Get Your Act Together

     Just yesterday I wrote about Social Security's noncompliance with the CARES Act, which requires the agency to accept electronic consents from digitally identity proofed and authenticated record holders to disclose Privacy Act protected records to third parties. The same day Social Security released a new Emergency Message saying that it now has a fully electronic means to give consent for release of records. The problem is that the link in the EM takes one to a webpage saying the agency is committed to protecting privacy and little else. There's supposed to be a tab for "Electronic Request for Consent to Disclose" but there's no such tab. The closest thing is a tab for "Submit A Privacy Act" request but that takes you only to a webpage giving links to the agency's privacy regulations.

    Shouldn't someone have checked to make sure the electronic request form was actually available online before posting the EM?

Updated CARES Plan

     From Social Security's newly updated CARES Plan for dealing with its hearing backlog:

The original CARES Plan issued in January 2016 assumed a certain hiring of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) – 250 ALJs in each of fiscal years (FY) 2016, 2017 and 2018 along with the corresponding support staff. While we were able to hire 264 ALJs in FY 2016, an agency-wide hiring freeze hindered the hiring of corresponding support staff. At the start of FY 2017, the agency-wide hiring freeze continued and included ALJs followed by an Executive Order initiating a government-wide hiring freeze. While we were able to obtain an exception for hiring staff in the hearings operation, our funding level in FY 2017 did not support hiring at the levels originally assumed in the original 2016 CARES Plan. Our 2017 Updated CARES and Anomaly Plan builds on the tactical initiatives laid out in the 2016 plan. We are also introducing new initiatives in 2017. ...

... Proactive Analysis and Triage for Hearings (PATH) – PATH is a new initiative introduced in FY 2017. However, this initiative builds upon successful screening and data analytic tools developed for the SmartMands and National Adjudication Team (NAT) initiatives from the 2016 CARES Plan. PATH also incorporates the robust use of naïve Bayes classification that will identify cases likely for allowance prior to hearing assignment. Through this initiative, we will assign appropriate staff to review and process cases identified through our screening methodologies. We plan to continue developing the PATH methodology in an effort to use this robust analysis at all levels of disability processing. Through PATH, we expect an increase in non-ALJ adjudications (reversals, on-the-record decisions), which will create a significant savings and opening a hearing slot for another case where a hearing is necessary. Our early projections for PATH modeling efforts in March 2017 suggested that approximately 3 percent (about 22,000) of unassigned cases pending at the hearing level could be identified by this model to be appropriately reviewed for a fully favorable decision without a hearing. We continue to monitor the percent of cases that are selected through the PATH model to validate our expected outcomes and will continue to update and improve our triage models as we learn from and incorporate the results of our efforts. ...

Move from Office-Based to National-Based First-In First-Out (FIFO) Model – This is a new initiative in FY 2017 that enhances the method of FIFO workload assignment by sharing resources across the country and matching up resource availability. This assists in prioritizing cases that have been waiting the longest. We will begin testing in the Seattle Region with the first stage of our process, when the hearing office first gets the case. We expect to see a balance in wait times and reduce bottlenecks in key parts of case processing (e.g., case intake, workup). ...

Pre-Hearing Conference (PHC) Expansion – We introduced this initiative with our original CARES Plan. As of December 31, 2016, over 30 participating offices conducted over 6,000 PHCs since May 2015. Data showed PHC participants had completed their hearing without postponement or rescheduling 56 percent of the time compared to 28 percent for those who did not participate in a PHC. Due to competing priorities, we paused this initiative in December 2016 to allow offices to focus on decision writing. With support from special anomaly funding, we will resume the PHC program on a limited basis in FY 2017, eventually normalizing the practice of PHCs for unrepresented claimants nationwide. Overall, we should see an increase the number of successful first time hearings a reduction in postponed hearings that needlessly take up hearing slots. ...

Voluntary Standby List – This CARES initiative is new for FY 2017 and may be supported by special anomaly funding for systems support to develop new notices. We will create the opportunity for claimants to have their hearings sooner by filling empty hearing slots on short notice. Participation will be voluntary, and participants must sign a waiver of advanced hearing notice should a spot become available. We expect to increase flexibilities with scheduling hearings by filling every available hearing timeslot. ...

     I salute those who drafted this document for trying but the only things that will really work are hiring more personnel and getting serious about screening cases for approval by a senior attorney or at what has been referred to informally as "re-recon." They can't do much hiring now because of budget constraints. While this plan talks of screening cases for early approval the way they have actually done this has been so restrictive that almost no cases have been disposed of. It appears to me that they are almost literally terrified of doing anything that results in more claims being approved even if, as here, it's just a matter of claims being approved earlier. Virtually all the cases approved in the past in the senior attorney and re-recon programs would have been approved eventually.

     Unfortunately, I'm not expecting anything but a worsening of the backlogs until there's a change in the control of the House of Representatives. That will get more resources for the agency and bring about different ways of thinking.

     By the way, the backlogs would have been much worse except for a major downturn in the number of Social Security disability claims filed. I hear that the agency's actuaries can't figure out the downturn. I can. Prospective claimants are discouraged by the huge backlogs and high denial rates. They delay filing claims. It may seem irrational to delay filing a disability claim because of bad backlogs. Wouldn't you want to get your place in line as soon as possible? Sure, if you're rational but humans are deeply irrational beings, especially when they're facing a crisis in their lives, as is the case with newly disabled people.