Mass. disability subcommittee hears DER analysis of SSDI benefit cliffs, flags federal research and grant cuts

The Disability Employment Subcommittee of the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities on a virtual meeting heard a high‑level update from the Department of Economic Research on how Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) can create steep "benefit cliffs" that deter people with disabilities from returning to full‑time work.

The report presentation and ensuing discussion focused on the DER team's modeling of three common beneficiary scenarios and on SSDI as the program that produced the largest modeled income troughs. "Our analysis found that a substantial portion of SSDI recipients would likely hit an income trough," said Mark Rembert, chief economist at the Department of Economic Research, summarizing the team's preliminary findings. DER said the full report remains pending final approval for public posting, and DER plans an event to release and explain the full findings once clearance is complete.

Why this matters: advocates and service providers told the subcommittee that benefit cliffs have real effects on employment decisions and on the day‑to‑day work of benefits counselors. Kathy Petkauskas, a Commission member who also represents Work Without Limits at UMass Chan Medical School, said recent federal changes are already altering how local programs collect data and deliver services. She said the state WIPA (Work Incentives Planning and Assistance) grant award language was revised to remove a prior federal reporting requirement on gender, race and ethnicity, and that Social Security local field offices have moved to appointment‑only service models.

Discussion and evidence: DER staff said the research modeled how earned income interacts with SSI, SSDI and other programs and found SSDI to present the largest potential drop in disposable income—what participants described as an "income trough"—if a recipient returned to prior full‑time earnings. The DER team said it used existing administrative datasets and noted there is an opportunity to combine the new report with long‑running "learn to earn" datasets held across state agencies to deepen analysis. DER summarized that the report was intended as a foundational exploration and emphasized multiple follow‑on analytic options.

Providers and advocates described operational stress points that make benefit counseling time‑consuming. Joe Reel, director of financial wellness at MassAbility, said his organization’s benefits counselors spend substantial time helping members with MassHealth, SNAP and other interactions that intersect with SSDI/SSI issues; Kathy Petkauskas said a prior time study at her program found benefits work consumed about 40% of a staff FTE. Speakers argued that real‑time access to agency staff and clearer cross‑agency pathways could reduce delays and confusion for people attempting to increase earnings.

Federal funding and research disruptions: participants raised immediate concerns about federal moves. Commissioner Toni Wolf and other speakers described a recent notice that multiple Retirement and Disability Research Centers (RDRCs) were defunded; Wolf said roughly "five or six" projects nationally that had focused on Social Security reforms were affected. Kathy Petkauskas and others also reported that the WIPA grant notice they received removes previously required demographic reporting, a change advocates said reduces visibility into equity outcomes.

Data and next steps: state staff from the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development (EOLWD) and Administration and Finance (A&F) described ongoing technical conversations about data governance and potential reuse of existing datasets, including several years (staff referenced about seven to eight years) of "learn to earn" data. Tova Miller Sweezy, assistant secretary at EOLWD, said those conversations are active and that EOLWD will continue work on data governance and potential analytics, though no concrete product timeline was offered before her planned maternity leave.

Action items and procedural outcomes: the subcommittee approved the previous meeting's minutes by voice vote; the transcript records a motion to approve and a second and records "aye" responses but does not provide a roll‑call tally. Members requested a DER follow‑up and public event when the full DER report is cleared, asked state staff to continue work on data governance, and pledged continued coordination among disability advocates, workforce agencies, and benefits counselors to prepare a coordinated strategy for sharing information with legislators and other stakeholders.

The meeting closed with the subcommittee planning a future panel to highlight the role of job coaches and personal care attendants in supporting employment for people with disabilities; organizers said the panel would likely be scheduled in May and that they would coordinate outreach to providers and employer audiences.

Ending: Subcommittee members said they will reconvene when DER can release the full report, pursue cross‑agency data governance, and consider coordinated communications for state legislators and partners to respond to federal changes impacting benefits and supports.