We Can't Wait Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 25, 2026
Bottom line
The bill offers earlier access to disability benefits at a reduced rate, aiming for fiscal neutrality for the Social Security Disability Trust Fund.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Social Security Act to allow disabled individuals to elect to receive disability insurance benefits during the standard 5-month waiting period. Individuals making this election will receive a permanently reduced monthly benefit, initially set at 94.25% of the full amount, calculated to ensure the change is actuarially neutral for the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund over a 75-year period. The bill also establishes a mechanism for periodic actuarial review and adjustment of this benefit reduction percentage.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides crucial financial relief to disabled individuals who often face severe economic hardship during the current 5-month waiting period for benefits. They contend that allowing an earlier, albeit reduced, benefit can prevent homelessness, medical debt, and other crises, improving the quality of life for those approved for disability. The actuarial neutrality mechanism ensures the change does not jeopardize the long-term solvency of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the intent is good, the reduced benefit amount could still be insufficient for many, and the complexity of the election process might confuse applicants. Some may also express concern about any change to the DI Trust Fund, even if actuarially neutral, preferring to maintain the current structure or address solvency through other means. There could also be concerns about the administrative burden of implementing the new election process and calculator.
The bill is relatively short and focused, making it accessible for a reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1) and (3)(A) of the bill, amending Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act.
Optional Early Benefit Payment
This provision allows disabled individuals, who have not yet reached early retirement age, to choose to start receiving their disability insurance benefits during the standard 5-month waiting period. This election can be made in writing at various stages of the application process, including initial application, reconsideration, or administrative law judge hearing. It also allows for revocation of the election.
Supporters argue
Supporters emphasize that the current 5-month waiting period creates significant financial strain for disabled individuals, often leading to severe hardship. This election provides a vital lifeline, allowing them to cover essential living expenses sooner.
Critics contend
Some might argue that introducing an optional early payment with a reduced rate adds complexity to an already intricate benefits system, potentially confusing applicants about their best financial choice.
Tradeoffs
Balances the immediate financial needs of disabled individuals against the long-term fiscal stability of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund by offering a reduced benefit in exchange for earlier access.
Section 2(a)(3)(B) and (C) of the bill, amending Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act.
Actuarially Adjusted Benefit Rate
If an individual chooses to receive benefits during the waiting period, their monthly disability insurance benefit will be reduced. Initially, this reduction sets the benefit at 94.25% of the full amount. This reduced percentage is fixed for the entire period of eligibility and is designed to ensure the change is fiscally neutral for the Disability Insurance Trust Fund over a 75-year period.
Section 2(a)(3)(D) of the bill, amending Section 223(a) of the Social Security Act.
Periodic Actuarial Recalculation
The bill mandates that the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration calculate a new percentage every five years (after an initial 36-month period) to ensure the fiscal impact on the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund remains actuarially neutral over a 75-year period. The Commissioner may certify this new percentage (if 91% or greater) or elect not to, in which case a report with recommendations for legislative action is sent to Congress.
If the Chief Actuary calculates a percentage less than 91% for the actuarial neutrality adjustment, the Commissioner "may elect not to certify such percentage to the Managing Trustee." If this happens, the Chief Actuary must prepare and deliver a report to Congress with detailed recommendations for administrative or legislative actions within two years.
Section 2(a)(3)(D)(ii)(II)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for defining administrative discretion and fallback procedures. It's a technical detail for managing the actuarial process.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provides necessary flexibility to the Commissioner, preventing a potentially drastic and politically unpalatable reduction in benefits if actuarial calculations suggest a very low percentage is needed. It allows for a legislative solution rather than an automatic, potentially severe, administrative cut.
Case against: Critics might argue this introduces a potential loophole where the Commissioner could avoid implementing necessary fiscal adjustments, thereby undermining the bill's stated goal of actuarial neutrality and potentially shifting the burden to future legislative action.
Estimated impact: Could lead to a delay in necessary adjustments to the benefit reduction percentage, potentially impacting the long-term solvency of the DI Trust Fund if not addressed by Congress.
This clause explicitly states that an individual's election to receive early, reduced benefits will not affect any benefits payable to other individuals (e.g., spouses or children) based on the disabled individual's wages and self-employment income.
Section 2(a)(3)(E)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope and limitations of a new provision, ensuring it doesn't unintentionally alter other parts of the Social Security Act.
Case for: Supporters would highlight this as a crucial protection, ensuring that an individual's choice to receive early, reduced benefits does not negatively impact their family members (e.g., spouses or children) who may be eligible for auxiliary benefits based on the disabled individual's earnings record. This simplifies the decision-making process for the primary applicant.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such clarifying provisions, as they aim to prevent unintended consequences and maintain consistency within the broader Social Security framework.
Estimated impact: Ensures that auxiliary beneficiaries (e.g., spouses, children) continue to receive their full entitled benefits, preventing a potential reduction in household income for families of disabled individuals who opt for early benefits.