Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued a report on Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and hearing office productivity. The report tells us that higher producing ALJs approved a higher percentage of cases than lower producing ALJs and that an increased percentage of on the record reversals, that is approvals without a hearing, accounted for a good part of that difference. Higher producing ALJs also held shorter hearings.
The report tells us that a higher ratio of staff to ALJ helped produce more decisions. Commissioner Astrue had stated back in June that "We have also received some criticism that we are not providing adequate support staff for our administrative law judge corps. In my opinion, that is a fiction designed to sidetrack some of our productivity initiatives." That statement, which was not off the cuff, but in Astrue's written statement to a Congressional committee is not looking too good at the moment.
Here is an excerpt from the report worth quoting:
The report tells us that a higher ratio of staff to ALJ helped produce more decisions. Commissioner Astrue had stated back in June that "We have also received some criticism that we are not providing adequate support staff for our administrative law judge corps. In my opinion, that is a fiction designed to sidetrack some of our productivity initiatives." That statement, which was not off the cuff, but in Astrue's written statement to a Congressional committee is not looking too good at the moment.
Here is an excerpt from the report worth quoting:
ALJs stated that the electronic folder has slowed case processing. While some ALJs indicated the slowdown is a result of the learning curve associated with the electronic folder, other ALJs assert that processing cases with the electronic folder will always be slower than with paper files. Specifically, some ALJs stated that it is faster to page through a paper file than navigate through the screens and documents attached in the electronic folder. ODAR has confirmed that there are general intermittent systems performance issues, such as limited bandwidth causing periods of slow response times. However, because the problems are intermittent, documentation of these occurrences was not available from ODAR. Information was not available for us to determine the impact the electronic folder has had on case processing times.
Why is it that this is the first official report from Social Security discussing this topic? Why is it that they lack sufficient information? It is like they have been afraid to try to find out whether the electronic folder is working. After this length of time the lack of proof that the electronic folder has improved productivity is rather powerful proof to me that it is not working. If the electronic folder were succeeding, Social Security would be quick to gather proof of the success and to tell the world.
Let me ask the question that OIG did not try to ask or answer. Where would Social Security be today if the money lavished upon the electronic folder contractors had been spent on additional employees to get the work done? The answer is obvious. The backlog at Social Security would be vastly smaller, maybe even non-existent.
I nominate the electronic folder as the worst single decision in the history of the Social Security Administration and Jo Anne Barnhart as the worst Commissioner in Social Security history.
Let me ask the question that OIG did not try to ask or answer. Where would Social Security be today if the money lavished upon the electronic folder contractors had been spent on additional employees to get the work done? The answer is obvious. The backlog at Social Security would be vastly smaller, maybe even non-existent.
I nominate the electronic folder as the worst single decision in the history of the Social Security Administration and Jo Anne Barnhart as the worst Commissioner in Social Security history.
Charles, Charles, Charles. You are splitting hairs again. How can one ever decide between Barnhart and Astrue?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the electronic folder leads to productivity gains at the ALJ level, SSA had to move that way to get productivity gains at other levels. Now admittedly, positing gains at the ALJ level before having any idea whether they would appear or not ain't smart.
ReplyDeleteAs a rep, I love the electronic folder for the ease access it gives me. No longer having to take an afternoon every couple of weeks to go copy a file or two is wonderful. However, what is driving me crazy about the electronic folders is the "document dump" that occurs. I see hundreds of pages of duplicates, because there is no one physically culling the documents as they come in. I try to be diligent in not submitting duplicates when I submit my own records, but it's tough when three different sets of exhibits contain overlapping records. So in actuality, I am spending more time trying to decipher the record than I did before.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, in my area we have lost capability of seeing the record before work-up, because the staff will not burn a CD until the pre-hearing order is prepared. I know the POMS says otherwise, but we're trying to play nice with the staff and not cause a big stink about their refusal to do this.
I'm a big fan of technology, but I think you might be on to something when you call the electronic folder the worst idea ever.
While field office staff were resitent at first because so few people were willing to create their disability report online and all the typing of information lengthened the interview time most staff members I have talked to would never go back to paper files. We have eliminated the time spent searching for files, mail time, mail preparation time and postage. The last figure I saw was that our local office saved over $12,000 in the first year alone not mailing heavy paper files to the Disability Determination Bureau. We are looking forward to the day when we no longer have to spend hours looking for prior paper files to associate with new claims or to start a continuing disability review.
ReplyDelete