Here's the witness list for today's hearing before the House Social Security Subcommittee, with my description of one's witness' testimony:
PANEL 1:
The Honorable Michael J. Astrue
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Testimony
PANEL 2:
Trudy Lyon-Hart
Director, Office of Disability Determination Services, Vermont Agency of Human Services, on behalf of the National Council of Disability Determination Directors
Testimony
Lisa D. Ekman
Senior Policy Advisor, Health & Disability Advocates on behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force
Testimony
Dan Bertoni
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Testimony
Leighton Chan, M.D. Chief, Rehabilitation Medicine Department, National Institutes of Health
Testimony
Nicole Maestas, Ph.D.
- If I hear one more person involved in rehabilitation talking about "shifting paradigms" I think I'm going to start throwing things. Dr. Chan talked about a project he is working on "to create a real time functional assessment that is rapid, reliable and objective. This project assesses the feasibility of developing Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) instruments that could be considered for integration into the SSA’s disability evaluation processes. CAT methodology, coupled with Item Response Theory (IRT), is used to measure outcomes precisely across the full continuum of human functioning. IRT/CAT represents a simple form of artificial intelligence software requiring a computer for administration." I will not bore my readers with a full description of IRT/CAT except to say that the idea that it has anything to offer to disability determination is laughable from any point of view.
Senior Economist, RAND Corporation
Testimony
if you read Dr. Chan's testimony, you will find that he is just proposing a tool that will provide standardization to the questions that most ALJ's ask at a disability hearing. This would help ensure more uniform decisions. It doesn't take credibility out of the equation, because claimant's can still lie, exaggerate, misinterpret, etc. However, it would help decision makers by providing a uniform (and informed) process or helping to determine functional ability.
ReplyDeleteTo say that his idea is "laughable" seems knee-jerk, since he indicated that it won't be finished until 2016.
Why are people so scared of change? Oh yeah, it's because the business of representing claimant's is a $1 BILLION (plus) per year industry and any proposed "paradigm shift" in that process scares people.
The reason it is laughable is because one cannot take the human element out of assessing or judging disability.
ReplyDeleteI knew it! I knew it! I knew it! I knew this was coming. I've often said if 'they' continued to computerized the disability process 'they' would eliminate the need for Examiners.
ReplyDeleteWhoever 'they' are . . .