From an Executive Order signed by President Biden on December 13:
... (k) The Commissioner of Social Security shall:Should anything at Social Security really require a wet signature? I'd say "no."
(i) within 120 days of the date of this order, provide a report to the Director of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] that analyzes all services of the Social Security Administration that currently require original or physical documentation or in-person appearance as an element of identity or evidence authentication, and that identifies potential opportunities for policy reforms that can support modernized customer experiences while ensuring original or physical documentation requirements remain where there is a statutory or strong policy rationale;
(ii) develop a mobile-accessible, online process so that any individual applying for or receiving services from the Social Security Administration can upload forms, documentation, evidence, or correspondence associated with their transaction without the need for service-specific tools or traveling to a field office;
(iii) consistent with applicable law and to the extent practicable, maintain a public policy of technology neutrality with respect to acceptable forms of electronic signatures;
(iv) consistent with applicable law and to the extent practicable, revise any necessary regulations, forms, instructions, or other sources of guidance (to include the Program Operations Manual System of the Social Security Administration) to remove requirements that members of the public provide physical signatures; and
(v) to the maximum extent permitted by law, support applicants and beneficiaries to identify other benefits for which they may be eligible and integrate Social Security Administration data and processes with those of other Federal and State entities whenever possible. ...
7 comments:
Tell that to HIPAA and the thousands of hospitals/clinics that will not accept e-sigs/e827's. Usually the same ones who will not release any records dated after the date it was signed, even though the same form says it is a valid release for 1 year.
Frustrating, to say the least.
It would make things so much easier if “wet signatures” were replaced with attestations. The only issue I see would be someone saying they never signed anything that says that (whatever “that” would be). It already happens a lot at SSA and it’s always nice to be able to show them their signature to dispel this conspiracy that the government is out to get them.
Oh and for anyone about to say people saying they didn’t sign something ol doesn’t happen…yes it does…daily.
In the end though, it seems like this an effort to keep telework going and reduce foot traffic in the offices so I say go for it, it’s about time. We don’t need people in the offices for every little issue.
About ****ing time.
e827s were already mentioned. I still tell any representatives to still submit a wet one just in case of some looney medical provider not accepting the e827.
I worry about 1696s, but have only seen one firm (business now?) consistently submit those and then the client say they never contacted or appointed them. The group never has a wet signature on file for the claimant, so we have had to do numerous OGC submissions on them. Even more annoying because some employees still manually print/clear the RASR notice instead of let it be centrally printed. That causes the claimant to never know they have a representative.
The issue of people saying "I didn't sign this" is a real one, likely look for the OIG to come after the fact and point out all the places where people got away with something a wet signature would have prevented/identified.
It's item (v) that should worry folks - "no wrong door" has been tried and failed upon the fact local, state and federal programs define common terms differently and specifically for their program. Address, residence, income, assets, living arrangement. Mean different things to different programs in different places.
Way overdue. Now they need to raise the $6000 attorney fee cap. That is also way overdue.
There has been a problem with the pre-effectuation meetings (and initial applications) where clients is told that they got all the information and they'll receive the receipt by mail because there isn't time to do the inputs until later. Later when the receipt is mailed, the discussed loan may be missing. Good luck proving what the client said isn't what is on the form weeks later, when the receipt is received by mail. In the old days when a wet signature was required, the form could be reviewed before being signed and changed if the claimant refuses to sign because it isn't correct. Now whatever the claims rep puts in the system is considered to be what the claimant has legally "signed" even if it's not what the claimant said and he didn't get to see it until weeks later (if ever).
Post a Comment