Washington Post Attacked On Social Security

I had posted earlier about an article in the Washington Post on the recession and Social Security. I have also mentioned some time ago that the Washington Post has moved significantly to the right in recent years. Take a look at these excerpts from a piece in The American Prospect:

The Washington Post has long been a strong proponent of reducing Social Security benefits. While it frequently expresses this view in editorials and in the opeds it chooses to publish, it also pushes its editorial position in the news section.

In keeping with this practice, it headlined an article today, "Recession Puts a Major Strain On Social Security Trust Fund."...

While those seeking to cut Social Security benefits are highlighting these new projections, in reality they have very little significance for the program. ... The lower projected surpluses for the next few years will have some impact (if the projections prove correct) on the date at which the fund is projected to be depleted, but the projected depletion date will almost certainly be beyond 2040 ...

Recession And Social Security

From the Washington Post:

With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund's annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year -- nearly a decade ahead of schedule -- and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation's books. ...

The new forecast is fueling calls for reform of the Social Security system from conservative analysts, who say it underscores the financial fragility of a system that provides a primary source of income for millions of Americans. ...

Many liberal analysts reject the notion that Social Security needs fixing, arguing that the system is projected to fully support payments to beneficiaries through 2041 -- so long as the Treasury repays its debts. But they agree that the news is not good for the federal budget.

State Furloughs And Social Security -- Bad Situation

From a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

SSA reimburses the DDS [Disability Determination Services, which are agencies of state governments] for 100 percent of allowable expenditures up to its approved funding authorization. The expenditures include both costs directly related to claims processing (such as disability adjudicators’ salaries) and indirect costs. ...

To deal with budget deficits, some States have instituted, or are considering, furloughs for State employees—including staff at the DDSs, which are 100 percent funded by SSA. However, Federal regulations state:

Subject to appropriate Federal funding, the State will, to the best of its ability, facilitate the processing of disability claims by avoiding personnel freezes, restrictions against overtime work, or curtailment of facilities or activities. ...

Additionally, on February 3, 2009, California began delaying payments to individuals who provide consultative examinations and medical records. California also notified SSA that there would be a 30-day delay in payment (which was due to SSA by February 26, 2009) of the estimated amount of its March 2009 federally administered State supplement to SSI recipients. ...

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, SSA spent $1.8 billion funding DDS operations for almost 14,000 DDS employees who processed about 3.6 million disability claims nationwide. ...

However, SSA’s ability to process this workload will be negatively impacted by furloughs. As of March 3, 2009, of the 52 DDSs,

• 5 were furloughing,
  
• 3 were considering furloughs ...
  

Of the five States furloughing:

• California is furloughing all DDS staff 2 days each month through June 2010.
• Connecticut had one voluntary furlough day for managers on February 13, 2009. Since then, the Governor has extended the request for voluntary furloughs to all State employees through June 1, 2009.
• Maryland is furloughing 2 unpaid holidays for all State employees and additional furlough days for State employees within certain salary ranges through June 2009.
• Massachusetts is furloughing DDS managers 3 days through June 2009.
• Oregon is furloughing DDS managers from 1 to 4 days, depending on salary range, through June 2009....

Of the 52 DDSs,

• 5 had hiring freezes,
• 1 was considering a hiring freeze ...

The attrition rate for DDS disability examiners was 12.5 percent in FY 2008 and 9.8 percent in FY 2009.

In related news, Commissioner Astrue and Congressman Early Blumenauer have jointly authored an op ed piece on this subject in the Oregonian.

Dr. Gunnar Andersson

Gunnar B.J. Andersson is one of the members of Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel I had written earlier that it appeared that he had no background to prepare him for service on the Panel. That may have been the appearance from the brief biography posted by Social Security, but a couple of people e-mailed me about Dr. Andersson's background. He is the editor of the most recent edition of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and the co-author of Disability Evaluation.

However, I still think this Panel's work is likely to be almost entirely new to him. Assigning percentages of disability or saying that someone is limited to "Sedentary Work" is quite different from determining whether there actually are unskilled sedentary jobs remaining in the U.S. economy. My experience is that physicians have trouble with the very idea of non-medical aspects being considered in determining disability.

House Budget Resolution

The Budget Resolution pending in the House of Representatives is finally available. It "assumes" the same budget amount for Social Security's operating budget as proposed by the President, $11.6 billion (page 33).

The Budget Resolution, however, is not the same as the Appropriation Bill. The Budget Resolution merely sets goals. It is a sign of what may be coming, but the Appropriation Bill is the real deal that actually determines how much money Social Security gets to spend.

Social Security Field Offices In Trouble

The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, has issued its annual survey of its members. Some highlights (emphasis added):

• Recent funding for SSA [Social Security Administration] has been inadequate to provide for the immediate needs of the public. Only 13.1% of FO/TSC [Field Office/Teleservice Center] managers believed that SSA’s budget is sufficient to provide good public service. ...
• Present staffing levels at SSA FOs and TSCs are inadequate. Inadequate funding affects SSA at all levels but is most directly felt by the public through service delivery of FOs and TSCs. 77.4% of respondents reported having insufficient staff to keep workloads current. Only 20.1% thought that their offices were adequately staffed. Managers estimated that they would need an additional staffing increase of 13.5% to have enough resources to provide adequate levels of service. Managers specifically attributed the effect of inadequate staffing levels on the ability of their offices to provide public service in several areas:
• FO Waiting Times – 67.2% of FO managers reported that office waiting times are longer or significantly longer than they were just one year ago. As the most significant reason for long waiting times, 83.1% of FO managers identified issues related to inadequate staffing – high volume of walk-in traffic (56.7%) and insufficient staff (26.4%). ...
• Employee Training – Less than half of managers agreed or strongly agreed that their staffs receive adequate training (49.1%). ...
• Quality of Work Product – While only 22.5% of managers said that the quality of work produced in their office had improved in the last two years; nearly one-third of managers (33.6%) reported that the quality of work produced in their offices was worse or significantly worse. ...
• Electronic services (eServices) is a beneficial service delivery option but has not had a significant effect on reducing FO/TSC involvement with claimants who use eServices. 58.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that recent SSA policy changes to facilitate eServices have improved public service. However, it is not having a significant effect on reducing public demand for services from FOs/TSCs. Only 33.6% of managers believed that it has helped to reduce public demand for services from their office while 54.5% reported that eServices has had either no effect on demand for services or has actually increased demand.

Commissioner Astrue has not addressed these problems in any meaningful way.

Backgrounds For Members Of Occupational Panel

Here is a brief summary of the backgrounds of the individuals selected to be on Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel:

• Gunnar B. J. Andersson, M.D., Ph.D. -- Orthopedic surgeon; No apparent relevant background
  
• Mary Barros-Bailey, Ph.D. -- Vocational expert; History of being a consultant for Social Security on vocational matters
  
• Robert T. Fraser, Ph.D. -- Rehabilitation counselor
  
• Shanan Gwaltney Gibson, Ph.D. -- Assistant professor of Management at East Carolina University with background in occupational analysis; Consultant to State Farm Insurance
  
• Thomas A. Hardy, J.D. -- Attorney in private practice concentrating his work in Social Security and Long Term Disability Appeals; previously a Vocational Disability Counselor; Worked in past as manager of vocational rehabilitation services for major long term disability insurance carrier and has served as representative of the private insurance industry to Social Security.
  
• Sylvia E. Karman -- Director for Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) Occupational Information Development Project
• Deborah E. Lechner -- developer and marketer of Functional Capacity Evaluation instrument
  
• Lynnae M. Ruttledge -- "A person born with a disability"; Director of the Washington Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
• David J. Schretlen, Ph.D. -- Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, as well as an Associate Professor of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is board-certified in clinical neuropsychology. He currently is analyzing predictors of functional disability in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
• Nancy G. Shor -- Executive Director, National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR)
  
• Mark A. Wilson, Ph.D. -- Associate Professor of Psychology, NC State University; Involved in human-resource planning, job analysis, selection (managerial assessment centers), performance appraisal, and compensation for a market-leading insurance company
• James F. Woods -- Led development of the O*NET system

Barking Up The Wrong Tree

I don't know whether to post this or just avert my eyes from someone making making a fuss about something he does not understand. From a press release issued by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa):

Senator Chuck Grassley said his survey of private insurers has found that some are needlessly contributing to the Social Security disability backlog, and he urged the Social Security Administration to recommit itself to preventing disability benefit application fraud and to work with the Inspector General to penalize and prosecute those filing false disability claims. ...

Grassley’s said his conclusions about the way private plans are burdening the public program are based on his review of responses from nine major insurance companies to an inquiry he made late last year about private insurers’ policies and practices concerning disability insurance claims.

Every insurer surveyed by Grassley said it “encouraged, requested, required, expected, asked or suggested” that long-term disability claimants apply for Social Security disability payments once a claim is approved. One private insurer requires that individuals apply. All nine of the insurers’ policies reduce claimants’ disability benefits by the assumed amount of Social Security disability insurance benefits unless it granted an exception. Four private insurers provided information to Grassley about approval rates for Social Security disability claims. Of those four, three had approval rates generally below all disability claims processed by the Social Security Administration.

My experience is that the Social Security disability claims of Long Term Disability (LTD) recipients have very good prospects of success. on Social Security disability claims. Why shouldn't LTD carriers encourage their beneficiaries to apply for Social Security disability benefits? The LTD carriers have more at stake than the claimant. Almost all of these claimants will eventually apply anyway. The sooner, the better for them, since they have a stake in the Social Security disability claim also, because of the Cost of Living Adjustment that applies to Social Security disability benefits but not LTD -- and for other reasons not worth detailing here. I have no idea where Grassley is getting his information about LTD recipients having a lower chance of success. I am nearly certain that he misunderstood something.

It is easy to think that there is something scandalous about the offset in LTD plans for Social Security disability benefits. However, without that offset, the costs of LTD would be far too high and no one would have LTD. Far better to have LTD with an offset for Social Security disability benefits than no LTD at all. Most people just misunderstand what LTD is about, probably because the insurance companies do not go out of their way to explain it. Mostly, LTD insures against the delays and uncertainties in the Social Security disability programs. When you think about it that way, things start to make sense. Also, when you think about it that way, you start to wonder whether the real problem is with the delays and uncertainties at Social Security.

Remember, I do not even like the LTD carriers. They jerk too many of my clients around, not by making them apply for Social Security disability benefits, but by cutting off their LTD benefits inappropriately. I only defend the LTD carriers on this issue because it is a bum rap and a distraction from the real problem at Social Security, which is primarily a lack of staff.