New Social Security rules will create hurdles for millions of seniors, report finds

Npr - Apr 8th, 2025

Starting Monday, Americans seeking retirement or survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA) will no longer be able to apply over the phone, as the agency moves to online and in-person applications only. This change affects millions, with reports indicating that some seniors will face a 45-mile trip to the nearest field office. The SSA claims the policy will enhance fraud protection, but it has faced backlash from disability advocates and others who argue it creates barriers for many, especially those in rural areas or with limited mobility. The new measures exclude Medicare, disability, and supplemental income applications, and the SSA will perform anti-fraud checks on all phone claims, flagging those with fraud indicators.

Critics, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), stress that the new policy imposes significant burdens on seniors and disabled individuals, who already face lengthy waits for in-person services. Kathleen Romig of the CBPP highlights the challenges faced by those who cannot drive or leave their homes, noting the lack of online options for survivor benefits applications. Additionally, the transition to online processes is hindered by technological barriers for many seniors and disabled people. The ongoing staff cuts at the SSA further exacerbate the situation, likely leading to increased wait times for in-person services, adding to the frustration and difficulties in accessing essential benefits.

Accessibility Disability Rights Social Security Administration Fraud Prevention Retirement Benefits Survivor Benefits Phone Applications Center On Budget And Policy Priorities Kathleen Romig

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article effectively highlights a significant policy change affecting Social Security benefits, emphasizing its potential impacts on seniors and people with disabilities. It provides a clear and timely overview of the situation, making it relevant to a broad audience. However, the story could benefit from a more balanced perspective by including additional viewpoints, particularly from the SSA and independent experts. While the article is generally accurate, some claims require further verification to ensure precision. Overall, the piece is informative and engaging, but it could be strengthened by enhancing source variety and transparency about the data and methodologies used.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims, such as the cessation of phone applications for Social Security benefits and the need for in-person or online applications. It accurately reflects the SSA's intention to implement stronger identity verification procedures. However, the claim that the change amounts to a '45-mile trip for some 6 million seniors' requires verification, as does the assertion that 'more than 4 in 10 retirees apply for their Social Security benefits by phone.' These points need corroboration to ensure precision. Additionally, the story mentions a legal challenge by disability rights groups, which is a significant claim needing further details to verify its status and implications.

Balance

The story primarily presents the perspective of those opposing the SSA's new policy, such as the CBPP and disability advocates. While it does include a statement from the SSA about the policy's intent to prevent fraud, the coverage is more skewed towards the negative impacts on seniors and people with disabilities. A more balanced approach would involve a deeper exploration of the SSA's reasoning and potential benefits of the policy, alongside the criticisms and challenges it faces.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the policy changes and their potential impacts. The language is straightforward, and the tone is neutral, making it accessible to a general audience. However, some complex issues, like the legal challenge and identity verification procedures, could be explained in more detail to enhance understanding.

Source quality

The article cites the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a reputable organization, and includes statements from SSA officials, which adds credibility. However, the reliance on a single advocacy group's analysis could introduce bias. Including a broader range of sources, such as independent experts or additional government perspectives, would enhance the article's reliability and provide a more comprehensive view of the policy's implications.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the SSA's policy changes and the reasons behind them, such as fraud prevention. However, it lacks a detailed explanation of the methodology used by the CBPP in their analysis, such as how they calculated the 45-mile travel estimate. Transparency about the sources of the statistics and the legal challenge's specifics would improve the article's clarity and help readers understand the basis for the claims made.