From National Public Radio:
During and after the Great Recession, people turned to disability rolls in large numbers to make ends meet. This accelerated what had been going on for a generation, as the federal government's disability insurance program saw steady growth.
But now, for the first time in decades, the disability rolls are shrinking. More people with disabilities are returning to work and holding on to their jobs. With unemployment at a nearly 50-year low, companies are struggling to find workers. And that means people who had trouble finding a job in the past are suddenly in demand. That includes people with disabilities. ...
It's still unusual for people to leave the disability program and return to work. Less than 1% of recipients do so each year. But the numbers have been growing as the job market has improved. In 2017 more than 51,000 people traded disability checks for paychecks, up from about 32,000 four years earlier. ...
At the same time, aging baby boomers are moving from disability into retirement, and the government has made it harder to qualify for disability benefits. ...
When jobs evaporated during the Great Recession, many people turned to disability as a kind of de facto unemployment insurance. By 2013, nearly 1 out of every 4 workers in parts of Alabama was collecting a disability check. ...
 |
| Click on image to view full size |
NPR presents it as a fact that Americans are leaving Social Security disability benefits to go to work but then presents evidence that, in fact, very few people are leaving Social Security disability to go to work. There's been an increase but it has had only a trivial effect. They then present it as an established fact that during the Great Recession people turned to disability benefits as "de facto unemployment insurance" with no proof. Their own graphic demonstrates there's been almost no change in the labor force participation rate by disabled people over the years which completely undermines the story they're presenting. It's like they gathered the evidence about what happened and then decided to ignore it in favor of the simplistic story they wanted to present.
I mean, just look at their chart! How do you look at that and then say that disabled people are streaming back to work?
20 comments:
Never underestimate the media's power to misinform the public, and it is so easy to abuse statistics to do it. One of the graphs Scott Horsley uses in the article to support his report of a big increase in the number of people with disability benefits returning to work is a good example of misinforming readers by leaving out important information that they would need to see to understand the trend correctly.
One chart is scaled to show what appears to be a dramatically greater number of disability beneficiaries finding work today compared to 2003. The article fails to mention that there are millions more beneficiaries on disability now than in 2003. The slightly increased number of people returning to work remains a tiny percentage of the pool of disability beneficiaries, a fact difficult to discern from Mr. Horsley's article. The harm done by Mr. Horsley in this article, and Chana Joffe-Walt in her infamous article on disability benefits several years ago, is that it suggests that many people on disability really could work if they wanted to, when such is not the case. By furthering such misinformation NPR harms people with disabilities and emboldens extremists who want to cut or eliminate disability benefit programs relied upon by millions of our most vulnerable citizens.
I would say that so called liberal NPR has led the vanguard of yellow journalism on Social Security Disability. The danger and the savvy of this move is that it must be true and credible because it's NPR and not Fox News reporting this claptrap. The weakness of NPR is it's dependent on federal and public funding. I've noticed the Koch brothers and Walton Family Foundation are playing a larger role in funding NPR. I imagine they are getting what they are paying for!
The Washington Post has likewise become anti-disability since Jeff Bezos bought the paper. I see people like this author who cherry-pick the figures that best fit their argument rather than choosing figures that give a truer picture. If he had chosen 2016...only up 3-4000. His conclusion could have been "Trump economy lowers unemployment, including the disabled." The 2013 figure was the lowest since 2009 and was about 8000 less than 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2015.
The real issue is that you don't have any information WHY these 51000 were able to return to work. The author focuses on accommodation. However, most of these people probably were able to return due to medical improvement. Perhaps accommodations will be more widely available... But, if the government wants more to attempt trial work periods... TAKE OUT THE RISK.
the reason for fewer people on disability is that they have clearly made it more difficult to get while baby boomers are transitioning to retirement faster then Gen xers are reaching 55 and 50. Maybe the Headline could be "Baby Boomers once again screw Generation X. " Now that they have gotten their fellow boomers on disability, Boomers in government Now want to make it tougher to get benefits...
I should point out that this author in another article touts tax policies as the reason for income discrepancies between the rich and other classes. It is the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs while bring in illegal workers that has done that.
I imagine they may have made the horrible mistake of assuming people actually read the whole story instead of taking selected portions out of context.
"It's still unusual for people to leave the disability program and return to work. Less than 1% of recipients do so each year."
"At the same time, aging baby boomers are moving from disability into retirement, and the government has made it harder to qualify for disability benefits."
It's odd that you attack them for being forthright with their graphs in the article that don't show a significant change in disabled labor force participation. Go look at your April 17th post where you ran graphs covering three different time periods to try and manufacture evidence that the spike in applications in the late 2000s was not economy related. Now that was some quality evidence.
8:23 AM Actually, the "fake news" media does this all the time. Put out a headline that is dishonest, support it in lines 2-3, then give the information that is contrary, or totally disproves it, at the end. Are you suggesting that's what he is doing? So, how is that different than... "It's like they gathered the evidence about what happened and then decided to ignore it in favor of the simplistic story they wanted to present."?
When you come to a "conclusion" other than what the evidence is telling you, then people think you just don't get it. Maybe you're right... They do get it. But, their agenda is more important than the truth. That is not journalism!!!
8:23 nailed it. When I listened to this story last week, I knew I would see mewling on this blog about it.
Tim, NOTHING in the story if fake. MORE people ARE working from disability than in prior years. THAT IS A FACT and is supported.
They presented all of it, listen to the podcast before just taking what is presented here, which is biased in favor of the Claimant.
1 in 19 Americans are on disability, no agenda not to put people on. Medical wins cases.
9:04. AM You're full of excrement! 10,000-12,000 more people leaving ssdi/ssi for work is good , but, it is clearly NOT the reason why disability numbers are going down. Even the author admits a large part is because it is harder to get. As for medical records. .. 1000 pages apparently isn't enough evidence for some ALJs.
Quality not quantity, if you cant get approved with 1000 pages of medical then you are not disabled.
Being ruled "not disabled" doesn't make you any less disabled! It doesn't mean you can work. It doesn't mean you could do a job if the VE claims you can. It doesn't mean hypothetical jobs exist. It doesn't reduce your pain, dizzyness, fatigue, etc. Calling a skunk a cat doesn't make it one.
@9:04
SSA has a dual mandate; give benefits to the disabled or retired, and protect benefits from those who do not qualify. I agree medical wins cases, but to say that there is "no agenda not to put people on" is inaccurate. It is SSA's responsibility in fact to guard benefits from those who do not qualify.
@9:23
Just to be clear, the article makes two claims; 1, the number of recipients who return to work has increased since 2013 (true) and 2, the number of recipients has slightly decreased in the past year (true). There are natural trends both adding (birthrate) or subtracting (death or reaching retirement age) from the number of recipients on SSA. Also, as you say, the increasing difficulty in getting approved could be the cause of the mild decrease in number of recipients. Frankly, I don't see the mild decrease to be significant. The article looks like it is attempting to tell an interesting story, which is fine, but then the author realized they needed to make a conclusion. They really don't. It's great that Izzie was able to return to work (although I could point out any number of factors in the story make for a strong argument that the work is not SGA). Leave it at that, or make the point that disabled folks can still be effective, contributing members to the workforce and encourage tolerance.
@10:38
It is quality, but your point as to 1000 pages somehow disproving disability is inaccurate. I think it is also contrary to your own point, that it is a matter of quality. It is lack of treating physicians willing to render opinions, CEs more than willing to write boilerplate "the impairment will not or has not lasted 12 consecutive months" opinions, or the fact that the claimant is under the age of 55 (or worse, under 50) and the medical-vocational guidelines supporting a denial. The vast majority of cases have an incredible amount of medical documentation, and treatment in general has noticeably increased with the ACA, but medical documentation alone is rarely enough to qualify.
11:40 Doctors and treating sources are not supposed to render opinions on disability, they are not trained for that, they are trained to provide a medical diagnosis and treatment plan. I do not ask my plumber to design a website.
I may not have stated it clearly but the intention was that if they could not find enough information in 1000 pages to prove disability then the decision seems to stand on its own. Since this individual was denied at initial, recon, hearing and AC, it appears to be a valid decision. Not every applicant is disabled, just because they filed.
@11:56
Doctors and treating sources are qualified to render opinions as to a claimant's functional limitations under 20 CFR §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. SSA only objects to medical sources asserting a claimant is disabled. Frankly, SSA seems absurdly overly sensitive to the issue, but I concede a medical source simply saying "my patient is disabled" is pretty useless. A plumber may not be capable of designing a website, but they are certainly capable of advising you as to what piping would be best for your needs.
Examples:
MD says claimant with rotator cuff degeneration should avoid overhead reaching; if vocational expert says that precludes past work as a fieldworker, which could in turn support a finding of disability as there is no alternative work under the medical-vocational guidelines.
Psychiatrist says claimant's social phobia as a result of an assault renders the claimant incapable of interacting with groups of individuals on a sustained basis without having panic attacks. Vocational expert says that precludes past work as a tour guide.
Or have rotator surgery and get back to work like the rest of us.
@3:27
If surgery is available, SSA requires claimants undergo it with rare exceptions. Glad to hear your surgery was available and successful. That is not the case with a great many claimants.
But for very many it is!!! Chronic illness does not always mean disabled. Trust me, my leg is not going to grow back!!!
Did I miss the part where "the government has made it harder to qualify" for disability? Did they raise the ages in the grid rules? Delete the listings? Lower the SGA limits?
Declining allowance rates does not ipso facto mean the standards for qualifying have been tightened. They could, in fact, result from an increase in unqualified applicants due to, oh I don't know, an economic recession.
10:37 AM. If what your suggesting were true, then approval rates should have risen significantly as application numbers dropped. Between 2000-2010, ALJ approval rates we're at or over 60%. From 2011-2014, it fell below 50% It did go up slightly in 2017, but is still well under 50%. Initial and Recon both fell during the same time frame . Clearly, many claims that use to be approved are now being denied. This was largely done in the name of "quality." In theory, the "qualifications" may not have "tightened," but, in practice they have.
You are assuming every claim has equal merit. They do not. And with better access to medical treatment, many have evidence that does not support claims of disability.
I see it all the time. "I have epilepsy." When was your last seizure? "Four years ago" Do you have a drivers license? "Yes, I drove here today" While yes they do have epilepsy it is currently controlled with medication and does not meet listing requirements.
8:48 AM. It's interesting that you bring up epilepsy... I had it from age 12 until I was healed at 33. I haven't had a seizure for over 15 years and still can't get CDL due to epilepsy. I had 25-30 grand mals and a few more petit mals. I even went 2-3 years without a seizure. But, they came back with a vengeance. I think the idea of "controlled" for some is a myth. For others, maybe they aren't destined to have many. As for what number causes inability to work... That could have many other factors. How much anxiety it causes the patient, for example. I, on the other hand, was quite bullheaded about it. Meaning, I was determined not to allow epilepsy to hold me back. I worked full time for 16 years with epilepsy. I was conveniently fired a couple of times a couple of weeks after having a seizure at work. I had seizures while on a trampoline, while fishing in a boat and while driving a car. While I was lucky not to get hurt on the occasions, I injured my shoulders and hit my head on others. Once, just walking into the kitchen, I fell and broke my jaw and partially separated my shoulder.
How many seizures are disabling? I don't know. I do know that for me, severe back pain (along with hips, shoulders, knees and hands) or the eye pain, plus headaches and migraines, are far more debilitating.
As for your premise... If you're suggesting that a greater percentage of claims lack merit is the reason for the declining rates... that simply doesn't fit what others are saying.
A injury that can be healed by surgery is not the same as degeneration. The way you say "like the rest of us" assumes much and definitely proves your biases towards disabled who are unable to work. You sound like a jealous child who has to go to school when their sick sibling stays home. But then when you are sick? You either forget about your lack of empathy or be the tough guy and go spreading your germs to all who will listen.
Post a Comment