New Regs On Reps Coming

The Social Security Administration has filed two items with the Office of Management and Budget seeking approval to publish them in the Federal Register as proposed regulations. One is entitled "Authorization of Representative Fees", but no further description is available so far.

The second item is more fully described:

SSA

RIN: 0960-AG56

Publication ID: Spring 2008

Title: Representation of Parties (3396P)

Abstract: We are proposing several revisions to our rules on Representation of Parties. These proposed rules would recognize entities as representatives, mandate the use of Form 1696 to appoint or revoke the appointment of a representative, define the roles of a principal representative and a professional representative, require professional representatives to file Form 1696 electronically, and require a representative to keep paper copies of certain documents that we may require. We are proposing these revisions to reflect changes in representatives' business practices and to become more efficient in processing claims for benefits.

This second item has potentially dramatic effects upon the practice of representing Social Security claimants. While it would simplify matters for the many law firms and other entities employing more than one attorney or representative, its biggest effect would be upon the largest entities representing Social Security claimants, namely Allsup and Binder and Binder, both of which are regarded warily by most who represent Social Security claimants. This would dramatically advance the interests of those who wish to nationalize the representation of Social Security disability claimants.

More Nonsense From GAO

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report entitled "Federal Disability Programs: More Strategic Coordination Could Help Overcome Challenges to Needed Transformation." You can tell immediately just from the title where we are going with this one: Everything is the fault of those stupid bureaucrats.

Here is the GAO's summary:

SSA and VA have taken some initial steps to recognize a more modern concept of disability, but both agencies still encounter challenges in fully assessing an individual’s capacity to work and in addressing claims processing problems. SSA and VA have revised some eligibility criteria to reflect medical advances and to support beneficiaries’ efforts to return to work and achieve self-sufficiency. However, their revisions to eligibility criteria fall short of fully incorporating a modern understanding of how technology and labor market changes should impact eligibility for disability benefits and return-to-work rates remain low. The low return-to-work rates may be due, in part, to the timing in which certain supports are offered to beneficiaries. However, the timing of services are constrained by several factors, including program design, laws, and the agencies’ limited span of authority over benefits and services offered by other agencies. Finally, although SSA and VA are taking steps to address management challenges, both agencies continue to experience delays in processing disability claims and persistent backlogs.

What is "a more modern concept of disability"? I think they mean that they want Social Security to deny more disability claims because modern medicine is so miraculous and employment opportunities are so great for disabled people. If this is what they mean, they are naive. Modern medicine has not conquered pain. Modern medicine cannot halt the aging process or prevent the progressive nature of chronic illnesses such as diabetes and osteoarthritis. Modern psychiatry has not conquered schizophrenia and does little for many suffering from bipolar disorder. Employment opportunities mean nothing when you are in severe pain or so ravaged by mental illness that you cannot show up for work regularly, stay at work once you get there, keep your mind on your job or get along with co-workers and supervisors.

The belief that more disabled people could return to work if Social Security would just adopt enlightened rules is ridiculous. Cannot GAO see the enormous failure of Ticket to Work and draw the obvious conclusion? If the program is set up to pay benefits only to those who are half dead or fully nuts, why would anyone expect many people drawing disability benefits to return to work?

This report seems to be based upon the implicit assumption that disabled people are mostly wheelchair bound people. If you know nothing about disability, that must seem like a natural assumption. After all, a wheelchair is used as the very symbol of disability. The reality is otherwise. Pain and mental illness are the most important causes of disability. People in wheelchairs are only a small part of the disabled population.

It is time to stop being polite about the well-meaning fools at GAO. If this report is the best that GAO can do, it is time to ask whether GAO is a waste of money.

SSAB Produces Issue Brief On SSI

The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued its Issue Brief #4 entitled, "Need For Review of the Supplemental Security Income Program’s Benefit Levels, Asset Limits, and Income Exclusions."

Here is the report's bottom line:

Our specific recommendations are, as part of a comprehensive legislative review of the SSI program:
• The Congress should consider how equivalence scales could be applied to the SSI benefit structure. Those scales should be applied to households regardless of the marital status of the members of the households.
• Research should be conducted to develop equivalence scales that would reflect the additional needs of beneficiaries with disabilities.
• Income exclusions and asset limits should be re-examined to ensure that they still serve the purposes for which they were developed.

Calling merely for a "re-examination" of the SSI income exclusions and asset limits is hardly a bold step since the income exclusions and asset limits are absurdly out of date. I suppose we should be happy to get even such a hedged recommendation.

I do not see the idea of treating unmarried people living together as if they were married as realistic. It would be unenforceable. Is Social Security going to have police checking to see if someone is staying in your home or apartment with you? Many years ago that was how the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program worked, but that was scrapped because it was unworkable.

Fee Payment Stats

Social Security has finally issued updated statistics on payments of fees to attorneys and others for representing Social Security claimants.

As I say every time I post these stats, they are an analogue for the payment of benefits to claimants, since the attorney and claimant are generally paid at the same time. Surges and lulls in payments of these fees reflect surges and lulls in payment of benefits to Social Security claimants -- and, yes, there are dramatic surges and lulls, as those who compute and authorize payment of these benefits are called away from the regular jobs to answer Social Security's 800 number calls, a phenomenon which is referred to as "spiking." Here are the stats so far this year:

Fee Payments
Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-08	20,559	$75,368,163.45
Feb-08	26,570	$95,228,284.32
Mar-08	23,088	$83,166,027.02
Apr-08	27,296	$98,616,579.78

Buffalo News Editorial

The Buffalo News, which has been closely covering the story of the backlogs and delays caused by Social Security's inadequate staffing ran an editorial yesterday, again calling for the agency to hire needed employees.

No Last Minute Rush

From the New York Times:

The Bush administration has told federal agencies that they have until June 1 to propose any new regulations, a move intended to avoid the rush of rules issued by previous administrations on their way out the door.

The White House has also declared that it will generally not allow agencies to issue any final regulations after Nov. 1, nearly three months before President Bush relinquishes power.

VOIP At SSA

Fed Tech magazine has an article about Social Security's transition to a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) telecommunications system. The project is expected to take ten years and cost $300 million. Implementation began this Spring.

What Does This Mean?

This is from a notice that the Social Security Administration has set for publication in the Federal Register tomorrow:

In this final rule, we are extending until July 1, 2010, the date on which the listings for the following six body systems will no longer be effective:
Growth Impairment (100.00)
Respiratory System (3.00 and 103.00)
Hematological Disorders (7.00 and 107.00)
Endocrine System (9.00 and 109.00)
Neurological (11.00 and 111.00)
Mental Disorders (12.00 and 112.00)

And yet, Social Security has an item pending at the Office of Management and Budget to amend the mental listings. I suppose that the agency is up against a June 1 date upon which the mental impairment listings will no longer be effective unless extended, but this does look odd.

Party Identification Poll

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

Easier To Get Liver Transplant Than To Get On Social Security Disability

Social Security's Listing for liver disease contains as one possible criteria a SSA CLD score of 22 or greater. CLD stands for Chronic Liver Disease and SSA stands for Social Security Administration. I have no idea why Social Security decided to label the formula in the Listing as SSA CLD, since the formula for determining CLD is the same as the MELD (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease) formula used in determining eligibility for a liver transplant.

According to the California Pacific Medical Center "... the average MELD score for a patient undergoing a liver transplant is 20 nationally." Yet, Social Security requires a MELD score of 22 to meet the Listing. Yes, there are other criteria for meeting the Listing and claimants with MELD scores under 22 must be found to meet the Listing, still, why would Social Security set the criteria well beyond what is required to get a liver transplant?