Dispatches from Camp: Updates from the CEO

David Camp, NOSSCR CEO and General Counsel

Recapping a Successful DC Conference and Looking Ahead

It was a great pleasure to welcome many of you to our Washington, DC, national conference last week—including those who took advantage of our first-ever streaming option. We had excellent attendance, engaging continuing education sessions, dynamic side events, and inspiring keynote speakers including the leadership of Social Security’s new Office of Disability Adjudication. If you missed out, register now for our next conference in beautiful San Diego!

Your participation, enthusiasm, and dedication to NOSSCR’s mission made this event truly special. Our sessions were highlighted by Michelle Spadafore and Katrina Tomer on overpayments; Ann Biddle, Melissa Zeidler, and Shandanette Chase on ethics; and Nick Coleman on AI. Epic Health Systems presented on the exciting opportunities for processing-time reductions using health IT integrations with SSA. And nothing could top the 100% “5 out of 5” rating achieved by Aleyda Turno and Debora Wagner on “SSI Work Rules and 1619 Magic.” Our side events featured a Scully Dinner on a rooftop overlooking the DC monuments—the best venue we’ve ever had! We were thrilled to award Jennifer Cronenberg and Congressman Earl Pomeroy our Eileen Sweeney Distinguished Service Awards for 2024. We raised money for the PAC, held board meetings, taught our attendees to use NOSSCR’s new app, and most importantly gathered in person to catch up as colleagues and friends.

Acting Commissioner Dudek was unable to speak in our general session–asked not to by the White House–but nonetheless we drew some (clearly) paid protesters outside the hotel. Our keynote speakers were the leadership of the Disability Adjudication component—Acting Deputy Commissioner Jay Ortis and Assistant Deputy Commissioner Jim Parikh. Our members don’t value empty rhetoric at a NOSSCR conference, and we appreciate that Deputy Commissioner Ortis focused on current data, policy changes coming soon, and their mission-focused approach taking advantage of a newly unified leadership over the entire disability claims process from initial application through the Appeals Council.

You should check out Social Security’s slides, linked below.

The NOSSCR Board of Directors met before and after the conference, electing several new members to fill circuit representative vacancies. Riley Fenner of Maine (1st Circuit), Shayan Farooqi of New Jersey (3rd Circuit), Patrick O’Neal (5th Circuit), Marc Raifman of Illinois (7th Circuit), and Marc Kalagian (9th Circuit) will serve until those circuits hold new elections either this summer or next. A full directory of our volunteer board members can be found here.

If you would like to be considered for board vacancies, at-large positions, or as a candidate for circuit representative you may submit the request using our webform at the bottom of our board of directors webpage at any time of year. We hold circuit representative elections each summer, but the Nominations and Elections Committee will consider all timely applications received on a rolling basis. For more details, please review our Board of Directors page and our bylaws. This summer, we expect to hold elections in all circuits except the 7th and 9th.

The big news over the next few weeks should be the Senate voting to confirm a new Commissioner. NOSSCR has seen Social Security led by many acting and confirmed Commissioners over the years, but there is a definite advantage to having the longer view, full authority, and increased independence provided by Senate confirmation. The Commissioner’s term is 6 years, and as of this writing we expect Frank Bisignano to be confirmed in a nearly party-line vote. During Tuesday’s Senate session, cloture was filed on Bisgnano’s nomination. Cloture is expected to ripen during Thursday’s session, which could lead to a confirmation vote as soon as this week. NOSSCR will continue to provide timely updates as things progress.

As always, it is a privilege to serve you as NOSSCR’s CEO.

President’s Corner

Paul Burkhalter, NOSSCR President

A Change is Gonna Come

The following is a version of my comments from the NOSSCR DC Conference General Session.

I want to recognize a very special breed of hero—the kind who doesn’t wear a cape, but somehow battles bureaucracy, medical jargon, and endless government forms…all before lunch.

I’m talking about you, attorneys and representatives who help people win Social Security Disability benefits.

Let me share a short story that you know.

Just two months ago I was representing a claimant, I’ll call him,  Jacob. We had a live hearing in Paris. Paris, Texas, that is. A lot different than Paris, France, though they do both have an Eiffel tower, though the Texas one is only about 25 feet tall.

Back to Jacob. 48 years old. He keeps care of his mentally challenged adult brother. Jacob formerly worked at a warehouse until he developed avascular necrosis of his hip. But what I remember is not that an ALJ said she would award Jacob benefits, but rather what Jacob said in response.

Of course, he thanked the judge. But then he said something that caught me by surprise:

                “I’ve never won anything in my life.”

And the striking part is that what he said is likely true.

If you grow up without anything: you’re not going to be able to even win the cake walk at the school carnival; you’re not going to win bingo at church; you’re not going to win a free hamburger at Whataburger.

We live lives of privilege. Maybe sometimes just small privilege, sometimes great privilege. But I think we all have the privilege of hope. The idea that things can be better.

And we have the opportunity to bring hope to others; others that have no hope.

Let’s be honest: navigating the SSA system is like trying to do your taxes while blindfolded, underwater, and being circled by sharks. For someone dealing with a disability, it can feel nearly impossible.

And that is where you come in—armed with case law, armed with regulations, with determination, and with the remarkable ability to find that one medical record buried on page 742. You are part legal warrior, part social worker, and part detective…with a dash of therapist thrown in for good measure.

You listen when others don’t. You fight when others give up. You bring hope when hope has been lost. And most impressively, you know how to speak to SSA without screaming (unless you really have to).

That, my friends, is a superpower.

So, to each of you out there helping clients, not just survive, but win the benefits they deserve—you are the unsung heroes. You are the paperwork whisperers. Your are the calm in the bureaucratic storm.

You are seen, and if no one has told you lately, you are doing truly life changing work – and that is why you are part of this great organization.

Finally, it is completely natural to feel uncertain when political tides change. But let me reassure you – this community is resilient. We have weathered changes before, and we will again.

What has not changed is our commitment to our clients, our legal expertise, our ability to adapt, and our ability to advocate.

We are not powerless; we are professionals, and together, we are prepared for whatever comes next.

Let us have hope and let us bring hope to our clients.

REGISTER NOW for NOSSCR’s 2025 Fall National Conference in San Diego

Feeling left out because you weren’t able to join us in DC? Or maybe you were there but you’re missing everyone already?? Well you’re in luck! NOSSCR’s 2025 Fall Conference is happening September 9-12, 2025, and the time to register is NOW! This conference brings together Social Security disability representatives from across the country for days filled with valuable education, networking, and advocacy opportunities. Plus we’ll be in a resort setting in beautiful San Diego (have you heard that the hotel has THREE pools?!?).

Just like our Spring Conference, this event will feature CLE sessions led by experienced professionals, discussions on the latest policy updates, and opportunities to connect with colleagues who understand the challenges and successes of this field—all set against the stunning backdrop of San Diego’s coastline.

Registration is open — so don’t delay, make plans to join us today!

Krause Chronicles: The Treating Physician Rule, Part II

Tom Krause, NOSSCR Of-Counsel

The Evolution of the Treating Source Rule in Social Security Disability Claims (1979-1991)

Note: This is the second in a four-part series of articles on the history and development of the Treating Source Rule, the demise of the Rule, and prospects for the revival of the Treating Source Rule. Part I can be found here. At the end of the article is a link to a more thorough discussion of the topic.

The Treating Source Rule (also known as the Treating Physician Rule) represents one of the most significant developments in Social Security disability adjudication prior to 2017. This article traces how this vital doctrine evolved from judicial creation to formal codification between 1979 and 1991.

Foundational Principles (1979-1983)

As discussed in the first article in this series (NOSSCR Forum, March 2025), by 1979, courts had established that treating physicians’ opinions deserved special weight in disability determinations. The Second Circuit solidified this principle in Hankerson v. Harris, 636 F.2d 893 (2d Cir. 1980), declaring it “settled law in this circuit” that “in the absence of substantial contradictory evidence, the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician is binding on the Secretary [now the Commissioner].”

This early articulation contained two key elements: a procedural dimension requiring ALJs to help claimants develop adequate evidence from treating physicians, and a substantive rule establishing that treating physicians’ findings could not be disregarded without substantial contradictory evidence.

The principle was further reinforced in Harris v. Schweiker, 560 F. Supp. 1298 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), which emphasized that a treating physician’s opinion “is binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.” Similarly, Edwards v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. of U.S., 572 F. Supp. 1235 (E.D.N.Y. 1983) held that relying “almost exclusively” on laboratory results rather than treating physician evidence was “legally erroneous.”

Refinement of the Rule (1984-1988)

Courts increasingly emphasized the value of treating physicians’ longitudinal perspective. In Ceballos v. Bowen, 649 F. Supp. 693 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), the court noted that even a conclusory report by a treating physician “presumably rests upon encapsulated experience with the subject,” and therefore could not be rejected without providing the claimant an opportunity to submit more detailed information.

Maher v. Bowen, 648 F. Supp. 1199 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), similarly held that a treating physician’s opinion deserves “some extra weight” due to their unique position to evaluate the claimant’s condition over time.

During this period, courts also clarified limitations to the rule. Artrip v. Bowen, 651 F. Supp. 376 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), established that treating physicians’ opinions could be outweighed by substantial contradictory evidence, including opinions from consultative and non-examining physicians as well as treatment reports.

The Schisler Litigation: A Turning Point

The Schisler litigation represents a pivotal development in the rule’s evolution. In Schisler v. Heckler, 787 F.2d 76 (2d Cir. 1986), the Second Circuit addressed a class action challenging SSA’s failure to consistently apply the treating physician rule. The court articulated the rule as follows:

The treating physician rule provides that a treating physician’s opinion on medical disability is: (i) binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence; and (ii) entitled to some extra weight because the treating physician is usually more familiar with a claimant’s medical condition than other physicians.

The court ordered SSA to draft and distribute instructions to all adjudicators within the Second Circuit to apply the treating physician rule. In Schisler v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1988) (Schisler, 851 F.2d 43), the court reviewed SSA’s proposed instructional document, making significant revisions to ensure it accurately reflected the established rule.

The Road to Codification

In April 1987, responding to congressional mandate in Section 9 of PL 98–460 (HR 3755), PL 98–460, October 9, 1984, 98 Stat 1794, SSA published proposed regulations titled “Standards for Consultative Examinations and Existing Medical Evidence, 52 FR 13014-01). These regulations addressed the weight given to treating source opinions, providing that such opinions would be “conclusive” when “fully supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

After a four-year period of considering public comments, SSA published final regulations on Standards for Consultative Examinations and Existing Medical Evidence. 56 FR 36932-01 (August 1, 1991). The final rule made several key modifications:

1. Replaced “conclusive” with “controlling” and “fully supported” with “well-supported”
2. Clarified the need to recontact treating sources to complete records and resolve inconsistencies
3. Expanded the definition of “treating source” to include physicians who had treated claimants on an ongoing basis in the past
4. Established a hierarchy for weighing medical opinions based on the source’s relationship with the claimant
5. Specified factors for consideration when a treating source’s opinion wasn’t given controlling weight
6. Required “good reasons” when a treating source’s opinion wasn’t given controlling weight

These regulations remained essentially the same until 2017, when SSA published rules that eliminated the Treating Source Rule. But that’s a topic for another day.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Social Security Disability Law & Procedure in Federal Court, by Carolyn A. Kubitschek and Jon C. Dubin, Second Circuit section excerpt (February 2024 Update)
2. “Treating Physicians Evidence in Social Security Disability Cases: What Does the Future Hold?” by Ethel Zelenske, Clearinghouse Review (May 1993)
3. “Demise of the Treating Physician Rule” by Jacques M. Farhi and Michael Stephen Stretton, III, NYSBA Health Law Journal (2021)

Download the document below for a more thorough discussion on this topic:

NOSSCR’s App and CLE Credit

Our team has been hard at work developing a mobile and desktop app so that needed information can be easily accessed. News alerts? Calendar updates? Session materials? Photos? Games? We’ve got it all! We will be continually improving and adding features to the app in the coming months and we encourage all of our members to download the app as soon as possible to familiarize yourself with its features.

One app feature to highlight — if you are unable to access the session materials or session Q&A on your mobile device, please visit our website on your desktop computer (or in your phone’s browser) and click on the blue rectangle labeled “Hub&Space (app)” (it is the left-most blue rectangle at the top of the page). Use your regular NOSSCR account login info to sign in, then click on the spring 2025 conference box. You can then go into each session, download the materials, view the Q&A, and submit a session evaluation. We are currently undergoing the process of compressing all of the session videos for digital upload, which takes some time, but soon all of the session videos will be available to you in your online learning center (and the session materials will also be attached there). 

We know that new technology can be tricky, but we are extremely pleased with everyone’s efforts to utilize the app for CLE check-in and check-out during the conference. We appreciate your patience as we all get accustomed to a new modernized system.

Applying for CLE is an extremely complex process. Each state has different requirements, different deadlines, and different submission processes. By utilizing our app, you enable us to streamline the process, ensuring that you get the course credit you seek.

Because this sign-in/sign-out process is new, we established a backup plan to ensure your credits are properly recorded. So whether you properly signed in and out of each course or not, there is still post-conference work to be done — please read on for the important details!

To receive CLE credit, in-person attendees must fill out this CLE attendance form by Thursday, May 15.

• Within that CLE attendance form, you will be asked to upload a certificate of attendance:
  • For most states, you can use this certificate of attendance form.
  • For Arkansas, you must upload THIS Arkansas certificate of attendance form.
    • Of special note for Arkansas, due to your state’s requirements, your deadline for submission is Friday, May 2 at 6:00 PM Eastern.
  • For New Jersey & Virginia, due to state rules, you must email us at alyssa.pimentel@nosscr.org to request your state-specific certificates of attendance.

To receive CLE credit, virtual attendees must take the following additional steps, also by Thursday, May 15:

• Sign into your NOSSCR account
• Navigate to “My Learning” under the “Continuing Education” tab
• Click the blue “Go to Your Leaning Center” rectangle in the middle of the page
• Select “Launch Post Work” for the Virtual – Spring 2025 National Conference
• Enter the session code that you recorded during the sessions you attended — for any sessions you did NOT attend, please leave the answer box blank
• Click “Submit”
• Click “Yes” to complete your submission
• A confirmation of your submission will appear, and you can close out by clicking “Exit”

Once submitted, your post-work is complete. Should you wish to save a copy for your records, you can view your certificate of completion by navigating to the “Completed” tab on your Learning Center homepage and clicking on the “View Certificate” button for each completed course. For a more detailed visual guide through the virtual attendee process, please click here.

While we know that already sounds complicated enough, just wait, there’s more! If you attended virtually and are seeking credit for Arkansas, Virginia, or New Jersey, after you complete the virtual session instructions detailed above, you must STILL complete your state-specific certificate of attendance as described in the in-person attendee section. For Arkansas specifically, this form must be completed and sent to NOSSCR by Friday, May 2 at 6:00 PM Eastern.

NOSSCR is only able to report CLE credits on your behalf in certain states. To confirm if NOSSCR will be reporting your credits or whether you must self-report, please refer to column F on this sheet.

As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out to NOSSCR with any questions. We are here to help!

Legislative Spotlight

Betsy Rosecan, NOSSCR Government Relations Director

On April 1, 2025, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced S. 1234, the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) introduced an identical bill in the House, H.R. 2540, on the same day. S. 1234 has nine cosponsors, five Republicans and four Democrats. H.R. 2540 has 13 cosponsors, 7 Republicans and 6 Democrats. S. 1234 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance, and H.R. 2540 has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

This legislation would update the SSI resource limits for individuals and couples, which have not been updated since 1984. Currently, individuals with disabilities and those 65 and older are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) only if they have $2,000 or less in total assets; for married couples, the limit is $3,000. The SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act would raise the SSI asset limits to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples and index them to inflation moving forward. NOSSCR supports this legislation.

Bill Details

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act”.

SEC. 2. Update in eligibility for the supplemental security income program.

(a) Update in resource limit for individuals and couples.—Section 1611(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(a)(3)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking “$2,250” and all that follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting “$20,000 in calendar year 2025, and shall be increased as described in section 1617(d) for each subsequent calendar year.”; and

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking “$1,500” and all that follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting “$10,000 in calendar year 2025, and shall be increased as described in section 1617(d) for each subsequent calendar year.”.

(b) Inflation adjustment.—Section 1617 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382f) is amended—

(1) in the section heading, by inserting “; inflation adjustment” after “benefits”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(d) In the case of any calendar year after 2025, each of the dollar amounts specified in section 1611(a)(3) shall be increased by multiplying the dollar amount by the quotient (not less than 1) obtained by dividing—

“(1) the average of the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (all items; United States city average, as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor) for the 12-month period ending with September of the preceding calendar year, by

“(2) such average for the 12-month period ending with September 2024.”

A Lesson in Explaining Residual Functional Capacity

Adriana M. de la Torre, NOSSCR Sustaining Member

We all know the importance of a well-reasoned residual functional capacity (RFC) determination. But what happens when an ALJ makes a conclusion without adequately explaining how they got there?

Enter Ginder v. Commissioner of Social Security (3d Cir. 2025). The Third Circuit vacated the district court’s decision affirming the denial of benefits because the ALJ failed to justify why Ginder could perform light work.

📌 The Case Breakdown

Claim & Procedural History

Ginder applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) in 2019, citing multiple conditions: back pain, diabetes, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, asthma, and nerve damage in her hands.

Despite these impairments, the Agency denied her claim. She requested a hearing before an ALJ, who also found her not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court upheld the ALJ’s decision.

On appeal to the Third Circuit, the key issue was whether the ALJ properly explained the decision to assign Ginder an RFC for light work.

The ALJ’s Findings & The Problem

The ALJ acknowledged Ginder’s severe impairments, including:
✔️ Diabetes
✔️ Obesity
✔️ Asthma & Allergic Rhinitis
✔️ Right Carpal Tunnel Syndrome & Trigger Finger
✔️ Lumbar Disc Disease

However, the ALJ concluded that despite these conditions, Ginder could perform “light work” with restrictions such as:

• Frequent reaching, handling, and fingering
• Occasional postural maneuvers
• Occasional exposure to temperature extremes, humidity, and respiratory irritants
• Work limited to simple and routine tasks

The Problem? The ALJ never fully explained why the evidence supported these limitations, especially given that light work requires standing or walking for the majority of an 8-hour workday (SSR 83-10).

“The ALJ did not identify evidence supporting a finding that Ginder could stand or walk for that amount of time.” (Ginder).

Ginder testified that her back pain prevented her from standing for more than 10 minutes at a time and that she could only walk for about a block before needing to sit. She also said she could only sit for about 30 minutes before needing to change positions.

The Third Circuit noted that the ALJ did not address this testimony, leading the court to state:

“We are unable to tell if it ‘was not credited or simply ignored.’” (Ginder, citing Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000)).

That’s a big issue. Courts want to see a logical bridge between the evidence and the conclusion. Here, that bridge was missing.

💡 Insights

An ALJ’s decision can’t just be a conclusory statement, it has to contain “a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests” (Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 41 (3d Cir. 2001)).

Ginder’s own description of her limitations should have been addressed, whether the ALJ chose to accept or reject them. Courts don’t like it when testimony is ignored.

The Third Circuit’s message was clear: If an ALJ is assigning a light work RFC, they must point to actual evidence supporting that standing/walking ability.

Final outcome? Vacated & Remanded

The Third Circuit sent the case back with instructions for the ALJ to:

• Reassess the RFC determination
• Explain how the evidence supports (or contradicts) Ginder’s ability to perform light work
• Address whether her testimony should be credited

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.

Conference Photo Album

We loved seeing all of the smiling faces last week — NOSSCR members are truly an extraordinary bunch! Special thanks to those who participated in our new app game by sharing photos throughout the conference — we love looking back at all the fun that was had!

Task Force Report on AI, Emerging Tech, and Disability Benefits

This month, the National Academy of Social Insurance’s cross-sector Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Technology, and Disability Benefits released its Phase One Report. NOSSCR understands the importance of data-driven AI implementation to improve the disability benefits process, and our own David Camp is proud to serve as a co-chair on this Task Force.

Social Security is already utilizing AI in their processes, and it is our expectation that they will continue to expand their use of this time saving technology; however, there must be guardrails in place to guide the use of AI, ensuring that claimants and beneficiaries are protected. We look forward to our continued partnership with AARP, Microsoft, and the many other organizations who contributed to this report. 

Title II Overpayment Default Withholding Rate Changed to 50%

SSA has again updated the Title II default overpayment withholding rate. As you may recall, on March 7, SSA issued a Press Release indicating that the default rate would revert from last year’s 10% withholding back to the prior year’s 100% withholding. However, new guidance provided in EM-25029 indicates that the Title II default overpayment withholding rate will instead now be 50%. 

From the EM: 

Any new Title II overpayment determinations will have the 50 percent benefit withholding automatically applied for overpayment notices sent beginning April 25, 2025, which is the first day of COM 05. If an overpaid individual has a prior overpayment and incurs a new overpayment, all outstanding overpayments will default to 50 percent benefit withholding at the end of the approximately 90-day period if the individual does not request reconsideration, a waiver, or negotiate a lower repayment rate. In addition, we are updating the Title II initial overpayment notice benefit withholding language. This language will replace 10 percent withholding with 50 percent withholding of the monthly payment beginning with notices sent on or after April 25, 2025.

Please review your clients’ overpayment notices carefully, and, as always, reach out to NOSSCR with any questions. 

An Update on HALLEX Numbering

The Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (HALLEX) “conveys guiding principles, procedural guidance, and information to hearing level and Appeals Council staff. HALLEX defines procedures for carrying out policy and provides guidance for processing and adjudicating claims at the hearing, Appeals Council, and civil action levels. It also includes policy statements resulting from Appeals Council en banc meetings under the authority of the Appeals Council Chair.”

SSA has released the following statement about their HALLEX numbering system:

To consolidate and standardize our instructions systems, we are renumbering our HALLEX sections. All links using the prior HALLEX numbering convention will automatically redirect to the new HALLEX number. The renumbered HALLEX is here. For a list of numbering changes for each individual HALLEX section, see this chart. During the transition period, we will accept HALLEX references in either numbering convention, including the prior numbering convention, from internal and external stakeholders.

NOSSCR encourages our members to begin utilizing the new numbering system as soon as practicable.

Deaths While Waiting for a Disability Decision

During his Congressional testimony last September, then-Commissioner O’Malley testified that “as processing backlogs grew, the Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that approximately 30,000 people died in 2023 while waiting for their disability decisions, while their application for Social Security or SSI disability benefits, or both, was pending a decision at the initial, reconsideration, or hearing levels.”

This month, SSA released additional data in support of that 30,000 number, and it warrants a closer look:

PAC Contributor List

THANK YOU TO OUR NOSSCR PAC CONTRIBUTORS

As of April 2025

Daily Dose of Data from SSA

This month, Social Security released the following data:

• “Demographic Projections Used for the 2024 Social Security and Medicare Reports” — an April 9, 2025 presentation by Chief Actuary Karen Glenn and Actuary Michael Morris at a U.S. Census Bureau meeting of the Federal-State Cooperative for Population Projections.

• Estimate of the Financial Effects on Social Security of enacting the “You Earned It, You Keep It Act,” introduced on April 14, 2025 by Representative Angie Craig. The estimates provided in this memorandum reflect the intermediate assumptions of the 2024 Trustees Report and an updated baseline that incorporates the effects of Public Law 118-273, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023. 

• Monthly SSDI Processing Times for FY2019 – 09-30-24

• Total State DDS Employees by State FY2010 to FY2023

Useful Resources