Save DACA

Irina Matiychenko Blog CardIn the wake of the recent election, millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States are uncertain about what their futures hold. In particular, those who have benefited from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program fear that they will soon become eligible for deportation from the only country they have ever known.

I strongly urge President-Elect Trump to refrain from overturning the executive order that brought DACA into existence. Immigrants eligible for DACA, known as DREAMers after the failed federal DREAM Act, exemplify the American Dream. They should be the last people we as a nation choose to exclude.

DACA-eligible immigrants are young people who were born in another country but brought to the United States as young children, often by parents searching for a better life for their families. DREAMers were raised in the United States, attend schools here, and pay taxes here. They are educated; they speak English. They serve in our military. They have the same values and aspirations as natural-born citizens, they love their country, and they want an even better future for their children. In short, they are Americans.

While not giving them a path to citizenship, DACA provides a mechanism for these young DREAMers to receive work authorization, get social security cards and driver’s licenses, and live without the constant fear of deportation. It gives them legal status so that they can contribute to their country. With the stroke of a pen, the more than 700,000 DREAMers who have obtained DACA since 2012 could immediately lose their status, and the country would lose an important and valuable resource.

If the new administration chooses to repeal DACA, the consequences will be myriad and severe. Without the benefits of DACA, hundreds of thousands of immigrants will find themselves without the opportunity to continue their education, or to work and contribute to the economy. Overnight, these immigrants will be forced back into the shadows. The U.S. will lose billions of dollars in tax revenue.

The time is now to reassure DREAMers that the United States is and always has been a nation of immigrants. Punishing them for the actions of their parents is not only unfair. It’s un-American.

immigration protest

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

Housing Policy Punishes Vulnerable Immigrants, NYC Can Help

brian hilburn blog cardIn the aftermath of the election, no population has been left with more uncertainty about what their future holds than immigrants. In New York, we are fortunate to be part of a community that has long championed immigrant’s rights and celebrates the contributions they make. As the City’s leaders grapple with the best way forward to protect and defend the rights of immigrants, I have a recommendation that would help to provide vulnerable families with a measure of economic security and peace of mind.

I am an attorney with LegalHealth, a division of the New York Legal Assistance Group. My colleagues and I partner with hospitals across New York, providing free legal services to low-income patients. We train healthcare professionals to understand the non-medical barriers, such as a lack of health insurance or public assistance, that impede a patient’s treatment or recovery and work alongside them at healthcare facilities to find legal solutions to these problems.

One area of particular concern is housing instability, which has been linked to a multitude of health problems: people who are homeless are more likely to visit the emergency room, have longer stays if admitted to the hospital, and be readmitted within 30 days. Preventing homelessness for our clients, many of whom are immigrants, is a high priority.

Among the undocumented immigrants we serve are so-called “mixed-status” households in which family members include people with different citizenship or immigration statuses. Often, the parents are undocumented and the children are U.S.-born citizens. They are uniquely at risk of homelessness.

Under federal regulations, undocumented immigrants are prohibited from receiving federal housing subsidies. But if one household member has an eligible immigration status, the entire family may reside in public housing. However, the regulations require that local agencies, including the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), use a formula to calculate their rent by pro-rating the federal housing subsidy, which results in mixed-status families being required to pay a greater percentage of their income in rent than immigrant-eligible families.

The penalty for living in a mixed-status household is felt even more harshly by low-income families. We have a number of mixed-status clients who wind up in eviction proceedings because they cannot afford their NYCHA rent. Inexplicably, the formula, which is complex and somewhat unclear, appears to dictate that the lower a mixed-status family’s income is, the higher the percentage of their income must go to pay rent.

Our client Alma (not her real name), for example, is an undocumented mother of a 19-year-old U.S. citizen daughter who suffers from muscular dystrophy. She depends on her mother for all her activities of daily living, making it impossible for Alma to work. Their sole income is the daughter’s monthly Supplemental Security Income of $733 (the maximum benefit provided). Based on the NYCHA formula, Alma’s monthly rent is $533 – 73% of her income versus the 30% rate for immigrant-eligible families. Obviously, this leaves her unable to pay the rent and other living expenses. She repeatedly ends up in Housing Court, where we first met her at a non-payment proceeding. Just a year earlier she had received a grant from the City to settle a previous non-payment proceeding. Alma will need yet another such grant to resolve the current matter.

Given New York City’s efforts to curb homelessness, it seems clear that the federal housing policy runs counter to the City’s goal. It is also putting many U.S. citizen children at greater risk of homelessness because their parents happen to be undocumented. They are, in essence, penalized for their parents’ immigration status. While this is at least in part due to federal policy, there is a step the City could take to reduce the burden of this penalty.

New York should pay the difference between the mixed-status, pro-rated rent and the statutory rent. This would allow these families to pay a cap of 30% of their income in rent, lessening their risk of homelessness and allowing them to maintain stable housing. New York City is already paying for many of these families through its grants program. The City would likely save money by providing the remainder of their housing subsidy up front, instead of depleting valuable Housing Court resources and subjecting these families to the stress of multiple court proceedings and the constant fear that they will lose their homes.

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

Reverse Mortgages: Unintended Consequences

jessica scholes blog cardShirley, a 79-year-old homeowner, has lived most of her life in the Manhattan home her parents bought over 70 years ago. In 2009, Shirley decided to take out a reverse mortgage, or Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) in order to provide additional income for herself and her sister, who both rely on Social Security benefits as their sole source of income.

Reverse mortgages are designed to allow older homeowners to convert some of the equity in their homes into a loan that will enable them to remain in their homes for the rest of their lives. After they die, their heirs have a year to repay the loan. Homeowners who opt for a reverse mortgage do not make monthly mortgage payments. Instead, they take a lump sum payment at the time of closing, receive monthly installments, or use the proceeds to pay off an existing mortgage and receive no payments. They agree to be responsible for paying their homeowners insurance and property taxes. If they do not, or if they fail to meet a few other specific conditions, the bank can start foreclosure proceedings.

Shirley came to NYLAG in 2015 after she tried to pay her property taxes and discovered that Champion Mortgage, her mortgage servicer, had already done so without her consent. Champion was demanding that she repay thousands of dollars she did not have in unpaid property taxes and homeowners insurance. Worse, NYLAG discovered that Champion had instituted a foreclosure proceeding against her in court a year and a half earlier – without Shirley’s knowledge.

When I got involved in Shirley’s case, I requested numerous documents from Champion’s attorneys in order to figure out what had happened. It took four months, an order from a court Referee, and complaints to the New York State Department of Financial Services, the New York Attorney General, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to get even basic information about how much money Shirley owed and for what. Champion claims that Shirley owes the servicer approximately $15,000 for a combination of unpaid property taxes and homeowners insurance. Despite the fact that New York City allows payment plans for homeowners who have outstanding property taxes, Champion paid Shirley’s arrears, called her entire loan balance due, and began a foreclosure case against her. Champion refused to provide her with a repayment plan for her outstanding charges, so Shirley is now applying for a grant from New York City’s Human Resources Administration that might allow her to keep her home.

Shirley’s case is unfortunately not unique. NYLAG has seen increasing numbers of reverse mortgage foreclosures in New York City and on Long Island. Many of the seniors we meet at legal clinics report significant problems with their reverse mortgage servicers, including failure to offer repayment plans or to honor existing plans; failure to notify homeowners about outstanding charges; and failure to communicate clearly about what is occurring. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that most seniors do not have legal assistance. Additionally, many seniors may not have understood the requirements of their reverse mortgages originally, as New York does not require an attorney to be present at the closing.

Reverse mortgage foreclosures in New York receive fewer legal protections than conventional mortgage foreclosures. Servicers are not required to give homeowners 90-day notice before a foreclosure starts, and generally reverse mortgages do not receive settlement conferences where homeowners are given the option to negotiate with the bank or apply for a loan modification. As a result, the foreclosure process is often much faster than conventional mortgage foreclosures, leaving homeowners without the time they need to work out a solution and keep their homes.

 


There are no loan modification programs for reverse mortgages, and repayment plans are governed by regulations created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which insures most reverse mortgage loans. HUD’s regulations for reverse mortgages have changed repeatedly in the last few years and have been difficult for both advocates and servicers to interpret. Many servicers, for example, mistakenly cite out-of-date HUD regulations when refusing to provide repayment plans. HUD guidelines also often leave repayment plans to the servicer’s discretion, leaving no recourse for homeowners.

The problems I’ve described—the lack of legal protections, servicers’ inadequate communications with senior homeowners and/or their attorneys, and changing guidelines from HUD—may very well prevent many seniors from holding on to their homes. The clients we assist generally do not have the ability to find alternate housing or money to move, a process which can be difficult at any age. These seniors also never thought that they would need to move when they were in their eighties, often in poor health: the reverse mortgage was supposed to prevent exactly that outcome.

There are multiple steps that can be taken to remedy these issues. New York State should enact more significant legal protections for vulnerable senior citizens in reverse mortgage foreclosures, such as allowing them to participate in settlement conferences. Enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels should investigate reverse mortgage servicers to ensure that they communicate clearly with borrowers and are willing to work out solutions that keep homeowners in their homes. (In recent promising development, the New York State Department of Financial Services recently began an investigation into the reverse mortgage practices of Champion Mortgage and Reverse Mortgage Solutions, another servicer.) HUD should also clarify existing reverse mortgage guidelines and consider adding new ones. Possible changes might include requiring face-to-face interviews with seniors before beginning foreclosure cases and requiring repayment plans within prescribed parameters, rather than giving servicers discretion about whether to offer repayment plans.

The reverse mortgage program is intended to offer older homeowners the chance to stay in their homes for the duration of their lives, and any new guidelines or legal protections must always take that broader goal into consideration.

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

Expecting a Baby? Know Your Workplace Rights

Nina MartinezThe election season has generated a good deal of conversation around women’s rights at work, from the gender pay gap, to the dearth of women in leadership positions, to incidents of sexual harassment. One particular workplace abuse, however, has not gotten much play: discrimination against pregnant employees. This is unfortunate given the fact that thousands of pregnancy-related discrimination claims are filed each year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

When faced with discriminatory treatment in the workplace, pregnant employees in New York City should be aware that they have a range of protections available to them under city, state, and federal law. Although efforts to obtain these protections represent a hard-fought battle for women in the workplace, they are progressively expanding through the enactment of more targeted reforms.

The federal protection against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is rooted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Curiously, when Title VII was first enacted it did not specifically include pregnancy as a protected trait. In fact, as late as 1976 the Supreme Court ruled  that an employer who treated pregnant workers differently for the purposes of participation in a disability plan was not in violation of federal law.

In response, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), amending Title VII to include pregnant workers as a protected class. The PDA explicitly prohibits an employer from terminating, demoting, or reducing the pay of an employee solely on the basis of pregnancy, but fell short of obliging them to accommodate employees who, due to pregnancy-related conditions, require temporary assistance. Therefore, in the years following the passage of the PDA, women who had prenatal visits to attend, fell ill due to morning sickness, or took time off to give birth and recuperate were not protected by the law and were regularly terminated for “excessive absenteeism.”

When Congress amended the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 2008, it expanded the definition of disability to include impairments resulting from pregnancy, such as cervical insufficiency, anemia, sciatica, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, or depression. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 eases the burden of an employee to show that a medical condition is a covered disability under the Act. As a result, pregnancy-related conditions that may have prior to 2008 been difficult to request accommodations for are now generally accepted disabilities under the ADA. Because the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, the 2008 amendments expanded protections for pregnant workers and has allowed them to retain employment prior to giving birth. According to the EEOC’s guidance, accommodations can range from altered break and work schedules in order to rest or use the restroom, permission to sit or stand, ergonomic office furniture, shift changes, and permission to work from home.

The ADA does not, however, consider pregnancy itself a disability and therefore leaves women who have normal pregnancies without the legal option of seeking accommodations at work, despite the fact that they will inevitably require time off to give birth, attend doctor’s visits, and request the occasional opportunity to sit or deviate from standard break schedules.

In 1993 Congress enacted the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to ensure job protection for employees with qualified medical and family reasons, including pregnancy. However, there are significant limitations to FMLA. Most notable is the fact that FMLA leave is unpaid. Additionally, employers are required to provide FMLA leave only where there are at least 50 people employed and an individual has worked at least 1,250 hours within the past 12 months. As a result, a large segment of pregnant workers are not able to take leave either because their employer is not covered by FMLA or their financial situation makes it impossible to take unpaid time off.

In addition to federal laws, New York City employees are covered by city and state human rights laws. In fact, New York’s anti-discrimination laws are the oldest in the country and predate the creation of Title VII. The New York laws are constantly evolving to address the needs of pregnant workers and tend to cover employees who would not be eligible for protection under the federal law. Where Title VII requires that at least 15 individuals be employed for coverage, the state and city human rights laws require just a minimum of four employees. Additionally, the have been liberally interpreted to provide more expansive protections to workers than the federal law. More recent legislation stipulates that employees with normal pregnancies are entitled to the same accommodations as those with ancillary medical issues like preeclampsia. In May 2016, the New York City Commission on Human Rights released robust guidance on pregnancy discrimination. This guidance sets forth very clearly the obligations of employers and the rights of employees in the context of discrimination and accommodations.

Pregnant workers in New York City should reach out for assistance in the face of discriminatory treatment and feel confident that such treatment will be remedied under the law.

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

In Support of Intro 214-A

ann dibble blog card 410Yesterday, Beth Goldman, President of the New York Legal Assistance Group, had the opportunity to join a number of advocates, tenants, academics and legal services providers in testifying before the New York City Council Committee on Courts & Legal Services. She was there to speak in support of Intro 214-A, legislation introduced in March 2014 by Council Members Mark Levine and Vanessa Gibson. It has been sponsored by 41 members of the Council and the Public Advocate, and endorsed by the New York Times Editorial Board. The bill would create a right to legal representation for low-income New Yorkers in eviction, ejectment and foreclosure proceedings.

The lack of affordable housing in New York City has become a true humanitarian crisis, increasing homelessness, displacing families that have lived here for decades and irreversibly altering the character of neighborhoods. Low-income New Yorkers at risk of eviction and foreclosure face an enormous justice gap. There is a drastic imbalance in the level of legal representation between landlords and tenants in eviction proceedings, as well as between banks and homeowners in foreclosure actions. These challenges are compounded for low-income elderly, disabled and non-English speaking clients. While the recent increased funding has been highly impactful, funding can be decreased or eliminated. Establishing access to legal counsel as a right for low-income New Yorkers facing eviction and foreclosure would level the playing field and ensure a fairer resolution of such disputes.

As a recent report from the NYC Office of Civil Justice demonstrated, even with the significant additional funding the City has committed to civil legal services, which has significantly increased the number of tenants represented, it remains the case that almost 75% of  most tenants facing eviction and 40% of homeowners facing foreclosure are still unrepresented. The only way to guarantee full representation for all vulnerable tenants and homeowners is to create a right to counsel.

Every day, NYLAG attorneys meet tenants who have unwittingly waived crucial rights and defenses in their eviction proceedings because they were unrepresented and unware of their legal options and remedies. New York City housing law is a vast and complex subject and even the most sophisticated tenants simply don’t know all of their rights. Landlords, on the other hand, are almost always represented by an attorney. This power imbalance results in tragic outcomes every day, including: tenants who sign agreements to move out of an apartment they have a legal right to remain in; who agree to pay large sums for back rent or fees they don’t legally owe; who are intentionally misled to believe that their landlord’s attorney was actually their attorney or a neutral court attorney and as a result enter into an unfair agreement that is not in their best interest; who don’t know how to undo a default judgment that was entered against them because their landlord failed to serve them with court documents; and who agreed to move out of their life-long homes after the death of a spouse or parent because they did not understand their succession rights.

Among homeowners, we regularly meet clients who have been victims of mortgage scams, have already been foreclosed upon, or are on the verge of losing their homes to foreclosure. Often they were unaware that an action had been commenced against them until it was too late, cannot determine who owns their mortgage and therefore whether the person who sued them has standing to do so, and cannot determine whether the amount that is claimed is what they actually owe. Homeowners are often unaware of what modification and other workout options are available to them.

One of the most effective ways for the City to address homelessness and maintain affordable housing is to provide all low-income tenants and homeowners facing eviction with access to legal services. It is far easier and more cost-effective to preserve housing than it is to find housing for an individual or a family that has become homeless. Attorneys are able to protect tenants’ rights, keep tenants in stabilized apartments, assist tenants with obtaining appropriate subsidies, preserve subsidies, ensure housing is safe and habitable and arm tenants with knowledge regarding their rights. When a tenant has an attorney, a landlord is much less likely to pursue a frivolous claim or a course of harassment. Individuals facing the threat of homelessness who are given access to an attorney are less likely to become homeless than those who do not have access to one.

New York City cannot resolve its housing crisis without providing individuals and families at risk of homelessness access to legal counsel as a matter of right.

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

No Lawyer on Your Case? Alternatives Can Help.

Posted on

randal jeffrey blog cardEver since the Supreme Court handed down its landmark 1963 decision in Gideon v. Wainwright establishing the right to counsel at state expense in criminal cases, those concerned with access to justice have advocated for an extension of this right in civil cases.

While the Supreme Court has extended the right to counsel past the specific holding in Gideon, including to certain “quasi-criminal” cases, it has never interpreted the United States Constitution to require that the government provide a lawyer in purely civil cases. Thus, the provision of counsel to those who cannot afford an attorney has long been left to a patchwork of programs throughout the country. In recent years, however, the right to counsel movement has gained increased attention throughout the United States.

In 2014, several bills were introduced to the New York City Council providing for the right to counsel in Housing Court. While none has been enacted (cost continues to be a factor), the advocacy surrounding the right to counsel in housing court has informed the dramatic increase in funding for legal services. In stark contrast to the federal government, whose funding for legal services has remained flat for years, there has been a renaissance in funding in New York State.

Former Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman led the charge by steadily increasing Judiciary Civil Legal Services funding, set to reach $100 million annually in State fiscal year 2017. New York City has dramatically increased its budget for eviction prevention and anti-harassment tenant protection legal services, and for legal services for the working poor, while the State has increased funding for legal services for homeowners at risk of foreclosure and those seeking disability benefits.

It is beyond dispute that it is better for someone with a legal issue – whether it is an adversarial case in court or an out-of-court legal matter – to have full representation by a lawyer than to be unrepresented. But even if right to counsel efforts are successful for certain types of cases and funding for civil legal services increases even more substantially than it has already, the majority of New Yorkers who cannot afford an attorney will continue to go without full representation for the foreseeable future. This does not mean, though, that they have no options. There are programs in place that can and do play an important role in bridging the justice gap.

A View From the Field

New York State, with the judiciary at the helm, has been a leader in establishing programs that provide legal information to a large number of litigants and limited representation to others, recognizing that current resources are insufficient to provide full representation in all cases, and that alternatives can have a positive impact. Each of these programs is unique, filling a niche within the broader effort to improve access to justice. NYLAG has participated in many of these efforts.

Legal help desks represent the highest volume of legal assistance to unrepresented litigants. Housing Court Answers, for example, has been providing information and assistance to housing court clients since 1981. With so many unrepresented litigants in the courts and before administrative agencies, help desks play a pivotal role in ensuring that these litigants have access to at least some legal information to assist them with their cases.

Other valuable programs include the Court Navigators Program in Brooklyn the Bronx, whose services range from what can best be termed as moral support to explaining the court process to litigants, and Legal Hand, an initiative to provide legal information, assistance, and referrals at neighborhood storefronts in areas with a high need for legal services.

The Mobile Legal Help Center (MLHC) was launched by the Access to Justice Program in partnership with NYLAG in 2012. The first of its kind in the country – a law office on wheels – the MLHC provides direct community access to legal services at a different location, every day. Another Access to Justice initiative, Court Do-It-Yourself forms, offers pro se litigants 24 interactive programs for the drafting of forms for various court actions.

The Volunteer Lawyer For a Day program, launched by Access to Justice in 1997, provides limited scope representation to pro se litigants who are being sued for consumer debts. Pro bono attorneys and student volunteers advise clients under the supervision of an attorney from one of several legal services agencies, including NYLAG. Since its inception, the program has represented over 20,000 litigants.

A final program of note began in the wake of the Great Recession, when New York State instituted settlement conferences as a mandatory first step for mortgage holders pursuing foreclosure litigation. Representation in settlement conferences has proven to be an effective means to resolve some foreclosure cases without the need for full litigation.

Alternatives to Full Representation in Practice

US Supreme Court

Beyond the direct impact these programs have on improving outcomes for litigants, they also place lawyers directly on the ground, where they become aware of systemic problems both with the administration of justice and in the substantive areas of law. For example, lawyers providing limited legal services in court have been instrumental in changing the culture of the courtroom, ensuring that represented plaintiffs do not take advantage of unrepresented litigants. Similarly, help desk staff have identified trends and problems that the courts have then been able to address.

It is important to note that, just as seeking the right to counsel in certain limited types of cases does not diminish the argument or necessity for seeking this right for other types of cases, so too the provision of less than full representation for some clients does not diminish the argument that full representation should be provided in those types of cases in the future. Judge Lippman has advocated for such an incrementalist approach, while recognizing the benefits of full representation. Under this approach, the courts, in partnership with the legal services community and the bar more generally, pursue a wide range of initiatives that allow us to “incrementally move closer to a civil Gideon.”

Ultimately, there should be a greater investment in continuing to review these programs in order to more fully appreciate their impact. Such evaluations will go far to confirm what those involved in these programs already know: in a world where low-income families and individuals face pervasive civil legal services needs – and resources are limited – alternatives to full representation play an important and effective role in expanding access to justice.

This article is excerpted from an essay by Mr. Jeffrey in IMPACT, a collection of essays published by the New York Law School’s Impact Center for Public Interest Law. You can read the full essay here.

 

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

Guest Blog: LGBT Older Adults Face Unique Legal Hurdles

Posted on
Vanessa BarringtonDenny Chan

Legal services organizations play a crucial role in alleviating the effects of poverty for all Americans. However, when it comes to older Americans, not all low-income seniors have the same legal needs, not all will seek out help on their own, and many will require culturally competent services to meet their needs.

For example, the intersection of poverty and discrimination creates an array of unique legal needs for LGBT older adults. By focusing on the most prevalent legal issues and providing culturally competent services, legal services organizations can deepen their impact. How Can Legal Services Better Meet the Needs of Low-Income LGBT Seniors? is a new Special Report by Justice in Aging, produced in partnership with Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, & Transgender Elders (SAGE) that offers practical help to direct legal service providers.

The report is divided into three sections. The first section outlines some of the systemic issues that lead to LGBT older adults experiencing higher rates of poverty, highlighting how some groups, such as people of color and transgender individuals, suffer disproportionately.

The second section discusses how discrimination and other factors lead to problems accessing economic security and health care benefits, and the legal issues that often ensue as a result. This section also runs down the key legal issues that legal services professionals should be well-versed in, including how recent marriage laws affect public benefits, discrimination in health care, culturally incompetent health care, housing discrimination, discrimination in long-term care facilities, powers of attorney, wills, and advance directives, and name and gender change paperwork.

The third section offers practical tips for outreach, intakes, and providing culturally competent legal services to LGBT older adults.

A short video that shows the diversity of the LGBT population and highlights the types of legal challenges LGBT people might face as they grow older accompanies the report.

This Special Report is a reminder of the unique legal needs facing many different communities. It is meant to provide some tailored strategies for legal services organizations to engage and serve low-income LGBT seniors in order combat the persistent effects of poverty and discrimination and have the maximum impact through legal representation.

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

Medicare Counseling: A Lifeline We Must Sustain

Posted on
Head shot of Valerie Bogart

Before the members of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee adjourned for the July 4th holiday they struck a blow to the independence and wellbeing of millions of seniors and people with disabilities by proposing to eliminate funding for a vital Medicare counseling program that helps people navigate an increasingly complex Medicare benefits system. Fortunately, last week the U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education approved a bill that would provide funding at the current level of $52.1 million.

For the last 24 years, Medicare State Health Insurance Assistance Programs (SHIPs) have operated in every state to provide information and one-on-one counseling that assists, educates and empowers Medicare-eligible seniors and people with disabilities. Counselors help beneficiaries, their families and caregivers understand – quite literally – the A, B, C, D (and more) of Medicare. Every year the federal government’s 1-800-Medicare hotline refers over 250,000 callers to local SHIPs offices for help with complex cases. An average counseling session lasts almost an hour, due to the complexities of Medicare and the in-depth nature of SHIPs counseling.

Navigating Medicare is a daunting process. Today, Medicare beneficiaries must choose from among a dizzying array of prescription drug plans, Medicare Advantage plans, as well as various Medigap supplemental insurance policies–all with different premiums, cost sharing provisions, provider networks, and coverage rules.

For the clients NYLAG and other advocates for the poor serve, SHIPs are a particularly critical resource. Medicare is a great benefit, but it is expensive. Low-income people would never be able to afford Medicare without expert assistance to obtain the vital subsidies they need to reduce costs.

Along with other advocates, NYLAG collaborates with the New York State Office for the Aging to accept referrals of the most complicated cases and resolve thorny Medicare issues. We also operate as technical assistance support for the State’s Health Insurance Information, Counseling and Assistance Program (HIICAP).

To give you a sense of the magnitude of the assistance provided, according to theMedicare Rights Center, in 2015 New York’s HIICAP saved people with Medicare an estimated $30 million through enrollment in low-income assistance programs, including Medicare Savings Programs and the Part D Low-Income Subsidy.

NYLAG and our partners, the Community Service Society, Empire Justice Center, Medicare Rights Center, New York Statewide Senior Action Council, and the Legal Aid Society, host NY Health Access, a website that provides information and training for attorneys and other professionals. Click here to have your mind blown about the complexity of the Medicare Savings Programs. In New York State alone we have, in addition to the original Medicare plan, numerous supplemental Medigap insurance policies, 30 insurance companies that offer 128 different Medicare Advantage plan options, and 22 Part D prescription plans.

And remember, the website is a tool for Medicare wonks like me, people who are familiar with health and public benefits law. Imagine how intimidating, if not terrifying, it would be for someone who is poor, elderly and suffering from Parkinson’s to wade through these arcane rules and attempt to select plan options that match her health needs and her ability to pay.

In 2015, SHIPs provided assistance to more than 7 million people including nearly 1.3 million people with incomes below 150 per cent of the Federal Poverty Level (less than $18,000 in annual income for a single household). And those numbers are going up significantly, with 10,000 Baby Boomers every day becoming eligible for Medicare benefits. That’s 10,000 more people – daily – who are confused by the array of choices, don’t understand the coverage offered, aren’t sure whether it will include the drugs they need, and have no idea what their rights are. Volunteers play a vital role, providing about half of SHIPs counseling sessions. But this work can’t be done by volunteers alone, and volunteers can’t go it alone. It takes money to screen, train, and support these valuable partners.

In the months ahead, it is imperative that Congress adopt or improve on the House Subcommittee proposal to provide SHIPs funding at the current level. Rather than eliminating SHIPs, Congress should dramatically increase funding. The alternative is to leave millions who need support stranded–with nowhere to turn.

(For more information about how SHIPs can help you or a loved one, please contact the New York State Office for the Aging: call 1-800-701-0501 or go to their website. To find SHIPs in another state, call 1-877-839-2675 or go to www.shiptacenter.org.)

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

Heartbreak and Hope

Posted on
alisia cordero blog card 410 heightFollowing the U. S. Supreme Court’s deadlock last week in a case challenging President Obama’s action to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation, a Texas judge’s temporary injunction remains in place – and millions of immigrants’ lives remain on hold. The President’s executive action would have kept immigrant families together while strengthening our communities and our economy. This non-decision is heartbreaking for immigrant families, and for the staff at NYLAG, which served over 78,500 New Yorkers last year – half of whom are immigrants.

The President’s initiative was designed to expand Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to a larger number of people. DACA, introduced in 2012, has already provided temporary relief to 730,000 immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as young children, allowing them to apply for temporary work authorization and to obtain a social security number, driver’s license, and credit card. The President’s plan also calls for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) for the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who meet certain criteria. Neither DACA nor DAPA represent a pathway to citizenship, but would remove a barrier for many hardworking immigrants who have been forced to work under the table, often for appallingly low wages and in substandard conditions. Most importantly, thousands of families who have lived in fear of being separated would for the first time be assured that parents and children will not be torn apart.

It is painful for me to remember how excited I was just a few months ago when I was actually in Washington, along with my colleagues, Crystal Moncada and David Mullins, on the day the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Texas, We were among the thousands who gathered outside of the court to show our support and solidarity, and to urge the justices to rule that the President’s executive action was constitutional. It was a unique and empowering experience to be among city organizers, advocates and lawyers, as well as students, parents and families – all united in their support of the President’s plan as the only solution to the decades-long legislative deadlock in Congress over immigration reform.

While we traveled we heard from young college students hoping the Justices understood the sense of invisibility and alienation they feel by living most of their young lives undocumented in the U.S. One of them, Gustavo, told a reporter, “I am just an American that has extremely difficult legal hurdles, but I am an American and I will achieve.”

Now, as millions of deserving immigrants like Gustavo find themselves still in limbo, it is vitally important that we continue to fight for reasonable, fair, compassionate immigration reform. Advocates, elected officials and the voting public must work toward the creation of an immigration system that promotes unity and dignity for immigrant families that have suffered enough under the nation’s current broken system.

We stand with our clients and the remarkable immigrant population of New York. Their contributions have made us the vibrant, diverse, thriving city that we are today. Along with agencies across the city we will continue to provide them with the range of legal services and support they need. Immigrants needing assistance in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision can call: NYLAG’s DACA/DAPA hotline (212-613-6597); New York State Office for New Americans hotline (1-800-566-7636); or dial 311 and ask for DACA/DAPA information. The Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs has also posted information on their website.

DACADAPA  4.18.16

No comments yet. Join the discussion.

Guest Blog: Right to Counsel in Housing Court: The Bottom Line

Posted on
Susanna BlankleyAndrew Scherer

A new report, which finds that New York City would save hundreds of millions of dollars a year by providing a right to counsel for tenants facing eviction, has added new urgency and optimism to a campaign to pass a bill that would establish such a right.

The bill, introduced in March of 2014 by New York City Council Members Mark Levine and Vanessa Gibson, would require the city to provide attorneys to low-income tenants and homeowners who face eviction and foreclosure. The bill would benefit New Yorkers whose income is 200% of the federal poverty line or below, meaning households earning less than $50,000 a year for a family of four. If signed into law, nearly 130,000 tenants could qualify for the right to counsel.

While 40 of the City Council’s 51 members have signed on to support the bill, it has not yet had a hearing, in large part because of concerns about the high cost of funding a right to counsel. But the report, undertaken for the New York City Bar Association (NYCBA) and conducted pro bono by Stout Risius Ross, Inc., a global financial advisory firm, concludes that, in addition to keeping 5,200 families out of the city’s costly shelter system, a citywide right to counsel would not only offset the cost of counsel, it would save New York City an additional $320 million each year.

The study estimates that providing counsel to eligible New Yorkers would cost $191 million annually. Savings would come from reducing shelters costs ($251 million) and preserving regulated, affordable apartments that would otherwise convert to higher cost, market rate rentals following evictions ($250 million). An additional $9 million would be saved by eliminating city services that are often tapped because of evictions, such as emergency room care and law enforcement.

The report also points to other less quantifiable savings that flow to society when its most vulnerable citizens keep a roof over their heads, including savings in public education, juvenile justice services, public assistance benefits – such as unemployment insurance when the loss of a home results in the loss of a job – and reductions in the public cost of enforcing rent laws and housing codes.

Evictions have decreased significantly in the last year thanks to the unprecedented commitment made by Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Mark-Viverito and the City Council to increase funding for civil legal services to prevent evictions, protect tenants from landlord harassment and help safeguard and secure the rights of the poor and disenfranchised. The progress they have made is extraordinary. But funding can easily be eliminated by a future administration, while a law on the books would be far more difficult to take away. The NYCBA report gives us a compelling new reason to codify the right to counsel and send a bold message that in New York City the lives, the homes and the families of our most vulnerable residents matter.

Guaranteeing a right to counsel for tenants who face eviction would foster equality, prevent homelessness and give a fighting chance to low-income New Yorkers who increasingly face displacement from their homes and communities. The NYCBA report now demonstrates definitively that it would also be cost-effective for the city’s bottom line. New York City has led the nation by significantly increasing funding for legal help for tenants facing eviction. The city should now take the next logical step and pass this trailblazing bill.

No comments yet. Join the discussion.