Font Size

New Online Resource Details Social Security’s Economic Impact in States and Counties Nationwide

Social Security’s economic contributions to communities, counties, and states continue to be misunderstood and often ignored in Washington’s fiscal debates. A new online report unveiled by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Foundation provides a detailed look at the significant economic impact generated by Social Security benefits. Social Security Spotlight delivers data on beneficiaries by state, county, Congressional district, race/ethnicity, age and gender. Also available are the Economic Stimulus Impact for each state, and the Regional Support Index (RSI) which illustrates the level of support that Social Security provides to all residents of a given state or county. This comprehensive data details what America’s retirees, people with disabilities, survivors and their families know first-hand -- Social Security plays a vital economic role for families, communities and businesses throughout America. 

In 2014 alone, Social Security delivered a $1.6 trillion fiscal boost nationwide as benefits were spent and cycled through the economy. The report’s impact estimates are adjusted for taxes and the composition of state economies, which affect how benefits are multiplied and generate additional economic activity. For example in 2014, California residents received $80.4 billion in benefits, which added $165.9 billion to the state economy. At the other extreme, District of Columbia residents received $1.1 billion in benefits, which generated $1.6 billion in economic activity. The Regional Support Index (RSI), shows that between 2008 and 2013, Social Security also played a growing economic role in the vast majority (nearly 94%) of counties’ throughout the nation. In fact, 34 states showed a high/medium RSI ranking, demonstrating how important Social Security’s stimulus and stabilization effects are to states large or small, and rural and urban residents. 

Social Security Spotlight can be especially helpful during the 2016 election cycle for voters, journalists, policy makers and campaign staff as the future of Social Security is debated. There have been numerous policy proposals that could diminish the earned benefits in Social Security triggering financial losses not only for American workers, retirees, the disabled, and their families but also their communities, counties and states. Every Congressional and Presidential candidate will be encouraged to take a hard look at the economic impact numbers.  Voters should also ask candidates and incumbents, “Can our community afford the economic hit which would come by cutting benefits?”

Here’s a look at some of the information available for each state.  This example highlights Florida:

Total # Social Security beneficiaries:   4.2 million residents receive $62 billion in benefits. Sumter County receives the highest per capita Social Security income, Lafayette with the lowest.
Economic Impact Dollars:   $122.5 billion
Regional Support Index:   In 26 Florida Counties, 25% or more of the population receives Social Security.

In 32 Florida Counties, Social Security is 10% or more of their citizens’ income. 

Since 2008, Social Security’s economic impact has increased in every Florida County.

Demographics:     4.2 million Florida beneficiaries 75.5% White, 13.2% Hispanic, 1.4% Asian, 8.9% African American, 6.1% children           

The Social Security Spotlight project was funded by a grant from the Retirement Research Foundation. The project has been guided by the Task Force on the Future of America’s Health and Retirement Security.  Research was conducted by: Peter S. Arno, PhD, Senior Fellow and Director of Health Policy Research at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare Foundation board member, and Andrew R. Maroko, PhD, Assistant Professor, City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy.

Two Party Platforms –Two Starkly Different Views on Social Security

The Democratic Platform released today clearly shows that the differences between how the Democratic and Republican parties will approach the future of Social Security couldn’t be starker. The GOP platform promises to consider all benefit cut options, refuses to lift the payroll tax cap and suggests sending Americans’ earned benefits to Wall Street through privatization. The Democratic Party platform, on the other hand, offers the strongest statement on strengthening Social Security seen in decades.  By pledging to fight efforts to “cut, privatize or weaken” Social Security, supporting expansion of the program, lifting the payroll tax and exploring a new COLA formula for seniors, the Democrats have tackled head-on the critical challenges facing millions of average Americans. 

“For too long, many in Washington have ignored the retirement crisis facing Americans nationwide.  The Democratic Party’s platform acknowledges what average Americans and their families understand first-hand – Social Security is an economic lifeline to millions which should be improved. Boosting Social Security’s benefits to provide economic security while also extending the program’s solvency can be done at the same time.  The Democrats get that.

The National Committee proudly worked closely with the Democratic Platform Committee and DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to ensure efforts to improve the current cost of living allowance (COLA) formula are investigated.  The current formula isn’t measuring seniors’ expenses properly and they’ve seen no increase for too many years, while their expenses (especially health costs) continue to grow.  We need a COLA for the elderly and are happy to see Democrats address that reality in this 2016 platform.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO and Democratic Platform Committee Member

It’s also very telling that while the GOP buried their cuts and privatization plans for Social Security under the Platform’s Government Reform heading, the Democrats addressed Social Security, as they should, as part of their plan to restore economic security for average Americans. That’s been Social Security’s fundamental role for more than 80 years -- providing an economic lifeline impacting the lives of virtually every American family.

A new National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare Foundation report also released today, called Social Security Spotlight, illustrates very clearly the huge economic impact Social Security benefits have in every state and county throughout the nation.  This research can be especially helpful during the 2016 election cycle for voters, journalists, policy makers and campaign staff as the future of Social Security is debated.


Republican Party Platform Promises Social Security Privatization

The newly released Republican Party platform provides the latest (in a growing amount of) evidence showing that no one in the party is willing to play along with Donald Trump’s empty campaign promises that he “won’t touch” Social Security and Medicare.  As the party’s nominee for President, Trump is the GOP’s leader; however, that didn’t stop Republicans from completely ignoring him in the party platform saying all options should be on the table.  That actually translates to meaning cuts only because the GOP still opposes the most popular option -- raising the payroll tax.  You'll also note the oh-so vague push for allowing Wall Street and the "power of the markets" to control your Social Security:  

“Of the many reforms being proposed, all options should be considered to preserve Social Security. As Republicans, we oppose tax increases and believe in the power of markets to create wealth and to help secure the future of our Social Security system.”

More than a decade after President Bush’s failed privatization campaign, it appears Republicans and their newly appointed party leader, Donald Trump, are caught in a time-warp where they remain determined to send Americans’ guaranteed Social Security’s benefits to Wall Street -- regardless of the financial recklessness which nearly destroyed our economy just years ago. The GOP still believes successful poverty-fighting programs like Social Security and Medicare are the true evil in our society and continue to equate these earned benefit programs to welfare.  It’s also important to remember that this missive didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came just days after Donald Trump chose one of Congress’ biggest privatizers, Mike Pence, as his running mate. 

“Mike Pence was one of Congress’ biggest proponents of privatization. He supports cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, reducing the COLA, means-testing and turning Medicare into “CouponCare.” As he told CNN, ‘I’m an all of the above guy.  I think we need to look at everything that’s on the menu,’ and the record shows he has done just that by supporting every form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cut proposed in the past decade.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare scored Mike Pence at 0% on issues important to seniors during the 2011-2012 Congress since he voted for multiple pieces of legislation that would cut benefits and programs that protect senior’s health and financial security.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

Before his Pence announcement, Trump also met with House Speaker Paul Ryan and admitted he supports cutting Social Security but he just doesn’t think he can be elected by saying it:

“From a moral standpoint, I believe in it,” Trump told Ryan. “But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more.’ ”

Of course, those comments also fit with the message his policy staff delivered to fiscal hawks at the annual Pete Peterson “how to cut middle-class benefits” soiree in May:

“After the administration has been in place, then we will start to take a look at all of the programs, including entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. We’ll start taking a hard look at those to start seeing what we can do in a bipartisan way.”

“...I think that whoever [is] the next president is going to have a horrible time in dealing with this, because those entitlements will race to the front of all the economic issues we have in this country.”...Sam Clovis, Trump campaign chief policy advisor.

Trump himself has been noticeably silent on Social Security and Medicare this summer – leaving his staff, running mate and GOP Party members to deliver his message loud and clear:  cutting middle-class benefits, privatizing Social Security and turning Medicare into “Couponcare” remains the Republican Party’s goals if voters will give them the chance.

We’ve compiled a comprehensive timeline of Donald Trump’s evolving positions on Social Security and Medicare. You can see it and many other helpful resources for the 2016 Campaign on our NCPSSM SeniorVote2016 website. 


Mike Pence’s Long History Attacking Social Security & Medicare

GOP Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has chosen one of Congress’ most aggressive Social Security privatization supporters to serve as his Vice President. Indiana Governor and former Congressman, Mike Pence’s record on issues important to seniors, particularly cutting benefits to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid couldn’t be worse:

“By choosing Governor Mike Pence as his running mate, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has sent a very clear message to America’s seniors that their priorities will hold little weight in a Trump administration.  During his decade-plus tenure in the U.S. Congress, Mike Pence consistently voted in favor of legislative efforts to cut benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He has a long history of blaming earned benefit programs for America’s economic woes and supporting middle-class benefit cuts to protect tax cuts for the wealthy. Few members of Congress have an anti-seniors voting record as consistently strong as Mike Pence. 

Mike Pence was one of Congress’ biggest proponents of privatization. He supports cutting Social Security benefits by raising the retirement age, reducing the COLA, means-testing and turning Medicare into “CouponCare.” As he told CNN, ‘I’m an all of the above guy.  I think we need to look at everything that’s on the menu,’ and the record shows he has done just that by supporting every form of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cut proposed in the past decade. 

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare scored Mike Pence at 0% on issues important to seniors during the 2011-2012 Congress since he voted for multiple pieces of legislation that would cut benefits and programs that protect senior’s health and financial security.”...Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO

As leader of the Republican Study Committee, the House’s far-right wing caucus, during the Bush administration, Pence doubled-down on President George Bush’s failed privatization efforts by calling for an even larger private accounts scheme to be implemented sooner, putting Americans at even greater fiscal risk than the President’s doomed plan. The Washington Times reported in 2005:

“The Bush plan allows workers to divert 4 percent of their wages into investment accounts, and to choose from a set of investment strategies. But the conservatives are leaning more toward a plan sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, which would allow diversion of 6 percent of wages.

‘Conservatives want to see personal retirement accounts that have immediate relevance to younger Americans, that they can see the value, and that will require that they be big and that they be implemented in the final bill without delay,’ said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and chairman of the 100-member Republican Study Committee (RSC).”

Incredibly, even though Pence was among Congress’ most vocal fiscal hawks, he was willing to use deficit spending to pay for their Social Security privatization scheme but not to improve Social Security’s long-term funding or protect seniors’ benefits:  

“Mr. Pence said conservatives would be willing to accept borrowing money to pay for the transition costs, but “so long as we can achieve the fundamental reform of personal Social Security account for retirement.” He said the RSC will convey those principles to House Republican leaders early next week, and said they believe they have muscle to back up those principles.”

Beyond privatization, Pence’s comments make it clear there isn’t a Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefit cut he won’t embrace:

“I think everything has to be on the table...I think it’s absolutely imperative, whether it’s Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.”

“With regard to entitlements we’re going to have to take some deep cuts in domestic spending.” CNN, 2010

“I was tea party before it was cool.”  Indianapolis Monthly, 2011

On health issues, Pence’s record is just as anti-senior as his Social Security stance. He aggressively opposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and fought for its repeal, which would worsen Medicare’s solvency and take away billions in added benefits and cost savings for seniors.  He voted against the creation of a prescription drug benefit (Part D) in Medicare, opposes allowing the re-importation of prescription drugs and allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, he supported legislation that would deny non-emergency treatment for lack of a Medicare co-pay, and most importantly supports the GOP/Ryan budget which would destroy Medicare in favor of “Couponcare,” giving seniors a voucher to take shopping for insurance rather than protecting traditional Medicare’s guaranteed coverage.

In spite of his leadership in Congress against the ACA, as Governor he reluctantly acknowledged the healthcare needs of Indiana citizens and adopted Medicaid expansion, yet not without putting the GOP political spin on it.  As Politico reported, Pence incredibly claims the expansion was actually an elimination of Medicaid.

“In fact, a summary of the proposal describes it as a move to “eliminate traditional Medicaid” for non-disabled Hoosiers.

And by adding a requirement that Indiana residents must pay a premium, Pence promised to preserve citizens’ dignity:

“So the Indiana plan will charge small premiums—up to 2 percent of an individual's income—which will make only a tiny impact on the state's balance sheets, but will send a clear message to those layabouts; Pence talked about giving people the "dignity to pay for their own health insurance." (I'm sure that Pence declines to take a government handout in the form of the mortgage interest deduction, because that would undermine his dignity.)...American Prospect

While Donald Trump has promised on the campaign trail that he won’t cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, he continues to surround himself with advisors and now a running-mate with polar opposite intentions.  At the same time, his promise to “not touch” benefits has been noticeably absent in recent campaign appearances.  In fact, his most recent comments to an AARP survey take a very different tone:

“As our demography changes, a prudent administration would begin to examine what changes might be necessary for future generations.”...Donald Trump, AARP, June 27, 2016

That’s why NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, urges seniors and their families to beware of candidates who make promises on the campaign trail they have no intention of keeping once they get your vote:

"They say actions speak louder than words – and there’s no doubt about it -- Donald Trump’s choice of Mike Pence as his Vice-Presidential running mate speaks volumes to American seniors.”

Why All Hospital Stays Aren’t Created Equal in Medicare

For years, patients and advocates have been warning of the increasing use of the patient classification status known as “observation stays.”  A growing number of patients covered by Medicare, have spent days in the hospital, only to be surprised with large out-of-pocket costs and an inability to access long-term care because they were totally unaware the hospital never actually admitted them as a patient. 

Beginning this summer, a new federal law will require hospitals to tell their Medicare patients if they have not been formally admitted and why. Kaiser Health News reports:

“The NOTICE Act requires that starting Aug. 6, Medicare patients receive a form written in ‘plain language’ after 24 hours of observation care but no later than 36 hours. Under the law, it must explain the reason they have not been admitted and how that decision will affect Medicare’s payment for services and patients’ share of the costs. The information must also be provided verbally, and a doctor or hospital staff member must be available to answer questions.”

A Wall Street Journal investigation showed observation stays at hospitals have increased 156% and explains why many hospitals have lowered their readmissions and thus the fines that come from too many Medicare patients returning to the hospital.  

“...at hospitals around the country, more patients are entering or re-entering hospitals under something called “observation status”—a category that keeps them out of the readmission tallies. Patients on observation status can remain in the hospital for days, and typically receive care that is indistinguishable from inpatient stays, experts say. But under Medicare billing rules, the stays are considered outpatient visits, and as such, don’t trigger penalties under the health law.

The Journal’s analysis of Medicare billing data shows that increases in observation stays can skew the readmission numbers, letting hospitals avoid penalties even if patients continue to have complications and return for repeat visits. Observation stays generally are cheaper for the government, but in some cases they can lead to big bills that are the patient’s responsibility.”

The American Hospital Association has asked that the new rules be delayed and one of the law’s co-sponsors also isn’t happy with the language used to explain observation stays to patients.

“It doesn’t require the hospital to explain exactly why the patient is getting observation care instead of being admitted, he {Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)} said, and doesn’t clearly explain the difference between Medicare’s Part A hospitalization and nursing home benefit and Part B, which covers outpatient services, including doctor’s visits, lab tests and hospital observation care.

The notice, he said, also does not sufficiently explain why observation patients are ineligible for Medicare’s nursing home coverage, which under law requires at least three consecutive days as an admitted patient.”

Medicare has been taking public comment and we’ll likely hear more implementation details this month. 

Pages: Prev1234567...159NextReturn Top



Questions?

Have a Social Security or Medicare question?




 

Archives
Media Contacts

Pamela Causey
Communications Director
Causeyp@ncpssm.org(202) 216-8378
(202) 236-2123 cell

Kim Wright
Assistant Director of Communications
Wrightk@ncpssm.org
(202) 216-8414

Entitled to Know

         

 

Copyright © 2015 by NCPSSM
Login  |