From today's Federal Register:
We are rescinding the following SSRs [Social Security Rulings]:
• SSR 96–2p: Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions.
• SSR 96–5p: Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner.
• SSR 06–03p: Titles II and XVI: Considering Opinions and Other Evidence from Sources Who Are Not ‘‘Acceptable Medical Sources’’ in Disability Claims; Considering Decisions on Disability by Other Governmental and Nongovernmental Agencies.
These three SSRs are inconsistent or unnecessarily duplicative with our recent final rules, Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 (82 FR 5844).
"The final rules revised these policies for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, in several ways." So this will make some sort of difference two or three years from now.
ReplyDelete9:21, for ODAR purposes, you are correct. However, all those case consultants and examiners handling cases at the DDSs get to figure out which of their cases these changes apply to and which they don't. And for states with deep backlogs (where I'm at as a PC), this could mean starting the development process in, say, May or June while the filing dates are still prior to March 27th. No grace period, either. Not terribly smart of SSA to apply these changes in such a way.
ReplyDeleteWhat's it matter, it's not like anyone followed 96-2p anyway.
ReplyDeleteNo, this makes a difference now. To cite one example, it is no longer appropriate to evaluate a state Medicaid decision under SSR 06-03p. One would evaluate in under 20 CFR 404.1527(f) and/or 416.927(f).
ReplyDeleteBecause why should we believe the doctor who has treated the claimant for 5 years as opposed to the consultant who examined the claimant for 5 minutes.
ReplyDeleteas an FYI, you need to include SSR 96-6p, too.
ReplyDeleteTanking the treating physician rules demonstrates the intention to deny deserving claimants. It's all about the money and no tax increases to fix the system.
ReplyDeleteActually, no. The rule change allows us to consider nurse practitioners and a few others at a greater level of significance, recognizing that much of America does not see an MD or DO on a regular basis. For this alone, this is worth it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 6:46. Why could you not simply add Nurse Practitioners and the few others to 96-2p, being given "Controlling Weight," rather the totally eliminating it? @6:46 is Spot-on!
DeleteDoes anyone here know the answer to this question:
ReplyDeleteHow will this affect CDRs?
Will the rules around nurse practitioners and physician's assistants be extended to
a) all CDRs
b) only CDRs of people who first applied after March 27, 2017
c) something else
thank you!!!
In claims with a filing date on or after March 27, 2017, licensed physician assistants for impairments within the licensed scope of practice only.
Deletehttps://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0422505003
oh, thank you I did not realize that.
ReplyDeleteDr. Van Nostren is very pleased.
ReplyDelete