ADDITIONAL VIEWS by Kenneth Bowler, Robert Fulton, Arthur Hess, Richard Nathan, and Timothy Smeeding Commissioner King is to be commended for launching a thorough examination of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Such a review of the program was long overdue. The Modernization Project experts, under the capable leadership of Dr. Arthur Flemming, have performed an important public service. They have identified, examined, and formulated potential corrective actions for the key problems that inhibit the SSI program's effectiveness, complicate its administration, and create inequities among applicants for, and recipients of, program benefits. The experts' report can help build public awareness of the importance of the SSI program to millions of America's elderly, blind, and disabled citizens and their families. We hope this work will also increase significantly the attention given to the SSI program by policy makers in both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government as well as by analysts and advocates outside government. We join our colleagues in endorsing many of the changes presented in the report. Nevertheless, we find a number of aspects of the report troublesome. We presented these concerns during meetings with our fellow experts. We present them here in the hope that our perspectives will help persuade congressional committees, the Social Security Administration, and policy officials elsewhere in the executive branch to treat this report as an essential starting point for considering comprehensive reform of the SSI program. Specific Concerns 1. Cost The options preferred by a majority of the experts would, by the end of five years, double the cost of the SSI program to the federal treasury. Some of the cost increases would result from addition to the rolls of persons who would become eligible as a result of increased benefit levels, more generous resource limitations, and other liberalizations presented. The changes would also significantly increase payments to persons already receiving SSI benefits. The chances of all these program expansions being effected in the foreseeable future are extremely slim, given the federal budget situation and the many other pressing domestic priorities which are competing for resources. Moreover, the cost impact would extend beyond the federal government to state and local governments as well. In particular, the impact of the increased numbers of SSI recipients on state and local Medicaid costs deserves much more attention than it received, in view of the prominence of Medicaid cost growth as a source of great budgetary concern throughout the nation. 2. Choice of Priorities Within the SSI Program The report treats an extremely expensive option on increasing benefits as being on the highest priority level. We advocate a more deliberate approach which would treat increases in benefit levels beyond 100 percent of the poverty guidelines as a longer-range goal and move to the top of the agenda for short-term action lower-cost changes which will improve equity, simplify administration, improve understanding of the program by those already eligible, and promote self-help efforts by recipients and their families. 3. Sensitivity to Other Needs It is obvious that the response made to the needs of elderly, blind and disabled citizens must take into account other urgent national needs such as health care for the medically uninsured, the economic and social needs of our cities, and improvement of the support and protection of all of America's children. While this broad array of needs was beyond the experts' specific charge, we believe proposals on the scope and phasing of SSI changes must fully take into account their cumulative effect and the fact that other pressing domestic problems also have priority claims on substantial additional resources. Conclusions We believe it would be major, and acceptable, progress if the following resulted in the near future from the work of the experts: (1) The Social Security Administration were provided the staff resources it must have in order to discharge more adequately its responsibilities for the SSI program. It is urgent that SSA receive the approvals and funding necessary for hiring, training, and making fully functional, no more than two years from now, the additional staff seen as vital by nearly all of the experts. (2) Significant administrative complexities were eliminated and equity and benefit adequacy were improved for many recipients through early approval and implementation of many of the simplifications proposed. Examples of changes which should be effected without delay are: simplified and more generous treatment of interest income, raising current resource limits by moderate amounts and reconciling the treatment of different types of resources, providing stronger work incentives, and eliminating benefit reductions due to in-kind support and maintenance. (3) A plan for gradually increasing benefits and expanding eligibility were developed and implemented. For example, annual increases covering changes in the cost of living plus two percentage points could bring benefit levels close to the poverty line by the early years of the 21st century, while being more realistically accommodated within the federal budget. These changes would represent a major contribution to the well-being of Americans who are elderly or have disabilities and are dependent on SSI for meeting their basic needs.