Social Security has a panel looking at its future technology needs. A subcommittee of that panel has issued a report telling Social Security that it can, over time, make its computers do almost all its work. The report is supposed to be a "re-imagining" of Social Security's future. Actually, I see no "re-imagining" here. It is a vision that already existed in the minds of many high level Social Security officials. They have been talking about this for years. You appoint a group of high tech people, some of whom may be salivating at the thought of obtaining huge contracts with the Social Security Administration, and give them only limited information about the agency's workloads, what do you expect? Of course, they are going to recommend a heavy dose of technology to cure all that ails Social Security.
I am deeply skeptical of the vision of Social Security's future that this panel has produced. The quite unscientific poll I ran on this blog indicates that a lot of other people share my skepticism. The report itself says that the panel has heard that many Social Security employees are deeply skeptical. This skepticism is based upon a much deeper knowledge of Social Security's workloads than this panel has. It is also based upon our memories of past information technology failures and shortcomings at Social Security. If Social Security is going to move towards this panel's vision, the agency is going to have to address the bases for our skepticism. Let me suggest some ways that Social Security can work on this:
I am deeply skeptical of the vision of Social Security's future that this panel has produced. The quite unscientific poll I ran on this blog indicates that a lot of other people share my skepticism. The report itself says that the panel has heard that many Social Security employees are deeply skeptical. This skepticism is based upon a much deeper knowledge of Social Security's workloads than this panel has. It is also based upon our memories of past information technology failures and shortcomings at Social Security. If Social Security is going to move towards this panel's vision, the agency is going to have to address the bases for our skepticism. Let me suggest some ways that Social Security can work on this:
- Social Security has a real problem with something called the windfall offset. The windfall offset reduces back Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) by the amount by which Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits should have been reduced if the DIB had been paid when it was due. Got that? Not likely, unless you work at Social Security or work pretty closely with the agency. Trust me, the windfall offset is a big deal. It eats up a lot of work years at Social Security. It accounts for a lot of mistakes and delays. In the end, though, it is a computation, something that a computer system ought to be able to do. Social Security has tried twice to implement a computer system to automate windfall offset computations. Both efforts were total failures. My recollection is that the last effort to automate the windfall offset cost about $80 million. I am pretty sure that the panel was not told about this history. If Social Security management wants a high tech future for Social Security there is no better place to start than here. If this problem continues to defeat a high tech solution, Social Security management should keep its high tech ambitions modest.
- Social Security recently tried to implement a computer program to "pull" exhibits for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings. "Pulling" exhibits means selecting the stuff that is significant and organizing it. Lots of people, including me, said in advance that this would fail. It turned out that we were right. Social Security ought to do a post mortem on this and make it public. How much money was spent on this? Why did high level Social Security officials think it would work? Why did it fail? Could it have worked if it had been done in a different way? What does this experience tell us about the possibilities for future information technology systems?
- Over the last decade, Social Security has been implementing electronic files for Social Security disability claims. There are still bugs but the system mostly works. There were promises that switching to electronic files would lead to dramatic productivity gains. To the best of my knowledge, Social Security has never issued a report on the effects of the electronic files on productivity. I think that if there had been big productivity gains that Social Security would have been shouting it from the rooftops. They ought to tell the world what the results have been from this recent implementation of a system that mostly works. If they are not comfortable doing that, how much confidence should we have in the prospects of dramatic productivity gains from future information technology systems?
Electronic files ARE the main reason for the backlog. If you look at the data regarding where backlogged cases sit waiting, it is obvious that the delay is in "pulling". Electronic files are very, very difficult to pull. Sloooow.
ReplyDeletenothing will change in the near future. thats for sure
ReplyDeleteI respectfully disagree with the comment about electronic files. The backlog existed long before electronic files. At least for claimants and their representatives the electronic system, saves time and effort and makes the hearing process run much more smoothly (just think of all those paper files that don't have to be organized and copied, not only for advocates but also for VEs and MEs and the Appeals Council). SSA should be encouraged to quantify this.
ReplyDeleteThe SSI program is an area where lots of time could be saved. Many of the rules of the program are difficult and time consuming to administer and don't accomplish much good. Think how much money is wasted keeping track of whether people have spent their back award in the requisite nine months when what people really should do is save that money for emergencies, not spend it on lower priorities. Second, the infamous one-third reduction takes up huge amounts of time (SSA once told me that staff suggestions to improve the program always rank getting rid of this provision as their highest policy priority.) Last on my short list is the ridiculous $1500 limit on life insurance. People buy burial policies only to find that they eventual are worth more than 1500, which causes a review, overpayments and endless haggling. Why? It's an enormous waste of time.
Rich, your "waste of time" is someone else's "key to eliminating welfare fraud and abuse". As to the limits on resources of whatever type, poor people aren't supposed to have anything much to speak of. They're poor, got it? SSI is a welfare program and is based on an exclusionary principle. The fewer people who receive SSI, the better according to the people who wrote TXVI of the Act. So, the limits are very small and the tolerances non-existent. It's a waste of time to propose improvements, really. Been there, done that, had to buy my own tee-shirt. Nancy Ortiz
ReplyDeleteSSI is a massive burden on SSA's administrative functions. There have been enhancements to the electronic processes for SSI, but nothing can ever be done to significantly reduce the labor-intensive nature of the SSI program. It is basically a complete shambles at this point.
ReplyDeleteAs an SSI CR who has been doing windfall offset computations since the law was passed (sometime in the 1980's) I can say that without a doubt, the computation tools make this computation SOOOOOOOOO much easier than 5 or 10 years ago. I can do some offset comps in a couple of minutes that used to take me hours. However, I do have lots of experience and am much better at this than all but one employee that I know. I also know that windfall offset often holds up release of retroactive benefits. But so does all processing.
ReplyDeleteCreating an SSI record that doesn't involve Start Dates would help a great deal. Get rid of couple computations and ISM.