The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee asked Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to gather information on Social Security disability claimants whose have been denied on the grounds that they can still work. I don't have any idea what he thought they might find. I don't see anything in the report that he's likely to find all that interesting. However, I did find this table that I find interesting:
I find it interesting because it displays an important fact. When Social Security denies disability claims, those denied don't often return to work. When they do return to work, they seldom earn enough to support themselves because generally they're only working part time or intermittently.
Policy makers shouldn't comfort themselves with the thought that denying so many disability claims frees people to work by preventing their dependence upon government benefits. All these denials do is make large numbers of sick people even more poor and miserable than they would be if their disability claims had been approved.
Policy makers shouldn't comfort themselves with the thought that denying so many disability claims frees people to work by preventing their dependence upon government benefits. All these denials do is make large numbers of sick people even more poor and miserable than they would be if their disability claims had been approved.
20 comments:
the test for disability isn't whether someone will get a job...it's whether they are physically and emotionally able to perform a job. We can argue the merits of this endlessly, but the fact that people are not HIRED is irrelevant to whether they are disabled under the Social Security Act.
Also how many of the denied were going to be dependent from a spouse or filed for retirement benefits and had no intention of going back to work?
Totally agree with 1:47.
I think some people just give up but it may be due to age too. 55 year olds aren't in great demand, especially if they have been out of work a few years. I think I see more than 10% of folks go back to work and make more than $10K a yr.
What table shows is that less than 1 in 5 people denied engage in SGA after being denied. Actually, this just confirms what all reps already know; at this time, over 80% of people being denied should really be approved because they are in fact disabled and unable to work.
1:47 PM Your argument starts with a flawed premise. You begin with an unemployed person who decides to apply for disability because no one will hire them! Most people don't just decide one day that they're disabled. It's a process that involves a struggle, denial, and then acceptance that not only can you no longer do the work you use to do, you are not really able to do ANY job competitively on a sustained basis! Only then, do you decide to apply.
What's the thought process for applying for disability for the average person? I have a serious medical condition. Since I got this condition nobody will hire me or if they do I can't keep a job. Is that the disability standard? Not exactly. Is it a societal problem that we have to deal with? Yes, if we are a humane society.
The chart is not detailed enough to parse out every possible scenario. However, if you consider it in conjunction with other data it provides a strong indicator about the disability program. If many disability claimants whose claims were denied are not finding work, and extremely few who were granted are determined to be improperly approved what does that mean? Compared to the ideal, e.g. perfectly determining who really can and cannot perform SGA, the current program as implemented is more skewed towards denying claims of people who can't perform SGA, than to approving the claims of those who can perform SGA.
7:16 AM Age can be a big factor, as the rules get "easier" once you reach 49 1/2. Basically, if you are younger, there has to be NO "jobs" that you can do, theoretically. If you meet a listing, which is really difficult, then you can be found disabled that way. Having a condition isn't the point. It's how your conditions limit your ability to do or keep a theoretical job.
They aren't getting hired because the employer can see that they can't sustain employment, i.e., they are disabled. Duh.
It amazes me that so many people come in that have never worked or earned SGA in their life prior to disability..
You can look it up. Once a person with an impairment loses their connection to the work place, say they can't work for six months or more, the odds of them returning to work are remote.
@9:42 There is a strong all cash economy for many in economically depressed areas, they also barter and trade services much more. It is a fascinating social construct. There are some interesting anthropological papers on the situation.
There are also a lot of disability claimants who have no choice but to apply for SSA Disability because they were illegally forced out of their jobs/careers by rogue managers like Garmon and company who deliberately refuse to accommodate their disability, even when it clearly would not be an Undue Burden. Ulterior motives may also be at play. SSA/ODAR, as many of you know, did this to me for no reason after 27+ year career, the vast majority of which was outstanding. Before this occurred, I was literally subjected to several years of pure hell over seeking and being repeatedly denied a Reasonable Accommodation. Garmon was the chief power broker in charge during all this time and signed off on all the denials. Yet, Senior Management found it appropriate to place him as a top executive with OLMER. In what way does this make any sense? Further, SSA/ODAR, the Agency which adjudicates SSA Disability Appeals and my employer, should be setting an example for other employers in terms of how it treats employees with disabilities. Unfortunately, SSA/ODAR has done the direct opposite.
One year ago, SSA/ODAR settled a class action disability discrimination case which had been going on for more than 10 years, and Plaintiffs who had objective evidence of disability discrimination dating back to 1988, which is when the primary Plaintiff started with the Agency. Interestingly, I also started in 1988. The Plaintiffs, unfortunately, got precious little from the settlement of this class action case, see Jantz v SSA.
I find it very interesting that accommodating my disability was an Undue Burden, which SSA/ODAR has fought for so many years now, yet they have the money to relocate an entire ODAR Hearings Office close to Garmon's home, keep him on the payroll with no accountability, and place him as. Top executive with OLMER, despite his known track record of Unfair Labor Practices and the extreme costs of litigation he has caused the Agency to endure.
Social Security disability is all or nothing but reality isn't. Many disabled are not totally disabled but are sufficiently disabled so that they can only work part time or with certain physical limitations which greatly limits their job opportunities, especially when living in areas with limited economic means. Additionally, their disability or condition may discourage someone from hiring them because it may lead to further injury. Finally, many of the claims are denied because the claimant does not meet or equal the listings but the condition is degenerative and over time will worsen to the point where the claimant will become entitled.
@1:33 would not be disabled under SSA rules and regulations, it doesnt take a JD to determine that. Perhaps you cannot do the work you once did before you were fired, but you can do other work, and if such a brilliant lawyer would be making a fortune getting people on with such excellent writing skills honed over 27 years.
THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO WORK 8 HOURS A DAY FIVE DAYS A WEEK
AND NOT MISS MORE THAN A DAY A MONTH.
EVEN IN FANTASYLAND 1:47
I don't think Table 6 means what you hope Table 6 means. As disclosed several time in the OIG report, Table 6 is a snapshot of the two years after the initial denial (i.e., claimants waiting for appeal). It appears that after the initial denial, about 14% of claimant earned $10,001 or more. More important to your general point that claimants generally do not return to work after ODAR denies them, is the following OIG conclusion:
"Based on our sample, we estimate about 852,400 claimants either appealed or re-applied after
their denial at the initial level in CY 2013. Of these, we estimated about 406,300 were approved
for disability payments and about 346,500 individuals were receiving approximately $4.4 billion
per year as of November 2016. Most individuals in our sample had claims approved after
reapplying or on appeal because of new impairments or their original impairments had worsened.
Additionally, we estimate about 191,200 individuals had earnings indicating potential SGA after
they were denied because of their ability to work. "
So OIG sampled 1,095,345 claimants that were denied benefits. Of those, 852,400 claimants appealed the denial. Of those, 406,300 were approved and 446,100 were denied. Of the 446,100 that were denied, approximately 191,200 had earnings indicating potential SGA income. Thus, approximately 43% of claimants denied at the appeals level had income at SGA level.
Based on what I've seen, that 43% is roughly equivalent to the percentage of claimants that had SGA income before their alleged onset date for disability. So if anything, this report states that people don't work while they're waiting for their appeal to be heard, and afterwards a large portion of those denied disability payments returns to work. Nothing groundbreaking there.
I've always said that it would be best if SSA can provide retraining and vocational rehab for those it denies after an ALJ hearing. Often you get the under 50 claimant with a reduced range of sedentary RFC, but can still perform work and, therefore, isn't "disabled" as that term is defined by SSA. But the decision itself is not saying that the person is perfectly ok. In fact, it explicitly states the opposite. The ALJ's findings in such a case indicate that the occupational base is compromised such that there are only a few occupations that the individual is suited for and, of course, none of which are past relevant work. Nevertheless, the ALJ and SSA tells the person "too bad" and leaves them on their own to find and work such a position for which they have no experience, no training, and no ability to locate on their own.
Conversely, if the person is receiving benefits, they can qualify for vocational assistance as a SSD recipient. Why not provide those limited vocational assistance programs to those whom you have denied, but found and acknowledged severe limitations in their ability to work? Seems like the decent and human thing to do.
@5:24
1:33 here. You must be the commenter who always opposes anything I say, regardless of the issue, and I consistently respond you obviously lack reading comprehension skills, because your remarks make no sense in response to mine. The same is true with your comment at 5:24. Clearly, you truly are an idiot who hates me no matter what.
Now that I have destroyed your credibility concerning all your remarks from me, I will set the record straight. I stated the primary RA I most need to perform my job was denied repeatedly over a period of several years, and that I was put through utter hell and unspeakable harassment over this the entire time. I also remarked isn't it interesting how the very Agency who adjudicates SSA disability appeals treats its very own long term career employees, especially someone like me who with the RA, performed my job at such a stellar level for many years. In addition, I noted the Jantz disability class action case, which fully documents the horrendous manner the Agency treated all its employees who developed disabilities during the same period as me.
You, sir/madam, are an idiot. If you cannot comprehend my comments, quit responding and making it known to the world what an idiot you are. You are a disgusting excuse of a human being.
Post a Comment