How did the SSA implement the five‑year PRW definition in its final 2026 rulemaking text and transitional guidance?
Executive summary
The Social Security Administration (SSA) formalized a shorter past relevant work (PRW) window—cutting the look‑back from 15 years to 5 years—in its final rulemaking and accompanied that change with transitional guidance and a question‑and‑answer ruling to explain implementation details [1] [2]. The final text and guidance operationalize the change by defining PRW as substantial gainful activity (SGA) done within the five‑year window, excluding jobs started and stopped in fewer than 30 calendar days, and by explaining how the change affects the sequential disability evaluation and continuing disability reviews [3] [2].
1. What the final rule changed and why the agency said it mattered
The final rule amends SSA’s regulatory definition of PRW by narrowing the relevant work period from 15 years to five years, a shift SSA framed as updating its rules to reflect worker skill decay and modern job change, to reduce claimant burden, and to speed processing and customer service [1] [2] [4]. The Federal Register notice confirms the agency finalized the proposed revision after public comment and that the agency considered and responded to comments within the rulemaking record [1].
2. How the five‑year window is written into regulatory text and practice
In the final regulatory text SSA states that PRW consists of work performed at the SGA level during the five‑year look‑back period and that jobs lasting fewer than 30 consecutive calendar days will not count as PRW; the guidance clarifies that the agency treats the 30‑day threshold as a consecutive‑day test regardless of hours worked [3] [2]. The Q&A ruling (SSR 24‑2p) explicitly ties PRW to Step Four of the sequential evaluation—if a claimant can still do any PRW within that five‑year window, they will be found not disabled—and notes the parallel in continuing disability reviews where similar step numbering mirrors the initial claim process [3].
3. Transitional guidance, vocational evidence, and administrative practice
SSA supplemented the final rule with transitional explanatory guidance and a Q&A ruling that summarize how adjudicators should apply the new PRW standard, including treatment of jobs performed “as actually performed” versus “as generally performed” in the national economy and how residual functional capacity (RFC) fits into assessing PRW at Step Four [3] [1]. The Federal Register also documents that SSA considered and responded to comments from vocational experts about evidentiary roles at Steps Four and Five, indicating the agency anticipated operational questions and attempted to narrow ambiguity through published responses [1].
4. Practical effects emphasized by stakeholders and agency messaging
Advocates, law firms, and SSA’s own blog framed the change as claimant‑friendly: shorter work histories to report, fewer legacy jobs to defend against at hearings, and a narrower set of jobs that can be deemed PRW—factors that many practitioners predict will make some claims easier to win and reduce administrative burden [5] [6] [4]. SSA and stakeholder writeups repeatedly highlight efficiency, reduced paperwork, and closer alignment with contemporary employment patterns as chief benefits of the five‑year rule [2] [7].
5. Limits of the published materials and outstanding questions
The Federal Register and SSR provide the legal text and operational cues, but the materials available in the record emphasize scope and mechanics rather than comprehensive empirical evidence of long‑term impacts; for instance, while SSA cites skill decay as part of its rationale and notes comment responses, detailed empirical projections of approval rates or processing time savings are not presented in the cited summaries [1] [2]. Some secondary sources raise procedural cautions—such as interactions with date‑last‑insured (DLI) issues discussed in practitioner commentary—but those points are not fully elaborated in the agency’s final rule excerpts provided here [8].