to 2012: The Graying of the U.S. Workforce.  Monthly Labor Review (February 2004). pp. 37-57.
??

??

??

??




5