From a notice from the Social Security Administration that will appear in tomorrow's Federal Register:
We are announcing the fourteenth National Disability Forum. The purpose of this public forum is to obtain feedback from experts in their field on what impairments have a likelihood to improve. This forum will be moderated,and include up to five panelists presenting information on the topic. Additionally, there will be a combined question and answer session during which the panelists will address questions from those on site and received by email during the forum.
DATES:Tuesday December 3, 2019 from1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES:Meeting Location: Partnership for Public Service, 1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 200 East, Washington, DC 20005 ...The truth is that there are very few Social Security disability recipients who are likely to improve. Why? The one year duration requirement in the definition of disability enacted by Congress. If you're going to be disabled for at least a year, you're very unlikely to improve significantly thereafter. You could easily find a lot of disability recipients to cut off if you just reduced the duration requirement to three months.
By the way, remember that Social Security will probably soon publish proposed regulations having to do with disability terminations. You can see that something is coming. I'm sure they want to find a way to cut a lot of people off disability benefits. I doubt they'll succeed but we'll see.
12 comments:
It could be that they are looking at the effects of access to medical care after approval of benefits. Access to counseling and proper medication, surgeries, consistent care may eliminate or mitigate symptoms to a level below the disabled threshold.
Or the Deep State has it in for all disabled people and will be grinding them in to feed to be slipped into your Impossible Whopper....
@9:15
It's not conspiratorial to believe Social Security has an interest in terminating benefits for individuals who have medically improved. That's literally their mandate under the Act. The question is whether Social Security intends to monitor individuals with conditions that are likely to improve, so that once they do their benefits can be terminated; or if Social Security intends to drag their feet on awarding benefits to said individuals in the hope that they will improve prior to benefits even being awarded.
I lean toward the latter, since monitoring creates administrative costs, whereas dragging their feet is cheap and actually saves money.
Okay so it is a conspiracy. The new excuse for everything under the Sun is that it is a conspiracy. What the hell has happened to this country?
I guess it doesn't matter if you call it a conspiracy, dragging their feet, "performing their mandate," or "protecting the taxpayers "Clearly, this organization has put downward pressure on approvals and FF since Huntington.
There is something to this because the SSA terminates benefits for 15% of SSDI recipients through the full medical review process and, like this study says, 18% of new SSDI beneficiaries can work at SGA - https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/pdf/RTW_Costs-Benefits_2015-03.pdf
@2:13
You truncated that sentence. The claim is that 18% of new SSDI benefits can work at SGA within 2 years of entering the program according to Maestas Et Al (2013). I reviewed the Maestats study. It's unclear what the mathematic report is basing their conclusion on, since the Maestats study does not expressly reach that conclusion, and I'm uncertain where they make statements even supporting that conclusion. The Maestats study indicates at pages 1818-1819 (pages 22-23 of the pdf) that 18 to 19 percent of individuals earnings decrease to below SGA within 2 years of the initial determination, not "entering the program." That might be what the mathematica study is basing their assertion on, but that is pretty ignorant as to how the system works.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb4e/d2065b7c91762390edde14d207e96a57ec76.pdf
But people in their 30's may well improve especially as technology advances as decades pass. And maybe ALJ's won't treat the prospect of granting benefits to a younger person as a horrid idea if they have this information. You can be in this business and root for the government improving efficiency while cheering on the advancements of medical science... Coming from an attorney rep.
The 35 year old allowed for aches and anxiety is more likely to be continued than the 50 year old allowed for cancer and an amputated leg. SSA wants to avoid another fiasco like that brought on by Reagan and does not urge cessation so. Every year once the congressional mandate is met CDRs in each state cease
Back before Medicaid expansion I had the occasional case where the reason the person met the disability standard was that they did not have access to care they needed to get better. For instance, they needed a particular surgery they could not afford. It's more rare with Medicaid expansion but I still get some cases where Medicaid stubbornly refuses to authorize needed care that could possibly make the person able to work. Most disability claimants don't have the wherewithal to fight a healthcare bureaucracy (usually a private insurance company contracted by the state) so they are stuck. In states that rejected Medicaid expansion, access to care that could improve ability to work is still likely a bigger problem.
I think it is a legitimate inquiry for SSA to look at what is likely to improve but that expectations should be low. Few conditions meeting the strict disability standards will improve after a year of failing to significantly respond to treatment. One question that SSA should determine for each impairment, is what is the length of the treatment protocol is before maximum medical improvement is expected. Is it more than 12 months or less? That should give SSA an idea of what to look at more closely. In many cases that's not enough because you have to factor in the combination of impairments, but that's a start.
I don't mind them analyzing what conditions might improve with treatment, but if they really wanted to remove people from disability rolls, they'd review the cases of anyone under 55 who was awarded benefits by a judge with a 70+ percent favorable rate. Undoubtedly many would remain disabled, but many others would not.
@6:32AM -- exactly so, because of a person is (inappropriately) put on with very mild symptoms (e.g. a complaint of pain with no objectives, and perhaps a complaint of anxiety, with little treatment), then later at med CDR, all they need to do is have the same complaints, and poof, no SMI. continued. the person can be effectively a "lifer" on the rolls if they don't get kicked off for FTC or ceased for working SGA.
The way this request by SSA is phrased its likely just about trying to update which diaries should be adjusted from/to 3 or 7 years
Regarding the poster who said its about "monitoring"... neither DDS nor SSA "monitor" medical status. Work/earnings can be monitored, but this is independent of a medical CDR. Med CDRs are initiated by diary (date based trigger), which is established by DDS at the last medical review.
Post a Comment