I try to look at what is not happening as well as what is happening, since this tells us about options that have been rejected, or at least deferred. Here is a list of things that Commissioner Astrue has not done so far that some might have expected him to do in the five months he has been in office:
- Kill the proposed age regulations -- Social Security still has proposed regulations pending that would increase the age categories of the grid regulations by two years. This would have a devastating effect upon Social Security disability claimants. It would be politically suicidal for Astrue to adopt these regulations. Even former Commissioner Barnhart who had the proposal published said she did not want to adopt them, but was forced to propose them due to budgetary pressure from the Office of Management and Budget. Astrue has said he is not planning to go ahead with the proposal at this time, yet it sits there, ready to be adopted by Astrue or any future Commisioner upon no more than a few days notice. I have this vision of Astrue deciding to resign when President Bush leaves office, but adopting the age regulations as a parting shot. That is unlikely to happen, but Astrue knows well that he would make many people more comfortable by officially withdrawing that Notice of Proposed Rule-Making but he has not done so. Why?
- Increase attorney fee cap -- The cap on fees for attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants has stayed at $5,300 for more than six years despite significant inflation. For the sake of fairness, Astrue ought to raise the cap. He has been asked to do so. It would take little effort to do so, but he has not. Why?
- Lobby for SSA's budget -- Under former Commissioner Barnhart the Social Security Administration had come up with a proposed budget for the next fiscal year of about $10.4 billion. Social Security really needs the money, yet Astrue has lobbied for the much lower budget proposed by President Bush. Why?
- Show any sign of independence from White House -- Connected to the last item is the question of why Astrue has shown no sign of independence from President Bush. By statute, the Commissioner of Social Security is independent, yet Astrue has a person in his office working full time as White House liaison. As far as I can tell, no Commissioner has ever had an employee in such a role. Even in avoiding talk of privatizing Social Security, Astrue is doing the White House's bidding, since Astrue said during his confirmation hearing that this subject was just about the first thing that came up when he was talking with the White House about the nomination and they wanted him to stay away from privatization. Why not show some sign of independence from such an unpopular president?
- Go ahead with senior attorney without OMB blessing -- Astrue wants to go ahead with this. He needs to go ahead with it, yet decided to propose it as a regulation which lets the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) veto it -- and it looks as if they probably have vetoed it. Why not just call senior attorney decisions reconsideration decisions? Astrue could do that quickly without OMB approval, yet he has not done so.
- Announce any plan that goes beyond FY 2008 -- Social Security needs a long term plan to deal with its workload -- a plan that calls for a lot more personnel. I am not interested in any "grand plan" like Barnhart's Disability Service Improvement (DSI) fiasco, but I would like to see some sign of long term planning. It may be too soon for a full blown plan, but why is there no sign of work on it?
- Decide what to do about DSI in Region I -- Astrue has clearly decided not to go national with DSI, which is now in use in Social Security's Boston region (Region I). However, something has to be done about DSI in Region I. Federal Reviewing Officer (FedRO) morale has to be terrible. Many FedROs must be looking for other jobs. Productivity must be awful. Cases are in limbo. It is a situation that cries out for rapid resolution, but there is no sign of a plan for unraveling DSI in Region I. Why not?
In your post, you said:
ReplyDelete“Go ahead with senior attorney without OMB blessing -- Astrue wants to go ahead with this. He needs to go ahead with it, yet decided to propose it as a regulation which lets the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) veto it -- and it looks as if they probably have vetoed it. Why not just call senior attorney decisions reconsideration decisions? Astrue could do that quickly without OMB approval, yet he has not done so.” (Charles T. Hall - July 12, 2007)
(Doug Smith)
I strongly agree that SSA should use senior attorneys to make “reconsideration” decisions. This would speed things up significantly if it involved active collaboration between claimant representatives and Social Security.
Active collaboration would mean, for example, the SSA senior attorney and private attorney would confer and agree upon the additional evidence needed for a favorable decision. Then each lawyer would aggressively pursue that part of the evidence he or she is best equipped to obtain.
Let's say the SSA attorney would agree to pursue the medical input that must be obtained from SSA-approved sources. The private attorney would agree to pursue the evidence from treating physicians and obtain exams and tests that SSA cannot order; perhaps exams and tests involving invasive procedures. The attorneys would agree on an early date to confer again and appraise their success or progress.
Active collaboration between trained counsel has been practiced for several years in collaborative family law (http://tinyurl.com/326ax5)and more recently in collaborative civil law (http://tinyurl.com/3bfm7w).
Shouldn’t we who work with Social Security disability claimants - really sick clients - persuade the Commissioner to try it and see if it makes reconsideration meaningful and lessens the jam-up at the ALJ level?