WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 8478

RECON Act

119th Congress Introduced by Valerie Foushee

HR 8478 would let claimants skip the mandatory reconsideration step for Social Security decisions under Titles II and XVI, opting for direct appeal in some cases.

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 8478

Summary of Bill: HR 8478 (Session 119) — “To amend titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act to make the reconsideration review process optional”

Overview

HR 8478 proposes changes to the Social Security Act, specifically titles II (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, commonly known as Social Security) and XVI (Supplemental Security Income, SSI). The core aim is to make the reconsideration review process optional. The bill has been introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Co-sponsor: Valerie Foushee.

  • Introduced: April 23, 2026
  • Action to date: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means
  • Primary sponsor: (Not listed in provided text)
  • Co-sponsor: Valerie Foushee

Note: The summary below is based on the bill’s title and stated objective. The exact statutory language would specify the precise mechanisms and scope of “optional reconsideration.”

Purpose and Intent

  • The stated purpose is to modify the current reconsideration review process within the Social Security framework, making it optional rather than mandatory in certain contexts.
  • This could alter how beneficiaries or applicants challenge decisions related to Social Security benefits under Titles II and XVI.

Key Provisions (inference from the bill’s title)

Because the textual details are not provided in the brief action history, the following are the likely areas the bill would address, based on the stated objective to make reconsideration optional:

  • Titles II and XVI: The bill would apply to both Social Security disability/retirement/survivors benefits (Title II) and SSI (Title XVI) participant determinations.
  • Reconsideration Review Process:
    • The current process generally requires an initial determination, followed by a reconsideration review if an initial decision is contested.
    • The bill would permit, in specified circumstances or universally, an option to bypass the mandatory reconsideration step.
    • The alternative pathways could include immediate appeal to a higher administrative level (e.g., Administrative Law Judge hearing) or other adjudicative processes, or maintains the current path but with optionality at the beneficiary’s election.
  • Procedural Changes:
    • If reconsideration is optional, timelines, notification requirements, and evidentiary standards for filing an appeal or requesting an expedited process may be adjusted.
    • Potential impact on deadlines for further appeals or for submitting new evidence.
  • Savings/Cost Implications (typical in such reforms):
    • The bill may seek to streamline appeals, potentially reducing administrative costs or shifting costs toward beneficiaries, agencies, or different parts of the adjudicatory pipeline.
    • Could affect workload for the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Administrative Law Judges.

Who Would Be Affected

  • Beneficiaries and Applicants under Title II and Title XVI who are subject to SSA determinations and reconsideration reviews.
  • Social Security Administration (SSA) operations, including case processing, timing, and workload distribution among reconsideration vs. direct appeal channels.
  • Administrative Law Judges and related adjudicatory bodies responsible for SSA hearing processes.

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

  • Legislative Timeline:
    • Introduced April 23, 2026, and referred to the Ways and Means Committee.
    • Committee action would determine whether and how the optional reconsideration would be implemented.
  • Implementation Timeline (if enacted):
    • The bill would likely specify an effective date (e.g., immediate upon enactment or a staged implementation).
    • Transitional provisions may address cases in process at enactment and deadlines for electing the optional path.
  • Regulatory Needs:
    • If reconsideration becomes optional, SSA would need new regulations to define eligibility, election procedures, and any exceptions.

Practical Implications

  • Individuals who prefer the current reconsideration route could still opt in if the bill preserves that pathway or if the option is available under certain conditions.
  • Beneficiaries who seek faster resolution or who wish to escalate directly to a hearing may have a new or clearer pathway.
  • The impact on benefit outcomes, wait times, and administrative costs would depend on the final text, election mechanics, and any accompanying funding or implementation provisions.

If you have access to the bill’s full text or a detailed summary, I can provide a more precise, line-by-line breakdown of the exact provisions and their legal effects.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.