A new Social Security Ruling, SSR 19-2p, is out on "Evaluating Cases Involving Obesity." My initial reading is that the Ruling will have limited practical effect. What do you think?
11:29 You're right as to the SSR. What I think might be going on is that POMS DI 24570.001 explaining 02-1p in greater detail specifies that obesity, in and of itself, can be equivalent to the LOI 1.02 here there is an inability to ambulate effectively.
The next step may be to delete that POMS and allow effective ignoring obesity altogether
My take is that the most important paragraph in the Ruling is on the last page where SSA says “the combined effects of obesity with another impairment(s) may be greater than each of the impairments considered separately.” My guess is that ALJs were doing this anyway, now we can be more explicit in noting how obesity complicates many other medical conditions. On the other hand, this ruling seems to create a floor whereby obesity won’t be considered as a severe impairment unless the claimant’s BMI is over 30.
I didn't check out 02-1p, but my gut is that 02-1p did not make it clear SSA adjudicators are to find obesity a medically-determinable impairment despite a lack of diagnosis from an AMS. This new one indicates we are to diagnose and list obesity as an MDI (and a severe one at that if the evidence so shows) even if nobody has diagnosed it, so long as we have the requisite info from the medical evidence to establish it.
I'm not aware of any other impairment that SSA expects its adjudicators to diagnose themselves and treat as an MDI without some AMS diagnosing it first.
Jonathan: The language you are referring to already existed in SSR 02-1p. "The combined effects of obesity with other impairments may be greater than might be expected without obesity. For example, someone with obesity and arthritis affecting a weight-bearing joint may have more pain and limitation than might be expected from the arthritis alone."
I am not really clear as to what changes this SSR makes at all.
This seems to be what've have always done ever since they took out the obesity listings. The orders we already had say can substitute obesity for x-Ray or MRI findings. Hope this re-iteration doesn't result in a new demand for circumferential measurements of waist and hips. I have yet to see that in a case
Based on your use of the term "we," you seem to have an inside perspective...so can you explain the motivation for issuing a ruling which is just a reiteration? It just confuses things. At least when there is a policy change, usually it clearly either helps or hurts things from the claimant's perspective, but this just looks like busy work.
Not an insider. Just have worked at DDS forever. What is interesting in looking at this again is that they have left out all the CD-R and FTC stuff which basically previously told DDS to not or to rarely cease just because they lost weight and not to use FTC
hey anonymous 1:25 am did that comment make you feel better about your insecure/immature self. If your not disabled why are you on this website. Heres how you can make a difference just refuse to collect ss and medicare and see how far you get in retirment sounds like a MAGA person
In comparing the current SSR on obesity, SSR 02-1p, to the proposed new ruling, I'm actually uncertain what changes are even being made.
ReplyDelete11:29 You're right as to the SSR. What I think might be going on is that POMS DI 24570.001 explaining 02-1p in greater detail specifies that obesity, in and of itself, can be equivalent to the LOI 1.02 here there is an inability to ambulate effectively.
ReplyDeleteThe next step may be to delete that POMS and allow effective ignoring obesity altogether
My take is that the most important paragraph in the Ruling is on the last page where SSA says “the combined effects of obesity with another impairment(s) may be greater than each of the impairments considered separately.” My guess is that ALJs were doing this anyway, now we can be more explicit in noting how obesity complicates many other medical conditions. On the other hand, this ruling seems to create a floor whereby obesity won’t be considered as a severe impairment unless the claimant’s BMI is over 30.
ReplyDeleteI didn't check out 02-1p, but my gut is that 02-1p did not make it clear SSA adjudicators are to find obesity a medically-determinable impairment despite a lack of diagnosis from an AMS. This new one indicates we are to diagnose and list obesity as an MDI (and a severe one at that if the evidence so shows) even if nobody has diagnosed it, so long as we have the requisite info from the medical evidence to establish it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any other impairment that SSA expects its adjudicators to diagnose themselves and treat as an MDI without some AMS diagnosing it first.
Jonathan: The language you are referring to already existed in SSR 02-1p. "The combined effects of obesity with other impairments may be greater than might be expected without obesity. For example, someone with obesity and arthritis affecting a weight-bearing joint may have more pain and limitation than might be expected from the arthritis alone."
ReplyDeleteI am not really clear as to what changes this SSR makes at all.
Point about SSR 02-1p well taken. I will re-read - there has to be some purpose behind the new ruling. Of course this is the SSA....
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be what've have always done ever since they took out the obesity listings. The orders we already had say can substitute obesity for x-Ray or MRI findings. Hope this re-iteration doesn't result in a new demand for circumferential measurements of waist and hips. I have yet to see that in a case
ReplyDelete@6:25
ReplyDeleteBased on your use of the term "we," you seem to have an inside perspective...so can you explain the motivation for issuing a ruling which is just a reiteration? It just confuses things. At least when there is a policy change, usually it clearly either helps or hurts things from the claimant's perspective, but this just looks like busy work.
Not an insider. Just have worked at DDS forever. What is interesting in looking at this again is that they have left out all the CD-R and FTC stuff which basically previously told DDS to not or to rarely cease just because they lost weight and not to use FTC
ReplyDeleteAnd now I am having flashbacks to the Simpsons episode on obesity and disability.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans were elected to trim the fat!
ReplyDeletehey anonymous 1:25 am did that comment make you feel better about your insecure/immature self. If your not disabled why are you on this website. Heres how you can make a difference just refuse to collect ss and medicare and see how far you get in retirment sounds like a MAGA person
ReplyDelete