SOCIAL SECURITY LOWERING PAST RELEVANT WORK PERIOD FROM 15 YEARS TO 5 YEARS

 

From SSA:

We are finalizing our proposed regulation to revise the time period that we consider when determining whether an individual's past work is relevant for the purposes of making disability determinations and decisions. We are revising the definition of past relevant work (PRW) by reducing the relevant work period from 15 to 5 years. Additionally, we will not consider past work that started and stopped in fewer than 30 calendar days to be PRW. These changes will reduce the burden on individuals applying for disability by allowing them to focus on the most current and relevant information about their past work. The changes will also better reflect the current evidence about worker skill decay and job responsibilities, reduce processing times, and improve customer service. This final rule also includes other minor revisions to our regulations related to PRW.

DATES:

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Social Security Act (Act) defines disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity (SGA) by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death, or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.^[1] The Act also states that, for adults,^[2] an individual shall be determined to have a disability only if their physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that they are not only unable to do their previous work but cannot, considering their age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy,^[3] regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which they live, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for them, or whether they would be hired if they applied for work.^[4]

We use a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual who has filed an initial claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) benefits is disabled.^[5] At step one of the sequential evaluation process we consider whether an individual is working, and whether that work qualifies as SGA.^[6] At this step, if an individual is performing at SGA levels, they are not considered disabled.^[7] At step two of the sequential evaluation process, we consider whether an individual has any “severe” impairment(s), which means that the impairment(s) significantly limits their physical or mental ability to do basic work activities,^[8] and whether the impairment(s) has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months or result in death.^[9] At step three of the sequential evaluation process, we consider whether an individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals in severity an impairment(s) in the Listing of Impairments.^[10] If the individual's impairment(s) does not meet or medically equal in severity a listed impairment, we determine their residual functional capacity (RFC). RFC is the most an individual can do despite the limitations caused by their impairment(s).^[11] This final rule will not affect how we evaluate the first three steps of the sequential evaluation process.

This final rule will affect how we evaluate disability claims at steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process because we consider the individual's PRW at both of these steps. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, we consider the individual's work history and whether, given their RFC, they could perform any of their PRW either as they actually performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy.^[12] Under our prior definition, PRW was work an individual did within the past 15 years, that was SGA, and that lasted long enough for the individual to learn how to do it.^[13] This final rule revises the PRW definition. If the individual can perform any of their PRW, we will find them not disabled. If the individual cannot perform any of their PRW, we go to the next step.

At step five of the sequential evaluation process, we again refer to an individual's work history to determine whether an individual's impairment(s) prevents them from adjusting to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, considering their RFC and the vocational factors of age, education, and work experience. To support a determination or decision at step five of the sequential evaluation process, we use the medical-vocational profiles ^[14] and medical-vocational guidelines,^[15] commonly known as the “grid rules,” to consider whether an individual can adjust to other work. If the individual can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, considering their RFC, age, education, and work experience, we find they are not disabled. If an individual cannot adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, we find that they are disabled.^[16] We are not changing our rules regarding RFC, age, or education in this rulemaking.

Once an individual is found disabled and receives benefits, we may periodically conduct a continuing disability review (CDR) to determine whether the individual continues to be disabled.^[17] Although the CDR rules use a different sequential evaluation process, the final two steps of the process used for CDRs (steps seven and eight in title II OASDI cases and steps six and seven in adult title XVI SSI cases) mirror the final two steps used in the sequential evaluation process for initial claims (steps four and five).^[18] Under the prior rule, the relevant work period for CDRs included work an individual did within 15 years prior to the date of the CDR determination or decision.^[19] This final rule changes the relevant work period we use for CDRs to 5 years to align with the changes being made to the initial disability sequential evaluation process.

Justification for Changes

We have long recognized that a gradual change occurs in most jobs in the national economy, so that after a certain period of time it is not realistic to expect that skills and abilities an individual acquired while performing these jobs continue to apply.^[23] In this rule, we are changing the relevant work period to 5 years because it reflects the shorter collection cycles of occupational surveys and data programs, which establish a frame of reference for understanding changing occupational requirements.

Changing the relevant work period from the prior 15 years to 5 years and setting a minimum time period of 30 calendar days for performing work will better account for the diminishing relevance of work skills over time and reduce the burden on individuals applying for disability. This change will allow us to improve the quality of the information we receive by eliminating the individual's need to recall and consistently report detailed information about less recent work or work performed for less than 30 calendar days, reduce the time spent filling out work history forms, and reduce wait times for a determination or a decision. Accordingly, this change will improve customer service and adjudicative efficiency.

This final rule will achieve several goals. First, this final rule will allow individuals to focus on the most current and relevant information about their past work.^[24] We largely rely on individuals' self-reporting for information about their past work. In our adjudicative experience, information tends to be less accurate and less complete for jobs that individuals held in the distant past. We expect this final rule will result in our receiving more complete work history forms and reduce the need for our staff to follow up for additional work history information. Second, this final rule will better account for current evidence on the diminishing relevance of work skills and changes in job requirements over time. Third, this final rule will reduce processing time and improve customer service. As we discussed in the NPRM, each year we adjudicate millions of claims for disability benefits, and our ability to make determinations and decisions more quickly will ultimately benefit the public we serve.^[25] Fourth, this final rule will lessen the information collection burden on individuals by reducing, on average, the number of jobs about which they must provide us with information.^[26]

In summary, by eliminating an individual's need to recall and report detailed information about less recent work, we anticipate this final rule will allow us to improve the quality of the information we receive; will significantly reduce burden on the individual from filling out work history forms; and will reduce case processing and waiting times. These outcomes will overall offer a better customer experience for individuals applying for disability and will increase our adjudicative efficiency. For a more detailed explanation of how we expect this final rule to achieve these objectives, please refer to the Justification for Change section in the NPRM.^[27]