Comment on FR Doc # E7-03782

April 3, 2007 Commissioner of Social Security P.O. Box 17703 Baltimore, MD 21235-7703 RE: Methods for Conducting Personal Conferences When Waiver of Recovery of a Title II Overpayment Cannot Be Approved, NPRM, 03/05/07. Dear Commissioner: Please consider the following comments when promulgating final regulations concerning the above noted notice of proposed rulemaking. Faculty at Cornell University?s Employment and Disability Institute are comprised of several social security substantive experts whose efforts are primarily focused upon a disabled beneficiary?s return to work. Team members are considered experts in their field and regularly provide both technical support and training to individuals and agencies working with disabled and blind social security beneficiaries. As overpayments can often befall individuals involved with a return to work effort, the recent proposals are of particular interest. While we agree with the basic intent to provide as many workable alternatives as possible for the beneficiary population we are concerned that some of the basic intent of the personal conference may become lost in the translation from intent to practice. The personal conference is intended as an opportunity for the beneficiary to both receive and provide information concerning the events that gave rise to an overpayment assessment. As the conference is provided once a denial of a waiver request is being contemplated, the value of the conference becomes critically important. Information provision and receipt remains of critical import, however, the determination of fault rises in importance as this type of issue carries with it a credibility determination that is best made during a personal meeting. Many aspects of such a crucial determination cannot be made on the basis of reviewing documents or by listening to a phone conversation. The face-to-face nature of such a determination is obvious; body language, behavior and appearance are factors. While a video conference may provide some level of ?visuals? necessary for this type of determination we are concerned that the overwhelming number of beneficiaries (particularly those receiving SSI) will not have meaningful access to such technology. The result is that those who can least afford access and may be least able to afford to repay an overpayment will be forced to rely on personal conference methods that will least be able to assess their fault in the matter. It is important that the ?playing field? be level for all social security beneficiaries and not sacrifice important rights of those least able to afford to participate. We are also concerned about the Social Security Administration?s existing obligations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act when considering these new proposals. The proposal discussion contains an example of a very extreme situation that would give rise to holding a face-to-face personal conference at a location other than the SSA local field office. This example falls well below the requirements of Section 504 surrounding ?reasonable accommodations? and programmatic accessibility. The example describes an individual who is BOTH bed-ridden and deaf. Section 504 obligates the Social Security Administration to provide reasonable accommodations and programmatic accessibility to ALL persons with disabilities who require such and will not allow the Administration simply to provide accommodation and accessibility measures to only the most severely limited program participants. We are concerned that the proposals fall far short of what is required of the Administration. Lastly, we suggest that the final regulations contain more direction for beneficiaries who need accommodations as to their rights and how best to make the request for needed accommodations. While we realize that the POMS may provide examples and special circumstances for the benefit of Social Security employees, we feel that the same should be accorded to the public who needs to access process. Thank you for your consideration of these comments when promulgating final regulations. Sincerely, Raymond Cebula Extension Associate Faculty Employment and Disability Institute 201 ILR Extension Building Ithaca, New York 14853-3901 t. 617.312.3261 rac@cornell.edu