For all the talk of an impending crisis in Social Security, one already exists: The system is clogged with hundreds of thousands of disputed disability claims, a backlog so big that some people wait years for a hearing. ...I will be happy to prepare my clients' cases in 75 days. When I first started practicing Social Security law in 1979, the average wait time for a hearing was only about 90-120 days and some cases were scheduled in as few as 75 days. I coped just fine then and I would be happy to do so again. The fees were lower, but the work required per case was much lower. There was certainly much less stress. Until Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 it had rarely taken as long as nine months for a claimant to get a hearing on a Social Security disability claim at any time in history. When Michael Astrue worked at Social Security in the Reagan Administration, it was certainly not taking nine months to get a hearing. Astrue seems eager to define acceptable service levels at Social Security downward. Service during the era when Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006 was the exception, not the norm.
"Workloads have gone up, resources did not go up proportionately, and the agency was too slow to embrace new technologies," said Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, explaining the backlog. "It's a combination of all those things." ...Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., introduced a bill that would require a hearing be held no more than 75 days from the time it is requested, and a final verdict no more than 15 days after that. ...
Astrue said Castor's proposal does not take into account the time applicants need to prepare their cases. He has set a goal of a nine-month maximum wait for a hearing.
Apr 1, 2009
Backlogs -- Astrue Still Defining Acceptable Service Downward
From the Associated Press:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
When we talk about the good old days when it only took 3 or 4 months to get a hearing scheduled, we are showing our age. But, how hard is it to set up an appointment? But if, as seems likely, the ALJ's are deciding how many cases to schedule, could they be reluctant to speed up the work? I always thought that ALJ's made too much of the complexity of the law. When you see a claimant who needs help to sit down, stand up, or change position and is in obvious pain, what would make you think s/he can work? (Yeah, you can tell when people are faking! Here, catch this!) Sedentary work or not, this person couldn't make it to lunch let alone a whole shift. I'm not seeing rocket science here, but then, I don't have a law degree.
Mr. Ortiz' comments strike me as quite remarkably ill-informed. Her comments are ill-informed about the support staff bottleneck at hearing offices for getting electronic cases pulled into shape to allow for a decision after a request for a hearing. They are ill-informed about the legitimacy of applying a "sit and squirm" test for judging complaints of pain. They are ill-informed about how often it is that a primary basis for a disability claim is a mental impairment not marked by "need[ing] help to sit down, stand up, or change position . . ." (around 40%). They are especially ill-informed about what kind of cheap-trick behavior an ALJ ought to display at a hearing as a way to evaluate subjective complaints.
JOA
I think your readers are entitled to assume you make some minimal effort to engage in fact-checking before you make your posts. Unfortunately, this is clearly not the case.
You write: “Until Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 it had rarely taken as long as nine months for a claimant to get a hearing on a Social Security disability claim at any time in history.” Of course, “getting a hearing” may be the big event for you as the representative, but I suspect getting a decision is the proper measure from the claimant’s perspective. And you are right that it didn’t take 9 months in 1995 to get a decision on a hearing. Actually, it took a year.
You also remember your own history with a bit of a biased recall. You write: “When I first started practicing Social Security law in 1979, the average wait time for a hearing was only about 90-120 days and some cases were scheduled in as few as 75 days.” Well, not quite. In 1979 the average processing time of hearings at SSA was 151 days. I am sure “some” cases were decided within 75 days; just as it was the case that year that 4% of the cases had been pending for over 270 days.
You also basically attribute the increase in hearing times to the Republicans. You write: “Service during the era when Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006 was the exception, not the norm.” Wrong again. Delays in processing hearings have been rising pretty steadily since 1979. As the workforce ages, and as the claims process has become increasingly an adversarial proceeding (with attorneys representing more and more applicants), processing times have increased steadily. And it is not the Congress, by the way, that controls how long it takes to get a hearing resolved, it is the Executive Branch.
Here are the actual facts, for those who read this blog and naively assume you have some interest in them.
1979 (Carter): 151 days
1980 (Carter): 159 days
1981 (Reagan): 164 days
1982 (Reagan): 174 days
1983 (Reagan): 184 days
1984 (Reagan): 185 days
1985 (Reagan): 167 days
1986 (Reagan): 172 days
1987 (Reagan): 198 days
1988 (Reagan): 216 days
1989 (Bush I): 217 days
1990 (Bush I): 212 days
1991 (Bush I): 229 days
1992 (Bush I): 223 days
1993 (Clinton): 238 days
1994 (Clinton): 305 days
1995 (Clinton): 350 days
1996 (Clinton): 378 days
1997 (Clinton): 386 days
1998 (Clinton): 371 days
1999 (Clinton): 314 days
2000 (Clinton): 274 days
2001 (Bush II): 307 days
2002 (Bush II): 333 days
2003 (Bush II): 343 days
2004 (Bush II): 391 days
2005 (Bush II): 415 days
2006 (Bush II): 481 days
2007 (Bush II): 512 days
2008 (Bush II): 514 days
Post a Comment