Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue received an award from the Alzheimer's Association for adding Alzheimer's to the list of cases eligible for "compassionate allowance" of disability claims. I consider the "compassionate allowances" list as meaningless since Social Security was already approving everybody on the compassionate allowance list and generally doing so rapidly. To me, the award seemed undeserved since nothing of consequence had happened.
Now, the Alzheimer's Association is announcing new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease. These new criteria are expected to double or triple the number of people being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Quickly adopting these new criteria for purposes of adjudicating Social Security disability claims would actually be of benefit to Alzheimer's patients and their families. Will the Commissioner step up and do something meaningful to justify that award he received?
Now, the Alzheimer's Association is announcing new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease. These new criteria are expected to double or triple the number of people being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. Quickly adopting these new criteria for purposes of adjudicating Social Security disability claims would actually be of benefit to Alzheimer's patients and their families. Will the Commissioner step up and do something meaningful to justify that award he received?
That the head of the organization that administers a public disability insurance program received an award from a vested interest group should not be a factor in determining an individual's entitlement to disability benefits. It would be brazenly unethical for the commissioner to "justify that award" by using it as a factor in responding to the changed diagnostic criteria.
ReplyDeleteI read the link, which states that new testing can identify people prone to Alzheimer's before they show the symptoms. SSA disability is not based on merely having a particular diagnosis, but on how a person is affected in being able to function in work-like activities. If the person isn't having significant interference with the ability to work, there would then be no reason to adopt these criteria as proving disability.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anon #2.
ReplyDeleteIf this has any effect on SSD at all, I'd imagine it would come in the form of an influx of perfectly healthy claimants clutching Alzheimer's-related scans.
We'll all be prone to Alzheimer's if we live long enouogh!
ReplyDelete