Appropriations Bill Moves Forward With Many Directives For Social Security

     The House Appropriations Committee has reported out the bill that includes the appropriation for the Social Security Administration's operations. As expected, it includes a $300 million increase for Social Security. This is barely enough to keep up with inflation. The Senate bill is likely to be worse for Social Security.

     As usual, the Committee report on the bill includes a number of directives for the agency, which start at page 228 of the report. This year's bill includes a high number of these directives. Here's a list:

• Prepare report within 60 days on Administrative Law Judge selection;
• Include more information in Beneficiary Verification letters;
• Prepare report on negotiations with employee unions;
• Encourage proper consideration of headache disorders in determination of disability;
• Prepare update for Committee on agency's information technology modernization;
• Brief Committee on mailing paper statements;
• Prepare report on utilization of Social Security programs by persons suffering from muscular dystrophy;
• Prepare report on occupational information system project;
• Prepare proper research designs for all pilot projects and prepare a report on all such pilots;
• Prepare report within 180 days on improving Disability Determination Services process, including addressing the role of the reconsideration stage;
• Stop the proposal to charge fees for replacement Social Security cards;
• Stop pursuing the plan to consider social media postings in determining disability;
• Strongly urges agency to not proceed with plan for mandatory video hearings;
• Provide report within 90 days on strengthening vocational expert program;
• Strongly urges agency to not go forward with proposed regulations that would eliminate inability to communicate in English as factor in determining disability.

     One thing that didn't make this long list is a directive to strongly consider increasing the cap on fees that attorneys and others can charge for representing Social Security claimants.

How Is A Disabled Person Supposed To Look?

     From Imani Barbarin, writing for Forbes:

A new policy proposal by the Trump Administration calls for the surveillance of disabled people’s social media profiles to determine the necessity of their disability benefits. The proposal, which reportedly aims to cut down on the number of fraudulent disability claims would monitor the profiles of disabled people and flag content that shows them doing physical activities. When it comes down to it, the policy dictates that disabled people shouldn’t be seen living their lives for fear of losing vital financial aid and, possibly, medical care. ...

The proposal, like many of its policies regarding disabled people, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of disability and takes advantage of how social media operates in order to cut them off from the support they need. Disabled people don’t all function in the same way and disability is not a set of stereotypes like taking selfies staring longingly at the world. They live lives while managing their energy for the activities they can handle and trying to make those they cannot more accessible. ...

The truth about disability is that it isn’t a series of down moments but both highs and lows that comprise their lives. Simply because disabled people are seen exercising, dancing or shooting hoops does not mean that they have the ability to sustain that level of energy all day. ...

Senators Pressure Trump Administration On Social Media Monitoring

     From a press release:

Today, U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bob Casey (D-PA) pressured the Trump Administration to provide answers to the American public following a report from the New York Times this week that the White House is working with the Social Security Administration (SSA) on a proposal to monitor social media accounts of Americans who claim disability benefits. The Senators’ letter raises several questions about the proposal related to the privacy of American citizens, the already limited resources available to SSA workers, the use of artificial intelligence, and plans to increase the scope of the social media monitoring program.

White House Wants Social Security To Snoop On Disability Claimants' Social Media Posts

Brian C. Blase

     From the New York Times:

If you’re on federal disability payments and on social media, be careful what you post. Uncle Sam wants to watch.

The Trump administration has been quietly working on a proposal to use social media like Facebook and Twitter to help identify people who claim Social Security disability benefits without actually being disabled. If, for example, a person claimed benefits because of a back injury but was shown playing golf in a photograph posted on Facebook, that could be used as evidence that the injury was not disabling. ...

In its budget request to Congress last year, Social Security said it would study whether to expand the use of social media networks in disability determinations as a way to “increase program integrity and expedite the identification of fraud.”

Since then, administration officials said, the White House has been actively working with Social Security to flesh out the proposal, in the belief that social media could be a treasure trove of information about people who are applying for or receiving disability benefits.

Some members of Congress, like Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, and some conservative organizations, like the Heritage Foundation in Washington, have supported the idea as part of a broader effort to prevent the payment of disability benefits to people who are able to work. ...

Brian C. Blase, a special assistant to the president for economic policy, has been coordinating development of the new proposals on Social Security. In 2014, Mr. Blase provided the staff work for a subcommittee investigation of the disability program led by Mr. Lankford, who was then a member of the House. Soon after he got to the Senate, Mr. Lankford proposed legislation to expand the use of “evidence obtained from publicly available social media.” ...

The Trump administration contends that it could authorize greater use of social media by regulation, without action by Congress. Under pressure from the White House, Social Security has drafted a timeline that envisions publication of a final rule in the spring of 2020.

Michael J. Astrue, the last Senate-confirmed Social Security commissioner, has expressed misgivings about the idea.

“Social media sites are not exactly clear and reliable evidence,” Mr. Astrue, who stepped down six years ago, said at a Senate hearing in 2012. “Facebook puts up phony websites under my name all the time.”

That, he said, is “why you need professionally trained fraud investigators” to evaluate the information. ...

The program has been “riddled with problems, including fraud and abuse,” said Rachel Greszler, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. When people who can work collect benefits, she said, “it drains the system for those who truly cannot work and support themselves.” ...

Social Security officials are considering other changes that could make it more difficult for people to qualify for benefits.

They are working with the White House to overhaul the way Social Security weighs various “vocational factors” — age, education and job experience — in deciding whether a person is able to work. ...

No Peeking At The Internet While Adjudicating Disability Claims

     From HALLEX I-1-3-16 updated on August 30, 2013:

Generally, when adjudicating a claim, staff and adjudicators may not rely on information from the Internet that has not been corroborated by a Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (CDIU). Further, entering an individual's personally identifiable information (PII) in an Internet search engine or social media network may compromise the confidentiality of PII. The responsibility to protect PII within an employee's control applies at all times, regardless of whether the employee is at an official duty station, another official work location, an alternate duty station, or off duty. This policy applies whether the individual is using a computer or personal device such as a smartphone. ...

The AC [Appeals Council] will also consider whether a referral to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (OCALJ) may be appropriate. ...

     However, another new transmittal, this one to HALLEX I-2-5-69, says that "While it is acceptable to verify inmate information on the Internet, it is not acceptable for an ALJ to instigate an independent investigation of a claimant's criminal history on the Internet." Does this mean that an adjudicator can verify that the claimant is a current inmate but not that he or she is a former inmate?