The "Protect Social Security and Medicare Act" mandates a supermajority vote in Congress to pass any legislation that cuts Social Security or Medicare benefits, ensuring these programs are more difficult to reduce.
Mark Pocan
Representative
WI-2
The "Protect Social Security and Medicare Act" mandates a supermajority vote in Congress to pass any legislation that cuts benefits managed by the Social Security Administration or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This requirement aims to safeguard Social Security and Medicare benefits from being easily reduced. An exception is provided for Medicare Advantage plan payment reductions if offset by equal or greater increases in other Medicare benefits. The Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary Office is designated as the sole authority to determine if a proposed bill would reduce Social Security benefits.
Social Security & Medicare Changes Need Supermajority Vote: New Bill Aims to Protect Benefits
The "Protect Social Security and Medicare Act" sets a high bar for any cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits. This bill would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and Senate to pass any legislation reducing these benefits. That's a significant hurdle, designed to make any reductions a major, bipartisan decision.
Raising the Bar for Benefit Cuts
This bill changes the rules of the game. Normally, a simple majority (51%) is enough to pass legislation. Under this act, any bill that the Chief Actuary Office of the Social Security Administration determines would cut Social Security benefits will need a two-thirds (67%) supermajority to move forward. This applies to both initial bills and any amendments that might try to sneak in benefit reductions. (SEC. 2.)
For example, if lawmakers proposed a bill that raised the retirement age, potentially reducing the total amount of benefits a person could receive over their lifetime, that proposal would need 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House to pass. A plan to decrease cost-of-living adjustments would face the same high bar.
- Real-World Impact: Imagine a construction worker who planned to retire at 67. If a bill proposed raising the retirement age to 70, this act would make it harder for that change to become law without broad agreement.
The Medicare Advantage Exception
There's one specific exception carved out for Medicare Advantage plans. Cuts to payments within these plans are exempt from the supermajority rule, but only if those cuts are balanced out by equal or greater increases in other parts of Medicare (Title XVIII of the Social Security Act). (SEC. 2.)
- Real-World Impact: This could, for instance, allow shifting funds from Medicare Advantage to boost payments for traditional Medicare services, like hospital stays or doctor visits, without needing a supermajority. However, it also means that payment structures within Medicare Advantage could be more easily changed, potentially affecting the services offered by those plans.
Who Decides What's a 'Cut'?
The bill gives the Social Security Administration's Chief Actuary Office sole authority to determine whether a proposed bill or amendment reduces Social Security benefits. (SEC. 3.) This office is responsible for providing independent cost and benefit estimates for proposed changes to Social Security.
- Real-World Impact: This means that if there's a disagreement about whether a bill cuts benefits, the Chief Actuary's Office has the final say. This could be a point of contention if, for example, a bill makes complex changes to benefit formulas that some argue are cuts while others claim are improvements.
Potential Challenges
While the bill is designed to protect benefits, it could also make it harder to make any changes to Social Security and Medicare, even those that might be needed to ensure the programs' long-term financial stability. Finding two-thirds agreement on major reforms could be extremely difficult, potentially leading to legislative gridlock on these crucial issues.