Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Armstrong has a plan to save Social Security's disability programs that the Washington Examiner has seen fit to publish. Here are the highlights:
- Time limited benefits for some people found disabled.
- Have someone representing the government at Social Security hearings on disability claims.
- More continuing disability reviews.
- " Raise the retirement age used in determining disability payments in tandem with the rest of America."
- Move SSI to the states.
25 comments:
His comments are all common sense and should have been implemented long ago.
However, they all result in some degree of reduction in benefits and will be described as "cuts" and will never be brought to a vote.
Too bad our politicians are afraid to make real decisions.
agree with the above statement entirely, can only hope but sounds like this ALJ has his head screwed on correctly.
Lets not forget to be fair and balanced. By reducing alj's $100,000+ salaries. After all,SSA and it's programs must be saved.
signed,
D beneficiary
@ 1:45
Administrative costs at SSA currently are at 0.8% of total SSA expenses. This is a level that is unheard of in private insurance (the ACA just mandated that insurance companies cap administrative costs at 20%). While it may seem like ALJ's are overpaid, they are hardly the problem with SSA.
If anything needs to be cut, it should be the from the billions of dollars that are paid to beneficiaries.
You want the hearings decided by a high school grad making just over minimum wage?
This fits in with the way he adjudicates cases. His benchmark is 50--older than 50 approve---under 50 deny.
It would be great to be able to refer people to a MEANINGFUL vocational rehabilitation program. Problem is, they don't exist in a form that will actually help people overcome their disability and get to work.
2:05 - look at the GRIDS. He probably has no choice but to approve over 50s (which is wrong). Agree with all his proposals, and Voc Rehab requirements. ALJs get paid a lot less than Congress or Article III judges, but are expected to work and produce 500 - 900 cases a year.
Lets be fair and balanced. Any serious plan would reduce every area of spending. Alj $100,000+ salaries included. Few if any respectable democrats would allow BENEFICIARY ONLY reforms/cuts.
signed,
D beneficiary
ALJs used to have the job title of "Hearing Examiner." This is way before the $100000+ salaries and the big egos.
Judge Armstrong isn't recommending moving SSI to the states - that's the CATO institute proposal.
Funny. I made some of these same recommendations on this site yesterday. As well as a recommendation to return to hearing officers and do away with ALJs.
The $165,000/yr. ALJ positions should be eliminated as part of any reform. The $165,000 doesn't include their benefits. It's obscene that they are paid so much to do so little. Most of them will admit (privately, of course) that it's the easiest job they've ever done.
You try to review, hear, develop and decide 500 - 800 cases a year. Then call it doing so little.
Exactly. Any ALJ deciding 500 to 800 cases a year cannot be doing much legal work. The kind of case processing the ALJs are doing could be done by well trained college graduates for a lot less money. ALJs do not even write their own decisions but instead jot down their "findings" in a few notes to give to another lawyer to write the decision. The other lawyer writing the decision for the ALJ is paid $100,000.
Another 1-sided commentary just like the 60 minutes piece. Not surprised. The Examiner is ultra conservative.
This reporter goes out and finds one of the lowest granting ALJs to make his point. That being said I agree with a few of the ideas. Notably:
1. Time limited benefits for some people found disabled. Comment - not sure how this would be implemented but not a bad idea.
2. More continuing disability reviews. Comment - already have CDRs they are just woefully underfunded and inept. Monitoring all of our welfare programs (e.g. Section 8, AFDC, etc.) need a major overhaul.
Totally disagree:
* Have someone representing the government at Social Security hearings on disability claims. Comment - So we can add an extra cost to disability hearings.
* Move SSI to the states. Comment - Sounds good in theory but states have more troubles than the Feds. This would just eliminate SSI entirely, which is what right-wing wackos want.
* Article attacked psych disorders. Never understood why right-wing wackos like this ALJ Armstrong always go after those with mental problems. It's like nobody ever in their family ever had a mental disorder. Just shameful.
This right-wing wacko article actually has some good points. The problem is most of it is just plain nonsense like the 60 minutes piece. But it sells newspapers I guess.
Let my just add the phrase "left-wing wackos" so this blog appears bipartisan.
All of this talk about getting rid of ALJs, I have a better idea, get rid of all of the Reps and return $6,000.00 on every case paid to the trust fund. Obviously unrepped claimant's get paid now, so why do we need someone just taking legal fees for next to nothing? I mean it's non-adverserial and SSA has the duty to develop the record and the ALJ has the duty to administer a fair and full hearing, so why do we need Reps?? Talk about a scab on society.. When was the last time anyone saw a Rep walk into a hearing and say, Ex. 1 demonstrated the claimant hasn't earned SGA, Ex. 4 documents the claimant severe impairments, Ex. 7 supports the alleged limitations, Ex. 10 shows the claimant can't return to past relevant work.. Never have I seen such a prepared Rep.. They usually sit there with a stupid look on their face and then attempt to attack the VE's use of the DOT.. duhhhhh..
@ 8:43...agreed 100%.
Next time I hear a rep that is prepared with a logical, supported argument will be the first time.
Sure, some of them have read the file and a few of them actually met their claimant before the hearing, but the majority meet their claimants for the first time in the lobby outside the hearing room and review the file for the first time the day of the hearing. Then they run through the same questions that they used in all previous hearings, mainly ignoring the specific facts.
@ 9:27 - I'm an attorney decision writer, and I assure you, I make nowhere CLOSE to $100k. Not even in that stratosphere. In fact, one would have to reach step 10 (i.e., 10 years) of the GS-12 level to even reach $89k, and I (and many, many others) am still FAR below that number. Most decision writers were hired in at GS-11 or lower, thus adding time before GS-12 calculations even matter...
to echo the above comment...
it takes 18 years to go from GS-12/Step 1 to GS-12/Step 10.
Based on varying locality pay, the GS-12/10 rate may vary, but in my office it's $97k. That means I will have been here 19 years before I make that much money. Also, as indicated in many other posts on this blog, federal employees have been in a pay freeze for the past 3 years with no current hope for future COLA. This means that our pay has effectively decreased in relation to the cost of living. Furthermore, our pay is quite less than most (if not all) of my attorney peers with similar experience.
Yes, work at SSA is largely stress-free, but our pay is by no means excessive and by quite most measures is lagging for our profession.
Its not ALJ salaries, its their decisions. A lot are friends w lawyers and possibly have alterior motives for making favorable decisions... $$$$
I do and get paid a fraction of alj salary...def not so little but not worthy of 100k
Unfortunately the 60min piece is very true. Aljs are not medically certified and hardly base decisions on objective evidence. Not having someone representing SSA at hearings will add administration cost but will also help weed out the fraud that has taken over the disability program. That in turn reduces benefits being paid out unjustifiably.
If the govt gets a representative, I want the due process right to cross-examine the professional prostitutes that DDS hires as CEs, particularly the "psychologist" whose every report says "psychiatrically stable" and "no cognitive barriers to employment." (Including my catatonic client with schizophrenia. Let's have a real trial--the fraud that is rampant is in the DDS system of CEs and Agency reviewers.
Post a Comment