Social Security has released its Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2016. Here are some numbers from the report to consider:
Approval rate at the initial level on all disability claims
- 2008 -- 38.7%
- 2009 -- 38.5%
- 2010 -- 36.9%
- 2011 -- 35.7%
- 2012 -- 35.7%
- 2013 -- 35.3%
- 2014 -- 34.9%
- 2015 -- 35%
Approval rate at the reconsideration level on all disability claims
- 2008 -- 10.8%
- 2009 -- 9.9%
- 2010 -- 9.0%
- 2011 -- 9.0%
- 2012 -- 8.8%
- 2013 -- 8.6%
- 2014 -- 9.1%
- 2015 -- 9.0%
Approval rate at the hearing level or above on all disability claims
- 2008 -- 68.3%
- 2009 -- 64.5%
- 2010 -- 59.9%
- 2011 -- 55.9%
- 2012 -- 52.9%
- 2013 -- 54.2%
- 2014 -- 53.7%
- 2015 -- 48.8%
28 comments:
Can be read so many different ways. After all, numbers can be made to show trends in whatever direction one desires.
Here are two:
Looks like more people who don't qualify are applying now than in the past.
Or...
Looks like SSA is out to stick it to the worker by denying more claims.
Probably depends on your political view as try o which side you fall.
If there are SOOOO many more people who don't qualify that are still applying, then why aren't those drastic decreases in approvals seen at the initial and recon levels as well? they aren't, just the ALJs...
Because the ones that meet the requirements get paid earlier and the junk that is appealed gets denied.
Right on 10:41AM. If the issue with the increase in ALJ denials was just a matter of more unsubstantiated claims by folks who really aren't disabled but just unable to find work, there should be a similar decrease in the percentage of claims approved at DDS level. That's just not the case. And that viewpoint does not require reading into the statistics in an skewed manner.
There is no question that a large number of people ran out of options during the recession. Unemployment expired, exhausted savings and retirement with no real prospects for employment.
Now many met the definition of disabled. They had fought and persevered to retain benefits and a salary that was better than disability and they gave up.
Others didn't fit the definition and just tried in desperation.
For simplicity let's say we have a bowl that has 50 red candies and 50 green. Each red is a person who should be denied and each green a person who should be approved.
We pull 50 of those candies out and statistically half should be green and half red. So we are left 25 red and 25 green. Another 25 red and 25 green pour in from the candy making machine. So we are back to 100 and 50 of each.
But 10 of the 25 reds we pulled out before, jump back in the bowl to try again. So there are now 50 green and 60 red and pulling out 50 at random means we are probably going to pull 23 green and 27 red.
Rinse and repeat.
The ratio of first time applicants who meet the definition of disabled may be very constant but subsequent applicants returning to the pool may be skewing the numbers a bit.
Of course, unlike candy, applicants do change.
Mary Worker may not quite make it on the first application because she was working up until she couldn't and not seeking much care from doctors. Maybe still working a bit to keep the lights on.
First application is denied.
Second go 'round is having to see doctors more often to manage her condition which is not improving. She has a more developed file because she is suffering more.
Bob Labor maybe applies at 47 and is denied because he could sustain light work but he hurts every day and it takes a few minutes to get going when he starts the day.
At 53 he is getting worse but again is denied because he's still at that point where its feasible he can do light work.
He tries again at age 56 and he not only is disabled by application of the light grid rule, he has declined to sedentary.
My guess is we are going to see the "trend" reverse over the next few years because the population is aging AND with the exception of this most recent quarter, there has been slowly growing demand for unskilled and low skilled workers.
People at the margins are becoming more likely to be able to find work so they don't apply, older workers are more likely to fit a rule finding them disabled.
Now two years from now I may look back at this and say boy that missed by a mile but my gut instinct is approvals are going to slowly climb again.
11:30 AM. Your argument sounds reasonable. But, that doesn't mean it is. Before Huntington, it probably was true. However, I applied in 2014. I had worked full time throughout the Great Recession. In the fall of 2011, my pain levels began to elevate. I had had Anklosing Spondylitis since I was 17, but it hadn't been properly diagnosed for 13 years. The drugs like Enbrel had started to be available, but I didn't have insurance and made too much for Medicaid. Fast forward to 2012: missed 9 months due to back, bilateral shoulder pain. In 2013,
I missed 6 months. I returned to work in fall 2013, but was unable to do easier and easier jobs. I worked only 4 months, even with extended breaks, extended time off, missed days, and greatly reduced work loads.
Basically, my supervisor did everything he could to help me qualify for my pension. Hand pain had been growing since 2012. Writing and typing had become impossible to do for more than a few minutes at a time. It took 2 1/2 years for a hearing. The ALJ claimed there were 3 jobs I could do. His decision came 3 days shy of 49 1/2 years of age. I should point out that I have had lots of migraines, headaches, dizziness and eye irritationsover the past decade. Including one migraine that was so bad that I spent 3 hours in medical at work (included in medical records). I missed the next day due to the same migraine. I saw 15 different doctors from 2012-16 and yet was still denied. I really would like to know what it takes to be approved. I KNOW I can't sustain SGA. I have a hard enough time going to doctor's appointments and getting a few groceries. By the way, my food stamps were cut this month by 75 dollars. My rent exceeds my income, which hasn't changed (disability pension). I would tell you I am depressed, but the word doesn't really tell you how I feel...
In Barack Obama's America, it became more difficult to be approved for disability benefits.
@11:30 good analysis. However if the rumors of the Administration reworking the grid rules (with no input from claimant advocates) to provide for more denials I am concerned that the trends we see above likely will continue.
another way to look at it....
Approvals were too high previously (lots of reasons, but liberal/wrong application of the law being foremost). Training and hiring of new ALJs has corrected this so current allowance rates are more in line with the law.
Yes, approval rates have declined over time, but that in itself is not the full story. Take for instance Table 60: 1,364,323 people applied for disability in the year 2000. By the year 2010, 2,981,613 people applied for disability. That's a 119% increase in applicants over 10 years. But then in 2013-15, we actually see a drop in applicants. Can this all be explained by an aging population? I don't think so. If that were the case, we wouldn't see a drop in applicants over the last few years. Important factors I think worth considering include the trend to outsource manufacturing jobs abroad, fewer unskilled jobs in the national economy, and the elephant in the room: the great recession putting millions out of work.
So yes, the overall allowance rate has declined over time, but that must be read in light of the socio-economic factors that surely were in part responsible for the dramatic increase in disability applicants over a relatively short span of time. To pretend the average claimant in 2000 is the same as the average claimant in 2010 or 2015 simply ignores the effect of the economy and anti-welfare/safety-net policies that have occurred over time.
Based on the data, based on the news articles, and based on my own experience, we just have a lot more people that are out of work because it's harder today to find unskilled jobs, especially well-paid unskilled jobs. Blame that on politics, globalization, anti-union policies, technological advances, corporate greed, whatever. But don't ignore the real story by creating a fairy-tale that ALJs have somehow drastically changed the way they analyze a disability claim.
I would note that the data would support a flattening since 2011 in terms of approval rates when you consider that the data is based on application date rather than decision date. The 2015 numbers for the hearing level are fewer than 20k, and the 48% is likely low for what the overall outcome of 2015 applications will be. I don't expect them to jump up to over 60% again, but frankly, looking at the numbers from the 90s and 00s, I don't think they'll ever get to that point again. The mid-2000s had a couple dozen ALJs that were cranking out 900+ (even a couple over 2k plus) per year at favorable rates of over 80% in overall dispositions, over 90-95% in decisions made minus dismissals. They're not around anymore with one of them currently being provided room and board by the US taxpayer.
I think @11:30 did a good job of describing the issue of why you see the initial and recon numbers staying relatively consistent in spite of the increase in applications. It's farcical to pretend that the spike in applications from 2008 to 2011 was due to an increase in disabled individuals and not the result of a horrific economic downturn.
I disagree about favorable rates increasing in the future because we're about out of the Baby Boomers exceeding 55yo, and the majority of them are past retirement age. There was a significant drop in the number of births in the late 60s and 70s, particularly in the 70s. I'm not sure what the number of individuals between 50-65 are now, but it's going to be far lower than it has been over the last decade and isn't going to jump up any time soon.
I think that the idea that all these people applied for disability because of the Great Recession is a myth. It was always a myth, but it fit a narrative that certain people wanted to tell. Just like the idea about widespread fraud in disability. I have a huge family and I know of a few who applied and were denied in the past 10 years. One had a brain tumor that required a certain percentage of her brain to be removed. Her short term memory is poor, she can't drive, her motor function is impared... over 50, denied. Hasn't been able to work... Another is bipolar. Her work history is erratic, at best. Another had a brain tumor at age 15. She showed so much courage and determination. Her school allowed her to move up her finals as a senior. They had a special graduation just for her. She was way to sick to attend and passed away later that night at the age of 18. The only ones I know of who were approved was one with a severe form of schizophrenia (took 2 applications to be approved), a great aunt with brain atrophy (approved for SSI in the 70s, institutionalized a few years later) and a friend of the one with schizophrenia who also had schizophrenia. All 3 approvals were before Huntington, 2 way before. None of these, nor mine had ANYTHING to do with the the Great Recession. In fact, the increase had been predicted! If the increase were due to this, then the approval percentages would have plummeted, followed by a gradual increase. The numbers suggest a persistent demand from management to deny, deny, deny: the facts be dammed! I think you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
@5:58
I'm not sure it is a myth, so much as it is a lot of people were being permitted to work at sub-standard productivity levels (i.e. sheltered work) and then when the economy took a hit a lot of businesses went under. Those businesses that didn't go under still had to cut costs. So a lot of people applied for disability benefits because any job that was available, they would not be able to perform sufficiently.
So while I believe applications went up due to the recession, I do not believe it was as an alternative to unemployment benefits. It was just that a great number of workers were informed their job performance was sub-standard and while their former employers tolerated it, the average employer in the national economy had standards they could not meet due to their disabilities.
Curious... Those who think the approval rates should be higher, what is expected? What percentage is acceptable at each level?
Who the hell is this Bob Labor and why haven't I heard of him before if he's such a big playa?
11:30 has an interesting premise. The stats alone don't explain whether we had repeat or maybe even serial filers skewing the numbers. Are there data that show the success rate of individuals regardless of how often or even when they applied? I recall not long ago when there was little disincentive to applying numerous times before a final decision was made.
at 9:05PM. it's not just a matter of reps complaining about the percentages because we feel like more cases should be awarded, but ALSO because for a lot of ALJ's (not all, but a lot) these cases just don't seem to be based upon a neutral view of the evidence. how is it that year to year most ALJs just so happen to be within a percentage pt or two in the cases they approve? I certainly don't expect an ALJ to have 15-25 pt swings from one year to the next. but when ALL ALJs get a mixed bag of 300-400 cases (under 50, over 50, cessation cases, some represented, some not), wouldn't you at least expect a 5-10 percentage pt swing here and there? but you don't. these cases are graded on a curve, not on the evidence. I'll put it this way, if I have a really good case...one that would be awarded 90% of the time with any reasonable ALJ, I definitely don't want to be the 7th Hearing that day, if the other 6 were awarded.
I think the decline in ALJ approvals is kind of alarming. The other figures are holding steady.
From 2010 to 2013ish the answer to "Why did you stop working?" was "I was laid off" in a large number of cases. Everyone knows or should know that there were ALJs who instantly become a hard sell if anything other than "my doctor told me to stop" or "I just couldn't do it any more" is the answer to why you stopped working.
Around the summer of 2016 I began hearing, "I don't want the hearing, I've gone back to work" and it's cousin "You made $16,000 last year. Are you working again?" as well as the favorite, "I can't get off work at 9:45, can we do the hearing close to lunch time?
The Great Recession absolutely had an impact. How large? I don't know but I doubt there is anyone who has worked disability who does not know of many people who were in bad shape who tried to continue working up until their job got shot out from under them.
@9:16 On the bright side, the Courts are increasing their remand rates at nearly an equivalent rate to the decrease in ALJ awards.
So essentially you're accusing the ALJ's of having no integrity? Maybe that's the case. I'm not in the hearings office. I know here in the field, I don't care whether it's interview 1 or 8 of the day, all are based on merit not my personal feelings or pressure from management.
If that is in fact the case, I agree that things need to change. Personally speaking, about 1/3 of the cases I take seem legitimate, but guess what...Not my call to make. My opinion of the ailments or the individual are irrelevant to placing the case in pay or denying it.
I would say that ALJs cherry-pick the records to fit the decision they decided to make. In my case, he claims that I wasn't disabled due to my shoulders because in an appointment in 2013 I was able to raise my arms above my head. Yet, on that SAME APPOINTMENT, the SAME DOCTOR scheduled on MRI for my left shoulder due to PAIN when raising the arm just to shoulder level! And the doctor said that the PAIN was basically equal in each shoulder, so we just picked one. This same type of logic is displayed throughout his decision.
As for those who ask about the percentages... It is not about hitting a target percentage. Let me put this in baseball terms. Let's say each pitch in a baseball game is an ALJ decision. Some umpires are friendlier to the hitter than the pitcher and vice versa. Some call high strikes more, others call low strikes more etc. For the sake of this argument, each batter has to take for one pitch. A strike means the claimant (batter) is out, a ball means he gets first base (approved). Naturally, any hitter would be upset if a strike was called when the ball is half a foot outside, etc. Well, the Republicans want to expand the strike zone as much as possible. They even say that certain ALJs had too small a strike zone in the past and use that to justify any called strikes now. The argument that the calls even out over the course of a game. However, that really means that you are screwing the claimants now because others who were not worthy earlier were approved. However, these claimants had nothing to do with those others. What am I getting at? I don't believe I and others now are being treated fairly. If the pitch was a ball 5 years ago, it should be a ball today. The evidence clearly points to people getting screwed and people like 9:05 PM ignore it, dismiss it, and then ask, "Well, what percentage of pitches should be called balls and strikes?" Well, if the claimant cannot SUSTAIN SGA, then they should be found to be disabled. Period!
I would say that ALJs cherry-pick the records to fit the decision they decided to make. In my case, he claims that I wasn't disabled due to my shoulders because in an appointment in 2013 I was able to raise my arms above my head. Yet, on that SAME APPOINTMENT, the SAME DOCTOR scheduled on MRI for my left shoulder due to PAIN when raising the arm just to shoulder level! And the doctor said that the PAIN was basically equal in each shoulder, so we just picked one. This same type of logic is displayed throughout his decision.
As for those who ask about the percentages... It is not about hitting a target percentage. Let me put this in baseball terms. Let's say each pitch in a baseball game is an ALJ decision. Some umpires are friendlier to the hitter than the pitcher and vice versa. Some call high strikes more, others call low strikes more etc. For the sake of this argument, each batter has to take for one pitch. A strike means the claimant (batter) is out, a ball means he gets first base (approved). Naturally, any hitter would be upset if a strike was called when the ball is half a foot outside, etc. Well, the Republicans want to expand the strike zone as much as possible. They even say that certain ALJs had too small a strike zone in the past and use that to justify any called strikes now. The argument that the calls even out over the course of a game. However, that really means that you are screwing the claimants now because others who were not worthy earlier were approved. However, these claimants had nothing to do with those others. What am I getting at? I don't believe I and others now are being treated fairly. If the pitch was a ball 5 years ago, it should be a ball today. The evidence clearly points to people getting screwed and people like 9:05 PM ignore it, dismiss it, and then ask, "Well, what percentage of pitches should be called balls and strikes?" Well, if the claimant cannot SUSTAIN SGA, then they should be found to be disabled. Period!
@ 5:42
Statistics tells us the larger the sample size of cases from the same geographic area, the less variance of pay rate year after year assuming all other variables stay constant.
What is even more interesting is that among ALJs in the same offices all with large sample sizes of cases randomly selected from the same pool, one would expect consistency between pay rates since all judges have large Ns from the same sample and this is supposedly an objective system. The fact that you see wild deviations between judges in the same offices screams that some judges are off the rails; there shouldn't be so much disparity between ALJs, at least ones drawing cases from the same pool, if they are applying the law remotely correctly. The variance in pay rates on its face shows a large problem with some judges' decision making.
Good point. But then the question becomes who is doing it "correctly"? High payers, low payers, or the middle?
What this means is that tens of thousands of people are getting disability EVERYDAY and they are not necessarily going through years of appealing. Some get benefits within weeks..... everybody BUT YOU AND I! Makes no difference if you qualify or not. Qualifying or Needing it has NOTHING to do with it. Its whether they want you to have it or not!
To the author that said in Obama's Adiministration it's harder to get disability. ..Wow...You really need to see who who managing the purse strings in Congress back then and if u think he was harder...U have not been paying attention to Trump..Paul Ryan and Republicans in the Senate...They are trying their best to dissolve Social Security!
Biggest takeaway is how the reconsideration percentages have pretty much stayed the same about 9-10 percent. This is an abomination that should be abolished. Waste of time.
Post a Comment