Nancy Altman, the President of Social Security Works and a member of the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB), writes for The Hill on the harsh new musculoskeletal Listings that went into effect on April 2. I wish there had been far more criticism of these rules, enough to have stopped them from going into effect. They just seem to technical to most people. That word "musculoskeletal" isn't in most people's vocabulary.
By the way, there's still not been a public release of the study that supposedly showed that the new Listings won't affect the number of disability claims being released. I'd really like to see that.
Since Biden “Froze” all Trump Regulations when he started as POTUS, wouldn’t that supersede the alleged date SSA had these scheduled to go into effect, so he could still stop them if someone explained to him and his inner circle just how bad they are?
ReplyDelete@11:02
ReplyDeleteThere wasn't a blanket freeze. Each agency was directed to consider postponing any rule changes already published for 60 days. Those that had not yet been published were directed to be immediately withdrawn. The listing changes were published in December, so Saul only had to consider withdrawing them.
how many cases are you getting FF with "meets or medically equals" listing 1.00? I see almost none of those in my office.
ReplyDelete@11:28
ReplyDeleteI would concede, listing cases are extremely rare in general. That's by design. But it does not change the fact that narrowing the listings further on no valid basis is inappropriate. It's also a concern because it could threaten a vast number of recipients who were found disabled on the prior listing criteria.
Let me translate the above comment from 11:48....I dont like it, I dont need actual facts.
ReplyDeleteI think that you are in error. If you met a listing, you have it for life.
ReplyDeleteUnder the CRA, you do not start the 60 day count until February 5. I don’t believe there were 60 countable days from February 5 to April 2? If so, Biden can stop this listing from going into effect.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Trump often skirted around CRA. For example, getting approval from only one chamber of Congress, CRA requires both chambers. This would additionally be considered a “Major” Rule subject to being challenged by Biden. There is also a, “Prescribed Look Back Period,” in CRA that would allow Biden to go back and look at New Regulation. One could also challenge dates Trump Administration used to get New Reg published, since it was so late in the year. In addition, did allowing the New Reg to go into effect, “Frustrate the purpose of the freeze?”
ReplyDeletePublic Citizen is an advocate group who often challenge such New Regs. They have occasionally been able to stop new Regs, even Published ones. They could be helpful here.
@1:43
ReplyDelete11:48 here. I stand corrected. In a CDR scenario, the listing as it was at the time of the comparison point decision is what is considered, so a change in listing criteria would not threaten current recipients under POMS DI 28005.030(C)(2).
@1:25
Accurate. What's your point?
@1:43
ReplyDeleteThat’s about as inaccurate as one can be about the listings, musculoskeletal or otherwise.
The real problems with listings in general, but musculoskeletal listings in particular, is that there is little to no correlation to when someone actually becomes disabled. They seem to be arbitrary, but measurable, "goal posts" that give a "standard" that most will never meet. This means that most people are at the mercy of whatever ALJ they are assigned. In that sense, these new listings don't change anything. But, like the previous listings, they allow people who are against the program to rant that people who "aren't TRULY disabled" are getting benefits. I just have to ask... What job do you think "someone like me" could "TRULY do" for 40 hours a week, EVERY week for even a month? No one can TRULY answer that. They just say, there "must be SOMETHING." The people claiming this don't TRULY know what I and others TRULY go through. I should point out that a Supervisor fired me for "lack of agility" at a union job (at end of probation period). He claimed I wasn't capable of doing the job. I think he was right. This was BEFORE I was diagnosed with Anklosing Spondylitis (had been suffering for nearly 10 years... Doctors didn't recognize it) and 25 years before SSA granted SSDI. I have a few other disabling conditions...
ReplyDeleteType-on in your original comment FYI. The just seemed to... (Change that to too).
ReplyDelete