Henry Olsen and Jon Flugstad at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) have produced a remarkable piece called "The Forgotten Entitlements." Let my give a few quotes:
The word “disabled” triggers visions of quadriplegics and speechless stroke victims, but the actual definition applies to those with ailments far less severe. Indeed, today the vast majority of those awarded benefits suffer from chronic back pain, mental problems, and other difficult-to-diagnose maladies. Gaining access to the program, and staying in it, was made easier in the 1980s and 1990s by decisions that adopted less-stringent qualifying criteria and made other such changes. Jack Kemp’s famous truism — if you subsidize something, you get more of it — has proven true for ssdi. Disability is increasingly subsidized, and in the past decade, the number of SSDI beneficiaries has grown by over 2.5 million people. Program costs have also exploded and are projected to keep rising. ...AEI is usually called a "think tank." A more accurate description would be "right wing polemic factory." This hit job is an example of what they do every day.
The history of SSDI is typical of entitlements: What started as a narrow program to assist the hardest cases has expanded incrementally and is now overwhelming. ...
By 1977, 2.8 million non-elderly people were on SSDI a program whose expenditures by that time exceeded revenues by 25 percent. These looming financial problems led to federal legislation in 1980: Initial applications were scrutinized more closely, which increased benefit denial rates by 15.5 percent. The Reagan-led Social Security Administration also instituted more thorough and frequent disability reviews and made eligibility requirements more stringent, determining that 380,000 beneficiaries — or 40 percent of those reviewed — no longer met the program’s medical criteria. ...
A congressional backlash ensued, leading to new amendments in 1984 that expanded SSDI’s scope. Eligibility was extended to those without the “ability to function in a work like setting” — a drastic change from the program’s original, medical focus on whether an applicant’s diagnostic criteria “met or exceeded a listed impairment.” This opened the door to granting benefits for expensive, long-term impairments like back pain, arthritis, and mental disabilities, which affect an applicant’s ability to function in the workplace. ...
Congress has stacked the deck in favor of SSDI applicants in other ways, too. Medical evaluations provided by an applicant’s doctor take precedence over those conducted by SSDI program’s medical staff and hired independent doctors. Giving priority to the decisions of an applicant’s caretakers effectively renders powerless SSDI’s evaluation measures, especially on ambiguous conditions such as depression and back pain, which comprise a large portion of SSDI applications. To appeal a Social Security Administration decision is also relatively easy; in fact, three separate avenues of appeal are open to disappointed benefit seekers. Furthermore, appellants may use lawyers hired on a contingency-fee basis to help them prepare their cases; SSA, though, is restricted in its ability to retain and use outside counsel. ...
Many people currently receiving SSDI probably can work, perhaps not full-time and perhaps not in their former careers, but nevertheless: They can work. ...
7 comments:
Aei has no reasonable considerations.
So, what did they say that was wrong/incorrect? Not much from what you posted.
Don't see a thing wrong with this piece either.
I am ignoring most of the language in this article because it is mean-spirited and condescending; however I will agree with the part that refers to people on the rolls who may be able to work (although not in the sense AEI means). That is why SSA has a program called the Ticket to Work Program which is voluntary and assists beneficiaries in receiving information, services, and employment supports to help them go to work. There are plenty of naysayers (and I am embarrassed to say many of them are SSA employees)but they are people who haven't kept up with the program. Since a new regulation was published last year, the Ticket Program has been progressing nicely and, if it is allowed to continue, it will assist many people to work and become independent and productive members of society.
Well, I work in an FO, and no one that I know or have ever heard of has benefitted from the Ticket to Work. It is a non-entity for virtually the entire agency, and nothing new has surfaced recently in that regard-- not from the agency nor any relevant parties.
The one obvious problem with the AEI arguments is that the restrictive policies of the 1980s were rejected by state governors, and eventually the Supreme Court. The draconian policies were ruled more restrictive than statute intended, and the "expansions" that AEI laments were merely bringing regulations back in line with statute.
I'm a retired District Manager of a Calfornia FO. More than half of our workload was DIB related. As a result, I spent a lot of my time resolving problems resulting from claims or PE actions. DIB is darn near impossible to administer with any kind of efficiency or public satisfaction. Wrestling alligators is easier.
AEI has seized on the popular notion that ordinary people shouldn't "get paid for not working" because "they could work if they wanted to." Well, not so you'd notice, as the previous writer from the FO observes. Meanwhile, there is considerable support among disability advocacy groups for abolishing the notion of ineligibility resulting from work activity in the T2 DIB program.
There is no way to resolve the conflict between the popular view and the advocates' view. Groups such as AEI take advantage of this dissonance and put out material that misstates the nature and intent of the DIB program. For example, AEI's piece implies that many benes now are only slightly disabled or not disabled at all. It blames this on changes in the 1984 Amendments without explaining what they are.
More galling still is their assertion that the Reagan Administration's draconian staffing cuts and CDI's represented the way the program should be administered. Tell that to the federal judiciary which overturned regulation after regulation and put us all to reworking thousands of denied DIB claims, terminated CDI cases, and complete revisions of basic benefit computations. In short, they got it wrong and millions of people suffered because of it.
So, to the commenter here who asked if SSA News was saying AEI was wrong, I say,"You betcha, big time, yessirree, yep yep yep, Ohhhhh Yeaaahhhh." In conclusion, may I compliment the author of SS News. I have seldom seen such lucid reporting regarding the Social Security programs, and certainly encourage you to keep up the great work.
Post a Comment