Proposed rules for social security disability reviews with and without C.I.

[dcs17]

I read the 11 pages in the 2008 federal register covering the aforementioned topics. The largest part of the 11 pages are already in the regs. They proposed that the new regs are to become effective 2/20/2015.
I gleaned 2 major changes to the current regs. One is that they propose to no longer test one with their hearing aids. This applies to anyone without a CI. They are recognizing that if ones hearing loss without hearing aids is severe enough to have < 40% on word discrimination tests that the hearing aids virtually always do not improve the scores to any significant degree. (I can attest to that personally as both my ears tested 0 % without and with hearing aids).
The other major change is that they proposed testing guidelines for someone with a C.I. They propose that a standard of 1 year after the C.I. as the timeframe to test one's hearing again to see if you will keep the disability or not. They set 1 year as a reasonable time to improve a good bit from the surgery. They will use a sentence discrimination test instead of the word test. They said a group of words can be understood better than 1 word by itself which seems reasonable. They said sentence testing is the standard used in this field to set discrimation scores after a C.I.They will consider you disabled if you score < 60% correct in the best ear. Obviously, you will have to have the processor(s) on and working.
Hope this helps in regards to the other thread I started a few days ago on SSDI and C.I.

 

[faire_jour]

Well then I guess Miss Kat will not be getting disability anymore. Hooray, she is no longer deaf! I had no idea! I guess she will no longer need medicaid to pay for all the therapy that helped get the high score. And I guess she won't need more therapy as the language and concepts get more complicated.

Good, I'm glad she is hearing now and I'm glad that the goverment can make that determination from a single test.

 

[posts from hell]

I read the 11 pages in the 2008 federal register covering the aforementioned topics. The largest part of the 11 pages are already in the regs. They proposed that the new regs are to become effective 2/20/2015.
I gleaned 2 major changes to the current regs. One is that they propose to no longer test one with their hearing aids. This applies to anyone without a CI. They are recognizing that if ones hearing loss without hearing aids is severe enough to have < 40% on word discrimination tests that the hearing aids virtually always do not improve the scores to any significant degree. (I can attest to that personally as both my ears tested 0 % without and with hearing aids).
The other major change is that they proposed testing guidelines for someone with a C.I. They propose that a standard of 1 year after the C.I. as the timeframe to test one's hearing again to see if you will keep the disability or not. They set 1 year as a reasonable time to improve a good bit from the surgery. They will use a sentence discrimination test instead of the word test. They said a group of words can be understood better than 1 word by itself which seems reasonable. They said sentence testing is the standard used in this field to set discrimation scores after a C.I.They will consider you disabled if you score < 60% correct in the best ear. Obviously, you will have to have the processor(s) on and working.
Hope this helps in regards to the other thread I started a few days ago on SSDI and C.I.

But they can't force you to use the CI? You can say it's a preference that you do not want to wear it, correct?

 

[Lighthouse77]

It's a miracle! jk

 

[dcs17]

Well then I guess Miss Kat will not be getting disability anymore. Hooray, she is no longer deaf! I had no idea! I guess she will no longer need medicaid to pay for all the therapy that helped get the high score. And I guess she won't need more therapy as the language and concepts get more complicated.

Good, I'm glad she is hearing now and I'm glad that the goverment can make that determination from a single test.

The proposed rules did say that if you score above 60% with the CI that they will consider the whole case. All I have heard is that they then look at age,education,past work,and if there are other significant health issues. My sister used to talk to a retired doctor (while at the YMCA) who had worked for social security doing medical reviews. That doctor said the closer one is to normal SS age and the longer one had been on SSDI upon a review, the better odds one has of retaining the SSDI. Those hardly are "earthshaking tidbits"!!

 

[dcs17]

But they can't force you to use the CI? You can say it's a preference that you do not want to wear it, correct?

If they know and or figure out that you have a CI and you dont cooperate by wearing the processor, you probably lose the DDSI in a heartbeat. I dont know how easy it is to "hide" that one has a CI. They will have an ENT give you an exam and an audiologist do the speech discrimination tests.

 

[CJB]

Well then I guess Miss Kat will not be getting disability anymore. Hooray, she is no longer deaf! I had no idea! I guess she will no longer need medicaid to pay for all the therapy that helped get the high score. And I guess she won't need more therapy as the language and concepts get more complicated.

Good, I'm glad she is hearing now and I'm glad that the goverment can make that determination from a single test.

Just like that woman with a brain tumor and fibromyalgia who was deemed not disabled.

I tried to find a link to an article about it but can't find it anywhere.

 

[posts from hell]

If they know and or figure out that you have a CI and you dont cooperate by wearing the processor, you probably lose the DDSI in a heartbeat. I dont know how easy it is to "hide" that one has a CI. They will have an ENT give you an exam and an audiologist do the speech discrimination tests.

Then you can "not hear" on these tests.

or... "I do not have a processor."

Or...
or...

many things, really. Bottom line, these with CI are still deaf due to the fact they have no residual hearing without assistance.

You can appeal the decision.

 

[dcs17]

Just like that woman with a brain tumor and fibromyalgia who was deemed not disabled.

I tried to find a link to an article about it but can't find it anywhere.

First, she should not lose her Medicaid based on a a SSDI status change as Medicaid eligibility is based on income and asset tests.
The proposed SSDI rules can be found by going to the federal register and select simple search next, and then volume 73-2008. Then put in a keyword such as hearing loss or cochlear implant. It is many pages of tedious reading and somewhat redundant. Happy reading!!!

 

[Lighthouse77]

Some disabilities know you have a CI but they say if you think you have improve, you should report it, but most of the time, they don't bother.

 

[dcs17]

Then you can "not hear" on these tests.

or... "I do not have a processor."

Or...
or...

many things, really. Bottom line, these with CI are still deaf due to the fact they have no residual hearing without assistance.

You can appeal the decision.

See my latest post to find the proposed rules and it will be very educating to read them. I know that a CI usually deafens that ear and so do they. Their expectations are that you will be tested no earlier than 1 yr after CI and with the processor working of course.

 

[Lighthouse77]

I agree with post... no hearing without assistance is like saying no mobility without assistance. And who think being on the wheelchair is easy?

 

[faire_jour]

First, she should not lose her Medicaid based on a a SSDI status change as Medicaid eligibility is based on income and asset tests.
The proposed SSDI rules can be found by going to the federal register and select simple search next, and then volume 73-2008. Then put in a keyword such as hearing loss or cochlear implant. It is many pages of tedious reading and somewhat redundant. Happy reading!!!

She qualifies for Medicaid because she gets SSI. If she loses one, she loses both. She does not qualify based on our $$. If she was ever declared "un-disabled" she would lose medicaid.