Jun 30, 2015

Fewer People Drawing Disability Benefits



     The Social Security Administration has finally released updated numbers for May on the number of people drawing Disability Insurance Benefits. The decline was tiny but the number drawing disability benefits went down in May. In seven of the last eight months the number drawing these benefits has declined.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

They are decling due to the baby boomers reaching retirement age and coming off of disability. It will continue until the immigration bill goes through and then Katy bar the door. Disability will shoot right back up as the immigrants begin to file for benefits as soon as they are able.

Anonymous said...

Charles: Highlighting a minor dip like this does not take away from the staggering increase over the years...any of the usual justifications, aging population, etc. cannot explain away the increase.

Anonymous said...

@11:17 most of the immigrants of whom you speak have been shoring up the Trust funds for decades. If they are eligible they are eligible, no need for your opinion.

Anonymous said...

That must be why the trust funds are depleted? With the illiteracy and the GRIDS, we will never know "if" they are disabled, only eligible, right?

Anonymous said...

Reduce all Boomer RIB by 20%. They refused to pay for themselves for years, why should the younger generations have to pay for them? If they would have paid .25% more all of this would have been avoided.

If they raise the retirement age again, move my Medicare eligibility to 65 and beyond I will be switching sides to eliminate all SSA programs. Boomers have ruined this country, time they pay up for a change.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Congress should return the money they "borrowed" in the late 1990's. That would cover any shortfall

Anonymous said...

The judges are being pressured to deny claims just like in the 1980's. So there will be fewer receiving benefits. It isn't because the boomers are at retirement age!

Anonymous said...

Nobody is being pressured to deny, it is just that all the judges who were paying everybody are now being asked to follow the regulations...
If you follow the regulations and the cases are distributed equally as required, you cannot have a 98% pay rate and still be following the rules.

Anonymous said...

8:18 Is either a troll or misinformed. Perhaps he or she would cite the 98% pay rate source, but I doubt there is one.

The highest allowance rate from current stats is around 67%. The average allowance rate is 50%, see http://www.ssdfacts.com/odar

On the other hand we have a 70% denial rate topping the denial prone.

Maybe no one is being pressed to deny. But clearly no one is being pressured to follow the regulations. Including the AC who's remand rate is 10% lower than 2010.

Anonymous said...

1:33

You're incorrect about 67 percent being the pay rate ceiling, even using the most favorable method to calculate that figure.

I just went here http://www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/03_ALJ_Disposition_Data.html

and sorted the data by fully favorables (so that the ALJ with the most FF was at the top). Even if one calculates pay rate as fully favorables divided by all dispositions, the method that will result in the lowest "pay rate," I see a few ALJs within the first few on the list when so sorted who have "pay rates" significantly higher than the 67 percent you cited. If you use any of the other three possible ratios (i.e., all favorables divided by all decisions, all favorables divided by all dispositions, or only fully favorables divided by all decisions) to calculate pay rate, you get ratios that exceed 70 for many of the judges high on the list when sorted by FF; my quick glances through the top of the list saw a few ALJs with pay rates greater than 80 percent.

I know there is some debate about how "pay rate" is defined, but it seems like "all favorable decisions" divided by "all decisions" rather than "just FFs" divided by "all dispositions, even dismissals" is a much more appropriate way to calculate an ALJ's "pay rate." And using that method, there are plenty of ALJs with pay rates north of 60, even 70 percent.

Conversely, there are plenty of ALJs with pay rates less than 20 percent using the same ratio.

Also, doesn't the fact that the Appeals Council is remanding fewer cases (assuming all other things are equal) indicate ALJ decisions are better quality? I don't understand how you use that piece of information (that remands are down), absent any information that something has changed with the AC or its processes, and conclude ALJ decisions are worse.

Anonymous said...

The appeals council has increased pending, increased appeals and decreased remands. Within the context of decreasing allowances ( the original post), it is a relevant and accurate statistic that the fact that AC is decreasing potential allowances. But since they are not required to explain decisions or release "quality" goals, no one knows why they have decreased remands, just that it has occurred. All this is relevant to the absurd pants on fire assertions that ALJs have been allowing 98% of cases and the denial rate has not decreased.