This is, I think, the key sentence from the Re-Imagining Social Security report that first came to light recently:
First, if the members of this subcommittee think that handling retirement claims is a huge challenge for the Social Security Administration, either they were poorly briefed by Social Security or they were not paying attention. Encouraging those who are retiring to file their claims electronically is a good idea but even if every last retirement claim is filed electronically, Social Security's situation is not much better than it is today. Retirement claims are by far the most common type of claim filed with Social Security but they are so easy to process that they account for a surprisingly modest part of Social Security's workload.
The real problems are the survivor claims, the disability claims and appeals and SSI. Disability and survivor claims are mentioned in the report but I get the distinct feeling that the Panel members had no idea of the challenges they present. They simply assumed these problems to be minor and easily addressed. Social Security's history over the last 40 years tells us the problems with disability claims are intractable and that the problems presented by survivor claims are so complex that Social Security has scarcely tried to tackle them. I looked through the report and the term "SSI" is not even mentioned. How do you do a report on Social Security's future and not mention SSI? My experience is that SSI is irreducibly complex. Again, what kind of briefings did the Panel members get? Were they paying attention to the briefings they did receive? Panel members seem to have made the naive mistake of thinking that Social Security's employees are mainly involved in handling retirement claims. This report is directed not at the real Social Security Administration but at a fantasy agency that exists only in their imagination.
Why is it assumed that Social Security cannot get future appropriations sufficient to allow some reasonable degree of personal service to claimants? It is only by making the assumption that this is impossible that you get something like this report. History suggests that Democrats are quite concerned that there be a reasonable degree of personal service to Social Security claimants. While Republicans are more apt to give this only lip service, they have not been unconcerned with the political consequences of poor public service at Social Security. Even President George W. Bush, the most right wing President that we are likely to ever have, was not unconcerned with service at Social Security. He was consistent in giving Social Security a better break on appropriations than just about any domestic agency. Politicians of all stripes are eager to cut government costs by substituting technology for civil servants but I see no basis for a fundamental assumption that appropriations for customer service at Social Security are going to dry up. If the computers cannot be made to do the work, there will be people available to do the work. The real question is the extent to which information technology can be made to substitute for Social Security employees. This Panel had little idea what it is that Social Security's employees actually do so they had little idea of the complexity of the issues presented when trying to substitute information technology for warm bodies in this context.
Getting an outside opinion is a useful exercise but only if the outsiders know what the facts are. These outsiders know so little that they could do no more than muddy the waters.
Given the projected workload increases due to the number of individuals retiring over the next two decades and other demographic trends, electronic self-service appears to be the only solution that will enable SSA to process future transaction volumes.Really? Why?
First, if the members of this subcommittee think that handling retirement claims is a huge challenge for the Social Security Administration, either they were poorly briefed by Social Security or they were not paying attention. Encouraging those who are retiring to file their claims electronically is a good idea but even if every last retirement claim is filed electronically, Social Security's situation is not much better than it is today. Retirement claims are by far the most common type of claim filed with Social Security but they are so easy to process that they account for a surprisingly modest part of Social Security's workload.
The real problems are the survivor claims, the disability claims and appeals and SSI. Disability and survivor claims are mentioned in the report but I get the distinct feeling that the Panel members had no idea of the challenges they present. They simply assumed these problems to be minor and easily addressed. Social Security's history over the last 40 years tells us the problems with disability claims are intractable and that the problems presented by survivor claims are so complex that Social Security has scarcely tried to tackle them. I looked through the report and the term "SSI" is not even mentioned. How do you do a report on Social Security's future and not mention SSI? My experience is that SSI is irreducibly complex. Again, what kind of briefings did the Panel members get? Were they paying attention to the briefings they did receive? Panel members seem to have made the naive mistake of thinking that Social Security's employees are mainly involved in handling retirement claims. This report is directed not at the real Social Security Administration but at a fantasy agency that exists only in their imagination.
Why is it assumed that Social Security cannot get future appropriations sufficient to allow some reasonable degree of personal service to claimants? It is only by making the assumption that this is impossible that you get something like this report. History suggests that Democrats are quite concerned that there be a reasonable degree of personal service to Social Security claimants. While Republicans are more apt to give this only lip service, they have not been unconcerned with the political consequences of poor public service at Social Security. Even President George W. Bush, the most right wing President that we are likely to ever have, was not unconcerned with service at Social Security. He was consistent in giving Social Security a better break on appropriations than just about any domestic agency. Politicians of all stripes are eager to cut government costs by substituting technology for civil servants but I see no basis for a fundamental assumption that appropriations for customer service at Social Security are going to dry up. If the computers cannot be made to do the work, there will be people available to do the work. The real question is the extent to which information technology can be made to substitute for Social Security employees. This Panel had little idea what it is that Social Security's employees actually do so they had little idea of the complexity of the issues presented when trying to substitute information technology for warm bodies in this context.
Getting an outside opinion is a useful exercise but only if the outsiders know what the facts are. These outsiders know so little that they could do no more than muddy the waters.
SSI would be the easiest part of SSA's workload to shed. Just ship those cases back to the states, from which they were taken in 1974, give the states block grants so they can handle them from now on, and that's the end of that. It's amazing that that's never occurred to anyone in Central Office, or if it has, why it's never been implemented.
ReplyDeleteAgree with Mr. Herling. This was before my time at SSA, but I understand the reason for Federalizing SSI was the disparity among the states in administering old age and disability welfare programs.
ReplyDeleteI was a T2 specialist and could never understand why SSI was so complex and cumbersome. (not that T2 doesn't have its share of arcane and inefficient policies, but SSI is a nightmare.)
However, returning SSI to the States would require Congressional approval, so that may be why SSA hasn't pushed for it--that or that it would diminish the size and scope of the agency, something that's anathema to any senior bureaucrat;)
"Easiest to shed?" Easy in what sense? Because it's the most complex (needs programs always are)? That doesn't make it easy to shed. Because the States want it back? Show me the evidence for that...and good luck finding it. Because Congress wants to send it back to the States? Again, where is the evidence of that? Mr. Herling, you are dreaming if you think that shedding SSI would be 'easy.'
ReplyDeleteThe States would be gone-round-the-twist, batBleep insane to take back SSI. The States are laying of teachers, all types of workers and even furloughing DDS employees whose salaries are paid for by federal money. They'd never take it back in a million years. If anything, those states that still have Optional Supplemental payments will probably seek to greatly reduce or even cut them off permanently.
ReplyDeleteThe complexity of the comps, a large number of which depend on manual processes in ODO to compute various T2 benefits offsets first, defy description. Any T16 transaction is more time-consuming and labor intensive than the more routine, cut and dried T2 transaction of a similar type. Clearly, the Committee that dreamed up its Reimagination of SS doesn't know squat about SS and its programs. Nancy Ortiz
Perhaps the point of the subcommittee is that the routine processing (RIBs, changes of address, direct deposits, etc) need to be handled online. This will free up staff to handle RZs, LIs, Work CDRs, Med CDRs, offsets, fraud investigations, complex enumeration issues, payee issues, and other complex workloads. Resources are unlimited and SSA must reexamine the way it does business because Congress isn't going to just funnel the money SSA's way and there's not much out cry from the public to improve services in the FOs.
ReplyDeleteKevin
1. Begin phasing out small field offices and resident stations, which are a drag on the budget.
ReplyDelete2. Make the easy RSI claims a mandatory online service within a period of time. Charge the public a fee if they insist on filing in person.
3. Consolidate the regional offices from ten to five. Offer early outs and buyouts to facilitate this effort. Do the same thing with CO.
4. Appoint an internal commission with mandatory outside assistance (OMB,GAO, SSAB maybe) to determine which workloads could be eliminated without a significant impact to public service and/or program integrity and solvency. AGGRESSIVELY address Congress on the items that would require changes in the Act to accomplish these reductions. Key here is to have "civilians": (i.e., non-SSA folks) in on the study.
I could think of more. Point here is that SSA is a bloated bureaucracy which has lost sight of its purpose. Not always its own fault; many "unfunded mandates" have arisen over the years and, like all these things in government, never seem to go away.
The most direct way here would be to have OMB immediately cut the next budget proposal by, say, 20%. I'll bet SSA could find a way to continue operations and target the problem areas like the disability claims/appeals program if they had that sword over their heads.
Whaaat? You outta you mind. Another bizarro opinion from someone who has absoutely no knowledge of SSA programs or operations. Wow.
ReplyDeleteHmmm..guess thirty years of working there isn't enough to make me qualified to make suggestions.
ReplyDeleteMy ideas:
ReplyDelete1.Relax DDS adjudication
2.Eliminate the appeals council
3.All services except consultative examination are to be electronic(internet). Yes this includes hearings.
4.Eliminate excessive salaries($100,000+)
5.Eliminate bias adjudicators-their decision may add time and wasteful spending.
A#4--Where do you work? Your 30 years' experience certainly qualifies you to do the job you're doing. But, I doubt that the work you do involves working with the public. SSA is hardly a bloated bureaucracy. For Pete's sake, maybe the DOD is a tad bloated. Or, the Post Office. Both have hundreds of thousands of employees. But, at a paltry 69K people, SSA is a fraction the size of other agencies.
ReplyDeleteThe reason we do what we do is because the law requires it. It's always possible to simply abolish Social Security. What you are suggesting would essentially do exactly that. The Deficit Commission may accomplish pretty much what you would by requiring people to work until they drop. However, until that happens, we all have a job to do until we retire. And, with 30 years of service, that prospect may actually appeal to you. Nancy Ortiz
Ms. Ortiz: 20 years as a CR, then 10 years as a manager. I've worked in a regional office as well. There are plenty of ways to cut expenses in SSA without sacrificing core missions--if anyone would have the guts to define what they are. Resident stations with 10 visitors a day are a complete waste of money, if not in rent only.
ReplyDeleteThis is the 21st century. We need to aggressively move to an electronic and teleservice model of service not just to save money but to allocate scarce resources (which are coming, assuredly) to the areas where they're really needed.
Any time SSA proposes closing unproductive little facilities, the locals go nuts and Congressional pressure causes the agency to back off. That's one thing that should change. Do you see a plethora of Medicare field offices around the country?
I retired last year and saw how upper management saw the stimulus bump as a kid would in a candy store. It's time to come down to earth and deal with reality. And for the record, I'm a liberal Democrat.