C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER III—SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION › PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED › Subpart T—State Supplementation Provisions; Agreement; Payments

20 C.F.R. § 416.2030

Optional supplementation: Variations in payments

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Payment level. The level of State supplementary payments may vary for each category the State elects to include in its federally administered supplement. These categorical variations of payment levels must be specified in the agreement between the Commissioner and the State. If any State has in effect for July 1974 an agreement which provides for variations in addition to those specified in this section, the State may, at its option, continue such variations but only for periods ending before July 1, 1976.

(1) Geographical variations. A State may elect to include two different geographical variations. A third may be elected if adequate justification, e.g., substantial differences in living costs, can be demonstrated. All such variations must be readily identifiable by county or ZIP code or other readily identifiable factor.

(2) Living arrangements. In addition, a State may elect up to six variations in recognition of the different needs which result from various living arrangements. If a State elects six payment level variations based on differences in living arrangements, one of these six variations must apply only to individuals in Medicaid facilities, that is, facilities receiving title XIX payments with respect to such persons for the cost of their care (see § 416.211(b)(1)). In any event, States are limited to one payment level variation for residents of Medicaid facilities. Types of other living arrangements for which payment variations may be allowed include arrangements such as:

(i) Living alone;

(ii) Living with an ineligible spouse;

(iii) Personal care facility; or,

(iv) Domiciliary or congregate care facility.

(b) Relationship to actual cost differences. Under the agreement, variations in State supplementary payment levels will be permitted for each living arrangement the State elects. These differences must be based on rational distinctions between both the types of living arrangements and the costs of those arrangements.

(c) Effective month of State supplementary payment category. The State supplementary payment category which applies in the current month will be used to determine the State payment level in that month. This rule applies even if the countable income in a prior month is used to determine the amount of State supplementary payment.

[40 FR 7640, Feb. 21, 1975, as amended at 50 FR 48579, Nov. 26, 1985; 56 FR 41455, Aug. 21, 1991; 62 FR 38455, July 18, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1979–1995 · leading case: Termini v. Califano
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Termini v. Califano (1979) nywd · cites it 6× “20 C.F.R. § 416.2030 . On November 30, 1973, New York entered into an agreement with HEW to provide optional SSI supplements to be administered by the federal government.”
Conklin v. Shinpoch (1986) wash · cites it 2× “See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.2030 (a)(2) (1986). One of these categories is a couple consisting of a person eligible for SSI and an "ineligible spouse".”
Ruppert v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health & Human Services (1987) nyed · cites it 2× “They simply provide that certain individuals will, because of New York and the Secretary’s evaluation of their relative need for income supplementation, receive less additional public support in the form of state supplementary assistance payments than others.”
Gilchrist v. Califano (1979) nysd · cites it 3× “, 20 C.F.R. § 416.2030 , and the Equal Protection Clause.”
Termini v. Califano (1979) ca2 · cites it 2× “Termini’s motion, stating that “it is patently irrational to assume that the SSI recipient’s per unit cost will be reduced when he shares his household with his minor, dependent children.”
Livermore v. Heckler (1984) ca9 · cites it 2× “” We express no opinion with respect to the appropriate rate levels in states that have chosen different living arrangement categories under 20 C.F.R. § 416.2030 (a)(2). The judgment of the district court with respect to section 1611(h) of the Social Security Amendments of 1972,…”
Gilchrist v. Harris (1980) nysd · cites it 3× “, 20 C.F.R. § 416.2030 , 2 and the Equal *861 Protection Clause.”
Ireson v. Chater (1995) cand “2001, the federal government allows states to pay an SSP to their own SSI recipients, and under 20 CFR 416.2030, states have the right to decide how much the supplement will be.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.