 |
| From a Federal Times report. ACSI stands for American Customer Satisfaction Index |
For the 250 randomly sampled Title XVI claims involving claimant representative fees, SSA withheld fee s from claimants’ past-due benefits and paid the fees directly to the claimant representative. However, our review found that SSA did not always pay the appropriate amount when it paid the claimant representative fee on concurrent Title II and XVI claims. As a result, when SSA overpaid the claimant representative, it generally underpaid the claimant. Similarly, when SSA underpaid the claimant representative, it generally overpaid the claimant.
Of the 250 sample claimant representative fees, 10 (4 percent) had claimant fee payment errors totaling $13,020: $12,479 in overpayments and $541 in underpayments. The payments ranged from a $3,062 overpayment to a $484 underpayment. Based on our results, we estimate that 15,200 claimant representative fee payments had about $19.8 million in payment errors for Calendar Years 2011 and 2012.
We acknowledge that computing past-due benefits and the related claimant representative fees may be complex, as staff is required to analyze a multitude of factors and make various decisions to pay the past-due benefits and fee. ...
Despite our best efforts, we continue to be shocked by new horror stories about the Social Security Administration (SSA) that our readers bring to our attention. The latest galling example is one of the worst we've ever seen, and involves how the agency decides what to do when someone wants to defer benefits.
Readers of our book know that we are big believers in delaying benefits where possible. If someone delays claiming their retirement benefit until it reaches its maximum value at age 70, their monthly benefit will be 76-percent higher — in inflation-adjusted terms — than if they claim at age 62, which is the earliest age at which normal retirement benefits may be taken.
Now, we've just learned, to our amazement, that Social Security is denying the delayed benefit wishes of some applicants and is instead forcing them to accept six months of retroactive benefits and a lifetime of lower benefits thereafter. Some beneficiaries may not even be aware that this is being done to them. This is a colossal injustice. ...
Say someone comes in to their local Social Security office a few months shy of their 70th birthday and, as we're all told to do, gives the agency a head's up on their filing intentions....
Instead of accepting their application for benefits to begin at age 70, the agency's representative instead gives the person a six-month retroactive payment! This act resets the person's entitlement back to what it was six months prior and wipes out half a year of Delayed Retirement Credits (DRCs). ...
We brought this to the attention of Jerry Lutz, the former Social Security technical expert who has reviewed nearly everything Larry has ever written about Social Security. Jerry consulted the SSA operations manual that sets forth agency policies and came back as amazed as we were.
"Based on SSA regulations, retroactivity is automatically applied to applications filed after FRA unless retroactivity is expressly restricted by the claimant," he wrote.
On paper, it sounded like a true government success story: The Social Security Administration in September opened a "state-of-the-art" data center in Maryland, housing wage and benefit information on almost every American, "on time and under budget."
However, six years after Congress approved a half-billion dollars for the project -- the largest building project funded by the 2009 stimulus -- a whistleblower says the center was built on a lie.
"We misled Congress," Michael Keegan, a former associate commissioner who worked on the project, told FoxNews.com.
Officials originally claimed they needed the $500 million to replace their entire, 30-year-old National Computer Center located at agency headquarters in Woodlawn, Md. But Keegan says they overstated their case -- the agency has no plans to replace the center, and only moved a fraction of the NCC to the new site. ...
Keegan maintains the agency didn't have to move anybody out of the NCC, and could have simply renovated the floor holding the old data center.
"The data center occupies one half of one floor in a four-story building," he told FoxNews.com. "We didn't need to build [the new center] to begin with." ...
Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin said in a deposition she "did not" know of any plan to abandon the NCC or move all its workers to another site. Other officials echoed this statement. ...
Former SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue, who led the agency under President George W. Bush and for several years under President Obama, also said he's not sure why the building isn't being replaced entirely.
Astrue said he made the original decision to replace the NCC, toward the end of the Bush administration. He said the building was "antiquated and fraying," and was worried a disruption in payments could send "the entire economy into recession." A backup SSA center in North Carolina, he said, was not enough.
Astrue said his intention was to replace and phase out the NCC entirely, and disputed Keegan's claims that Congress was misled. He maintains the proposal was the "correct decision."
But he said he was "surprised" to learn the NCC is still in operation. He doesn't know why. ...
When the Office of the Inspector General reviewed Keegan's complaints, it concluded the SSA "did not mislead" Congress to believe the NCC wouldn't be needed. At the same time, the OIG acknowledged SSA talked about "replacing" the center and "did not implicitly state" it would stay in use. (Further, while IG Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr., oversaw the spending, he also was among those making the case for the project, telling Congress in 2009 the NCC was "rapidly approaching obsolescence.")
Like the OIG, the Office of Special Counsel last year also said they could not determine whether agency leaders misled Congress. Keegan disputes these findings.So what did Carolyn Colvin do wrong? She didn't order employees to make an unnecessary move to an unnecessary new building which was built at the insistence of her predecessor. If there's fault here, it's on Michael Astrue who insisted on building this expensive new structure instead of using stimulus money to hire additional personnel to work down the agency's backlogs. Much fault should also be laid at the door of the many members of Congress who were active cheerleaders for building the new National Data Center. My recollection is that Republican members of Congress were the biggest supporters of the new building. They always prefer spending money on contractors to spending money on hiring needed personnel.
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) today announced the results of a survey aimed to better understand how much Americans know about Social Security retirement benefits. The results of the survey, which included a true/false quiz about Social Security facts, were concerning: only 28 percent of those surveyed received a passing grade when asked basic questions about Social Security retirement benefits. ...
To test your Social Security IQ, take the MassMutual quiz. ...
According to the research, Americans remain optimistic about the future of Social Security. More than three out of five surveyed (63 percent) believe Social Security will be available to them when they retire, with a quarter of those surveyed strongly holding that belief. However, less than half (45 percent) think the program will have sufficient funding when they retire. This may be why only 39 percent expect to rely more on Social Security than their personal savings or income in retirement, with just 15 percent expecting to rely solely on Social Security.
... Consider the following calculation by James Poterba, a professor of economics at M.I.T.
If inflation-adjusted investment returns averaged 2 percent a year — not an unreasonable assumption given low interest rates and a stock market likely to deliver subpar returns over the next decade or so — a worker would have to save almost 15 percent of each paycheck for 40 years to get an annuity stream equal to half of final earnings at retirement, assuming a 2 percent risk-free rate of return. A late starter who saved for only 20 years would need to set aside a full third of earnings.
Matters would be easier if investments yielded 4 percent: With a 4 percent risk-free rate, affording an annuity equal to half the last paycheck upon retirement would require saving less than 10 percent for 40 years, or just over 25 percent for 20.
How does that compare with what workers actually save? From 1990 to 2010, the typical contribution to 401(k) accounts ranged from 4.7 to 5.2 percent of earnings. ...
 |
| OASIS is Social Security's employee magazine. OASIS stands for Old Age and Survivors Insurance. |
In January 2012, I was assigned as the Project Executive for the construction of a replacement data center in Urbana, MD. ... The center piece of the justification presented to Congress was that the National Computing Center building was beyond economical repair, in terrible condition and had to be replaced in totality. Additionally, SSA officials testified that it was legally required that the new data center be located at least 35 miles from the existing National Computing Center in Woodlawn, MD....
[In early 2013] I gave [my supervisor] a detailed briefing on serious issues that I believed included misleading Congress, waste and abuse. They included:
The case to replace the existing National Computing Center (NCC) was “overstated” and relied too heavily on the premise that the NCC was in “terrible condition” and could no longer support the agency mission.
The rationale and references used to justify relocating the new National Support Center (data center) 35 miles from the existing campus were very “broadly” interpreted at best and not applicable at all in my opinion.
Retention of the existing NCC building was absolutely essential to house the ~925 employees who must remain when the data center function was relocated.
In working with GSA [General Services Administration, which has jurisdiction over federal buildings], SSA [Social Security Administration] staff and reviewing historical files, I had discovered that SSA has awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in poorly developed and in many cases, unneeded projects.
That prior to my arrival there had been no controls on travel and that many OFSM [Office of Facilites and Supply Management] employees have traveled widely across the United States to various SSA locations without adequate justification or business purpose.
My efforts at reducing overtime from ~60,000 hours in 2011 to ~25,000 hours in 2012 had revealed significant abuses and unsubstantiated use of overtime inconsistent with SSA policies. The impact of my work yielded a reduction in overtime expenditures from 2011 to 2012 of approximately $2,500,000. ...
On April 26, 2014 I was called by [my supervisor] and he instructed me as follows:
* I am to "forget" the issues that I brought to his attention.
* That "he" will handle this with no specifics what that meant.
* That I will no longer be required at the quarterly Congressional staff briefings before the House Ways & Means Committee, Subcommittee on Social Security. ...
[O]n May 2, 2013, I was summoned to a short notice meeting with [my supervisor]. He proceeded to tell me that I was being placed under formal investigation due to unspecified "complaints".
On May 21, 2013, [my supervisor] appeared in my office and informed me that I had been relieved of my duties and that I had 30 minutes to clear out my office. Additionally, I was given a direct order not to communicate with any of my employees. I was then directed to report to the Operations organization in a temporary assignment.
During the period from May 21st until early December, I was confined to an empty office with little or no work to do, no responsibilities and very little contact with other SSA employees. I made numerous requests for updates and status on the "investigation" however [my supervisor] did not respond to any of my inquiries. ...
The alleged genesis of the investigation SSA launched against me was done solely to retaliate against me. According to [my supervisor], the decision to have me investigated happened after he met with Cynthia Ennis, AFGE [American Federation of Government Employees] Union president at SSA, who provided him a number of written complaints against me. ...
My job at SSA was not to be liked by employees. The American taxpayer didn't pay me to accomplish that goal. SSA is not a country club or someone's living room. It's an Agency tasked with administering benefits to the elderly and disabled. It's there to serve our citizens, rather than our citizens serving SSA management. ...
In summary, despite the fact that I had a flawless 44 year performance history including two superior performance reviews (2011 and 2012) at SSA, I was forced to retire in disgrace,dishonor and financial hardship due to the fact that I choose to do the right thing and report fraud, waste and abuse.Is he a whistleblower revealing serious problems at Social Security? Is he a crank? Is he some of both? That's the problem with whistleblowers. It's hard to know.
There's nothing in the Bible that talks about retirement. And yet it's been an accepted concept in our culture today. Nowhere does it say, "Well, he was a good and faithful servant, so he went to the beach." It doesn't say that anywhere.
The example I think of is Noah. How old was Noah when he built the ark? 600. He wasn't like, cashing Social Security checks, he wasn't hanging out, he was working. So, I think we have an obligation to work. The role we have in work may change over time, but the concept of retirement is not biblical.
Today, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) announced that the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) management of earnings reports from disability beneficiaries trying to go back to work. The SSA faces difficulties processing earnings reports and adjusting benefits in a timely fashion, in part due to the complexity of the work incentives in the Disability Insurance program. These difficulties can cause large overpayments for disability beneficiaries trying to return to work. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 16, at 2:00 PM in room B-318 of the Rayburn House Building.
Upon the announcement, Chairman Johnson said, “There are two problems for the American taxpayer when Social Security can’t manage earnings reports: First, dollars go out that shouldn’t; Second, individuals who want to work are discouraged from doing so. It’s time Congress takes a look at what drives overpayments. The American people want, need, and deserve nothing less.”If this Subcommittee wants to do something truly useful and bipartisan, it should simplify Social Security's work incentives. There has been one piece of legislation after another over decades based upon the fantasy that just one more incentive will cause Social Security disability recipients to go back to work in droves. It hasn't happened. It's not going to happen. It's just too hard to get on Social Security disability benefits. Realistically, few recipients have the capacity to return to regular employment. The work incentives have been added onto so many times that they're a confusing mess which is almost impossible to administer. Simplify. Simplify. Simplify. Don't do it in the belief that simplification will return more people to work. Simplify so that the system of work incentives can be effectively administered.
One case I remember was a mother receiving SSI benefits for a year and a half for a child she had given up for adoption at birth. Benefits were ceased for failure to cooperate. I had the case at the recon level (of course Mom asked for benefit continuation) and discovered this to be the case when I wrote to the hospital where the baby was born and the pediatrician they sent records to. Not only was there fraud on her part but her parents and other relatives withheld information.
Our review of 1,532 beneficiaries in current pay status as of October 2003 found that over a 10-year period (from October 2003 through February 2014), SSA [Social Security Administration] assessed overpayments for 44.5 percent of sampled beneficiaries. Based on the sample, we estimated
SSA assessed overpayments totaling about $16.8 billion between October 2003 and February 2014 for approximately 4 million beneficiaries who were in current payment status in October 2003 ;
SSA recovered about $8 .1 billion of the $16.8 billion in overpayments it assessed ; and
SSA prevented about $8 billion in overpayments between October 2003 and February 2014 to approximately 1 million beneficiaries in current pay status in October 2003 by suspending monthly payments.
Additionally, the overpayment rate in Fiscal Year 2004 was 3.1 percent of all benefits paid that year.The report goes on to note that although it can take time, after ten years Social Security had been able to recover 85% of the overpayments made in 2003. Many of the overpayments were, as the report puts it, unavoidable because the individuals received interim benefits while they appealed benefit terminations.
The Social Security Administration has until 5 p.m. Thursday to respond to attorneys who seek an injunction to block the immediate suspension of disability benefits to more than 900 people, according to a court order entered Wednesday. ...
U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar scheduled a telephonic hearing on the injunction for 3 p.m. Friday.
[The attorney's] motion, filed late Tuesday, linked as many as three suicides to the suspension notices. He first learned of an Ivel, Ky., man's death, whose widow he cited in saying the client shot himself Monday. ...
U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins, R-W.Va., and U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., called upon Social Security to give each person more time to provide medical records to support their original claim, according to letters sent to Social Security's Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin. ...
Between February 1962 and January 2015, SSA paid $20.2 million in benefits to 133 individuals alleged, or found, to have participated in Nazi persecution. This occurred because the Social Security Act did not prohibit the payment of most of these benefits when they were paid. The $20.2 million in payments included $14.5 million paid to 95 beneficiaries who were not deported and $5.7 million paid to 38 beneficiaries who were deported.
Today, Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-LA) announced that the subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, “Protecting the Safety Net from Waste, Fraud, and Abuse.” The hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 3 ...
In view of the limited time available, oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include Members of Congress with reform proposals as well as experts on the operation of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs. ...
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Boustany stated, “The SSI and UI programs annually waste billions of dollars due to improper payment rates that average around 10 percent year after year. It’s long past time that we identify the causes and start implementing real reforms to improve the integrity of these programs. That will benefit taxpayers, but especially those who most need this assistance.”
