The Hill asks the question: Is the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund doing better because increasing backlogs slow down the number of claims being approved? The answer is pretty clearly yes to some extent although there are more important factors.
I think one overlooked factor is that the long backlogs and harsh adjudicatory environment deter people from filing claims. Few people stop work due to illness or injury and file a disability claim immediately. There's usually a lag time that can be anywhere from a few months to a few years. A perception that the process is difficult and unpleasant can cause people to hold off longer in filing claims. I wish some investigator would look into this. You'd only need to look at the difference between claim date and alleged onset date and chart the difference over time. You could then correlate that with backlogs and approval rates. My guess is that the result would be interesting.
9 comments:
1) The alleged onset date is often FO-driven in that they'll say things like "Looks like you last worked in November 2013, so what about that as your AOD?" When I have a wide gap between AOD and the filing date, I'll always ask about it and what prompted filing at that time versus earlier in time. A lot of the responses are simply, "That's the date they told me to pick since that's when I stopped working."
2) I would say the backlog actually increases the number of favorable decisions overall. If hearings were held three months after recon, you're likely looking at minimal new evidence to warrant deviating from the DDS assessment and missing a lot of later-diagnosed impairments, some of which taken months or years, unfortunately, to diagnose. Fewer later onset/age changes would take place since there would be so little time between recon and hearing. There could very well be some durational issues with conditions not necessarily expected to last 12 months that could be non-severe because they were diagnosed and largely untreated between filing date and the hearing date.
Personal experience.
Spouse stopped working because of health issues at direction of a specialist. At the time it was hoped/believed that additional testing might lead the specialist to a treatment that would permit a return work. After six months it became apparent that outcome would be unlikely. Then a delay of another couple months just because of the stress of having to accept there would be no return to employment.
Another personal experience. Close family friend stops working for back surgery. Expects to return to work within a month. Surgery does not help. A follow-up surgery is then performed nine months after the first surgery. That surgery also fails to provide relief. About four months after the second surgery it becomes apparent there will be no more improvement after the second surgery and then filed for disability.
Very few people just reach the point one day that they make the decision they can never work again, give their notice and file.
People taking a significant cut in earnings fight to not be disabled and have been off work some time before they give up.
Interesting theory. On the other hand, as an attorney who does both worker compensation and Social Security Disability, the opposite is true. While I use to have clients wait a few month from the date they stopped working to apply to see if they would get better, now, we apply for every client who is over 50 who I think there is a chance that they might not be able to go back to work. With limited worker compensation benefits, my clients can not afford to wait to see if they will be able to return to work.
The reason for the reduction in people on SSDI is due to demographics. All of this was predicted long ago.
More claimants will die while their claims are pending and often nobody substitutes for any benefits due. However, others who might have improved with timely support may have prolonged or permanent disability due to delays.
The right thing to do is to pass emergency funding to hire additional people so the backlog is reduced by 50%. I believe this is a strategy of increasing backlog to pressure people to give up. Sadly.
I'd say most people wait months to file but I have had folks that file the same day as their onset. They may have something chronic like diabetes and think they can receive SSA DIB while working. When they find out they can't, they have said they were stopping that day. Not the majority by any means but a few each year. Not sure what percentage of them ever get approved as it seemed to me they were not stopping because of their impairment as much as just to file for benefits.
What is the actual, factual number of Claimants that die waiting for benefits annually? Real numbers, are we talking 10s? 1000s millions?
The discussion always seems to go to those who will die, I understand that some of it is just hyperbole, but lets put that into focus.
I would assume well into the thousands. I tend to have at least 10 per year that are scheduled with substitute parties or dismissed on that basis, and I would estimate that being about 2% of my scheduled hearings (high estimate of percentage of hearings, but I don't actually count deceased claimants assigned to me). So if you're looking at 2% across the board, it's over 10k per year that die between hearing request and the scheduled hearing. This is obviously not a scientific study, but it's well beyond hundreds and not into the millions or even hundreds of thousands. Doesn't make it any less unfortunate or tragic for the thousands that never get their hearing, though.
Now, not all of them die due to their alleged conditions, but the vast majority of them die related to complications from one of their alleged impairments.
Post a Comment