Statement of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, on Flawed Syracuse University Report
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) “analysis” of our hearing backlog reduction efforts is sloppy and irresponsible. It focuses on the wrong measures, ignores the tremendous progress we have made in addressing the disability hearing backlog, and reaches the incorrect conclusion that we are “faltering.”
What matters most to someone waiting for a decision is how quickly we decide their case, not how many other people are waiting for a hearing. We have made significant progress in reducing that time. In August 2008, the average wait time for a decision peaked at 532 days. In May 2011, the average processing time for a hearing decision was less than a year at 354 days -- the lowest monthly figure since October 2003.
The agency’s published benchmark for processing hearing cases is 270 days, and we established it in consultation with Congress and the disability advocacy community. In 2008, nearly half of the people waiting for a decision waited more than 270 days. As of May 2011, only 29 percent of pending hearings were over 270 days. TRAC misrepresents the facts by failing to note this standard and the data that relate to it.
TRAC’s focus on the number of pending hearings is a flawed measurement of our improving service and bears little relevance to the public’s experience. Due to the economic downturn and the aging of the baby boomers, our workloads have been skyrocketing. We received 130,000 more hearing requests in 2010 than we received in 2008. Despite this increase, we have steadily improved service. We are deciding more cases, and deciding them accurately and quickly.
Our backlog reduction plan is working and has made a difference to the hundreds of thousands of people waiting on a hearing decision. Without it, the average processing time would be approaching 600 days, and we would be well on our way to 1 million people waiting on a decision. The TRAC report is clearly wrong in its conclusion that our backlog reduction efforts have been unsuccessful, and I call on Syracuse University to separate itself from this report and its authors.
6 comments:
I practice in one of the regions that has a very short waiting time. This fact has created new issues for me and my claimant clients. The DDS issues a great many decisions on grounds that the impairment is non-severe, and therefore does not develop the record with consultative exams. The ODAR is eager to get the case heard. Claimants don't realize that their case lacks the basic evidence to succeed on the claim. For example, a claimant has a stroke, stays a week in the hospital, gets referred to rehab, and loses his job. He files for disability. There's little evidence of the duration, and possibly little evidence of the severity. The DDS just passes it along. ODAR schedules a hearing within 4 weeks of getting the case; in my scenario, it's not unheard of to have a hearing come up that falls within 5 or 6 months of the AOD. There's just no evidence in these cases, and there's no time to develop it. We are pressured to have the hearings immediately, even if the client understands the need to develop a better medical history.
Here's another scenario: claimant has diabetes, or COPD, or a bad back. He or she has been receiving treatment which has enabled him/her to continue to work. But time has taken its toll, or maybe there's a reduction in force, and s/he leaves the workplace. Now s/he has no insurance, but the claim is going to be looked at from the point of view that treatment would restore the ability to work, and there is little history to refute that.
The push to get rid of the backlog is causing lots of rushed decisions. My clients do want a hearing, but they want to get it right the first time. I'm having a hard time in many cases doing so. (by the way, I work with a nonprofit legal aid provider; resources for us as reps are slim, too)
Anyone else seeing such issues?
Fixing the backlog is simple. Just reinstate Judge Daugherty and transfer all cases to Huntington. Sign up as many claimants as possible with Eric Conn, who will have the doctors at the medical clinic at his law firm examine the claimant and then complete a MSS saying the claimant is incapable of doing anything; Daughtery will hold a fifteen minute hearing, accept the MSS as valid, and pay the case.
To ANON1
The disability program is not intended to be an unemployment program -- if treatment can restore your clients' ability to work, those clients should not be found disabled.
Also, if there is concern that duration will be an issue, the claimant can wait longer to file. Filing a few weeks after a major surgery or illness (such as a stroke) is often unwise considering that the odds of a good recovery are fairly high, creating a good potential for a successful return to work (especially if there are no significant pre-existing or ancillary medical issues).
Or you just file a new application once twelve months has passed since the AOD. There is no cost to file an application (or an appeal), so barrier to the claimant becoming a serial filer if necessary.
To Anon #3 - I wasn't entirely clear. We all know those claimants who have managed to hang on to a job until they are in their 50s, when their condition worsens. If they have to leave a job, and don't have insurance, their condition worsens quickly. But not quickly enough to prove up a case within 3 months' time.
Stroke patients can rehabilitate within a year, but, again, that is IF they get good care.
All I'm saying is that you can't tell everyone who asks for your help to go away and file again after they lose the first case. However, getting good evidence for a hearing held 5 months after the date of application is really tough. All I said was that the quick turnaround time is creating its own set of issues, among them, the issue of people having to file claims over again after being denied. That's not necessarily a good solution for the SSA, now is it?
Oh, and I'm in a prototype state, so when I talk about fast, I do mean fast.
how is there an issue? the claimant files, the claimant is or is not disabled as the evidence will show, a decision is made. that is how the system should work. the only problem i see is ssa's 12-month requirement for disability, which makes the timing of the claimant's filing a strategic decision.
The SSA system used to allow 6 months to file appeals, recon and hearing, which allowed time for some cases to "ripen" .
Post a Comment