ERE Only Partially Functional

     Social Security's ERE system that attorneys use to access their clients' files is only partially functional this morning.

    Does this also affect Social Security's internal systems?

ARS Down

     Social Security's Appointed Representative Services (ARS), also known as ERE, that allows attorneys and others representing claimants to access their client's files went down yesterday and is still down this morning. I heard that there were some problems yesterday for Social Security employees but do not know whether they are still having problems. There's been no announcement from the agency about this outage.

    Social Security should make an announcement about this sort of thing when it becomes extended as this episode has. You can pretend that there's no problem but people like me can't.

ERE Down -- Again

     Social Security's ERE system that allows attorneys to access their clients' Social Security records online is down -- again. At least it can't be accessed in the normal way. This is happening more and more often.

    I hesitate to post them here for fear that it will cause them to crash but there are alternative URLs for ERE that seem to work. Maybe Social Security should post them if they won't cause the system to crash any more than it has already crashed.

A Question

      I have cases at the Appeals Council whose status is variously given in ERE as Assigned to Adjudicator, Assigned to Analyst and Case Workup. What is the difference? What can I tell from these case statuses? Anything?

ERE Workaround

     Social Security has finally issued an alert about the ERE problem that has mostly been blocking access to its online systems for attorneys and others who represent claimant. The alert includes a workaround. Scroll halfway down the page to where it says "'Click this link to go to login page." That seems to work.

Online System Failure

      There's a major problem with the system that attorneys use to access their clients' files at Social Security. It's mostly been down since sometime Friday. We're getting the screen you see reproduced here. I've heard reports from some that they can get in but most can't. 

     Social Security has our e-mail addresses. Occasionally, they send out a blast e-mail to us all. For this major system failure? Nada. It's not like they can keep this system failure a secret from us. We know it's not working. A little e-mail saying "We're working on it. We'll let you know once we've got it back up and running" would be appreciated.

     By the way, Social Security employees use a somewhat different version of the same system. Is that working?

Why I'm Concerned About How Social Security Spends Increased Appropriations

      In an earlier post I mentioned my fear that Andrew Saul would attempt to spend the increased appropriations likely to come Social Security's way next year on contractors rather than on increasing the federal workforce in order to reduce backlogs. Let me go through two episodes from Social Security history that will explain my concern.

     When Jo Anne Barnhart became Commissioner of Social Security in November 2001 Social Security was suffering from bad backlogs at the hearing level which were a matter of great Congressional concern. The obvious thing to do about the backlogs would have been to hire additional employees. However, Barnhart, a highly skilled snake oil salesperson, put forward two plans to avoid doing anything of the sort. First, she wanted to streamline the process. If you were around for that fiasco, you'll remember that Barnhard delayed and delayed in producing a plan to streamline the process. She only came up with one as her term as Commissioner was coming to an end. Once people saw her plan, just about everyone's response was "Are you kidding me? In what way is this any better?" She made sure that none of her plan was to be implemented until after she left office. Once she was gone, her plan was quickly abandoned as unworkable. Second, Barnhart, knowing that Congress wanted to spend money on solving the backlog, proposed spending huge sums of money making a switch from paper files for disability claims to electronic files. Doing this wasn't a bad thing. However, there has to be some kind of balance. In Barnhart's case, there was no balance. She lavished money on contractors developing an electronic file system while refusing to hire additional employees to actually get the work done in the meantime. The result was that backlogs soared to previously unimaginable levels. It was taking about a year to get a hearing when Barnhart took office, which was already way too long. By the time she left office it was up to insane levels -- about two years on average and worse in some areas of the country! Even after the electronic files came into effect, there was never any proof that they improved productivity, even though I'm sure that Social Security would have loudly trumpeted that proof had it existed.

     At least, Barnhart's spending on electronic files had long term benefit even if done in a way that caused disaster for six or seven years. Michael Astrue was responsible for a plan that spent a lot of money on contractors but which produced little if any long term benefit for Social Security. The Social Security Administration is heavily dependent on computers. By the time Astrue took office, Social Security's National Computer Center building, where the heavy duty computing was done, was antiquated. Social Security also lacked any offsite backup in case of disaster. Astrue proposed and got Congress to fund not one but two hugely expensive computer centers, with the second one near me, somewhere near Durham (the address is apparently a secret, not that I have any interest in visiting it), as a backup. These may seem like necessary expenses but have you heard of cloud computing? By the time Social Security was constructing these big, expensive computer centers (around a billion dollars if I remember correctly), other government agencies were rapidly dumping their computers centers in favor of cloud computing. Don't take my word for it that Social Security's data centers were unnecessary. The guy who was in charge of building the National Computer Center became a whistleblower because he felt the project was oversold and wasteful. Another guy that Social Security hired to develop a computing strategy vision for the agency was fired because he kept saying Social Security was wasting money on the computer centers.

     It's not that I think that Barnhart wanted to create a disaster or that Astrue wanted to waste money. It's that I think they and other Republicans have two simple, unshakeable convictions:

• Federal employees = Bad
• Federal contractors = Good

     My opinion is that while federal contractors have their place, federal employees are the ones who actually get the work done. To cope with backlogs, we first need an adequate workforce at Social Security. We should spend money on federal contractors to the extent they help federal employees get the work done. Don't put the cart before the horse by insisting that additional funding has to be spent on contractors rather than on workforce.

     I fear that with additional appropriations coming Andrew Saul will be very receptive to federal contractors trying to sell him on grand, expensive schemes and very unreceptive to any plans coming up through the bureaucracy for increasing Social Security's workforce. 

     You may not have seen the actual appropriations language the Congress uses when it gives money for Social Security's operations but I have. The legislative language typically imposes few limits or restrictions on how Social Security Commissioners spend the agency's operating funds. I don't trust Andrew Saul. There's no reason Democrats in Congress should trust Andrew Saul. The next appropriations bill should force Saul to use additional funding to hire an adequate workforce. Saul should be prevented from making significant new commitments for contractors without specific outside approval.

Am I Spoiling The Soft Rollout?

      A friend just stumbled upon the fact that Social Security's ERE online system for attorneys and others representing claimants now allows access to their clients' files pending at the initial and reconsideration levels. Who know how long this may have been available but no one knew? I guess they were planning to make an announcement eventually.

     Unlike at the hearing and Appeals Council levels, there's no way yet of accessing a list of cases pending at initial and reconsideration but this is still a step forward.

What I'm Learning About That New 1696 -- And It's Confusing

     The form SSA-1696 is the form that those of us who represent claimants before the agency must get our clients to sign so that the agency accepts that we have the right to represent them. It's a very basic form for us. Social Security has a new version of the form but there's some serious weirdness about accessing it. Try the link that Social Security has given. If you click on that link with your desktop you get the old version of the form (unless they've already corrected the problem). Click on that link with your cell phone and you get the new version of the form. Can anyone explain that to me? I'm sure that's not what Social Security intended.

     I've used my cell phone to download a copy of the new form and I've uploaded it to a service so you can use this link to download the new form regardless of what computer you're using.

     The new form asks for the attorney or representative's ID, which is different than our Social Security Number. I don't remember ever being supplied with this ID but others tell me that they do remember receiving it. In any case, it's not been something we've used. Apparently, the ID can be found by entering ERE, the online system we use to look at the files Social Security keeps on our clients, but this is confusing. We have one "User ID" we use to sign into ERE but as best I can tell that's not the one Social Security wants. There's a second ID that can be found beside the user's name AFTER entering ERE. At least that ID has the right number of places to fit on the new 1696.

     If Social Security hasn't provided attorneys with a good link to the form or any explanation of how we're supposed to use it, I'm concerned they haven't provided their staff with any explanation either. I'm not going to start using this form until I have confidence that Social Security's staff knows what to do once they receive it.

Where Are We This Afternoon?

     Social Security's ERE system which attorneys like me use to obtain access to the agency's records on our clients is working. However, there are persistent reports that there are major problem across computer systems at Social Security preventing many, perhaps most, agency employees from fully doing their jobs. I'm sure they're concentrating on what can be done without using the IT systems but I'm sure they can only do so much offline. Maybe something this extensive has happened previously but it certainly hasn't happened lately. This is a big deal and Social Security needs to get out a press release.

Where Are We This Morning?

     I had posted yesterday afternoon that ERE, the online system that I and other attorneys use to access the files that the Social Security Administration keeps on our clients, was down and had been down the entire day. Comments made in response to that post indicated that many systems used by Social Security employees were also down. 

    So, where are we this morning? I got into ERE without difficulty a few minutes ago but there were comments, apparently from Social Security employees even this morning saying that many of their systems are still down. Did I just happen to access ERE just as it came back up? Did I just happen to get into a system that's mostly non-functional? What about the systems that Social Security employees use? Are they back up?

     I think what has happened or may still be happening is a big enough deal that Social Security ought to send out a press release.

ERE Down

     Social Security's ERE system that allows those representing claimants at hearings before the agency to access their clients' files is down. It has been down most if not all of today. Social Security has the ability to e-mail those who have access to the system to let them know that there's a problem but has not done so.

An Obscure Question

     Sometimes I upload PDF versions of photos of a part of a client's using Social Security's Electronic Records Express (ERE) system. I do this to demonstrate the client's physical impairment. It might be photos of swollen ankles or severe angulation following a poorly healed bone fracture. In one memorable case, it was astonishingly extreme gout.
     Photos to demonstrate physical impairments work only if they can be viewed in color. I've seen color PDFs uploaded to ERE stay in color in years past but then that seemed to stop. However, I've recently seen an ERE file that included medical records that had color documents in it that stayed in color.

     What's the deal? Will color PDFs uploaded to ERE stay in color or not? Is there some special technique to use?
     Update: A friend provided a link to a section of Social Security's POMS manual which recognizes that some ERE documents need to be in color. It mentions scanning them in color. However, I know I've seen color documents converted to black and white by Social Security's system. In fact, up until last week I don't think I had seen anything in color in ERE for years.

ERE Down

     Social Security's Electronic Records Express (ERE) system is down. It's been down since sometime yesterday. ERE allows attorneys access to their clients' electronic files at Social Security. Attorneys can upload new medical records via ERE. This may be the longest period of ERE downtime I can remember.

     Does anyone have any idea how much longer this will go on? Is it just those of us on the outside who are affected or does this affect Social Security employees as well? If this isn't affecting agency employees I wonder whether higher agency management is even aware of the problem. It's certainly becoming a big deal in my office.

No More CDs

     Social Security has sent out a directive that Social Security employees will no longer provide CDs of hearing files for attorneys and others representing claimants at the hearing level. The only exception of consequence is for cases that are not electronic.

     I wish the directive had said explicitly that this does not apply to prior case files. Many, perhaps most, hearing office employees are unaware that Social Security's systems do not allow electronic access to prior files. They can easily see prior files on their system but attorneys and others representing claimants cannot see prior files unless someone at the agency provides them on a CD. This is one of many annoying problems with the current system.

Social Security To Require That Those Representing Claimants Use Online Systems To Access Files

     From a notice that Social Security will publish in the Federal Register on Monday:

This notice provides advance notification of the requirement that, for claims with certified electronic folders pending at the hearing or Appeals Council levels, an appointed representative must access and obtain a claimant’s folder through Appointed Representative Services (ARS) in matters for which the representative requests direct fee payment. Except under the limited circumstances described in this notice, we will no longer provide compact disc (CD) copies of the electronic folder to appointed representatives who request direct payment of fees. ...

A representative who falls under the terms of this mandate, as described, has an affirmative duty to comply with this requirement. We may investigate to determine if a representative violates this duty or is attempting to circumvent our rules. We may sanction a representative who does not follow these rules, as described in 20 CFR 404.1745-1795 and 416.1545-1595. However, we will not reject or delay a claimant's hearing or process a claim differently if a representative fails to comply with this electronic access requirement. ...

Prior Claim Files

     I wonder if someone could confirm something for me. I've heard that in Social Security disability cases prior claim files, as long as they are electronic, are linked to current electronic claim files in some fashion and are easily available to those adjudicating the new claim. Is this accurate?
     The problem for me is that the prior claim files are not available to attorneys representing claimants. If these files are available to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearing a case, shouldn't they also be available to the claimant and his or her attorney? I can hear the response, "Well as long as I don't make them an exhibit, what's the problem?" The problem is two-fold. First, how do I, as the claimant's attorney know that you haven't looked at them? It's possible to look at something without making it an exhibit. I'm not implying some impropriety. My impression from things I've heard is that many ALJs believe that if something was made an exhibit at a prior hearing, it remains an exhibit at a hearing on a new claim and is available to the attorney representing the claimant but it isn't. Second, the prior file may include valuable information that would help in the adjudication of the new claim. If ALJs aren't looking at the prior claim files, they should be.

ERE Shutdown Over Weekend

     I just received this message from Social Security:

ERE will be unavailable Friday, January 8^th from 11:00pm through 5:00am Monday, January 11^th due to an emergency release.

This release will fix the invalid characters in Secure Messaging issue detailed in System Notices on the ERE home page.

Use Of ERE Message Function

     By chance I noticed recently that I was the only one at my firm using the message function in Social Security's Electronic Records Express (ERE) system. I've been using it to send simple messages such as as “We have submitted all the evidence that we promised on the day of the hearing and you can proceed to issue a decision” or “The post-hearing CE strongly supports our argument that Mr. _____ is limited to sedentary work.” I've only been sending these messages to one hearing office. The process has been working well for me.
     After finding out that no one else at my firm was using the message function, I asked outside my firm. I couldn't find anyone else using the message function.
     I'm curious. Are attorneys in other states using the message function? Is it working OK if you are? If you're not using it, is it because you tried and there were problems? Were you even aware of the message function?
     If this technology isn't being used widely, there's something wrong. Either the system isn't functional or people just don't know about it.

Some Technical Questions

     At one time if a document was scanned in color and submitted to Social Security's Electronic Records Express (ERE) system the document would remain in color in ERE. When medical records arrive in my office in a fuzzy state I have been scanning them in color not because the documents were in color but to try to make them more legible once uploaded to ERE. Documents scanned in color have a higher resolution than documents scanned in black and white. Does ERE still retain documents scanned in color in their native format or does it now degrade them to black and white? 

     While I'm at it, has the resolution ERE is using changed? Maybe it's my eyes but it seems like ERE records have gotten more difficult to read. I'm wondering if documents I'm uploading in a normal black and white resolution are being degraded to a lower resolution. 

     You might ask why Social Security would intentionally degrade documents uploaded to ERE. The answer is that higher resolution documents take up more storage space. When they're transmitted they take up more bandwidth. Storage space and bandwidth are important to network managers. Document legibility isn't of so much concern to them since they don't have to read the documents.