PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Hill, J. French [R-AR-2] · R–AR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 25, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10496 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10496 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10496 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10496 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-17 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would create a 10-year test of new disability categories for participating people entitled to Social Security disability insurance or certain other monthly Social Security benefits because of disability. Categories would depend on whether, and how soon, their medical conditions could improve enough that they are no longer disabled. The categories would determine when eligibility is reviewed. The test would begin one year after enactment.
The Commissioner shall carry out a demonstration project as described in paragraph (2) for the 10-year period beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection.
Establish a system to classify individuals who are determined to be entitled to a disability insurance benefit under this title or monthly benefits under section 202 by reason of being under a disability into the following categories:
With respect to an individual described in clause (i), the applicable State agency or the Commissioner of Social Security (as may be appropriate) shall, for the purposes of determining continuing eligibility—
The individual has an impairment or combination of impairments causing the individual to be disabled and the individual is expected to medically improve to the point where the individual will no longer be disabled in 12 to 24 months.
Section 1 would name the bill the Revising SSDI Disability Classifications Act.
This Act may be cited as the Revising SSDI Disability Classifications Act.
Section 2 would revise three dates in the Social Security Act's demonstration-project authority: December 30, 2021 would become December 31, 2036 in subsection (c); December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2022 would become December 31, 2036 and December 31, 2037, respectively, in subsection (d)(2). The surrounding existing law is not supplied, so the precise function of each deadline cannot be explained from this bundle.
Section 234 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 434) is amended— (1) in subsection (c), by striking December 30, 2021 and inserting December 31, 2036; and (2) in subsection (d)(2)— (A) by striking December 31, 2021 and inserting December 31, 2036; and (B) by striking December 31, 2022 and inserting December 31, 2037.
For participants, Section 3 would require the Social Security Commissioner to use the new classification and review system in place of the referenced paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 221. The Commissioner would also have to name each category.
In carrying out the demonstration project, the Commissioner shall, with respect to an individual participating in the demonstration project and in lieu of carrying out paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 221, carry out the following:
In classifying individuals under subparagraph (A)(i), the Commissioner shall establish terms to refer to each category under such subparagraph.
The first category would cover chronic or progressive conditions involving permanent, irreversible loss of bodily structure or function, with no known treatment capable of improving the person's condition enough to end disability. The responsible state agency or Social Security Commissioner would review continued disability during the seventh or eighth year, measured from the first month after classification.
The individual has an impairment or combination of impairments that is chronic or progressive with permanent, irreversible structural or functional loss, and for which there is no known effective therapy, treatment, or surgical intervention that could result in medical improvement to the point where the individual is no longer disabled.
the applicable State agency or the Commissioner of Social Security (as may be appropriate) shall, for the purposes of determining continuing eligibility— (I) in the case of an individual who is classified under clause (i)(I), conduct a review to determine whether the individual remains under a disability during the 7th or 8th year following the first month after the date the individual was so classified;
The second category would cover people whose conditions are not expected to improve enough to end disability within 60 months, although future improvement is possible. Their continued disability would be reviewed during the fourth or fifth year, measured from the first month after classification.
The individual has an impairment or combination of impairments causing the individual to be disabled and the individual is not expected to medically improve to the point where the individual will no longer be disabled in 60 months, but future improvement is possible.
in the case of an individual who is classified under clause (i)(II), conduct a review to determine whether the individual remains under a disability during the 4th or 5th year following the first month after the date the individual was so classified;
The third category would cover people expected to improve enough to end disability in 25 to 60 months. Their continued disability would be reviewed during the second or third year, measured from the first month after classification.
The individual has an impairment or combination of impairments causing the individual to be disabled and the individual is expected to medically improve to the point where the individual will no longer be disabled in 25 months to 60 months.
in the case of an individual who is classified under clause (i)(III), conduct a review to determine whether the individual remains under a disability during the 2nd or 3rd year following the first month after the date the individual was so classified;
The fourth category would cover people expected to improve enough to end disability in 12 to 24 months. Their continued disability would be reviewed during the second year, measured from the first month after classification.
The individual has an impairment or combination of impairments causing the individual to be disabled and the individual is expected to medically improve to the point where the individual will no longer be disabled in 12 to 24 months.
in the case of an individual who is classified under clause (i)(IV), conduct a review to determine whether the individual remains under a disability during the 2nd year following the first month after the date the individual was so classified.
The Commissioner could not place someone in the first category solely because of age when a lesser classification is appropriate.
the Commissioner may not classify an individual under paragraph (2)(A)(i)(I) solely by reason of the individual’s age where a lesser classification is appropriate.
Participants generally would have no right to review or appeal their assigned category, despite the existing statutory provisions referenced in the bill. They could request an agency reconsideration solely to correct a factual error, such as a clerical or administrative mistake. This restriction concerns classification under the test.
Except as provided in subclause (II), and notwithstanding section 205(b)(1) or subsection (c)(1) or (d) of section 221(i), there shall be no review of, or right to appeal, a classification made under the system described in paragraph (2)(A)(i).
An individual may request administrative reconsideration of such a classification solely for the purpose of correcting a factual error, such as a clerical or administrative error.
The Commissioner could adopt procedures to obtain enough participants for statistically valid results. These could include random selection with an opportunity to decline participation.
The Commissioner may implement procedures to ensure sufficient participation to produce statistically valid results, including randomized selection with the opportunity to decline participation.
The test's stated purpose is to evaluate whether the revised categories and review schedules improve proper program operation, administrative efficiency, and beneficiaries' participation in the workforce. These are questions to be evaluated, not established results.
The purpose of the demonstration project is to evaluate whether revised disability classification categories and continuing disability review schedules improve program integrity, administrative efficiency, and labor force participation among beneficiaries.
The Commissioner would have to report to Congress within three years after enactment and for each of the four subsequent two-year periods. Reports would evaluate program integrity, including effects on the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund; average time receiving benefits for participants and other recipients; participants' employment outcomes; and administrative efficiency.
Not later than three years after the date of enactment of this subsection, and for each of the four 2-year periods thereafter, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress a report that evaluates the outcomes of the demonstration project, including—
(A) effects on program integrity, including the effect on the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund; (B) the average length of time an individual who is participating in the demonstration project under this subsection has received a disability insurance benefit under this title or monthly benefits under section 202 by reason of being under a disability; (C) the average length of time all other individuals who receive a disability insurance benefit under this title or monthly benefits under section 202 by reason of being under a disability have received such benefits; (D) employment outcomes of individuals who participated in the demonstration project under this subsection; and (E) administrative efficiency.
The supplied September 25, 2026 source snapshot records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Ways and Means on September 17, 2026. This snapshot does not establish subsequent action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-25T12:19:36Z. 2026-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. 2026-09-17: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-17. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish formal earmark status in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out, special exemption, or targeted benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 25, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI