You are Cordially Invited
by the
Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Advisory Panel
TO GET INVOLVED
The Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Advisory Panel of the Social
Security Administration (SSA) is holding a series of public
meetings to obtain public input across the country. The purpose
of these meetings and teleconferences is to collect ideas and
reactions from all interested parties on the proposed regulations
the Social Security Administration issued on December 28, 2000.
These regulations spell out the program rules and the SSA
implementation plans for the new Ticket to Work and Work Incentive
Improvement Act programs.
The new “Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program'' is
authorized by the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement
Act of 1999. The program will provide SSA disabled beneficiaries
with more choice in employment services, vocational rehabilitation
services, and other kinds of support services to help them return
to work. The Ticket program will pay the new providers of those
services after a SSA beneficiary achieves a certain level of work.
The Panel is preparing a Report of Advice to the Commissioner of
Social Security Administration on the proposed regulations. Your
reactions to the regulations that will affect the opportunities
for Social Security beneficiaries to go to work will help us frame
our advice. We want to hear from you in person, on the phone and
by email. Even if we hear from you briefly, a written version of
your ideas will help us even more. Please limit your oral comments
to five minutes.
Please note that your comments to the Panel will NOT be considered
as a response to the SSA on the proposed regulations. The Panel
strongly encourages you to also make comments directly to the SSA
in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. To be sure that
your comments are considered, SSA must receive them no later than
February 26, 2001.
The Panel is interested in your response to a number of questions
pertaining to the proposed rule. Please refer to the “Questions
for the Public regarding the NPRM” at the bottom of this notice.
For electronic information on the Ticket to Work and Work
Incentives Improvement Act see the www.ssa.gov/work web site and
for a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, look under the
topic SSA at www.access.gpo.goc/su-docs/fedreg/a001228c.html
For more information on these events, please contact Conwal, our
meeting coordinator at (703) 448 - 2300 ask for Robin at extension
338 [log in to unmask] or Rona at extension 326.
Date and Time
Event
Location
1/22/01
9:00 AM- 11:00 AM
(Mountain Time)
Northwest Regional
Teleconference
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/22/01
12:00 PM - 2:00 PM
(Mountain Time)
Regional
Meeting
Hilton Salt Lake City Center
255 South West Temple
Salt Lake City, UT
801-328-2000
1/24/01
2:30 PM 5:30 PM
(Central Time)
Regional Meeting and Teleconference
Minnesota World Trade Conference Center, Presentation Room
3rd Floor Tower
30 E. 7th Street
St. Paul, MN
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/25/01
10:30 AM 12:30 PM
(Pacific Time)
West Coast Teleconference
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/26/01
9:00 AM 11:00 AM
(Mountain Time)
Southwest Regional Teleconference
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
1/26/01
12:00 PM 2:00 PM
(Mountain Time)
Regional
Meeting
Pueblo Grand Museum
4619 East Washington
Phoenix, AZ
1/29/01
9:00 AM 11:00 AM
12:00 PM 2:00 PM
(Eastern Time)
Regional Meeting and Teleconference
Hyatt Regency
265 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA
404-577-1234
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
2/15/01
10:30 AM 12:30 PM
(Pacific Time)
West Coast Teleconference
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
2/21/01
9:00 AM 11:00 AM
12:00 PM 2:00 PM
(Eastern Time)
Regional Meeting and Teleconference
To be announced
Call in 1-800-779-3141
Pass code 12211
The World Trade Conference Center is located at the corner of 7th
Street and Cedar Access to the the Tower is from the 1st floor
elevators only
THE TICKET TO WORK AND WORK INCENTIVES ADVISORY PANEL
QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC ON THE PROPOSED RULES FOR
The Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program
On December 28, 2000, the U.S. Social Security Administration
(SSA) published a notice of proposed rule making (NPRM) in the
Federal Register for the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
Program authorized by Public Law 106-170, the Ticket to Work and
Work incentives Improvement Act of 1999. The Ticket to Work
program will provide beneficiaries with disabilities with expanded
access to employment services, vocational rehabilitation services
and other support services.
It is the duty of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory
Panel (the Panel), also authorized by P.L. 106-170, to advise the
President, the Congress, and the Commissioner of Social Security
on issues related to work incentives programs, planning, and
assistance for individuals with disabilities. The following
questions to the public are posed by the Panel to elicit input on
the proposed rule. The Panel will take the responses to these
questions into consideration when it develops its advice report.
TICKET AND EMPLOYMENT NETWORK QUESTIONS
1. Which beneficiaries should get a ticket? At what age
should a beneficiary receive a ticket? A beneficiary is informed
when Social Security will perform a medical review (Continuing
Disability Review or CDR) to determine whether the person remains
disabled when the person is first awarded Social Security
disability benefits. This is part of what Social Security calls a
CDR “diary.” If Social Security decides that a beneficiary is
expected to medically improve (Medical Improvement Expected or
MIE) when first awarded benefits, should the beneficiary be
eligible for a Ticket?
2. Consistent with language in the statute, if a beneficiary
is currently a client of the state VR, or applying for VR
services, should the beneficiary be able to deposit his/her ticket
with a different provider, that is, someone other that the state
VR agency?
3. How many tickets should a beneficiary receive? The Ticket
program makes monthly payments to Employment Networks once a
beneficiary earns enough money to stop payment of monthly cash
benefits. A beneficiary could work for many months and use up
most of a Ticket’s value. A provider would get paid for services.
Then, a beneficiary could still return to the rolls within the
same period of disability. Should this beneficiary be able to get
a second full value Ticket?
4. What should happen with partially used Tickets? For
example, a beneficiary works fifty out of the sixty months in
which outcome payments can be made to a provider in his/her
behalf, but then loses the job, remains disabled and goes back on
the rolls. Should the ticket be reset back to full value? Or
should that person’s Ticket only be valued at 10 more remaining
months of outcome payments to the Employment Network?"
5. Who should be in an employment network? Who should be in
an employment network providing services to Ticket holders
(beneficiaries)? Give us examples of organizations or businesses
that might provide more choice and quality of services? Should
non-traditional support people be allowed to contract as
employment networks? ? Should non-traditional support people be
allowed to be included as providers in an employment network?
Should a beneficiary be allowed to be his/her own service
provider? Should collectives of beneficiaries be in an employment
network as group providers to each other? Should an employer be
allowed to be a Ticket program provider for employment outcomes in
that company?
6. The draft rules for ENs (Section 411.315 (c)) state: "An
entity (that is, an employment network) must have applicable
certificates, licenses, or other credentials if such documentation
is required by State law to provide VR services, employment
services or other support services in the State." Do you agree
or disagree with this level of certification? Please comment.
7. What financial reporting would you see as needed by
employment networks to the Program Manager or Social Security?
8. The Ticket “contract” is a two party signed voluntary
contract between a beneficiary and an employment network. We want
to know what measures to use to ensure that employment networks
are competent to deliver vocational counseling, employment
services and/or other supports. Should staff of Employment
Networks have educational background or direct services
experience, including but not limited to vocational rehabilitation
and counseling, human relations, teaching or psychology? Is this
measure of staff background the appropriate level of
qualifications needed so that employment networks provide quality
services to Ticket holders? What would you require? Please
comment.
9. The proposed regulations allow the Program Manager to
assess whether a beneficiary is making “timely progress towards
self-supporting employment” which will then keep Continuing
Disability Review (CDR) protections in place. Should “timely
progress” be measured by minimum standards for all beneficiaries
or should the terms and conditions specified in the IWP determine
timely progress?
10. Should the State VR agency be allowed to use the
Individual Plan for Employment (IPE) as a substitute for the
Individual Work Plan (IWP)? If so, should other individualized
service delivery plans be acceptable alternatives, provided they
meet the minimum standards outlined in the statute?
PAYMENT METHOD QUESTIONS
1. How can the milestone payment system be structured to
encourage providers to serve eligible individuals including those
who are harder to serve?
2. One proposal is to pay milestone payments at three and
seven months of employment at SGA. Are three and seven-month
milestone payments reasonable/adequate? What payment amounts and
timing of payments would allow a wide array of SSI/SSDI
beneficiaries to use the ticket as a means of accessing employment
and achieving self-sufficiency resulting in savings to the Social
Security trust fund?
3. Should milestone/outcome payments be negotiated on an
individualized basis? If so, what administrative methods should be
in place to ensure the process is moving the individual towards
self-sufficiency? Is there a danger of overpayment of
milestone/outcome payments in such a milestone system? If so,
what administrative mechanisms could be put in place to minimize
overpayments?
4. How can we provide payment to providers without
encouraging them to target individuals who are easier to serve?
5. The statute defines the harder-to-serve population in
section1148 (h)(5)(c) as individuals with a need for ongoing
support and services; individuals with a need for high-cost
accommodations; individuals who earn a subminimum wage; and
individuals who work and receive partial cash benefits. How can
we design an effective and fair milestone/outcome payment
structure that will provide information leading to permanent
solutions for the issues raised regarding individuals in these
categories?
6. The substantial gainful activity (SGA) level for blind
beneficiaries currently is $1240. Will ENs be discouraged from
serving these beneficiaries because of the higher SGA? For
beneficiaries receiving SSI, will ENs be discouraged from serving
these beneficiaries because they must reach a higher level of
earnings before reaching 0-cash benefits status?
7. Should the individual work plan (IWP) include statements
by the beneficiary and the employment network acknowledging their
responsibilities and understanding of the employment goals to be
achieved? How should beneficiary employment information be
provided to the employment network?
8. How should documentation of beneficiary earnings be
provided by the EN to the Program manager to validate payments due
to the EN?
9. One payment proposal sets the total potential payment
under the milestone/outcome payment structure at 85% of the
outcome-only payment structure. Is this percentage appropriate? S
hould the 85% be something different? One of the reasons for
milestone payments in the law is to provide equitable and fair
access by individuals who are harder to serve. What payment
structure would be fair and equitable?
10. How should milestone payments be amortized or spread out
during the outcome-only payment period and over what period of
time? One proposal suggests recovering paid milestones within the
first year of outcome-only payments. Is this an appropriate
timeframe? If not, what would be appropriate?
11. Should ENs ever receive outcome and/or milestone payments
for a beneficiary who is still receiving benefits?
12. Should a developed and signed commitment on the IWP by the
beneficiary and the EN be a milestone with a milestone payment
made accordingly? If so, what should that payment be?
DISPUTE RESOLUTION QUESTIONS
Disputes between Beneficiaries and Employment Networks
1. Should the regulations include timelines for: (1)
Employment Networks’ (EN) grievance procedures; (2) appeals to the
Program Manager (PM); and (3) review by the Social Security
Administration (SSA)? If so, how much time should allowed at each
level of appeal or review and what should be the total number of
days, weeks or months allowed between the time a beneficiary files
a complaint and a final decision by the SSA?
2. Should use of mediation services be included in the
regulations as an option available to beneficiaries and ENs? If
so, at what point(s) during the dispute resolution process? - At
any point? Before or after the internal grievance procedure?
Before or after an appeal to the PM? Before an appeal to the SSA?
3. Who should pay for the costs of mediation?
4. Do the regulations sufficiently provide for beneficiaries
to be informed about the availability of assistance from the State
Protection and Advocacy (P&A) system?
5. When and how should information about the P&A’s assistance
be provided to beneficiaries and by whom?
6. Should assistance from the P&A system be available to
beneficiaries at any time and not just during the dispute
resolution process?
7. Should the State P&A be provided information, that is,
formal notification, about all disputes in which a beneficiary
files a complaint with the EN unless the beneficiary specifically
indicates that this information should not be provided to the P&A?
8. In an appeal to the PM, should the PM be required to
request and accept information from both the EN and the
beneficiary regarding a dispute?
9. Should the regulations describe the SSA review process
that is available to the parties if a dispute is not resolved at
the PM level?
10. What other concerns about the dispute resolution process
for beneficiaries should the final regulations address that the
proposed regulations do not address?
Disputes between ENs or Service Providers and PMs
1. In disputes that are not resolved at the PM level and are
forwarded to the SSA for review, should SSA be required to request
and accept information from all parties regarding a dispute?
2. Should the regulations include timelines for SSA to
respond to disputes between ENs and the PM? If so, how much time
should be allotted from the date the dispute is submitted in
writing to SSA by either party?
3. Should an EN be permitted to have assistance or
representation, at their own cost, during the dispute process?
4. What other concerns about the dispute resolution process
for ENs should the final regulations address that the proposed
regulations do not address?
5. Should use of mediation services be included in the
regulations as an option available to beneficiaries and ENs? If
so, at what point(s) during the dispute resolution process? - At
any point? Before or after the internal grievance procedure?
Before or after an appeal to the PM? Before an appeal to the SSA?
6. Who should pay for the costs of mediation?
|
