Home > 2012 > Students

Education Department Adopts Crucial Reform for Disabled Borrowers

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 0 Comments

by Sasha Chavkin ProPublica, Nov. 15, 2012, 10:19 a.m.

The Education Department enacted a crucial reform on behalf of borrowers who become disabled, issuing new rules earlier this month that make it easier for these borrowers to get their federal student loans forgiven.

The rules, which the department has not publicly announced, for the first time recognize certain disability findings by the Social Security Administration as sufficient grounds to discharge student loans. This will allow many borrowers to avoid a lengthy double review to determine whether they are truly disabled. Under federal law, borrowers who develop severe and lasting disabilities are entitled to get their loans forgiven.

The reform came after an investigation early last year by ProPublica and the Chronicle of Higher Education found that the department’s system for evaluating disability was erratic, duplicative and dysfunctional, and was keeping many genuinely disabled borrowers buried in student debt. The department subsequently promised to revamp the program, but had previously resisted the key reform of waiving a second review for borrowers who Social Security had already found to suffer from long-term disabilities.

“They are really trying to get this right,” said Deanne Loonin, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center and the director of its Student Loan Borrower Assistance program, who has been a persistent critic of the program.

Loonin said that the reforms made by the department are “all positive,” but that the key question is whether the new rules are implemented effectively. She has estimated that two-thirds of her clients have some kind of Social Security determination.

The new guidelines establish an array of changes that, in combination with the acceptance of certain Social Security findings, represent a sweeping overhaul of the program. These include streamlining the application process by creating a single form and point of contact in the department, improving communication with applicants to better explain denials, and creating a new role for lawyers and family members of disabled borrowers who wish to serve as their representatives. The reforms will go into effect on July 1, 2013.

The department’s reversal on Social Security findings came as a surprise to observers — and followed a lengthy campaign by advocates and lawmakers to convince the department to overhaul its process.

In May 2011, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on the Education and the Workforce, wrote a letter to the Education Department calling on it to fix the disability discharge program in light of the problems identified by ProPublica’s investigation.

This past summer, the department proposed new rules that revamped major elements of the program. But it insisted that its legal mandate did not allow it to accept disability findings by Social Security. It was not until nearly 3,000 public comments poured in, most of them including pleas for the department to recognize Social Security findings, that it began to reconsider its position. The comments included a letter signed by more than a dozen consumer and civil rights organizations and a letter-writing campaign organized by The Institute For College Access and Success.

After receiving the comments, the department opened talks with Social Security and became convinced that its standard for forgiving loans could be tied to the Social Security designation Medical Improvement Not Expected, which is used to denote long-term disabilities. “We needed a high comfort level,” said Gail McLarnon, the director of policy coordination in the department’s Office of Postsecondary Education. “These are student loans, there’s a lot of money on the line here.”

She said the department’s decision to heed popular demand was an “example of public comments working exactly as it should.”

When the new system comes into effect, disabled borrowers will be able to submit award letters from Social Security as proof of their disability. If the award letter says the beneficiary is not scheduled for a medical review for at least 60 months — five years — that means that the borrower has a long-term disability and is immediately eligible to discharge federal loans. (Social Security award letters simply tell you how long it will be until your next disability review, not that they have classified you as “Medical Improvement Not Expected.”)

Borrowers with more frequent Social Security medical reviews — which correspond to the categories “Medical Improvement Expected” and “Medical Improvement Possible” — will still have to undergo a medical review by the Education Department in order to discharge their loans.

Image: York College of PA, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team