Bill Overview
Title: Marriage Equality for Disabled Adults Act
Description: This bill eliminates certain marriage-related criteria for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits for Disabled Adult Children (DAC). It also expands access to Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid for married DAC recipients.
Sponsors: Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-20]
Target Audience
Population: Disabled Adult Children impacted by Marriage Equality reforms
Estimated Size: 1300000
- The bill targets Disabled Adult Children (DAC) who rely on Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).
- Marriage-related criteria previously limited DAC recipients' access to certain benefits upon marriage.
- Eliminating these criteria will allow married DAC recipients to continue receiving SSDI.
- Expanding access to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid for DAC recipients will have significant impacts as these are crucial support systems.
- CDC estimates around 2.2% of the global population is Disabled Adult Children.
- Improving access to social security benefits and Medicaid affects the socioeconomic status and healthcare access for DAC.
Reasoning
- The policy targets Disabled Adult Children (DAC) receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and/or Medicaid who might lose benefits upon marriage. By removing marriage-related criteria, DAC recipients can maintain benefits even after marriage.
- Given the budget and target numbers, not all DAC recipients would be significantly impacted; only those who intend or wish to marry would see direct benefits. Others would continue as before, experiencing no policy changes.
- We anticipate significant improvements in wellbeing scores for those impacted, as maintaining financial and medical support is vital for this population's stability and health.
- We also expect to see varied responses based on the individual's current marital status desires, socioeconomic background, and awareness of the policy changes.
- Our simulated interviews include DAC individuals across a spectrum of likely scenarios, from those unimpacted by the policy to those experiencing substantial benefits from it.
Simulated Interviews
Freelance Graphic Designer (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without the policy, I might have to choose between marriage and my benefits. That's not fair.
- I want to marry my partner, but financial stability comes first.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Unemployed (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've never thought about getting married because I can't afford to lose my SSI.
- This policy gives me hope for the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Customer Service Representative (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It would be great to marry one day without worrying about my health benefits.
- Keeping Medicaid is vital for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Part-time Librarian (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been married a long time, so current policies don't affect me much.
- It's great others can get married now without penalty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Stay-at-home dad (Portland, OR)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This doesn't affect me since I'm already married.
- I'm happy to see others won't have to face what I did losing benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Unemployed (Miami, FL)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I never considered marrying before; this changes things.
- It's important to me to keep my benefits if I get married.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Tech Support Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're planning a wedding, and this policy will relieve so much stress.
- Keeping Medicaid is a priority for our future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't plan to marry again, but it's wonderful others won't face losing everything for love.
- Better late than never.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea of marriage has always been daunting because of financial instability.
- This policy opens possibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Disabled Veteran (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- No plans to marry, but this policy lets me think about it without fear.
- A good step forward for many.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4800000000 (Low: $3600000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 2: $4900000000 (Low: $3700000000, High: $6100000000)
Year 3: $5000000000 (Low: $3800000000, High: $6200000000)
Year 5: $5200000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6400000000)
Year 10: $5500000000 (Low: $4250000000, High: $6750000000)
Year 100: $10000000000 (Low: $7750000000, High: $12250000000)
Key Considerations
- The potential administrative burden on SSA to modify eligibility criteria and manage additional claims.
- Ensuring state-level readiness for increased Medicaid enrollment among DAC recipients.
- Risks of overestimating the uptake of DAC recipients opting to marry with the removal of benefit disincentives.
- The socio-economic benefits of improved household stability and access to healthcare for DAC recipients.