From David Weaver writing for The Hill:
Each November, the Social Security Administration (SSA) releases its Agency Financial Report. In the last several years, tucked away in the back of the report, is a discussion of “potential entitlements.” This is language the agency uses to describe situations where individuals should be receiving benefits but are not because of agency errors or because individuals are unaware of their eligibility for benefits.
An important example will illustrate.
In 2016, the agency discovered that, due to computer errors, more than 20,000 children per application year were not receiving Social Security benefits they were due (children are eligible for Social Security in the event that a parent dies or becomes disabled). Since this error was long-standing, it means, as an illustration, nearly 200,000 children in a 10-year period missed out on benefits they were legally due.
To date, SSA has still not contacted any of these families to help them receive their benefits. ...
The case of children missing out on benefits is just one example. How many other groups are out there? Quite a few.
In its 2016 Agency Financial Report, the agency reported there were 80 categories of individuals missing out on Social Security benefits. These groups included certain widows, retirees, spouses, and children, as well as groups affected by special Social Security provisions such as some military veterans. SSA has made very little progress in helping these groups receive their benefits. ...
SSA officials need to elevate these projects to a priority level. ...
Another systemic problem is the lack of congressional oversight. ...
In addition to oversight, Congress may want to make structural changes to the Social Security Administration. One possibility is to create, within the organization, a Beneficiary Advocate office, just as the IRS has a Taxpayer Advocate. ...
18 comments:
If the disabled or retired person filing for benefits lists the children they have, the award letter states that those children may be eligible for benefits.
SSA needs to be totally revamped. It's modus operandi is antiquated and fails to serve the public appropriately.
OAO aka Appeals Council has the division of quality (DQ). a beneficiary advocate type of workload at the AC level can and should be folded into DQ. this would help counterbalance DQ's current focus. there are plenty of fresh faced attorney advisors at OAO who could do it. I'm sure the incoming Congress and administration would like the idea.
Is there any data matching to find these better and reach out to them?
Back in the day, service to the claimants was job #1. Then the Frank Taylor (look him up) acolytes took over and somebody actually put a sign at FC stating "quantity is job one", and it really wasn't in jest but they were finally made to take it down. At the same time a program call HOTS came out and the real fun began. Now every minute of every day is tracked at the Field offices and Hearing offices. Every one gives lip service to the claimants but all they really care about are numbers. Do we need a beneficiary advocate on the inside, without a doubt we do. But I doubt it will ever happen in earnest because then things would have be done the correct way and that takes time which messes with numbers and the Frank Taylors of the world can't have that.
@7:09 What happens in a numbers oriented system is that the everyone gets consumed by quantity that they forget that quality of service matters too. The mentality of SSA is outdated, inefficient, and does not work at all. And the management folks are clueless about how to best serve the public.
Advocates have a role to play here. Unfiled CDBN and DIWW claims come to mind.
It is easy to get a lot of numbers to rate quantity but less easy to get numbers to rate quality. Congressional oversight can be used to demand such reports and require action, but due to its nature that only happens intermittently and on limited issues. Having a full-time beneficiary advocates office could direct attention to chronic quality issues that need more frequent monitoring.
What the SSA needs next is to allow attorneys to represent the taxpayer. Allowing claimant's and their attorneys to spout nonsense during hearings, without being challenged, is ridiculous.
"Due to computer errors", HAH! My office avoids any possible additional entitlements because they create additional work and according to our management, we do not have the time to actively take auxiliary claims unless they come to us. Half of the office doesn't even understand when to use closeouts vs leads.
These managers are evil people.
@5:21 Not sure you want to create anything that models something at the Appeals council since it seems like that place is also poorly run.
@11:21
Agency representation at hearings was already tried and failed in a pilot project. Also, by design the system is inquisitorial and not adversarial. All that would add is cost and delay.
It seems that this relates to people not reporting their children or marriages. This is often purposeful as they do not want SSI benefits to be affected. Also benefits paid to children of a former marriage affects the amount the ones in your current marriage get. It seems like someone wants to do a SDW reincarnation
Hey, I am game for that. Make it at least a GS12 because of the knowledge needed and 5-10 years of social work background. I am all about that!
This is an excellent idea. It could be under an Ombudsman office. SSA is one of the few agencies without external or internal Ombuds services, I believe.
I doubt that would happen. Most TEs didn't have the technical knowledge. Staff got promoted to 12s for other reasons.
My wife failed to act on a letter from SSA in 2000 at age 65 1/2 that she could POSSIBLY get more benefits on her own earnings than the current Survivor Benefit she was on since age 62 in 1997. Long story short-- she failed to make the claim until 2011. I did a back-of-envelope calculation: She failed to "claim" $60,000 extra between 2000 and 2011. MY QUESTION: SSA had her age, her deceased husbands SS# and her SS#. SSA could CLEARLY see that she was 65 1/2 and they KNEW her amount on her earnings was greater-- so therefore SHOULD have AUTOMATICALLY upgraded her... if they were an honest organization.
The dry language and weird long-folded-cardboard notifications of new amounts and the annual report for IRS did NOT include HER age or ANY further notice that she was missing out of $555/mo on her own earnings... I find it ironic that I get "Ads" in the mail all the time-- for new windows, vitamin supplements and new insurance policies with big letters screaming at you-- and yet the BIGGEST deal in her life-- was understated in dry vacuuous bureaucratic langauge that puts you to sleep in 3 minutes... with most of it not applying to her, specifically.
There apparently is now no possibly way to recoup the loss. It's forever part of her current now-deteriorating life... and actually mine now given our situation--- an injury with no recourse, no discussion, no possibilty to fix... I'm only now struggling to accomodate it as a Stoic... Stoics maintain we cannot change the world, only our response to it. The only other event I can compare it to is my own involuntary genetic mutilation they called circumcision soon after I was born. It took me decades to to accomodate that after learning about it. There's no recourse or remedy for that either.
Contact your local Congressman or Senator.
Post a Comment