From the summary of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO):
The Social Security Administration (SSA) selects cases for continuing disability reviews (CDR) using several inputs, but it does not do so in a manner that maximizes potential savings. SSA first prioritizes CDRs required by law or agency policy such as those for children under 1 year old who are receiving benefits due in part to low birth weight. Then SSA uses statistical models to identify the remaining CDRs to be conducted each year. The models also determine which cases will receive an in-depth review of medical records by the Disability Determination Services—the state agencies that conduct CDRs—versus a lower-cost questionnaire sent directly to the beneficiary. As shown in the figure below, a growing number of cases have been set aside for future review (backlogged) over the last 10 years. Although SSA somewhat considers potential cost savings when selecting cases for in-depth reviews, its approach does not maximize potential savings for the government. For example, estimated average savings from conducting CDRs are higher for some groups of Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries than others, but SSA's selection process does not differentiate among these groups. As a result, it may be missing opportunities to efficiently and effectively use federal resources.
I would characterize Social Security's response as being "GAO, to the extent it's practical, we're already doing everything you're recommending."
My response is "GAO, you're picking at nits. The real problem is that the agency has been so badly underfunded that it's unable to work down its backlogs."
6 comments:
The media is conveying that by September 2016 SSI payments will stop.
And that will affect hose receiving retirement benefits how? Maybe the welfare program should be returned to the States like it was originally??
I just had a CDR hearing with a client in front of a DDS hearing officer and all he did was basically ask all the questions that are on the adult function report. He had zero knowledge of the regs covering the hearings. What was my Client's supposed medical inprovement? His IQ went up.
And did it???
They never tested him. So I argued using client testimony and several medical studies that based on all the circumstances of the case it was very unlikely.
Spot on Charles. I actually got a chuckle out of the article. The GAO appears to not notice the elephant in the room, which is of course Congress' lack of adequate funding of the agency despite being accurately told in advance exactly what would happen if they did under fund it. I'm just speculating, but I wonder if that could be because if GAO shines a spotlight on that particular elephant, Congress might consider that GAO could use some belt-tightening?
Post a Comment