The Des Moines Register recently ran an editorial decrying Social Security's enormous backlogs of hearings on disability claims. The paper said that "Congress needs to give the SSA the resources it needs while resisting
the urge to strong-arm judges who appear to be too productive" but also said that the agency needs a "long term strategy" for reducing its hearing backlog. The problem with calling for a "long term strategy" for reducing the backlog is that no long term strategy can succeed in the absence of an adequate agency operating budget.
Iowa is represented in Congress by two Republican Senators, three Republican representatives and one Democratic representative. Congressional Republicans are the sole reason this hearing backlog problem exists. They stand in the way of Social Security getting an adequate administrative budget. Backlogs went up rapidly when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives while George W. Bush was President. They started going down once Democrats took control of the House in 2006 and gave the agency a bigger operating budget. The backlog continued to decrease until the 2010 election which put Republicans in control of the House of Representatives. At that point, the agency's operating budget went to hell. The hearing backlog did a U turn and started shooting up. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is so deeply entrenched in gerrymandered districts that it is hard to imagine any change in the control of that body for many years into the future. The hearing backlog is rapidly heading to two years. These is nothing to prevent the backlog from going far higher than that. Claimants are losing their right to a hearing.
6 comments:
Really, back to bash the Republicans again?? Really, Democrats had the President, House and Senate for the first two years of Obama's reign and they could not do a Budget... Really?? Why didn't they make all of the needed changes then, when they had the power? Really, Do you think people are so stupid??
You are. Stupid that is.
Along with the lack of funding, the lack of productivity of ALJs is also causing the backlog to grow. By "lack of productivity," I don't mean lessened work ethic. With the drastic decrease of approval rates, ALJs issue more unfavorable decisions. It takes longer to compose and write unfavorable decisions, so ALJs are releasing less decisions overall. It's much quicker to dispose of a favorable case. But too many favorables will label an ALJ and "outlier" and bring unwelcome attention.
More denials also mean more appeals to the AC and USDC. When some ALJs grant only 8-20%, they need to have their decisions appealed. These "Astrue ALJs" don't seem to realize that real working people don't stop paying their 30-year mortgage at 25 years and have their home foreclosed just to get a measly $1,000/month check. And, they've had to wait for 3 years and have become destitute during the working of the case.
'Astrue ALJs'?? He was the one that put so much pressure on the ALJs to move cases that it led to the ones who were paying just about every case to get them out the door and keep the agency off their backs. The backlash from that came after his departure, and now the agency wants those (all) judges to actually follow the law. They truly never cared until they were embarrassed by the Congressional hearings. If you follow the law, 99% of your cases are not favorable.
I agree the budget starvation is the problem, but you cannot 'super-produce' and actually read the file and follow the law, so encouraging that again will just put us back to paying down the backlog.
Why are they judges? DDS does it for more claims for a lot cheaper. The high number of alj denials proves that the DDS decision is right. Why not replace that system completely with advanced adjudicators to review the claims. Seems the ALJ is making a lot more money to do the exact same job the state does for more claims faster and cheaper.
Post a Comment