Pages

Dec 6, 2016

Status Of FY 2017 Appropriations

     Social Security and all other agencies are operating on continuing funding resolutions. This is likely to be the case until March. With news that the incoming Trump administration probably won't even submit a Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget much less a FY 2017 budget, the pending House and Senate appropriations bills become even more important than usual. Below is a summary of what the two bills provide. In each case, the bill has only passed at the committee level. There will be new bills in the next Congress which will be at the least similar but which may not be exactly the same as these bills. Each bill will have to pass at the committee level before going to the House and Senate floors. The two bills must then be reconciled. Note that the money differences between the two houses are small in the context of a total agency appropriation of more than $12 billion.
     I have bolded what I regard as the most important riders, that is provisions in appropriations bills  or at least in committee reports that affect not how much money the agency has to spend but try to affect what the Social Security Administration does with that money. Note that what I have bolded is only in the bill that one of the two appropriations committees passed, not both. The committees may become in some ways more cautious and in other ways less cautious in their demands of the agency with a President who is at least nominally Republican. Do they really want to see changes that would deny far more disability claims if a Republican is in the White House to catch the blame? We'll have to see.

House appropriations bill: $75 million less than FY 2016 

House Riders:
  • The Committee is aware that some locations average twice the processing time of others and that it can take up to two years to process. This degree of differential processing times is a concern to the Committee. The Social Security Administration is directed to include in the fiscal year 2018 budget request steps taken to reduce the processing times at offices that average over 600 days.
  • The Social Security Administration is requested to submit to the Committee an information technology (IT) modernization plan in the fiscal year 2018 budget request. The plan shall include: a complete list of any new systems and significant improvements of existing systems proposed for development; the projected cost of each development project each year to completion including the total estimated cost of development; the estimated annual operations and maintenance costs for each system once development is complete; and a timeline and estimated maintenance cost savings of any legacy systems that will no longer be necessary and are proposed to be eliminated. The plan should also include an assessment of SSA's IT management controls, including how the systems integrate into SSA's enterprise architecture; an analysis of SSA's project management capabilities; and a review of SSA's IT investment and human capital management practices. The requested plan shall address IT funding provided in this Act and any other spending authority planned for or proposed to be used for such purposes.
  • The Committee is aware that SSA was added to the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee through the Muscular Dystrophy CARE Act Amendments enacted in September 2014. The Committee requests that the agency provide relevant data within the fiscal year 2018 budget request on the rate at which persons with Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy utilize SSA programs, particularly those focused on promoting employment and community independence such as the Ticket to Work program.
  • SSA's National Hearing Centers (NHCs) provide the SSA with invaluable flexibility and support to address the hearings backlog. Understanding the value of this flexibility and support, the Committee directs SSA to ensure that its upcoming Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hiring allocates no less than 25 percent of those newly hired ALJs to NHCs.
  • The SSA has committed significant resources to fighting fraud in the Disability Insurance program. To understand if these efforts are effective, the Committee directs the SSA Commissioner to work with the Office of Inspector General to establish a disability fraud rate baseline no later than September 30, 2017.
Senate bill: $32 million more than FY 2016 

Senate Riders:
  • The Committee supports SSA's efforts to reduce the backlog of disability claims hearings. Given the successful implementation of the Disability Hearing Pilot Program in Region 1, the Committee encourages SSA to implement the changes on a nationwide level. The changes should include providing advance notice of a hearing date, and requiring claimants to inform SSA or submit written evidence within a certain period in advance of the hearing, subject to the good cause exception. Furthermore, as recommended in the pilot, SSA should consider removing ``new and material evidence'' as a basis for reopening any decision made at the hearing of Appeals Council levels for benefits based on disability. The Committee requests a report on plans for implementation no later than 60 days after the enactment of this act.
  • The Committee is dedicated to ensuring that the disabled have access to needed benefits, and strongly encourages SSA to work with us to achieve that goal. The Committee continues to be concerned that SSA uses outdated rules to determine whether or not a claimant meets SSA's definition of disability. The Committee is encouraged by SSA's indication that they are beginning the regulatory process, having already received input from the National Disability Forum, the National Institute of Medicine, as well as various aging and employment experts. These initial steps are well received by the Committee as we continue to work with the Administration to modernize the outdated vocational guidelines into a structure that reflects the 21st century labor market. As this is the first significant overhaul of the grid in nearly 40 years, the Committee requests SSA to submit, no later than 60 days after the enactment of this act, a report on its ongoing efforts to update the grid. In addition, the report shall include a study assessing the feasibility of maintaining a continuous update of the medical vocational guidelines every 10 years.
  • The Committee is aware that the Social Security Administration is included in the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee under the Muscular Dystrophy CARE Act Amendments enacted in September 2014. The Committee expects the agency to make data available on the rate at which persons with Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy utilize SSA programs, particularly those focused on promoting employment and community independence such as the Ticket to Work Program.
  •  While the Committee commends SSA on its continued Program Integrity efforts towards becoming current with regards to the Continuing Disability Review [CDR] backlog, a recent GAO report found that SSA's CDR prioritization models fail to maximize potential cost savings to the trust funds and the Treasury. Within 1 year, and every 3 years thereafter, the Committee directs SSA to review and update the models for prioritization of CDRs with the primary intent of efficiently and effectively maximizing lifetime cost savings to the Federal Government, both for the DI trust fund and Treasury. A detailed, cost-based explanation for the model's prioritization of different CDR types and justification for any updates made should be included in the annual CDR Report to Congress.
  • The Committee commends SSA for its work to improve program integrity. However, the Committee is concerned, per previous GAO testimony and report findings from the SSA Office of the Inspector General, that confusion still exists about the Medical Improvement Standard (MIRS) and its exceptions. The Committee directs SSA to submit a report no later than 60 days after the enactment of this act on its progress in educating Disability Determinations Services in the proper application of the MIRS and its exceptions.
  • The Committee expects that in resolving claims for disability insurance, SSA's consideration of medical evidence should reflect the degree of relevance and familiarity each medical source has with the effect of an individual's medically determinable impairment(s) on his or her ability to perform Substantial Gainful Activity [SGA]. Since the Treating Physician rule was first published in the Federal Register in 1991, healthcare delivery in the United States has changed significantly and the Treating Physician rule no longer reflects the present reality of the medical personnel with greatest knowledge of an individual's physical and/or mental condition. The Committee encourages SSA to consider revising the controlling weight doctrine in the Treating Physician rule and revising its Acceptable Medical Sources to reflect the new degree of familiarity with their patients, and rigorous training of, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, licensed clinical social workers, audiologists, and speech and language pathologists for the particular impairments that they are well-equipped to treat.
  •  The Committee notes that the SSA's OIG has recommended that SSA periodically determine whether VE fees are appropriate to obtain the required level of VE service. The Committee understands that SSA plans to conduct such a review, including benchmark studies of VE fees paid in the national economy and those paid by other governmental and non-governmental organizations, during SSA's acquisition planning process for the contracts to be awarded in fiscal year 2018. The Committee looks forward to an update in the fiscal year 2018 CJ regarding these studies.

17 comments:

  1. The common thread in most of these proposals is that they would make the process more adversarial and drive the number of approved claims down, which no doubt is their intention. The most hypocritical proposal: They want to do away with reopening for new and material evidence while at the same time claiming "the Committee is dedicated to ensuring that the disabled have access to needed benefits." Hah! So if evidence was not available earlier through no fault of a disabled person who really could not work, the esteemed committee would rather see that person beggared than have the correct decision made. They are dedicated all right, but not to what they say they are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 6:35am, how about the rep in my area that never prepares for the hearing and figures he still wins 50% of the cases, but waits to submit evidence and prepare for the appeals council?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Hall must be trolling us because he has to know that this isn't about people being denied their disability benefits but making the system more secure and equitable for those who deserve disability. It's keeping malingerers off the rolls so the truly deserving can have a safety net, else the system is going broke, don't ya know. Hall is viewing the glass as half empty, while this is all about seeing it half full. Look for the same on Medicare and other social safety net programs across federal government. The programs must be rebuilt in order to save them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 8:39: no rep will wait to submit evidence to the Appeals Council. That makes no sense. The AC rubber stamps the ALJ denial over 90% of the time after sitting on the file for a year. And if the AC does actually take some action, it's usually to remand the case back to the same ALJ who denied it the first time. Believe me, reps want nothing to do with the AC and hope to get the case paid by the ALJ.

    Nothing too earth shattering in the other statements. I'm assuming "modernizing" the Grids mean to push the ages up. They've been mentioning that for years. While life spans have grown for the general population, those with disabilities with physical jobs (for whom the Grid Rules apply) have not enjoyed the same gains. Wasn't there an article that made headlines earlier this year indicating that working class males have actually seen a decrease in their life expectancies? Increasing the Grid Rule ages would only add to their misery.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Agree with 9:06 on the hazards of raising the GRID. It seems to me that people that work in an office all day every day think everyone works in an office all day every day. 65 year old professional welders and laborers are few and far between. Glad to see they took out the Soylent Green contingency.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9:06 has it right all the way. Many of us reps are glad to win before the hearing stage or on the record. The Appeals Council is a real crap shoot. I would never depend on the Appeals Council for all my cases.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Congress is so stupid--they demand 25% of new ALJs go to NHCs because of NHCs' effectiveness, but don't say anything about removing the ability to decline VTC, which is a cornerstone thing that must happen to reach the efficiency they like in the NHCs (NHCs only hear cases transferred to them from other offices!!!!).

    Also, removing the ability to decline video is the only real way (absent huge increases in funding for staffing) to get rid of that first problem they mention re: some offices having huge APTs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 2:00: I'm assuming it's only a matter of time before they take away the ability to decline a VTC hearing. Just one more thing that makes it more difficult to win a disability case...

    ReplyDelete
  9. If that part about the NHC's goes through it would almost double the size of the NHC corps of judges in a typical hiring year. There are probably only 50-75 judges currently assigned to the NHC's. It would require either a major expansion of the existing NHC's or the opening of new ones. Of course, money has never been an issue when it comes to the them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Those NHCs are going to really need staff, though. The way they are setup, with each ALJ being the captain of their own tiny boat (NHC ALJs are actually managers and directly supervise/manage their two law clerk/attorneys and other staff. While there is some common staff, the setup is mostly those little pods run by the individual ALJs), SSA can't very easily do to them what they are doing to us in field ODAR hearings offices and make us just spread the work around the fewer employees we have to handle our increased number of judges.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you look at Immigration Hearings, they are almost exclusively held by video. I expect that will be the model they will use to handle the SSA backlog. Claimants will have a choice, get denied in a video hearing in 6 months or in person in two years.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Throwing out procedural roadblocks for people with disabilities to trip over is wrong and can cause miscarriages of justice that do serious harm. It's important to remember that we're dealing with vulnerable people who cannot always participate effectively in bringing forward their own claims in a complex system, even with legal help. The system should remain non-adversarial and always place fairness and accuracy in decision making first. Some of the listed proposals fail to do that. Congress has repeated failed its duty to give SSA the resources it needs to address the backlog as evidenced by its repeated refusals to approve the administrative budget requested by the president and the SSA leadership. Instead of pushing proposals that make it harder for people with legitimate disability claims to prevail, let's insist that Congress adequately fund staffing to allow SSA to handle its workload without seriously compromising fairness and justice.


    ReplyDelete
  13. How do you cut a very popular program that the public doesn't want to be cut, like Social Security Disability? Don't say you want to cut it and take the blame... Use the Republican congressional majority to manufacture a crisis. In this case under-fund agency staffing so the claim backlog swells to historically bad levels. The wring your hands and say we have to change the rules to be more efficient to bring down those awful backlogs. "Efficient" means changing the rules so more people with serious disabilities have their claims denied, even if they really can't work. Encourage the people you've stressed (for example the ALJ Union) by your under-funding staff to play into your hands and join in the call for the proposed "efficient" changes. Cut accomplished by manipulation and sleight of hand, and you come out looking like a savior. The only losers? The people the program was designed to serve.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is anyone concerned that the Chicago NHC has a 25% approval rating? Of course no one in the Senate is. If there was a hearing office with a 75% approval rating, I am almost certain there would be an investigation and congressional hearing on the topic.

    We do not need more NHC Judges. We need to do away with NHCs all together.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 3:19 PM. I read the reviews of Chicago NHC last year and immediately took action to insure no video hearing! You want to talk about depressing, even if only half were true!

    ReplyDelete
  16. @3:19

    AMEN! I could not agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "...always place fairness and accuracy in decision making first."


    Sorry, no. Unfortunately, this big agency has other strong interests, namely doing work efficiently so that backlogs aren't astronomical and so Congress doesn't have sufficient ammo to kill us off entirely. No system this big can ensure due process to that degree in each and every case, at least without doubling or more our administrative budget.

    ReplyDelete