The Scranton, Pennsylvania Times-Tribune has published an editorial saying that the Social Security disability "system is disabled and in need to rapid rehabilitation" It then goes on to cite the extensive backlogs at the agency. So what "rehabilitation" does this newspaper think is needed? They don't say. They just wonder why key staff shortages developed at Social Security and think someone needs to take a look at "whether the system’s earlier stages need to be improved to prevent so many appeals."
I don't expect a newspaper's editorial writers to have detailed Social Security knowledge but the research behind this piece must have taken less than a minute. I'm going to miss newspapers when they're gone but I'm not going to miss worthless editorials like this.
Update: Here's a much better editorial on the same subject from a much smaller paper in Council Bluffs, Iowa showing what you can do if you put a little time into it.
Update: Here's a much better editorial on the same subject from a much smaller paper in Council Bluffs, Iowa showing what you can do if you put a little time into it.
5 comments:
Don't be so critical. I know this is not an I depth piece, however, I think it is helpful in that it brings the issue to an audience that may have not any idea about the these issues.
From the Iowa article..."The Social Security Administration says it is working to reduce the backlog by hiring 500 new administrative law judges and more than 600 support staff."
We can argue all we want about what the correct ratio is, but traditionally, the ratio of staff to ALJ is about 4.5 to 1. This equates to a need to hire about 2200 support staff (not 600) to support these 500 new ALJs. No wonder people are waiting forever for a decision. Writers draft about 250-300 decisions per year and case technicians "work-up" about the same number. So to support an ALJ preparing 500-600 decisions, the agency needs to hire AT LEAST 2 case technicians and 2 writers.
If the agency had authority to hire 1100 employees, they should have hired 200 ALJs and 900 support staff.
The Scranton paper may be on to something about improving the initial State agency level of review. The NOSSCR spokesperson's written testimony before the House subcommittee two weeks ago raised some interesting points, about preventing the various State DDSes from rushing through claims and denying them in 90 days whether or not the record was complete.
DDS can deny claims for "failure to cooperate", where ALJs can't. ALJs have to write policy-compliant RFCs or face remands, where DDS medical consultants can toss horribly-written RFCs onto the page and deny people with profound disabilities who are going to win 20 months later at the hearing level. Realign the DDS system so that they have to play by the same rules that ODAR (OHO?) does.
So, yes, Scranton, DDS reform is essential. You were almost on the right track.
That is my hometown paper so I have to defend them somewhat. They mean well. I'm going to write them a response.
@ 11:51. As a former DDS Disability Specialist who was a Single Decision Maker (SDM) for several years, I can tell you that there will never be meaningful reform to the DDS as long as SAMCs infest the buildings. The thinking is quite simple from SAMCs and of course to Specialists, or "examiners" in most states, it's objective data or bust. Subjective limitations mean essentially nothing.
Post a Comment