An announcement from Social Security:
Social Security’s National Disability Forum, Enhancing the Reconsideration Process
Wednesday, November 28, from 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. EST
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20005
You may also participate via live stream.I don't know that this announcement itself is on the interwebs. I found out about it from the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR).
We are seeking feedback on improving the disability claims process - especially at the reconsideration step. Panelists Include:
Please register online by Monday, November 26, and note whether you will be attending in person or via live stream. Additional details will be provided to live stream participants prior to the event. We hope you can join us and look forward to your participation. To learn more about the National Disability Forum, please click http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ndf/ .
- Moderator - Darlynda Bogle, Executive Secretary, Office of the Commissioner, Social Security Administration
- Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist, National Council on Disability · Cheryl Bates-Harris, Senior Disability Advocacy Specialist, National Disability Rights Network
- Dr. Sharon Bland-Brady, President, National Association of Disability Examiners
- Lisa Ekman, Director of Government Affairs, National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives
- Trudy Lyon-Hart, Policy/Quality Committee Chair and Board Member, National Council of Disability Determination Directors
- Christopher Mazzulli, Treasurer, National Association of Disability Representatives
9 comments:
Unless "Enhancing" means "Eliminating," I don't see the point of this exercise.
I practice in Michigan and we have not had reconsideration for over 10 years. We don't miss it. So few cases were approved on recon, that it was just a delay in getting to a hearing.
Like Michigan, we don't miss it in Pennsylvania, and for the same reason. Only saw it work once, in many, many years, when a woman was terminal and the idiots at the state agency hadn't noticed that.
It could be made to work if (a) it were optional, so that a claimant could ask for it if the claimant had real new evidence that might make a difference and (b) the claimant had access to the records that the state agency had gathered and (c) the claimant had access to the state agency "explanation" of the decision, including the often stupid, inaccurate conclusions of the state agency non-examining doctors/quacks so they could point out the errors. Without that its a waste of time and resources. It will enrich consultative examiners, to a degree, by resulting in more CEs being ordered, and it will swell the ranks of the state agencies who will need more adjudicators to rubber stamp the first adjudicators mistakes. But just taking the same evidence and giving it to a second adjudicator, a few weeks or months after the a first adjudicator has seen the case won't help anyone and will add further delay to the process.
About 10% of cases get paid on recon. The representatives here harp on the supposed delay recon causes (while at the same time claiming the delay is not long enough to get additional records), but for those 10% of claimants, the recon wait time is much better than waiting months for an ALJ hearing. Moreover, adding 10% more hearing appeals will most certainly result in additional delays at the ALJ level.
For the reasons above, I just don't buy the delay logic. The same argument can be made for the court of appeals in most states. Criminal cases notoriously don't get overturned, so should everything go directly to the state's Supreme Court? Of course not.
Call me a cynic, but I believe the push to eliminate the recon level has more to do with representative fees than it does with claimant convenience. Many claimants are not represented at recon, and even if they are, the award does not equate to a large fee. On the other hand, eliminating recon would mean 10% more cases for representatives to earn the full $6000. So what's the win for claimants in this scenario? More delays at the hearing level, 10% of claimants have to wait much longer, and those same 10% have to pay much higher fees to reps. Hmmm,
A few thousand people die pending adjudication of their applications every year, reps scream, "This is a horrific tragedy that SSA should be ashamed of, and it's inexcusable that these people had to wait so long for their benefits!"
50,000-plus people get awarded at the reconsideration level every year, significantly shortening their wait time and allowing their benefits to begin over a year before an ALJ might award them, and reps say, "Not worth it because it only happens a few times per year. Let's get rid of it and make everyone wait 18-21 months after their initial denial to get resolution."
" believe the push to eliminate the recon level has more to do with representative fees than it does with claimant convenience"
Nonsense.
(1) I have never seen a 10% approval rate for reconsideration. Where does that come from.
(2) If we add 3-4 months delay towards ALJ hearings, by requiring reconsideration, the back benefits will be 3-4 months more then they would be without the delay. In many cases that would be more money for representatives since the reps normally charge the lesser of 25% of back benefits or $6000. Especially for SSI claimants this will be larger fees for reps.
Reps hate delays. The clients get upset, you cannot earn anything on a case until you can get to a hearing, and it simply is not fair.
@12:11
Not 11:06, but the 10% comes directly from SSA's stats. The number has been posted on this blog before and is derived some SSA's own tracked stats about approvals at the recon level out of the requests from recon.
Getting rid of recon isn't going to shorten the wait for hearing. Instead of having some of the recon-level claims paid and others dropping out at the recon level, all appeals of initial denials will be hearing requests and cause a massive spike in pending requests. I'm sure someone else can link the data tracking initial apps through hearing decisions to show how many hearing requests are received versus recon requests.
Regardless of anything else (whether recon is correct, whether it helps, etc.), getting rid of it is not going to be a magic bullet in decreasing the wait time for a decision. At best, it might be a wash with an additional 3+ months added to the hearing wait time to replace the additional three months for a recon determination. At worst, it would flood the hearing office with hearing requests and increase the wait time for the applicants.
@2:28, well stated and I concur.
Eliminate delays by giving reps access to the electronic file. For crying out loud, the district offices can't even process rep paperwork inside two months and why on Earth is there no availability upload rep docs and medical records at the time of application? It's like SSA almost doesn't want reps involved before the hearing request.
Post a Comment