Wouldn't now be the time to end the reconsideration step in Social Security disability determination? Over the years the objection to doing that has been that that it would throw too many cases to the hearing level but at the moment the backlogs are enormous at the initial and reconsideration steps and quite low at OHO. Doing it now would kill two birds with one stone. You'd dramatically reduce the backlogs at DDS and you'd give OHO something to do at a time when they're rapidly running out of work. It would create the "drinking from a fire hose" problem at OHO but I'd rather see that than have OHO lacking work while DDS struggles.
By the way, I have a vested interest in seeing this come to pass since I have a vested interest in seeing Social Security disability claims resolved expeditiously. Is that a bad thing?
If they did this. OHO would push the speed of decision making so high that a large portion of the staff would leave immediately (to join you in the feast), and the remand rate would climb to near 100%. That I can promise you. Because the old geezers in charge still think we’re dealing with 25-100 page files, and the folks charged with informing them of the reality are too busy lapping up lavish SES bonuses to disabuse them of that mistaken notion.
ReplyDeleteIt's way past time to get rid of reconsideration. The fact that they went the opposite way (adding reconsideration in the prototype states) is mind-boggling. How many "appeals" does a claimant need. Current system has 1) reconsideration, 2) OHO ALJ, 3) OHO Appeals Council and 4) District Court all after the initial determination. This makes "The Trial" by Kafka seem like non-fiction.
ReplyDeleteI represent clients mostly in Louisiana, and I long to go back to the time we did not have recon. It saved so much time and work to all parties involved, claimants, LDOs, DDS. I have a case now still pending. The recon was filed 08/2022, it's still not assigned! I called the Regional area director, DDS, the LDO I requested a dire need and it still sit at recon because the LDO did not actually process the recon till 2023.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the original justification for Recon, the reason it survives is that it still means a significant number of cases are not appealed and that justifies keeping it going as far as SSA is concerned so that fewer people get approved.
ReplyDeleteKeep reconsiderations around. They help weed out those who get better or go back to work. About 15% of reconsiderations are approved. What would the workload be for OHO if every reconsideration was instead a hearing? The people who return to work or are returned to health may clog the system for the more deserving appellants.
ReplyDelete@2:17. I think the system is clogged already. Learned yesterday it is 9 to 18 months to get a hearing in one hearing office.
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand why they don’t at least create an emergency policy to let the oldest 60k/120k/200k appeals through to the hearing level. I don’t know what workload would make sense, but something more than nothing would.
ReplyDeleteI agree with 8:22 that allowing some segment of cases to skip recon makes sense. I'm just not sure what segment it should be--CAL/TERI/other critical cases (can't imagine there are that many that lose at initial)? SSI-only claims? Age 60+, or conversely, under age 30? It would have to be something very simple to screen for, so it isn't too challenging for DDS or SSA to identify the cases.
ReplyDeleteAnother option could be testing making recon optional. It would be interesting to see who chooses to go right to a hearing. I'd guess represented claimants would be more likely to skip recon, which would indicate that reps aren't trying to drag cases out for bigger fees. But there could be some cases where doing recon makes sense--like if a rep gets hired after recon and is able to gather evidence that makes the case very clear-cut. It would probably also depend on the DDS backlogs in different states, and the different wait times at hearing offices (though with NHCs, virtual hearings, and caseload transfers the HO issue is probably less of a factor than it used to be).
What was the reasoning for doing away with the “prototype states” (or not pursuing that model)? It was my understanding prototype states were an experiment to test the effects of no reconsideration level review on processing. Then the prototype states were phased out, but I never heard anything official about what was learned about the effects it had on processing. Maybe now would be a good time to revisit those findings & see if they’re seen in a different light given the way processing has evolved over the last 4 yrs.
ReplyDeleteAntidotally, seemed the no-recon, prototype process was liked at the hearing level from both OHO folks and Reps that I’ve talked to about it.
@8:22...too much common sense for the government (i am a manager at OHO).
ReplyDeleteWouldn't ANY common sense be TOO much for the government?
DeleteStrong agree. The reconsideration stage seems useless. I practiced in Pennsylvania back when it didn't have recon. At the very least, @11:30pm's proposal to make recon optional would be better than what we have now.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of any public analysis of the agency’s longest pilot is alarming. Congress asked SSAB to examine SSA’s decision to reinstate reconsideration. The report published 4 years ago didn’t say much because SSA said the necessary data was unavailable and other data would not be shared, citing FOIA.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ssab.gov/research/social-security-advisory-board-examination-of-social-securitys-reinstatement-of-reconsideration/
I'm for keeping recon around, but I'm also for more training for recon staff like maybe some communication between OHO and DDS. My congress people's staffs have been helpful at getting cases assigned to an examiner. DDS is also good at getting records that are difficult or expensive for me to get. Sometimes things are overlooked on initial, and recon is a good place to correct these mistakes. Since we can see the files at DDS now, we can do more practice before having to request a hearing.
ReplyDeleteBased upon the 2023 "waterfall chart" numbers, a 15% allowance rate at recon equates to 73,332 approvals. This is versus 110,879 approvals at hearings. In other words, reconsideration produces a little over 66% as many allowances as do the ALJs.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, reconsideration has a real, measurable statistical outcome that conservative politicians and their public servant minions can point to. You know, lies and damned statistics...
They can't gut the whole program like they want, so making the process as miserable and time consuming as they can is the next best thing to them. The time consuming part they really like, because it "encourages" people to drop claims and try to return to work to keep eating and loosing everything they have.
Best chance we had to get rid of recon was Prototype. We lost. Might as well accept it now, as recon isn't going anywhere.
10:44, I agree that some records are difficult and expensive to get, and that DDS can sometimes get them faster and cheaper than a claimant or a rep could. But I'm not sure that recon has to be the solution to that problem.
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world the resources used for recon would go to more development and review of initial claims.
ReplyDeleteWe don’t live in that world.