From Social Security's newly updated CARES Plan for dealing with its hearing backlog:
The original CARES Plan issued in January 2016 assumed a certain hiring of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) – 250 ALJs in each of fiscal years (FY) 2016, 2017 and 2018 along with the corresponding support staff. While we were able to hire 264 ALJs in FY 2016, an agency-wide hiring freeze hindered the hiring of corresponding support staff. At the start of FY 2017, the agency-wide hiring freeze continued and included ALJs followed by an Executive Order initiating a government-wide hiring freeze. While we were able to obtain an exception for hiring staff in the hearings operation, our funding level in FY 2017 did not support hiring at the levels originally assumed in the original 2016 CARES Plan. Our 2017 Updated CARES and Anomaly Plan builds on the tactical initiatives laid out in the 2016 plan. We are also introducing new initiatives in 2017. ...
... Proactive Analysis and Triage for Hearings (PATH) – PATH is a new initiative introduced in FY 2017. However, this initiative builds upon successful screening and data analytic tools developed for the SmartMands and National Adjudication Team (NAT) initiatives from the 2016 CARES Plan. PATH also incorporates the robust use of naïve Bayes classification that will identify cases likely for allowance prior to hearing assignment. Through this initiative, we will assign appropriate staff to review and process cases identified through our screening methodologies. We plan to continue developing the PATH methodology in an effort to use this robust analysis at all levels of disability processing. Through PATH, we expect an increase in non-ALJ adjudications (reversals, on-the-record decisions), which will create a significant savings and opening a hearing slot for another case where a hearing is necessary. Our early projections for PATH modeling efforts in March 2017 suggested that approximately 3 percent (about 22,000) of unassigned cases pending at the hearing level could be identified by this model to be appropriately reviewed for a fully favorable decision without a hearing. We continue to monitor the percent of cases that are selected through the PATH model to validate our expected outcomes and will continue to update and improve our triage models as we learn from and incorporate the results of our efforts. ...
Move from Office-Based to National-Based First-In First-Out (FIFO) Model – This is a new initiative in FY 2017 that enhances the method of FIFO workload assignment by sharing resources across the country and matching up resource availability. This assists in prioritizing cases that have been waiting the longest. We will begin testing in the Seattle Region with the first stage of our process, when the hearing office first gets the case. We expect to see a balance in wait times and reduce bottlenecks in key parts of case processing (e.g., case intake, workup). ...
Pre-Hearing Conference (PHC) Expansion – We introduced this initiative with our original CARES Plan. As of December 31, 2016, over 30 participating offices conducted over 6,000 PHCs since May 2015. Data showed PHC participants had completed their hearing without postponement or rescheduling 56 percent of the time compared to 28 percent for those who did not participate in a PHC. Due to competing priorities, we paused this initiative in December 2016 to allow offices to focus on decision writing. With support from special anomaly funding, we will resume the PHC program on a limited basis in FY 2017, eventually normalizing the practice of PHCs for unrepresented claimants nationwide. Overall, we should see an increase the number of successful first time hearings a reduction in postponed hearings that needlessly take up hearing slots. ...
Voluntary Standby List – This CARES initiative is new for FY 2017 and may be supported by special anomaly funding for systems support to develop new notices. We will create the opportunity for claimants to have their hearings sooner by filling empty hearing slots on short notice. Participation will be voluntary, and participants must sign a waiver of advanced hearing notice should a spot become available. We expect to increase flexibilities with scheduling hearings by filling every available hearing timeslot. ...
I salute those who drafted this document for trying but the only things that will really work are hiring more personnel and getting serious about screening cases for approval by a senior attorney or at what has been referred to informally as "re-recon." They can't do much hiring now because of budget constraints. While this plan talks of screening cases for early approval the way they have actually done this has been so restrictive that almost no cases have been disposed of. It appears to me that they are almost literally terrified of doing anything that results in more claims being approved even if, as here, it's just a matter of claims being approved earlier. Virtually all the cases approved in the past in the senior attorney and re-recon programs would have been approved eventually.
Unfortunately, I'm not expecting anything but a worsening of the backlogs until there's a change in the control of the House of Representatives. That will get more resources for the agency and bring about different ways of thinking.
By the way, the backlogs would have been much worse except for a major downturn in the number of Social Security disability claims filed. I hear that the agency's actuaries can't figure out the downturn. I can. Prospective claimants are discouraged by the huge backlogs and high denial rates. They delay filing claims. It may seem irrational to delay filing a disability claim because of bad backlogs. Wouldn't you want to get your place in line as soon as possible? Sure, if you're rational but humans are deeply irrational beings, especially when they're facing a crisis in their lives, as is the case with newly disabled people.
10 comments:
Or the economy is continuing its long slow recovery and they are working instead of drawing benefits.
A brief story to support your last point. Several years ago I had a client come to my office because he had received a denial from SSD. When I explained to him that we had to file a RFH and that we would probably have to wait a year (backlogs were less back then) for the hearing to be scheduled he became angry and stormed out of my office yelling that he could not wait that long.
6 months later he was back in my office. We had start from scratch with a new application. Which was denied, and we had to request a hearing, which we eventually won. His temper tantrum cost him about 9 months of benefits.
Irrational indeed.
The best way to reduce the backlog is to stop denying people who are obviously disabled.
Not that I am complaining, I like earning fees on easy cases, but some of the cases I get are SO easy to win. If DDS did a better job reviewing applications, ODAR would not have to waste time and resources on cases where the claimant never should have been denied.
9:19: I consistently sign up new clients who have previous denials and never bothered to file the appeals. Most become frustrated and just do nothing, costing them eventual benefits. Some try to return to work, but have to leave work again due to their chronic health problems. The improving economy does not help these people. But the word is out that it takes so long and is so difficult to win that many potential claimants never bother to follow through with their claims.
Right on, 9:22 and 9:19! Over the years, I've had clients come in who have applied 3-4 times and been denied before someone suggested that they speak to an attorney and get help appealing. Many of them didn't realize that we work on contingent fee basis, so they thought that they'd have to come up with a fee upfront, just as their relatives who had criminal or family law cases handled by attorneys.
We recently had a case consisting of at least 3 concurrent claims, 1 CDR appeal, and 1 DAC claim. Client kept refiling rather than appealing, sometimes before even a decision was made. This would not be such a mess if not for the fact the claim was made into a paper claim, the field offices (4, client filed in different field offices) did not communicate, then when claim got to ODAR they only sent portions of each claim file. I'm curious how much efficiency could be gained by eliminating paper files.
Agreed 9:22
"The best way to reduce the backlog is to stop denying people who are obviously disabled."
Exactly. This means more OTRs. DDS will have to get off their booties and grant the more obvious cases quicker (e.g. grids cases). This will hurt the SSD/SSI attorney business if more cases are granted at DDS level but oh well.
Only a small minority of cases (I would say about 30-40 percent of all claims)should make it to the ALJ level. That means 60 percent would be granted quicker.
It seems to me the updated CARES Plan and PATH initiative is really nothing more than a convoluted reinstatement of the Senior Attorney Program without Senior Management admitting or calling it such, because, you know, so many of us have assertively been telling TPTB that reinstatement of the Senior Attorney Program would be the best, and most efficient way to reduce the backlog to no avail for how many years now? Naturally, the last thing TPTB will admit is they were wrong to destroy the Senior Attorney Program, for all practical purposes, in the first place, and heaven forbid, we were right.
Hence, the Updated CARES Plan and PATH names without reference to the Senior Attorney Program.
On a separate note, I could not disagree more with the continued trend toward nationalization and centralization TPTB continue to push. To the contrary, I believe the most effective and efficient manner to manage the disability hearings process is to invest more in the existing field Hearings Offices. For example, what purpose is served by large centralized decision writing offices? Why force decision writer hires to relocate to large urban centralized offices? By and large, I can assure you the best quality written decisions in challenging cases destined for Federal Court are written by experienced decision writers in the same office as the ALJ. These individuals know one another, and can more easily and freely communicate with one another over mutual cases.
The last thing TPTB should do is give more latitude to senior attorneys. Their productivity is abysmal, particularly since they are not subject to any productivity standard.
@6:48
Value and quality of work is not measured by production numbers/quotas. You see, this is where TPTB are wrong; why Management of the Disability Hearings components of the Agency is outdated, ineffective, and misguided; and why the backlog only continues to grow.
Senior Attorney work, when done appropriately, cannot, and NEVER should be based on some sort of numerical production quota. Senior Attorneys should be screening cases for O-T-R’s and issuing their own decisions in these cases. You simply cannot have an arbitrary production quota as to how many O-T-R’s SA’s should issue each month. If you do, and this was done in some offices in the past, SA’s are inappropriately pressured to either pay more cases, or be harassed by unscrupulous Manager’s, so all you end up doing is paying down the backlog. SA’s should be writing brief Analyses of cases they screen and cannot pay for the ALJ. They should also be holding PHC’s, preparing ME and VE Interrogatories, etc. And yes, they should also be assigned some of the more challenging ALJ cases to write decisions. Quite simply, there is no way you can place some sort of arbitrary Production number/quota on SA work when the job is performed in a quality manner as the SA position was designed in the first place.
Frankly, your comment intimates you are a disgruntled SA wannabe. If you are an AA, your time will come, but you will not get there by attacking your SA colleagues because you are jealous you have production quotas for decision writing and they do not.
For the record, I believe the arbitrary production numbers/quotas TPTB have placed on all the ALJ’s and DW’s are ridiculous, unnecessary, demoralizing, and a reflection of misguided Management and operation of the Disability Hearings components of the Agency.
Post a Comment