Raise the length of time a claimant has to request reconsideration or a hearing from 60 days to six months.
This is my idea. It was not tried as a means of decreasing backlogs during the Clinton Administration or at any other time, as far as I know. However, the time limit for appeals was six months until the mid-1970s. I do not know why it was changed then.
Because of the common tendency towards procrastination, going back to a six month time limit would temporarily reduce the number of reconsideration requests and requests for hearings, since it would increase the average length of time between a denial and an appeal. A good guess is that this would increase this average length of time by one to two months at each level, which would produce a temporary but dramatic reduction in the number of reconsideration requests and requests for hearings. This would be a nice breather for Social Security.
This change might also result in less churning. Many claimants are denied at the initial level, become discouraged or make an unsuccessful attempt to return to work, miss the 60 day cutoff to file an appeal and have to start all over again. It would be better for them and would mean fewer new claims for Social Security if they could just file an appeal.
However, this regulatory change does encourage procrastination and that is not a good thing. I would not suggest it if there were not such a backlog.
This change could be done in three to six months, assuming there is no unusual holdup at the Office of Management and Budget, which has to approve changes in regulations -- and this one takes a change in regulations.
Because of the common tendency towards procrastination, going back to a six month time limit would temporarily reduce the number of reconsideration requests and requests for hearings, since it would increase the average length of time between a denial and an appeal. A good guess is that this would increase this average length of time by one to two months at each level, which would produce a temporary but dramatic reduction in the number of reconsideration requests and requests for hearings. This would be a nice breather for Social Security.
This change might also result in less churning. Many claimants are denied at the initial level, become discouraged or make an unsuccessful attempt to return to work, miss the 60 day cutoff to file an appeal and have to start all over again. It would be better for them and would mean fewer new claims for Social Security if they could just file an appeal.
However, this regulatory change does encourage procrastination and that is not a good thing. I would not suggest it if there were not such a backlog.
This change could be done in three to six months, assuming there is no unusual holdup at the Office of Management and Budget, which has to approve changes in regulations -- and this one takes a change in regulations.
2 comments:
it is already common practise that appeals can be filed past the 60 day timeframe with only an additional statement of good cause. the timeframe informally extends up to a year and has not at this point reduced the number of appeals.
This is an interesting idea. As a legal services attorney, I often wish I had more time to prepare a case before recon by examining the social security file and requesting additional records.
There is an initiative "SOAR" which is a training for case managers and other non-attorney representatives to learn how to assemble a case before even the initial filing. It's built on the idea that many cases are denied because of insufficient preparation.
As a temporary idea to relieve backlog of cases I think it might work as long as it is tied to an awareness that the extra time should be used to prepare a case prior to filing.
Post a Comment