We ask you to approve S. 1787, to reduce this requirement to 6 quarters, in order that the benefits under the disability insurance program may be more readily available to more persons when blindness occurs; in order that blind persons, unable to meet the present requirement of employment for 5 years in covered work may be able to qualify for benefits under the disability insurance program. Under existing law and practice, persons who are disabled and earn anything but the meagerest income are denied disability insurance payments as they are considered no longer sufficiently disabled and therefore no longer qualified. Under existing law and regulation, it is not enough that a person is severely disabled, that he is unable to get a job because he is disabled, to qualify for disability insurance cash payments he must establish his physical inability to do a job to qualify for such payments. We ask you to change this, to allow persons who are disabled by blindness to qualify for disability benefits upon proof of blindness and to continue qualified so long as they remain blind; to continue qualified to receive benefits even though they are employed, even though they are earning, in order that disability insurance payments may be available to them to offset the extra "equalizing" expenses incurred in living and competing without sight in an environment geared to sight. And now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly of several other provisions of H.R. 6675 Of course, the National Federation of the Blind still vigorously supports hospital insurance benefits for the aged under social security, and we endorse the provisions of H.R. 6675 which would establish such a program. We are regretful, however, that H.R. 6675 does not extend the proposed hospital care protection to disability insurance beneficiaries. Since their claim for payments must be based upon the existence of a medically determinable disability, they generally are in need of frequent, or even constant, medical and hospital care, whereas, men and women who reach retirement age may still be robust and well. Disability insurance beneficiaries, therefore, have a greater need than do the elderly for a social security-provided health care program. It is our hope-when the proposed hospital benefits for the aged program has been in operation for a reasonable length of time, when experience has replaced expectation, and when demands upon the program are known and costs can be accurately determined—then, it is our hope that this committee and the Congress will consider extending the hospital benefits provisions of H.R. 6675 to include disability insurance beneficiaries. Mr. Chairman, the National Federation of the Blind has worked, in Congress after Congress, to secure specially designated Federal funds to help the States in meeting the burdensome costs of providing the needy blind with adequate medical and hospital care. Therefore, we vigorously endorse the provisions of H.R. 6675 which would establish a new social security title-title XIX-under which Federal money for medical and hospital bills would be made available to public assistance recipients and to the medically indigent. We believe the proposed new title XIX is most important, for it would effectually serve to separate Federal public assistance money into two parts, one for aid, and the other for medical care. Such separation would prevent the States from lowering their aid payments in order to match the Federal contributions for medical care. This much-needed requirement would thus put an end to the practice of using ever-larger portions of Federal matching funds in public assistance to pay for medical care, rather than to increase the monthly aid grants of unfortunate men and women in need of public help. The National Federation of the Blind endorses the provisions of H.R. 6675, which would increase the amount of Federal participating payments in the public assistance titles of the Social Security Act. But, Mr. Chairman, there is no requirement in the bill that this additional money be passed on to aided recipients to be available for their use in paying rent and food bills. Section 405 of H.R. 6675-entitled "Maintenance of State Public Assistance Expenditures"-is called a pass-on requirement, but it is hardly that. Section 405 does prevent the States from substituting the increased Federal public assistance money for State money in such programs, but it does not assure that monthly public assistance grants will be raised by the amount of the larger Federal share in such payments. We request and urge this committee, therefore, to amend H.R. 6675 so as to require each State to increase the monthly grant of aid to every recipient by an amount equal to the Federal increase, then, the added Federal dollars will be available to the needy to meet always rising daily living costs. The National Federation of the Blind endorses section 301 of H.R. 6675, which would increase benefit payments for retired and elderly persons under title II of the Social Security Act. To the retired elderly, this increase will be available for them to use, if they choose to do so, to meet the costs of participation in the proposed supplementary health insurance benefits plan--which we endorse-and their already inadequate social security payments will not have to be further reduced to meet this new, though very beneficial, expense. To the others who receive payments under social security-dependents of retired persons, disability insurance beneficiaries and their dependents these people, too, will gain by the increased benefits payments provided for in section 301 of H.R. 6675, and because of the proposed increase, they will be able to live with a greater measure of decency, dignity, and adequacy. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present these views. Senator LONG (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Nagle. We will certainly consider the points you have made here. Senator Anderson? Senator ANDERSON. You haven't made any estimate of costs in the change of program. For instance, on the one section alone where you would change to 20200 yardstick as a measure of blindness, would that be rather expensive? Mr. NAGLE. I don't know what the cost is, Senator. I presume the departmental people can supply that information to the committee. I have always considered my function to come in here and talk about a problem and to offer a solution to the problem, and it seems to me that this is my problem. 47-140-65-pt. 2- -24 Senator ANDERSON. Then later on you suggest that they might make hospital benefits available to the disability people whether or not they had reached 65. Mr. NAGLE. We felt that if this bill were to go into effect, and people who qualified under it, under the six quarters provision, were then to go over to the old-age program at the age of 65, then it is conceivable that because they qualify under a limited requirement that they would not qualify for the old-age program, and, therefore, would have to terminate aid in benefits. Therefore, this is why we continued this beyond the age of 65. Senator WILLIAMS. No questions. Senator LONG. Thank you very much, sir. The next witness will be Mr. J. Dewey Dorsett, American Insurance Association. Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I introduce Mr. J. Dewey Dorsett. I am appearing here for the American Insurance Association. Mr. Dorsett is the president, formerly was the chairman of the industrial commission in North Carolina which administered the workmen's compensation laws there and was the national president of the Association of Workmen's Compensation Administrators. Senator LONG. We are very happy to welcome you, Senator Keating, and also your clients. Mr. KEATING. I will have nothing more to say which I am sure is a surprise to this committee. Senator WILLIAMS. We are glad you are here this morning. STATEMENT OF J. DEWEY DORSETT, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH B. KEATING, COUNSEL; AND ANDREW KALMYKOW, COUNSEL Mr. DORSETT. Mr. Chairman, Senator Anderson, Senator Williams Senator LONG. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. DORSETT. Yes, sir; I do. I am acutely aware of time limitations. I prepared an eight-page statement with exhibits, which has been submitted to your committee, and I am sure that it will be incorporated into the record of these important hearings. Senator LONG. That will be done. Mr. DORSETT. So, instead of using 10 minutes, with your permission, I hope to use only 5 and I will summarize as briefly as I am able to do so the important points covered in the full statement. First, as you know, the 190 insurance companies writing all lines of casualty and property insurance, including workmen's compensation, are vitally concerned in the effective operation of our State's workmen's compensation laws. We and many others are firmly convinced that the overlap of workmen's compensation and social security benefits cannot long endure without serious damage to the State's workmen's compensation system. As a matter of fact, I think it has the seeds of destruction in it. This grave impact on workmen's compensation will be greatly magnified by the expansion of social security disability benefits provided for by section 303 of H.R. 6675. Second, the history of how this overlap came about is documented in my statement. What is the extent of the duplication that so concerns me? Again this is covered in great detail in that statement. Senator ANDERSON. Where would it be in the statement? Mr. DORSETT. Beg pardon? Senator ANDERSON. Where would it be in the statement? Mr. DORSETT. The statement, Senator Anderson, is eight pages long and I have endeavored to cover that with the figures and the exhibits, the exhibits that are attached to it. Senator ANDERSON. I just want to see your figures as to how expensive this is. Mr. DORSETT. Beg pardon? Senator ANDERSON. I just want to see your figures, where are the figures that you have spoken about? Mr. DORSETT. On page 4. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. Mr. DORSETT. Some have endeavored to minimize the size of these overlaps. This is done by measuring the area of overlap in terms of total social security disability payments. We say that this is not the proper tests. It should be measured by the extent to which workmen's compensation payments are duplicated by social security disability benefits. Using the most conservative figures we estimate that in workmen's compensation cases where payments of between $250 and $300 million will be made, there will be duplicate disability payments under social security. This is based on new cases occurring during one year and amounts to one-third of all the workmen's compensation payments for disability. I emphasize that our figures, in my judgment, are conservative. If we use the data contained in a publication of the Social Security Administration itself, the size of this duplication might reach well over a half billion dollars. What happens, under current benefit scales in the case of a man with a wife and two children, the combined average social security disability benefits and workmen's compensation equal or exceed takehome pay in all but one State. To me that is so fundamentally unsound that we make a great point of it. With increased benefits under H.R. 6675 take-home pay would be exceeded in all States. This means that efforts at rehabilitation and the incentive to return to work, human nature being what it is, which are basic goals in any disability system, will be completely lost. Discouraging and thwarting rehabilitation is bad enough, but this duplication has another equally serious and socially undesirable impact. It impairs, in my judgment, the whole workmen's compensation benefits structure. Duplication of workmen's compensation by social security destroys the incentive for our States to increase these benefits, and this inevitable consequence affects all workmen's compensation beneficiaries, whether or not they are entitled to social security benefits. Already this has happened, and I have seen it in several States during the legislative sessions this year. As you will find set forth in my statement, a provision precluding any duplication of benefits was contained in the social security dis ability law as originally enacted by the Congress. Social security spokesmen have suggested that the present problem might be cured by deducting security benefits from our workmen's compensation laws. In my judgment, this is not the solution in terms of continuing and preserving the State's system. It is difficult to contemplate the maintenance of the whole, on proper benefit levels, State workmen's compensation systems to take care of what will eventually be a marginal area. If workmen's compensation should be destroyed, we will move the clock back 50 years to the times when the only remedy the injured workman had was an action at law, uncertain as it was, for damages based on proven fault on the part of his employer. Let us not overlook the tremendous contribution that insurance companies have made over the years in the field of safety. Since the enactment of workmen's compensation law fatality rates have been reduced 77 percent, and the frequency of injury has been reduced 81 percent. This, in my judgment, is remarkable record and one which cannot be jeoparadized. Unlike social security, insurance carriers' rates, as Senator Anderson so well knows, are geared to reflect and to reward improved experience due to effective safety work. Now, may I close on a pleasant note. We are pleased that H.R. 6675 recognizes the wisdom and social desirability of avoiding duplication, by providing an exception for medical care furnished under workmen's compensation laws. Some who recognize the existence of duplication-the duplication problem-have recommended further study. We believe that known facts already amply justify restoration of the offset at the present time. We suggested language, and I hope we have not been presumptuous in this instance for such an amendment, which could be incorporated into section 303, is attached to my prepared statement. Should it be determined, however, that this study be undertaken, it is essential, in our opinion, that the area of overlap not be increased, pending its completion. We respectfully urge then that section 303 of H.R. 6675 be eliminated from the bill or that the offset of workmen's compensation against social security disability benefits be restored as it was originally found years ago. Gentlemen, I thank you very much for this privilege. If there are any questions, I shall do my best to answer them and if I do not have the answers I am sure that Senator Keating and Mr. Kalmykow have the answers. (The prepared statement of Mr. Dorsett follows:) STATEMENT OF J. DEWEY DORSETT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is J. Dewey Dorsett and I live in Ridgewood, N.J. My appearance before your committee is on behalf of the American Insurance Association, of which I am president. American Insurance Association is a nonprofit organization whose headquarters are located in New York City. It is composed of 190 stock insurance companies writing all lines of casualty and property insurance, including workmen's compensation insurance, throughout the Nation. |