From a notice that Social Security is publishing in the Federal Register tomorrow:
We are announcing the extension of tests involving modifications to disability determination procedures authorized by 20 CFR 404.906 and 416.1406. These rules authorize us to test several modifications to the disability determination procedures for adjudicating claims for disability insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act ) and for supplemental security income payments based on disability under title XVI of the Act. This notice is our last extension of the “single decisionmaker” test, as we will phase out the test until elimination in 2018 . This notice also extends the separate “prototype” test.
7 comments:
Why are they delaying this by 2 more years? SDMs are a joke
It is worse than a joke, as is the "prototype" no-recon states. I am sure it is being extended because those DDS are screaming about having to hire more MDs and PhDs
@ 6:27...SDM RFCs help win cases at the ODARs in which I practice. SAMCs have those pesky M.D. letters after their names for ALJs to consider. Of course, I myself being a SDM for several years at the Ala DDS in the past I know SDMs are just taught to be ignorant of the facts. SDMs are literally trained that way. IDDM or DM2 without end organ damage and no IP stays or ER visits...rate it "02" (not severe) and move it along. CHF without IP visits and a fairly normal EF...rate it "03" Medium and move it along. And on and on. Overall point here...SDMs help attorneys at hearing level win cases.
Sadly, agree with anonamous@627. Pressure for ever higher production numbers have canabalized the DDS system. Management with little to no medical knowledge have litterally pushed the quality adjudicators out the door. All adjudicator training is now online and DDS discourages staff from consulting with MDs to reduce any drag on production.
If our DDS approves someone, it goes to 'quality assurance' where it sits awhile. Believe me, when the DDS approves someone, it's very serious, like lots of residuals from a stroke or an amputation.
These first five comments are all disturbing. No, SDM is NOT a joke. It serves a valid purpose as SDMs approve many proper allowances at the initial level. Lawyers working disability appeals would never see these cases, but DDS allowance rates prove they are there. Also, I cannot imagine any trainer would "teach SDMs to be ignorant of the facts." And, yes, HQ has prepared many training products for online use. In a world of limited resources, that is a reality and not necessarily a bad thing. However, these courses are meant to supplement onsite training. In my career, I've worked at two state DDSs, one federal adjudicating component, and have had experience involving training on both regional and national levels. The DDSs work hard to ensure their staffs perform quality work and it is myopic to imply otherwise.
I'm sure there are many DDS offices that care about their work and strive to do a good job. Here's my perspective and opinion as a rep from looking very carefully at likely well over 1,000 cases that have come out of that process, and which were appealed and ultimately granted on evidence that was not very different from what was presented at the initial and recon levels.
Overall, DDS does a good job at catching meets listings cases when sufficient evidence was submitted at that level. Poor at catching listing equivalence cases. Moderately good at catching medical vocational guidelines cases. Only fair at catching cases that meet other special vocational profiles. Poor at catching cases where the claimant should be found disabled at step five of the sequential evaluation due to a combination of impairments. There are several vocationally relevant limitations that occur in many cases, which are not even rated at initial and recon levels. If DDS did as good a job with the step 5 cases as it did with the meets listing cases, the hearing level backlog would shrink dramatically.
Post a Comment