Increase GIS max income limit when partner is receiving partial OAS #100
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This pull request is being automatically deployed with Vercel (learn more). 🔍 Inspect: https://vercel.com/eligibility-estimator/eligibility-estimator/4cHjudRQRy4baVLbZW9CtbZn4S3K |
KhalidAdan
approved these changes
Jan 19, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR will increase the GIS income limit when the partner is receiving Partial OAS. We do not yet know the correct income limit in this scenario, so as a compromise, we are going with the higher limit, which may result in us returning "eligible" when in fact they are not. We are aware this is not ideal but I discussed with Wiam and we decided to first go with this approach, and then check in with experts to see if there is any better solution. We may end up changing the behavior when we are in this "grey area" to return an unavailable eligibility, but decided against that for now as it currently results in the results table being hidden, which we do not want to happen in this case.