David Camp, NOSSCR Senior Policy Advisor

On July 22, 2026, Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) introduced the Childhood Disability Benefits Fairness Act, H.R. 9846. The bill has been referred to the House Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, and it takes direct aim at the penalty adult disabled children pay, in benefits and in Medicaid coverage, simply for getting married.

The problem this bill addresses

Childhood Disability Benefits, more commonly called Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefits, are paid on a parent’s earnings record to an adult who became disabled before age 22, once that parent retires, becomes disabled, or dies. Marriage generally terminates DAC entitlement, but Section 202(d)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 402(d)(5), provides that a child’s entitlement “shall, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, not be terminated by reason of such marriage” if the child marries an individual entitled to benefits under specified Title II categories, including old-age, disability, widow’s, or parent’s insurance benefits. That rule alone has long discouraged DAC recipients from marrying anyone who is not also drawing benefits, a dynamic our members have described for years as the “marriage penalty.”

H.R. 9846 focuses on a related and less-understood gap: Medicaid continuation. Many DAC recipients keep Medicaid coverage through Section 1634(c) of the Social Security Act, which treats them as though they were still receiving SSI even after their SSI cash payment stops because the DAC benefit amount is too high. Under current law, that protection is tied to how a beneficiary’s SSI and DAC entitlement dates happen to sequence. When marriage interrupts that sequencing, whether because a beneficiary lost SSI due to spousal deeming or because SSI and DAC entitlement did not line up cleanly, some claimants fall through a gap and lose Medicaid entirely, even though nothing about their disability or functional needs has changed. This is the “sequencing gap” the bill is designed to close.

This is a subject our members have raised repeatedly. NOSSCR published a post responding to a New York Times article on the DAC marriage penalty, identifying elimination of that penalty as part of our advocacy agenda, and NOSSCR has endorsed the Work Without Worry Act, which addresses a separate work-related disincentive facing DAC beneficiaries. Members have also brought the marriage penalty directly to lawmakers, including in discussions with Representative Sarah Elfreth at a NOSSCR PAC event, and NOSSCR’s December 2024 “Love Stinks” member presentation walked through these same marriage-penalty mechanics in detail. That history places H.R. 9846 squarely within ground our members have been working for years.

What the bill would do

H.R. 9846 is short. Section 1 sets out the title. Section 2 contains the entire substantive change: it rewrites Section 1634(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1383c(c)) to provide that any individual entitled to child’s insurance benefits under section 202(d) “shall be treated for purposes of title XIX as receiving benefits under [Title XVI] so long as such individual would be eligible for benefits under this title in the absence of such child’s insurance benefits.”

The bill would:

– Replace the current sequencing-based rule, under which Medicaid continuation depends on the order in which a beneficiary’s SSI and DAC entitlement dates happened to fall, with a straightforward counterfactual test: would this person qualify for SSI if the DAC benefit did not exist. If yes, Medicaid continues.

– Eliminate the exact statutory mechanic that produces the sequencing gap our members encounter when a marriage disrupts SSI and DAC timing, since the new rule no longer asks about sequencing at all.

– Apply to any Medicaid eligibility determination or redetermination made on or after the date of enactment, meaning the new standard would govern new determinations and redeterminations going forward rather than reopening closed eligibility decisions that predate enactment.

Status and what to watch

The bill has been referred to Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce. Bills addressing narrow, technical eligibility gaps like this one sometimes move faster than comprehensive reform packages because they are easier for committee staff to score and explain, but that is not guaranteed, and companion Senate language has not yet appeared.

The marriage penalty in Title II disability programs has been a fixture of NOSSCR’s policy agenda for years, and H.R. 9846 represents a genuine, if partial, step toward addressing it. We will continue to monitor the bill’s progress through committee and will update you if it moves.

---

---