Sep 20, 2017

Another Editorial On Backlogs

     The Denver Post has published an editorial on the backlogs in processing Social Security disability claims. It's got a reference to fraud but I think that the Republican effort to portray the Social Security disability programs as being rife with fraud is fading. They could only go so far with that because it's just not true. Instead, we're seeing more reporting on the horrible backlogs.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Funny how some media is just reporting on the Social Security disability backlog. This was worse from around 2006-10 then got slightly better under Obama until about 2013 when the Republicans starting hiring ALJs to deny almost all claims and issued a hiring freeze for all of the SSA in February 2016. Now it will get much worse under the Cheeto basically because the Republicans (especially Paul Ryan) despise all things Social Security. But they will NEVER go after the aged SS recipients (those over 62) because they get out and vote. Those getting SSD/SSI have no political clout, total only about 10.5 million people, and are easy targets. The Republicans want them to die before getting on the SSD/SSI doles. So this is a win-win for them.

Anonymous said...

How does one file for fraud committed by the SSA? For a couple of decades now. If I did not know any better, I would think that the SSA & workers compensation systems operate the same way. At every twist & turn, the cover up gets covered up and on and on it goes. Cannot get to 1st base with the SSA. Others on SSA make the same claim with not being able to file a real complaint about missing benefits (several ways this is done but it's done regardless). Who do we or where do we go for resolve? It's maddening that we can get any accountability, not even remotely! We paid into and for this system to work for us, not itself.

Anonymous said...

The last paragraph pretty much says it all: "...the dynamic helped fuel [Trump's] supporters anxieties that the federal government no longer cares about them." This is EXACTLY what I was hearing from most of my clients last year before the election. Almost all of them, I think, voted for Trump. I tried to bring this to the attention of a highly placed political consultant friend of mine in DC before the election, who reassured me over and over that Hillary had it in the bag, that white college educated women were going to go so overwhelmingly for her that the rest almost didn't matter what happened in other groups. Well, we know how that turned out. Sigh.

Anonymous said...

"This was worse from around 2006-10 then got slightly better under Obama until about 2013 when the Republicans starting hiring ALJs to deny almost all claims..."

Republicans were never in control of SSA or its hiring during the Obama administration. The Commissioner of SSA is a presidential appointee, and ODAR/OHO falls under the executive branch.

The reduction in favorable rates has little to do with any pressure from Congress, internally at SSA, or otherwise to deny more claims. It has a lot to do with reining in judges that awarded just about anything that came before them, whether OTR or just liking the claimant sitting across from them. Gone are the days when favorable decisions are awarded for things like chest pain or a single impairment of obesity for someone in their 30s. Obviously this isn't good news for the rep community or individuals filing because they no longer have a 60% chance (really 75% when removing unrepped dismissals from the equation) of winning on just about any case that they brought in.

You'd better have evidence of what you're going to testify about somewhere outside of your testimony, and you probably shouldn't argue with what your doctors have written down in great detail ("I don't know why three different providers noted on three different occasions that I was walking 3-6 miles daily with three friends, that I bought new walking shoes that were really comfortable and only cost $30, and that it was making me feel better physically and mentally. They must have all conspired to make up that story with specific notes. I haven't been able to lift a gallon of milk or walk more than a block for the last five years!"). Too many people come into the hearing thinking that the judge should or will accept anything they're told, and during the wild west days of the early 2000s, they were right.

Redthorn said...

Fraud and abuse of an expensive government program, like disability, is not political and everyone should be concerned. Money in the program is not unlimited and benefits to an undeserving claimant will cost the trust funds an estimated $300,000 over that claimant's lifetime. See the word "trust" in there? SSA has an obligation to oversee the proper awarding of disability benefits so to ensure funds are always there for those truly deserving.

Also, to constantly state that claimants are waiting some 600 days for a decision from SSA is misleading. That may be the time for a hearing decision, but those claimants have already gotten at least one and more often two prior unfavorable decisions from SSA, at the initial and reconsideration levels. Appeals take time.

Anonymous said...

Anyone care to explain to me as a black male why did dirt poor under educated white people voted for the billionaire capitalist in last election?

Other than racist inclination,i can't find another logical answer.

As one commenter stated most of that person's clients were white some should be entitled to benefits but many may not be and yet claim to be conservative with their hand out toward the government.

Anonymous said...

Probably the same reason dirt poor, uneducated black people voted for Obama?

Weird, irrelevant question.

Anonymous said...

Doubtful,when the votes are not the same.

Obama and the democrats are liberal.

Democrats welcome any race of people or minority group into the party except for racists.

Democrats are the protectors and advocates for strong social programs like social security and medicare.

It's not irrelevant in proper context when one commenter stated most of the person's disability clients voted for trump.

Tim said...

12:23 PM. Legitimate fraud is a concern. However, there is fraud, corruption and abuse throughout government. In fact, I believe there is far more fraud in the retirement part of SS than in the disability part, simply because it is easier. However, the fraud that is found in the disability part is exploited by those who want to cut the program. They have convinced the agency to turn away the 99 they can "justify" a denial to in order to deny the one alleged case of fraud. They have intimidated doctors from helping many and have rewritten the rules to ignore the doctors who will. Perhaps the ALJs were more lenient or required less "objective" evidence 7 years ago than they do today. No objective evidence actually shows pain. X-rays and MRIs can show deformities, but not actual pain. Someone from DDS even admitted a couple of days ago on another thread here, that DDS ignores "subjective" limitations. Insurance companies have tried to deny "subjective" limitations based upon lack of "objective" "proof," only to be overruled in federal court. We need more cases taken to federal courts to fight SSA's abuse of claimants by newer ALJs on these grounds.

Anonymous said...

So Tim, by your logic anyone with a subjective limitation should be taken at face value and approved? Surely that would invite fraud wouldn't it? How dare they ask for proof that is objective, it is simply outrageous!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:46

"Republicans were never in control of SSA or its hiring during the Obama administration. The Commissioner of SSA is a presidential appointee, and ODAR/OHO falls under the executive branch."

Huh? Wait, my point is Astrue was a Republican appointee (George W). I am pretty sure Astrue was SSA head throughout much of Obama's tenure. My hunch is Astrue had a hand in hiring new ALJs around 2013.

This is why I will never forgive Obama for not hiring an SSA commissioner before he left. Instead, he gave power to his frat buddy Andrew Eanes (who had ZERO disability law experience) as SSA Deputy Commissioner. He kind of left it up to Colvin to clean up Astrue's mess.

Also I am pretty sure the Republicans (maybe with some Democrat support) issued the hiring freeze in February 2016. So to say Republicans were never in control or had no power over SSA is not entirely accurate.

Anonymous said...

I never understood the notion of SSD fraud.

Yes, you might find it between attorneys and doctors, like the WV and NY fraud classes.

Individual claimants, though? Who'd file an application, get humiliated during a 5-minute CE before a nasty bottom-feeding doctor, and then wait 2.5 years for a hearing, to receive a pittance of a monthly income? That's not a very good con.

Anonymous said...

@2:35

While I agree with much of what you say, please answer this question: At what point did Andrew Lamont Eanes ever actually become SSA Deputy Commissioner?

Hint: Eanes was never confirmed and Colvin bent over backwards to maintain her status as Agency Head.

Tim said...

9:18 AM. That's not what I am saying. If someone merely claims it out of the blue without ant track record... However, when a claimant has 5, 10 or even 20 years of medical records showing a progressive increase of pain symptoms while finding a way to work for most of that time... Then their claims shouldn't be dismissed due to lack of "objective" evidence... Especially when a diagnosis or more COULD explain the limitations.