U.S Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa has filed a bill aiming at a longstanding problem, the backlog of Social Security disability cases.
Castor’s bill is only the latest of many legislative attempts made over the years to solve the problem, but Congress has never figured out how.
The problem arises when individuals are turned down on claims for disability benefits under Social Security. Many appeal, and two-thirds of those who appeal eventually win their cases, Castor said. But the appeals process often takes years, during which the individuals don’t get the benefits.
From fiscal year 1997 through 2006, Castor noted in a news release, backlogged disability claims in the Social Security Administration’s processing system doubled, reaching about 576,000 cases.
Castor’s legislation would set deadlines for the Social Security administration to hold hearings on appeals.
“Some Tampa Bay families wait as long as four years for a hearing,” Castor said in a news release. “They can lose their homes and some end up living in homeless shelters. ... This is unacceptable.”
Last year, President Bush proposed more money for faster hearings, and Congress approved more than Bush requested. But partly because of concerns about widespread fraud, speeding up approval of claims enough to dispel the backlog has proved an insoluble problem.
Jul 15, 2008
Deadline Bill Proposed
From the March on Politics blog:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Why doesn't Congress spend some time addressing the disparity in DDS decisions and ODAR decisions? Disability claimants have received decisions on their claims in a reasonable amount of time from DDS, they just disagree with those decisions. I believe there is a 'culture of denial' at the DDS and a 'culture of approval' at ODAR. At DDS, the allowances get tagged for DQB federal review, not the denials, so if an analyst is being pushed for quick turnover of claims, a natural tendancy would be to deny rather than approve a marginal case. However, at ODAR, allowances are easier for the decision writers to write because so few of them are tagged for own motion reviews by the AC. Why else do ALJ's offer 'deals' like allowances for amended onsets. Why can't an ALJ just make a decision for a later onset in writing? Because it is more work and the denial portion might get him/her a remand that feels like a slap on the wrist.
The focus is all on reducing the backlog at ODAR and very little on resolving the disparity between DDS and ODAR decisions with the same evidence.
I agree with the earlier commenter.
But more importantly, you CANNOT legislate "specific performance." If the hearings have to be held faster, the decisions will take longer; and the records will be held open more, etc. If the decisions don't get out on time, will there be lots of lawsuits clogging up the courts? Will the remedy be to begin provisional benefits until the hearing is held? (Actually, that has some promise...). This is one problem where throwing money at it is likely to be more useful than throwing regulations at it.
Spend enough money to clear the backlog, then worry about refining the decision methods--there is no other way to do it--this is a crisis--one of many crises that this Congress can't, or won't, deal with. This is absolutely the dumbest Congress ever.
Congress has never been able to meet their own deadlines of passing a budget on time, so how can this rep possibly believe that legislating a deadline would work? She can't do it.
A great idea worthy of Congress!!Any appeal which cannot be favorably decided by ODAR or the AC within 360 days of the original filing date should legally be automatically appealed (free of any fees to the court and to this point, any representative fee) for the district court to decide.
Post a Comment