A document issued by the staff of the Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) seems to me to display a fixed intention to make it harder for persons with low cognitive abilities to qualify for Social Security disability benefits.
First, let us define a term. "Cognitive" refers to intellectual qualities -- the ability to think, reason and remember. Someone with low cognitive abilities has a low IQ. Those who have cognitive difficulties range from merely having low average intelligence to being profoundly retarded. Some disability claims are filed based solely upon very low cognitive abilities, but many more are filed by those who have a combination of somewhat low cognitive abilities with other physical or mental impairments.
There is extensive and persuasive evidence that the cognitive demands of employment have increased in recent decades. I was under the impression that this was a well-established fact that no one disputes. As one who has been around for a few decades, I though it was self-evident.
And yet, we have a statement by the staff of ODIP that they know that if they collect data about the cognitive demands of employment that there is no question about it, that it will become harder for Social Security disability claimants with low cognitive abilities to qualify for benefits. The only issue they perceive is how to defend this. I think they correctly perceive that defending this will be difficult.
How does OIDAP staff know that if they devise a system that generates data about the cognitive demands of employment that this data will make it harder for retarded people to get disability benefits? They have not finished devising a data collection system, much less collected any data. Such information as we have already tells us to expect the exact opposite, that updated data will show fewer employment opportunities for people who have low cognitive abilities. It sounds like OIDAP staff has prejudged what an updated occupational information system will show and that they intend for it to hurt retarded people. Why? How did retarded people get on the hit list? How can one interpret this as anything other than prejudice against people with low cognitive abilities? How do we trust OIDAP to devise a fair system when their staff has a preconceived intention to use the new system to hurt a class of disability claimants?
First, let us define a term. "Cognitive" refers to intellectual qualities -- the ability to think, reason and remember. Someone with low cognitive abilities has a low IQ. Those who have cognitive difficulties range from merely having low average intelligence to being profoundly retarded. Some disability claims are filed based solely upon very low cognitive abilities, but many more are filed by those who have a combination of somewhat low cognitive abilities with other physical or mental impairments.
There is extensive and persuasive evidence that the cognitive demands of employment have increased in recent decades. I was under the impression that this was a well-established fact that no one disputes. As one who has been around for a few decades, I though it was self-evident.
And yet, we have a statement by the staff of ODIP that they know that if they collect data about the cognitive demands of employment that there is no question about it, that it will become harder for Social Security disability claimants with low cognitive abilities to qualify for benefits. The only issue they perceive is how to defend this. I think they correctly perceive that defending this will be difficult.
How does OIDAP staff know that if they devise a system that generates data about the cognitive demands of employment that this data will make it harder for retarded people to get disability benefits? They have not finished devising a data collection system, much less collected any data. Such information as we have already tells us to expect the exact opposite, that updated data will show fewer employment opportunities for people who have low cognitive abilities. It sounds like OIDAP staff has prejudged what an updated occupational information system will show and that they intend for it to hurt retarded people. Why? How did retarded people get on the hit list? How can one interpret this as anything other than prejudice against people with low cognitive abilities? How do we trust OIDAP to devise a fair system when their staff has a preconceived intention to use the new system to hurt a class of disability claimants?
5 comments:
I figure that the reason that they don't think folks with cognitive problems should be found disabled is because the are potential candidates for management and SES positions with SSA.
About the SES candidates, they get their lobotomies AFTER they sign on. Just saying.
Why would you start off with a belief you have no data to support? And, then, why would you collect data to support your idea when there is plenty of existing evidence that cognitively impaired people don't do well in the work world as a general rule? Like Charles T, I don't get it.
If you want to eliminate categories of medically determinable disorders, how about antisocial personality disorders and personality disorders in general? You know, should we pay people who like to rob convenience stores by night while working in construction by day? Seems like that might be more justified in terms of social equity.
What's missing from Mr. Hall's comments is any explanation of how he reaches his conclusion that SSA is targeting retarded people. He has linked to a particular paragraph (below) that try as I might, I can't get to come out where he puts it. Here it is again:
[I]f SSA includes, for example, specifications in its new OIS regarding the levels of various cognitive abilities that are required for each occupation, who will bear the burden of defending the validity of such specifications when (not if) they produce adverse impact with respect to approving disability claims? Arguably, if SSA is the entity that develops the OIS database, and performs the data collection and analytical steps involved in producing the specifications of how much of each non-physical trait each occupation requires, SSA would be the entity who must defend their validity.
By my reading what this says is that "if SSA is the entity" that collects data about the cognitive abilities needed to do particular jobs, and then analyzes that data, then "SSA will be the entity" that will need to defend the validity of both the data and the analysis. Well, of course. But aside from giving us a statement that is so obvious it hardly need to be said, what else does this say that fits with what Mr. Hall alleges?
Is there another way of reading this? Somebody please show me. I'm doubting that this contains any message written in secret ink. (Although possible color: paranoid purple.) Just where does Mr. Hall get his conclusion? Does having one's own blog suspend any responsibility of justifying your assertions?
There is long history of negative treatment of the mentally retarded at SSA. It is more common than not for state agencies deny claims that meet the criteria of the listing, usually on the bogus grounds of diagnosis of borderline functioning. Diagnosis is not part of the listing criteria. Or this is done by not getting standardized testing of adaptive funcitioning, or by reversing the listing language. The listing requires only plural (more than one) deficits of adaptive functioning, whereas, the DDS determination will often state that the claimant can drive and keep house (which alone are not indicative).
There are many judges who follow that lead. Complaints are heard the, "I know retarded people who can work." But mildly retarded people are NOT automatically granted disability, only those who have additional impairments.
Why? Why are people racist or xenophobic?
A#2's comments are fair on their face. Hwever, doesn't this mean that the people who wrote the rules will be the ones to defend them? It seems to me this is a violation of the basic "you don't get to write your own evaluation" principle of appeal. Someone else takes the recon if you decide Mr. Smith isn't old enough for RIB. It should be the same here.
But as a general proposition, surely the methodology needed to define the cognitive functions needed for a particular job are in the eye of the beholder. Has anyone done this before and if so, what is the result--good, bad, or indifferent? Is the case law on this so bad that SSA needs to clarify the regs? If so, it seems to me Congress should be involved. This is a big, big deal with the potential for a lot of harm.
For an exampleclose to home, a person with a PHD or JD may think you need an advanced degree to write a favorable DIB decision, but we know that to be untrue. Similarly, ALJ's are the only people in SSA who interpret/apply the listings and case law to DIB decisions as a matter of administrative convenience. But we know that it's not that hard to do and there are good arguments for taking away this choke point in the adjudication of DIB appeals.
It used to be thought that only lawyers could adjudicate claims for SSA benes. We abandoned that idea umpty ump years ago. Based on our own internal experience alone, isn't it terribly risky to undertake this job?
Makes me wonder how we accepted this "mission impossible." There is no glory here and plenty of blame for any misstep. This is not a job for which SSA was designed. This is a mal paso, sin duda ninguna.
Post a Comment