Ten Senators have written the Acting Commissioner of Social Security to urge that she not reinstate the reconsideration step in the disability appeals process. If they’re successful, I hope they’ll also urge that recon be ended in those states where it remains in effect. I think it’s time for the process to be the same in all states using.
15 comments:
Agreed. There need to be conformity and unity in this matter among all the states.
As an attorney practicing in a non-recon state but bordering a recon state where I also have clients, it makes no sense to have two systems. It's better for the clients to get rid of recon everywhere and just proceed right to a hearing after the initial denial.
Yes, let's have uniformity - get rid of recon for everybody. I can't understand the push to have recon.
SSA likes recon because it slows the flow and decreases a bit the total number of receipts to OHO and helps that pesky large pending.
I practice in Michigan where there is not recon, but I remember when there was recon in this state. As I recall, recon was useless. So few cases were actually paid on recon, that the entire process was a waste of time and resources.
Pretty simple. Recon is redundant just a rubber stamp of the initial denial usually. Good riddance.
Let's have uniformity--recons for everyone! If you think the hearings are backed up now, get rid of recons and see how bad it will be. What are the numbers for recon allowances, around 10-12%? Those folks don't need to wait 18 months and more for a hearing. How many of the roughly 50% that are allowed at the hearing are allowed because now they have shown duration and have more medicals? How many don't file a hearing because they go back to work? How many file hearings now and do go back to work--not many but I see them occasionally? If hearings could be scheduled and undertaken in 6 months or less, sure then, dump the recons.
Colleagues........look at the data .......some 14% of recons are reversed........almost 80,000 a year......within 90 days.......
there's only a few reasons why recon should not be there - and none of them favor claimants -
How much would SSA save in administrative costs by getting rid of reconsideration nationwide? In essence, my concern is what SSA is buying if they get rid of recon. As bad as it is with approval rates, recon results in tens of thousands of claimants getting their benefits within a few months instead of after 2 years. I tend to agree that getting rid of recon is good given the anemic approval rates. However, we should insist that SSA use any administrative savings from that to improve development of initial claims and to develop a more robust system to quickly screen for and approve meritorious hearing level claims on the record.
I agree with 6:41 PM & 7:33 PM. Given the current level of Agency resources, the claimants will be waiting for a hearing just as long without recon as they do with. With recon thousands will actually get benefits earlier while the others wait no longer.
Social Security believes, probably with good reason, that having reconsideration causes more people to give up and not file for hearings. Balancing the numbers allowed on recon, about 10%, resulting in about 60,000 allowances and believing that at least double that number give up an don't request a hearing, the SSA thinks they are ahead of the game.
The actual numbers who give up are a little hard to get to from published stats since the number of hearings requested also includes all those who are denied initially and appeal in the no recon areas.
No consideration is given as to what is right. Its all becomes a numbers game.
You have obviously never had a client win at recon and then die shortly thereafter. Some of these clients can't wait 18 more months for a hearing.
If you are going to just do away with recon and NOT beef up the initial phase with more employees and staffing, then it is a disservice. Yes, hypothetically 90% of them may be rubberstamped but I personally win much more at recon than initial. My staff diligently almost aggressively works the cases and does detailed request for recon and gets all the meds in, and the recon is a real review. It costs me extra payroll for lower fees -- but it is the right thing to do.
I just got my M.D. family member on at recon and it took 11x mos to do it while we kept adding more and more records on combination of impairments sufficient to prove a physician was disabled but they, for one, are happy they didn't have to go to hearing level.
Would doing away with recons apply to non-medical appeals, like overpayments? If so, I think the hearings offices would be deluged with hearings requests. It's not unusual to see recons for the day of the month that the benefits are received. that the claimant was denied for not providing either the 3368 info or 827 (online DIBs) and more.
The recon level adds little value to ALJs and decision writers at the hearing level. Most of the work is done by SDMs, who freely apply specious reasoning, or draw up non-policy compliant RFCs (mismatching the mental "paragraph B" criteria with the RFC), or ignore the special vocational guidelines, or who find two marked limitations in child-SSI cases and still deny. The DDS analysts would benefit from OHO cross training -- the analyst is an SCT masquerading as an ALJ with a 70% denial rate, and this is just not good public policy.
If you eliminate recon then take the saved money and put it in the senior attorney program to identify and clear the cases recon would have caught and paid.
No matter what though a citizen of one state should go through the same process as their neighbor just across the state line.
Post a Comment