Help me out. I don't understand how this statistic is important or accurate to anything. If everyone's benefits were $1 million dollars, this % would be miniscule. While if everyone got $ 100 dollars/month, it would be much higher. But it would still be the same amount of SSA costs, right? I think costs per applications or decisions would be slightly more relevant. Also, what about all the things this doesn't include like SS replacement cards, overpayments, redeterminations, etc. Unless SSA employees are manually counting out the benefit dollars in cash and paying them to each person each month, I'm struggling to see how admin. costs per benefit dollars is a relevant stat.
@2:24 The people wanting "smaller government" insist that government agencies are bloated with unnecessary staff and that they inefficiently waste a lot of tax payer dollars. These figures demonstrate that such is not the case with SSA. It also puts the lie to those who claim privatization would make SSA more efficient.
I agree that privatization of SSA would be a mistake. However, SSA also has its own major budget inefficiencies and wastefulness. They just aren't as apparent as they are at other agencies due to the nature of the work that SSA does.
There is no reasonable justification to link SSA administrative costs as a % share of total benefits. What determines administrative expenses (payroll, equipment, maintenance, building costs and rentals, training costs, etc.) do not correlate in any fixed pattern to how benefits are determined or the number of people receiving benefits. A temporary bulge in the number of retirement or disability claims does not justify a longer term and more permanent increase in administrative costs. Since SSA does not hire or fire staff based on temporary needs (in part because some jobs require much training while others much less) and the government does not operate like retail businesses that can be much more flexible and mobile to meet the needs of their customer base and for many other issues, a chart comparing administrative expenses vs. benefits paid in SSA has no real value. Finding that balance of the costs for career staff and number of offices and technical needs is not based on or can be explained by this type of chart.
Just heard about the efficiency Lockheed Martin's claim reviewing subsidiary has brought to the VA. Apparently a whistleblower has brought suit alleging the privateers are rubber stamping denials as fast as possible to meet their profit quotas. He alleges six agent orange claims can be properly reviewed in a workday and the bosses are demanding fifty. He got fired for "disrupting the workplace." He claims Vets are getting royally screwed and Lockheed is getting richer at their expense.
@2:10 Agreed. That got me curious for looking at other social-security like systems where privatization occurred. The closest I could find was the U.K., and that seems like it was a disaster in terms of administrative costs, performance and fairness and justice for people with disabilities. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/maximus-miss-fitness-to-work-test-targets-despite-spiralling-costs
8 comments:
I'm an FO manager and I salivate thinking about what we could accomplish if we were just at 1%. Oh the possibilities!!!
Help me out. I don't understand how this statistic is important or accurate to anything. If everyone's benefits were $1 million dollars, this % would be miniscule. While if everyone got $ 100 dollars/month, it would be much higher. But it would still be the same amount of SSA costs, right? I think costs per applications or decisions would be slightly more relevant. Also, what about all the things this doesn't include like SS replacement cards, overpayments, redeterminations, etc. Unless SSA employees are manually counting out the benefit dollars in cash and paying them to each person each month, I'm struggling to see how admin. costs per benefit dollars is a relevant stat.
@2:24 The people wanting "smaller government" insist that government agencies are bloated with unnecessary staff and that they inefficiently waste a lot of tax payer dollars. These figures demonstrate that such is not the case with SSA. It also puts the lie to those who claim privatization would make SSA more efficient.
I agree that privatization of SSA would be a mistake. However, SSA also has its own major budget inefficiencies and wastefulness. They just aren't as apparent as they are at other agencies due to the nature of the work that SSA does.
There is no reasonable justification to link SSA administrative costs as a % share of total benefits. What determines administrative expenses (payroll, equipment, maintenance, building costs and rentals, training costs, etc.) do not correlate in any fixed pattern to how benefits are determined or the number of people receiving benefits. A temporary bulge in the number of retirement or disability claims does not justify a longer term and more permanent increase in administrative costs. Since SSA does not hire or fire staff based on temporary needs (in part because some jobs require much training while others much less) and the government does not operate like retail businesses that can be much more flexible and mobile to meet the needs of their customer base and for many other issues, a chart comparing administrative expenses vs. benefits paid in SSA has no real value. Finding that balance of the costs for career staff and number of offices and technical needs is not based on or can be explained by this type of chart.
Just heard about the efficiency Lockheed Martin's claim reviewing subsidiary has brought to the VA. Apparently a whistleblower has brought suit alleging the privateers are rubber stamping denials as fast as possible to meet their profit quotas. He alleges six agent orange claims can be properly reviewed in a workday and the bosses are demanding fifty. He got fired for "disrupting the workplace." He claims Vets are getting royally screwed and Lockheed is getting richer at their expense.
Privitazation has nothing to do with handling things better, it is about access to large amounts of money that no one is able to make a profit from.
@2:10 Agreed. That got me curious for looking at other social-security like systems where privatization occurred. The closest I could find was the U.K., and that seems like it was a disaster in terms of administrative costs, performance and fairness and justice for people with disabilities. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/08/maximus-miss-fitness-to-work-test-targets-despite-spiralling-costs
Post a Comment