The National Academy of Social Security (NASI) recently computed the amount of Medicare and Medicaid benefits per employee of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). I don't see that NASI has done a similar computation for Social Security. Let's give it a try. In 2013, Social Security paid out $2,764,431 million in retirement, survivors and disability benefits and $53,900 million in Supplemental Security Income (including state supplementation), for a total of $2,818,331 million in benefits. As of December 2013, Social Security had 61,957 employees. If my math is correct, that means that each Social Security employee was responsible for $45.5 million that year.
Given the vast sums of benefit payments that Social Security must administer, does the agency have enough employees to get the job done in an cost effective way? Does the agency have enough employees to provide adequate public service?
5 comments:
The count would be more accurate if it included the DDS staff (who has to say yes on DIB), the ODAR and Operations staff and pretty much eliminated the rest because their invlvement in any specific claim is indirect at best.
@7:34 The statistic is for Retirement, Survivor and Disability insurance and SSI which is also payable to persons over age 65. DDS has zero involvement with retirement and survivor benefits and SSI aged; ODAR has very little to do with either. Social Security is much more than a disability program. And it is the field office and payment center who do all the payment decisions as well as intake, so I would call that a pretty direct involvement. No one would get a dime if it was just ODAR and DDS working.
Your statistic would be more impressive if it were true. How about using the actual OASDI expenditures of $822,925 million rather then the trust fund balance of $2,764,431 million in your calculation? By the way, we see this type of error in Social Security computations with some frequency, made by technicians who rely on the results of computer programs without pausing to consider whether or not their results actually make sense. I do enjoy your blog; please keep up the good work.
This is a whack job done for Isa. No specific errors identified. The report mentions deficient medical vocation decisions, onset errors and one very vague example of a deficient case -
QUOTE For example, one ALJ’s decision related to a 50-year-old claimant who applied for benefits in June 2010 alleging back problems and affective/mood disorder. The State disability determination services examiner denied the claim determining the claimant could perform past work in the national economy, and the decision was upheld at the reconsideration stage in March 2011. In August 2012, the ALJ issued a favorable decision citing that no jobs existed in the national economy that the claimant could perform. In our review of the ALJ’s decision, we found the ALJ did not provide sufficient rationale for the decision. END QUOTE
Over two years since the DDS decision (given that was accurate) the OIG and DQ “reviewers” - 4 program analysts, the rest auditors a director and one interns) scientifically determined the ALJ did not provide sufficient rationale (never defined) for the decision. Well, there is specific proof for you. The whole report is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money. The OIG should be ashamed. This is the junk science and provides no basis for extrapolating this 275 “case review” results in “questionable” costs of “approximately” $2 billion.
Disregard the above - it was meant for the OIG report post above. Apologies.
Post a Comment