From Common Dreams:
"This policy change is abhorrent and absolutely unjustifiable."
"We all know that the cruelty is the point with this administration, but this sinks to yet another low."
"This would be a crushing blow to me and my family."
Those are just a few of the more than 1,700 official comments members of the U.S. public have left on President Donald Trump's proposed Social Security rule change, which could strip lifesaving disability benefits from hundreds of thousands of people.
The proposal received hardly any media attention when it was first published in the Federal Register in November. But recent reporting on the proposed rule change, as well as outrage from progressive Social Security advocates, sparked a flood of public condemnation and calls for the Trump administration to reverse course.
Backlash against the proposal can be seen in the public comment section for the rule, where self-identified physicians, people with disabilities, social workers, and others have condemned the change as monstrous and potentially deadly. The number of public comments has ballooned in recent days, going from less than 200 to more than 1,700 in a week.
The public comment period ends on January 17, 2020. Comments can be submitted here. ...
29 comments:
I didnt find it surprising at all.
CDR reviews are above board and necessary to the continued health of the SSA disability system. A disability allowance should not be an automatic lifetime lottery winning FOR SOME conditions. It is just part of the process and come with full appeal rights. If you know the community we are talking about you know medical improvements are not uncommon and almost never self reported. "Progressive" Social Security Reps do not have a monopoly over what is and is not good policy. The let everyone on the rolls mindset will overwhelm and break this system.
I think folks are missing the point that medical improvement must still be proven. If a CDR is done and there's no medical improvement benefits continue. It's not like benefits can be ceased just because a CDR is being done. Maybe folks should take a deep breath and understand that part before jumping to conclusions.
Medical review of disabling conditions must be done and prioritized based on impairment, age, education/skills/training, and advances in medical treatments/rehabilitation/diagnosis/drugs as well as some conditions improving/healing over time. To ignore the possibilities of all these factors denies the value of any efforts to improve health and well being for those receiving disability benefits. The importance of changes in diet, exercise, personal responsibility, and other factors cannot be ignored. Even small efforts in these areas can significantly reduce disabling conditions and enable an individual to become a more active participant in society.
9:30 AM. Clearly, you are completely ignorant of what being afflicted with conditions that cause chronic pain and suffering is like. Frankly, it sucks! Winning the lottery? More like losing the lottery of life! I once used CONSERVATIVE estimates on 5 of my medical conditions (I have a few others, including "co-conditions") snd the odds of one person having those 5 was 1 in 296 TRILLION. A couple of these I have "rarer forms" of.
Once people reach age 50 with conditions "unlikely to improve," what is the point of CDRs every 2 years? If the purpose is to "save money," why not stretch some to 4-5 years and put more into younger recipients that are "more likely" to improve?
No one is saying that there shouldn't be a responsible review program. However, what is responsible about assuming that anyone who is awarded benefits at step five is "likely" to show improvement after 2 years? That is what this proposal would do. Also, what medical basis is there for an assumption that all children are likely to improve at ages 6 and 12? Yet this is exactly what is being proposed.
Finally, I take issue with 9:30's observation that the CDR system is above board. Not all, but many CDR cases wind up at hearings with no representation and without the original evidence that formed the basis for the initial award. How can an adjudicator make a determination of improvement without a basis to measure against? All too often we see cases where the "CPD" is missing. That is expressly forbidden by the statute and the regulations.
There is and always will be a delay on timely processing of a Medical Re-exam diary for a CDR. It is seldom initiated per the set date , even so every 2 years seems unreasonable . The greatest pitfall is people not responding to correspondence and being suspended for FTC ( Failure to Cooperate) . CDR forms can be intimidating , will likely increase walk-in traffic to FO's for assistance.
The entire CDR process is emotionally draining and fraught with peril for unsophisticated disability beneficiaries. SSA has an agenda, which is stop checks. Since social security disability beneficiaries generally rely on their social security disability checks to survive,requiring CDRs on this scale every two years would be detrimental to their health and add stress to an already difficult existence. SSA would have to hire many more DDS/DO/PSC workers to adequately implement this -- where is the money going to come from? The estimates of savings, due to stopping checks, are inflated because they ignore the folks who would just have to reapply. Of course, that starts the process all over again and will result in more folks out on the street. Also, the proposal shows a lack of understanding of the dib criteria: an award at step 5 is not inherently more likely to improve in two years.
Believe the CDR system should be revamped. But do not see many those over 50 being taken off because of some medical improvement after just 2 years. But under 50? I could see it.
What just drives me crazy is how the SSA comes up with these arbitrary numbers. Why 2 years? Why not 1 or 4? It is the same with the 5-month waiting period to pay SSD benefits. And the arbitrary 2-year Medicare waiting period for SSD. I have asked 2 SSA commissioners personally how the Medicare waiting period originated. They did not know.
I am very logical. I would just like to know where they come up with these numbers and not just some bogus numbers. Truly believe the SSA is just winging it.
Anyone who delves into the files knows that medical improvement is rare. It certainly happens, the claimant with the deformed hip finally is able to have a hip replacement. My wife's friend subjects herself to a third neck surgery and that one works and she returns to work. The individual with the zebra illness who finally finds the right doctor who finally persists and finds the right treatment.
But most claimants who are awarded benefits are 45 or older and likely have changed age category but the time a CDR takes place.
@9:30
1. Obviously CDRs are "above board" as the act literally calls for a certain number of recipients be reviewed on an annual basis. However, attempting to distinguish particular conditions based on a potentiality that some conditions are likely to recover in a year or two is not. The current 3-5-7 year model is sufficient.
2. A disability allowance is not an "automatic lifetime lottery winning" for ANY conditions. Short of a terminal diagnosis, conditions are reviewed at most in a 7 year time frame. Again, the current 3-5-7 year model is sufficient.
3. If you know the community we are talking about, you know medical improvements are NOT common, but I'll concede self-reporting is an issue, and if they were suggesting greater funding of CDIs or some sort of monitoring in the event a recipient returns to work, like requiring employers to immediately notify SSA of new employees' SSNs, which could be cross-referenced to SSA's own databases of current recipients; that would be an improvement.
4. Social Security Reps actually would have an interest in more frequent CDR process and not allowing everyone to immediately get on the rolls, since that would mean there are more claims, so your ad hominum is absurd.
I'm not sure what to make of these proposed new rules. They say they want to identify medical improvement sooner but they are planning to do a lot more CDR's. I've been on benefits for a bit over 6 years now and I've yet to get my first CDR. My approval letter did say 5 - 7 years and I was approved on initial application after having to start dialysis. So I guess that means I will be switched to every 6 years. I'll be 61 next year so maybe my first one when it comes will be my last. I'm still on dialysis and that will likely never change so I think they will have to continue my benefits. I remember when Mulvaney said that SSDI was not really Social Security so my guess is that he is the driving force behind this idea. I really feel bad for anyone that this may negatively impact. There are well over 2000 comments now where the proposal is published and none of them are supportive. Maybe they will back off if there is enough backlash but with this administration you never know.
We are required to code 7 year reexams for people aged over 51 1/2 when we process ALJ allowances. It is considered unlikely they will improve. Younger people generally get a 3 year reexam unless the ALJ recommends a reexam date then we use what the ALJ says.
8:35 I think it was an unfortunate choice of words when you compared people on SSA disability to "winning the lottery". I've worked thousands of SSA DIB cases over my career and the monthly benefit amount is not all that high and never has been.
The lottery comparison is somewhat insulting to those who are genuinely disabled.
That being said the current CDR rules are not writing in stone and there may be some room for improvement. The Reagan Adm. went too far but some adjustments may be necessary in the current system.
Some common sense has to be applied to the CDR process. A person over 50 who has already had multiple back surgeries and is disabled is probably not going to exhibit medical improvement. A person in their 20's who sustained an acute severe back injury may indeed show improvement after a year or two and should be subjected to a CDR. A child who has childhood asthma may very well improve enough during childhood to be found not disabled. The question is whether those deploying the CDR process know enough to use it wisely. Given the amount of non-lawyers throughout SSA who have no idea how to interpret rules and regulations and accurately apply the law, one may wonder. However, lawyers who actually understand the regulations and how to apply the laws are much better suited and qualified to make these decisions and, therein lies the problem. Namely, you need lawyers to do this properly and SSA, particularly OHO, has too many non-lawyers in roles that they are neither equipped nor qualified to handle.
The three existing CDR categories are sufficient as is: MIE, MIP and MINE. There is no need for MIL. It's just Mulvaney / Trump's hatred towards disabled people, much like Adolf Hitler's was towards disabled people back before World War II.. if Trump had it his way he'd execute all disabled people like Hitler did, along with various races, people on food stamps, anyone who didn't agree with him, etc..
As the parent of an adult son with an IQ of 49, the idea that at his age his IQ could magically improve enough to where it might allow him to work is stupid. And a waste of staff resources. It's not terminal but it's not ever going to improve. Yet we have had a CDR and no, they didn't have any of the original files (but did have the diagnosis) and yes, I kept a complete copy of the medical provided during the application. I guess it was a quick clearance, because it went away but I can imagine the fear of elderly parents whose disabled adult children live with them being told they need to confirm that their kid's IQ hasn't magically gotten better.
If you were earning more than $40,000 or so per year (plus or minus $5k depending on region of the country), Social Security disability is a lousy lottery to "win" because you are taking a pretty significant hit in earnings.
7:22 PM. Your comparison of Trump is absurd. There is nothing that would remotely indicate anything close to your assertions. It IS likely, however, that certain people in Trump's administration PERCEIVE that benefits are (or were) easier to obtain than they are and that there is (or could be) significant fraud. But, that perception would be based upon how the MEDIA has covered the program since Huntington. The Washington Post in particular has clearly tried to Foster opposition to the program since Jeff Bezos bought the paper. The Post has delivered multiple articles about "desperate," lower educated, rural, part-time workers (i.e. rednecks?) in Appalachia that turn to SSA disability as a "last reserve." These articles are generally of a 30ish single, white male who has medical issues, but, clearly has virtually no chance of being approved. I think this is done intentionally to give the impression that the people applying are just "down on their luck" people who aren't that limited in what they can do. there is little to NO attempt by the media to give an accurate picture of those being denied at the hearing level and beyond!
@7:22 and as he said, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and HIS people still love him.
I think there are about 11 million people or so on the disability rolls. I think it has been trending slightly downwards the last few years. I read that these new rules would impact around 4.4 million of the people on disability. That is a pretty big percentage of the disabled population. This will not be a popular move. Why the heck are they pushing this in the midst of an election year? Seems pretty stupid to me. The Dems need to grab on to this and put out the word that Trump is going after Social Security. Many southern red states are home to high numbers of SSDI and SSI recipients. But then Trump can do whatever he wants and his base still loves him.
can someone who knows please articulate the process that is needed for this proposal to become law, if the house ways and means committee has to vote on this it wont happen but is this the case please give people some more info on this!
Well it appears that some Democratic congressmen are starting to weigh in on these new proposed rules. The comment period had already been extended to the end of January and these congressmen are requesting that it be extended and additional 45 days. They also point out some of their concerns in the letter linked below:
https://davis.house.gov/statements/democratic-letter-on-continuing-disability-reviews/
You are either disabled under their rules or not. The qualifying rules are not changing (that would be a disaster) only the frequency that some people are reviewed. I have been going through those for well over a decade on a 3 year diary, and all they do every three years is send me a questionnaire to fill out. If they did that every 2 years, what difference would it make to me?
I think people are panicking for nothing. There are other things to panic about, like a short fall in the trust fund, or a change in the rules of qualifying disabilities.
So how many voted for Trump that are on disability or didn't vote. I had employee s who voted for Trump. If this goes thru then who is going to do all the work? It was a struggle to meet current goals.
What is the plan if this goes thru ...hire contract workers????
I guess with the backlog going away, OHO has a lot of free time on their hands. Maybe the extra CDRs will help to keep the employees busy.
11:27 got it.
Getting disability is hardly winning the lottery. Most people who are receiving disability have a hard time making it and would like to work if they could. CDR's are usually mandated when an ALJ sees a possibility for improvement if the person receives treatment.
It is true that CDR claimants often need but can't get representation for a hearing that might result in benefits being terminated.
Being awarded disability can be like winning the lottery IF the person isn't very bad off. Also, some claimant's can be effectively made CDR proof (except via FTC) if they are allowed with minor impairments. That is because one has to show "significant" improvement of symptoms and objective tests compared to the last evaluation point. If someone was "assessed" a very limiting "adverse" RFC or MRFC, for example, when the conditions actually weren't very limiting, then later its rare to be able to find any evidence that the sxs are "significantly better" (were not comparing to the prior "assessment" mind you).
Regarding over 50 persons: in fact the current policy is to put them on 7 yr diaries if they would be over 54.5 when the "normal" (e.g. MIP 3 yr) would occur. That effectively means that almost everyone over 51.5 at initial allowance will be on a 7 yr diary. guess what is typical of DDS when they see a 7 yr diary for a 55+ yr old? whoosh, slap it on through, its a continuance. The people panicking about a 50+ yr old having a medical review are probably overly concerned.
I've been disabled since 2003 and finally after two denials, got an ALJ to approve me. I'm 49 in January. I've been in MIP category from the start. I have chronic venous insufficiency as my main problem, I can't sit in chairs for more than 30 minutes without agonizing pain & swelling -- which builds up day by day to where my lower extremities redden and then start to ulcerate, and its hard to walk from hips down; I'm always in recliner or laying in bed for the past 16 years. I also have a lot of other issues. As long as I stay reclined and get bed rest up to many times per day, I can keep the swelling problem under control to where I don't swell too bad. I couldn't believe I was denied twice and had to appeal to an ALJ, but I hear that happens to a lot of people. I'm lucky I had my family to house me during the process else I probably would of died in the street from gangrene.
What are the chances I'd be moved from MIP to the new MIL category? I wonder how they could arbitrarly say I am all of a sudden "likely to improve".. it's been 16 years of the same thing; it's agonizing to sit in chairs. A few years back my mother was diagnosed with brain tumor and I drove 2000 miles to see her. It was the most agonizing thing I ever went through.. my legs ballooned and I could hardly walk. I then developed acute non-insertional achilles tendonosis on that trip from the swelling.. and it became a years long chronic problem. Big old lump on my tendon there and is still tender.. have to be careful with it. Took me many weeks to recover from the swelling from that trip and a very long time for tendon to heal.
At 12:26 AM. I got approved at initial application for a different impairment that met a listing. However I suffered with venous insufficiency and blood clots in my left leg for many years. Hospitalized and put on heprin by IV many times and had to have Lovenox injections in my belly and a terrible ulcer on my left ankle that stayed open for years. Doctors tried many things to help my condition but it always remained. Then somehow I got to a vein clinic and the doctor there identified some veins that were causing my problems. He collapsed those veins with injections and a major vein with a laser inserted in a catheter and my problems resolved. I have a horrible scar and discoloration on my ankle where the ulcer festered for years but it is healed and has not come back. Maybe a trip to a vein clinic can help you. The one I went to was a typical vein clinic that treated mainly people with varicose veins. It's such a relief to be free of the ulcer pain and the swelling but now I'm on dialysis so I still got my hands full.
Post a Comment