On October 29 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the publication of proposed new regulations that would allow the Social Security Administration to force video hearings on claimants who don't want them. Normally, once OMB approves the publication of proposed regulations, Social Security publishes them in the Federal Register within a week or two. It hasn't been that long but this one hasn't yet been published.
I wonder whether the Acting Commissioner of Social Security will sign off on publishing this proposal now. The incoming Democratic majority on the House Social Security Subcommittee is likely to be strongly opposed to this proposal. In my experience, the Social Security Administration has always been
highly responsive to the House Social Security Subcommittee, far more
responsive than to the White House or the Senate, neither of which is interested in
getting down in the weeds of Social Security issues. Perhaps the Acting Commissioner would prefer to leave this hanging until there's a confirmed Commissioner to make the decision. We’ll see.
For that matter, there's a proposal to remove inability to communicate in English as an education category in the grid regulations that's pending OMB review. Assuming OMB approves it, will Social Security ever publish it? More important, proposed changes to the musculoskeletal listings have already been published. The comments to that proposal may get much more serious consideration now.
4 comments:
I don't know that there's any going back on this--they want it really badly and need it almost as badly.
Here's some info to maybe put you a little at ease: the bean counters in Woodlawn and FC all agree that the ideal level of video hearings isn't all that high--I believe the ideal percentage range I was shown from their projections, etc. was somewhere in the 30s or 40s. They gave me a really long explanation of why, but the gist was it is counterintuitive and the ideal isn't really that high and nobody will want to go higher than that just to go higher, especially since video hearings rankle so many so.
This is literally about just a handful--albeit a larger handful--of offices where video hearings are declined almost 100% and where that area's work really needs to be spread around for increased efficiency. Think high VTC decline rates and high APT or high pending per ALJ--that's where. We don't need that many more VTC hearings nationwide to get to the most efficient work spreading, but we need a lot more in a few places.
@9:52, I hope you are right but the reality is an increase in VTCs leads to another 3-5% drop in the ALJ allowance rate. It's going to happen.
Refusing a VTC hearing means you won't get an ALJ from a National Hearing Center. So if this regulation takes affect, does that mean that there will be no way to avoid an NHC ALJ?
Arent a lot of those NHC ALJs former reps?
Post a Comment