Even before we can fully set our sights on the challenges and opportunities that we'll have in the new Congress, we need to take care of business in the Lame Duck session of the 116th Congress (2019-2020). And that means defending Americans' retirement and health security from an 11th hour attack by those who now feel unchained after a highly contentious election to cast a vote that may not be in their constituents' best interest.

And as the coronavirus continues to spread across the country and disproportionately impact the lives and livelihoods of millions of older Americans, the National Committee is also working hard to keep the focus in Congress on resuming meaningful negotiations that will result in a robust coronavirus relief package. This legislation must ensure access to needed protective equipment and therapies for COVID-19, strengthen Medicare and Medicaid coverage, improve nursing safety and enhance Social Security.

Right now, millions of older Americans, people with disabilities and survivors need an additional targeted response to protect their economic and health security. And the last thing they can afford is any cuts to their earned benefits. So Congress must act without delay to protect the health and financial security of retirees and our nation's most vulnerable citizens.

History shows that benefits are particularly vulnerable during a Lame Duck session of Congress. And so in the remaining days of the 116th Congress, the National Committee will be closely monitoring any proposal or backdoor scheme that targets Social Security and Medicare benefits to pay for deficit reduction.

As the National Committee gears up to work with President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to ensure that all workers can retire safely, securely and with the dignity they deserve, we are preparing to put pressure on the new Congress to ensure older Americans continue to have unfettered access to quality and affordable health care.

As you may know, on November 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case, California v. Texas, which challenges the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). At least five Supreme Court justices signaled they would reject attempts to kill the ACA. Yet, with so much at stake, we simply cannot leave anything to chance.

Since its enactment ten years ago, the ACA has helped strengthen Medicare's financing, provided co-payment free health care screenings for Medicare beneficiaries and lowered out-of-pocket health care costs for millions of older Americans. That's why we are urging the new Congress and the incoming Biden Administration to support legislation that enhances the protections and cost-savings contained in the current health care law.

President-elect Biden has promised to expand and strengthen the ACA when he takes office. And if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to strike down all or part of the law this spring, he would need to work with Congress to replace or strengthen it to ensure popular provisions that improve Medicare, provide protections for people with pre-existing conditions and allow children to remain on their parents' insurance until the age of 26 remain intact.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on this case next spring. In the meantime, we will be putting maximum constituent pressure on Congress to protect the benefits seniors have come to rely on as part of the critical improvements made under the ACA.

Next year's tiny 1.3% Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) is a huge disappointment for the average beneficiary who will see a paltry $20 more in benefits each month. It's the lowest Social Security COLA retirees have received since 2017. And the timing couldn't be worse as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to devastate many older Americans both physically and financially.

The National Committee strongly supports the "Emergency Social Security COLA for 2021 Act" (H.R. 8598), introduced by U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio (OR-04), which would give seniors a Social Security COLA of 3% in 2021. This emergency bill would also be a critical first step in fixing the current COLA formula which is woefully inadequate for calculating the true impact of inflation on seniors' wallets.

As you know, Amy Coney Barrett was recently sworn in as the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barrett was asked whether she agreed with scholars who say Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. Surprisingly, Justice Barrett responded that she couldn't answer the question. That's why we asked our readers the following question in the last issue of Benefits Watch:

Given that newly sworn-in Justice Amy Coney Barrett would not say whether she believed Social Security and Medicare are constitutional — even though these programs were established by law 85 and 55 years ago, respectively — are you concerned about the future of these programs if a case challenging their legality is brought before the U.S. Supreme Court?

The results from our recent poll are fascinating, but they’re only available to National Committee members! Join the National Committee today and we’ll immediately give you the results of this important poll.

We're excited to announce that Ask Us is changing to Ask Web! That's because for more than a decade Webster Phillips — a Senior Policy Analyst for the National Committee and a 31-year veteran at the Social Security Administration — has been providing current and future retirees with the most informed and comprehensive answers to their Social Security questions. Members of Congress and their staffs routinely turn to him for technical advice on Social Security. So it's only fitting that we refer to this popular column after our resident Social Security expert!

You can submit your question here [email protected].

This week's question is: Someone told me if you don't sign up for Social Security as soon as you are eligible, but do sign up a few years later, you get back pay to when you were first eligible. Is this true?

Answer: In general, Social Security benefits cannot be paid retroactive to the month the application for benefits is filed. The exception is if the applicant is past full retirement age. In that case, up to six months of retroactive benefits can be paid as long as backdating the application does not result in benefits being paid for any month prior to full retirement age.

Moderna's coronavirus vaccine is 94.5% effective, according to company data (November 16, 2020, CNN, Elizabeth Cohen)

Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine is more than 90 percent effective in first analysis, company reports (November 9, 2020, The Washington Post, Carolyn Y. Johnson)

Medicare Part B premiums are rising in 2021 by more than double the Social Security COLA bump (November 12, 2020, USA Today, Maurie Backman)

Why Don't Seniors With Depression Get Treatment? (November 16, 2020, Forbes, Misha Gajewski)

Key Justices Signal Support for Affordable Care Act (November 10, 2020, The New York Times, Adam Liptak)