[T]he Acting Commissioner’s plan and legislative recommendations for preventing conspiracy fraud. The Subcommittee will also hear the recommendations of public and private sector experts to stop disability fraud schemes before benefits are awarded and to deter criminals from attempting to cheat the system.
Disability fraud schemes are actually almost non-existent at Social Security and not that hard to identify when they do occur but that won't stop Republicans from scheduling these hearings. You say, nonsense, I've been reading about all these fraud conspiracies at Social Security. Really? How closely did you read those stories? There have been three recent "schemes" alleged. One was in Puerto Rico. It's being prosecuted. As described by Social Security, that scheme was unsophisticated and easily identified. If the charges are true, those involved were fools, which is not surprising since most criminals are fools. A second, similar scheme is alleged in New York City but the local U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute, a fact which should cause any reasonable person to wonder just how strong the evidence is. In the third case, there have been lurid allegations of bribery and other wrongdoing in the Kentucky-West Virginia border area but no one has been charged. These is reason for concern about those allegations since the people making the allegations are suing to try to recover money. They have a financial motivation. The Department of Justice has refused to get involved in that civil lawsuit, suggesting that the charges will be difficult to prove even by a preponderance of the evidence standard, not to mention the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that applies to criminal cases.
By the way, it should now be obvious why the Acting Commissioner wanted to rush out the proposed "submit all the evidence" regulations.
I do not think it is fair to state "There is reason for concern about those allegations since the people making the allegations are suing to try to recover money." How do you know what their motives are? I certainly do not believe they have chosen their path and do not begrudge any financial compensation they might receive.
ReplyDeleteCertainly fair to state that. Carver and Griffith stand to gain a lot of money from this suit; motive pretty easily gleaned here. Gold diggers.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have seen of the evidence presented they deserve compensation for what they have been through.
ReplyDeleteThe acting commissioner is like a puppet figure. Astrue holdovers are still running the show (and pulling the puppet strings)
ReplyDeleteCharles, you cannot possibly be so naive as to believe that these are isolated or rare events.
ReplyDeleteA primary factor in all of these cases was doctors completing medical source statements with opinions for which there was no basis. That type of behavior happens all over the country and is facilitated by most of the claimant representatives. Some of the questions on those forms are not questions that most doctors would have any way of knowing, meaning the doctor has to just write down what his patient tells him. Too many doctors are willing to fill out the forms in a manner that helps their patients because they want to be seen as sympathetic providers (or some just want their patients to receive Medicaid so that the doctor has a steady payment source). Mental health assessments are some of the least believable and mental health professionals are incredibly gullible/naive.
@4:08
ReplyDelete"is facilitated by MOST (capitals mine) of the claimant representatives"??? Other than what appears to be negative indoctrination of SSA personnel toward reps, what is the basis for this statement? In Western NC, the physicians are incredibly conservative, and very few will fill out a treating source statement or provide a letter of support for even the most grievously disabled patient. At least you've admitted that the forms contain questions that "most doctors" would have no way of knowing, so what about the CEs and Agency Reviewers? They've never examined or even seen the patient, yet they pontificate regarding functionality as if they are all-knowing.
As for mental health professionals, the primary tool in diagnosis/treatment is the patient interview. Over a long period of treatment, a trained mental health professional certainly is a better evaluator of the condition than an psychiatric or psychological CE who may spend 15 minutes with the claimant. If you tell me the name of the CE, I can write half of the CE report without knowing anything about the claimant.
If the Commish and Congress really want to stop fraud, clean up the CEs and Agency Reviewers!
@10:38, I would provide you with the basis for the statement about representatives you questioned, but Charles has already deleted my response once.
ReplyDeleteAs for CEs, I agree with you that they are often worthless.