What It's Like

     Here are three examples to give you an idea of what it's like dealing with Social Security these days. These examples may give readers an idea of why I think that the agency needs a greater number of well trained employees, not fewer. Once things get off the beaten track at Social Security for whatever reason, it takes forever to get things sorted out.

• Claimant gets approved by ALJ. No money is paid. We call the field office. The field office politely asks why we would be calling about payment in the case since the ALJ denied the claim. We politely tell them that, no, it was approved. They look and see that we're telling the truth, that it was approved. Someone just entered it wrong in the database. The hearing office tells us that it will be difficult to correct the mistake. I have little confidence that it will be corrected in the near future.
• We have to file a fee petition. It's approved. When nothing has been paid after a couple of months, we call the payment center. They say, yes, that it was approved but no one at the hearing office told them about it. They ask us to give them a month or so and they'll try to get it paid. I'm not confident this problem will be solved in a month.
• Claimant approved for benefits last December. She's paid. The attorney fee is paid. We close the file. The client calls back recently saying she's just gotten a notice that her Medicare has ended. We ask her to send us a copy of the notice and we'll look into it. She calls back the next day saying she's gotten a notice saying that her monthly checks have been cut off and that everything she's been paid is an overpayment. She sends us a copy of all this and it's as she says. No explanation is given. To repeat, there's no explanation whatsoever. There's just a curt demand that she immediately pay back all the money she's received. Before we can do anything she calls in to say that she's talked with the field office which says that maybe her earnings record has gotten mixed up with someone else's but that's just a guess. That sounds like a good guess since earnings showing up on her earnings record might explain the benefits being cut off and the overpayment notice but it doesn't explain the lack of due process. The client says she hasn't worked since the date she was found disabled. I'm pretty sure she's telling the truth. My guess is that I may not even know for sure what's going on any time soon. Meanwhile, the client isn't being paid.

The Price Is Going Up

    An announcement from the Social Security Administration in today's Federal Register:

We provide fee-based Social Security number (SSN) verification service to enrolled private businesses and government agencies who obtain a valid, signed consent form from the Social Security number holder. ...

To use [the verification service], interested parties must pay a one- time non-refundable enrollment fee of $5,000. Currently, users also pay a fee of $1.10 per SSN verification transaction in advance of services.... 

Based on the most recent cost analysis, we will adjust the fiscal year 2014 fee to $3.10 per SSN verification transaction. New customers will still be responsible for the one-time $5,000 enrollment fee.

Disability Facts

     An e-mail I received recently:

Dear Colleague:

We are proud to announce the launch of Social Security’s disability education and awareness initiative, “The Faces and Facts of Disability.”  Through this campaign, we hope to educate the public about the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program and dispel common misconceptions.  To learn more about the campaign, visit our Faces and Facts of Disability website at www.socialsecurity.gov/disabilityfacts.

Please help us spread the word.

As part of this campaign, we developed a series of outreach materials for groups and organizations, at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/disabilityfacts/materials.html, which includes fact sheets, newsletter articles, posters, social media content, PowerPoint slides, and  web widgets.  We ask that you use these materials, such as the web widgets below, which you can upload to your organization's homepage, to help promote the initiative.

     

In addition, we would also like you to support "The Faces and Facts of Disability" on Thunderclap at https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/11646-faces-facts-of-disability.  Thunderclap is a viral campaign tool that allows supporters to donate a Tweet or Facebook status update for a common cause.  All donated tweets and status updates will be posted by the supporters on Wednesday, May 28 at 1:00 pm, to achieve maximum effect -- creating a "Thunderclap" informs your networks about the SSDI campaign.

We hope you will join us in these efforts by sharing the “Faces and Facts of Disability” with your members and providing feedback for further enhancement for the campaign.

It is often said that knowledge is power.  By arming the public with facts about our disability program and telling some of our beneficiaries' stories, together we can empower people to draw their own informed conclusions about SSDI and the vital social support it offers.

Sincerely,

Maria Artista-Cuchna

Acting Associate Commissioner

    for External Affairs

Memorial Day

Mental Illness Is Worse For Your Life Expectancy Than Smoking

     From the University of Oxford:

Oxford researchers say their figures on life expectancy should galvanise governments and health and social services to put a much higher priority on how mental health services can prevent early deaths. ...

The average reduction in life expectancy in people with bipolar disorder is between nine and 20 years, while it is 10 to 20 years for schizophrenia, between nine and 24 years for drug and alcohol abuse, and around seven to 11 years for recurrent depression. 

The loss of years among heavy smokers is eight to 10 years.

Take The Quiz

     Take the Social Security Disability Quiz.

CRS Study On UI Offset

     The Congressional Research Service is out with a report on the concurrent receipt of Social Security disability benefits and unemployment insurance benefits. The report is superficial but it does contain an estimate from Social Security's Chief Actuary that only about 0.39% of Social Security disability recipients also receive unemployment benefits. In other words, it's a tiny problem. Doing something about it wouldn't save much money.
     The report doesn't deal with the considerable technical problems in implementing an offset. Many states now have an offset that goes in the opposite direction, reducing unemployment insurance for Social Security disability benefits. How do you avoid a double offset? Similarly, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits are already reduced for the receipt of unemployment benefits. Many people receive both SSI and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). Add an offset to DIB and you're doubly offsetting the same benefits. And there's the tax issue. Yes, the tax issue. Unemployment benefits are fully taxable. Social Security disability benefits usually aren't. If you have an offset that goes one way in some states and another one in other states, you have to add a provision to the Internal Revenue Code to equalize treatment. You say that you can't imagine that kind of provision in the Internal Revenue Code? Well, we already have such a provision in the Internal Revenue Code to equalize treatment between states that have a regular workers compensation offset and those which have a reverse offset. Here's I.R.C. 86(d)(3), for your reading pleasure:

For purposes of this section, if, by reason of section 224 of the Social Security Act (or by reason of section 3(a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974), any social security benefit is reduced by reason of the receipt of a benefit under a workmen’s compensation act, the term “social security benefit” includes that portion of such benefit received under the workmen’s compensation act which equals such reduction.

     Overall, it's questionable whether this sort of offset would even save money once you factor in the costs of administration. It's got superficial appeal but it's a dumb idea in my opinion.

Millie Tyssowski Passes

     Millie Tyssowski, formerly Social Security's top budget official, has passed away at the age of 93.

In Fantasyland We Can Do Away With The Medical Improvement Standard

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

Our objectives were to (a) determine whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) would consider beneficiaries disabled using the Initial Disability Standard, rather than the Medical Improvement Review Standard (MIRS), during continuing disability reviews (CDR) and (b) evaluate data on the MIRS exceptions . ...

We estimated, after all appeals, SSA will pay about $269 million in benefits until the next CDR due date to about 4,000 adult beneficiaries who would not be disabled if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard , rather than MIRS , during a CDR.  Additionally, although the cessation determinations were correct, we found issues with the reason coded for cessation for some types of MIRS exceptions. ...

 Our review of 275 sample cases (with a CDR continuance because of no medical improvement) found that if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard instead of MIRS, 12 individuals would not be considered disabled ; 242 individuals would be disabled; and 21 individuals had insufficient evidence available to determine whether the individual would be disabled. ...

     I wonder who asked OIG to look at this question. Who thinks it would be possible to do away with the medical improvement standard? It would have to be someone unlike me who wasn't around in the early 1980s. I know it's not happening in any political environment I can imagine. If it did happen, from the looks of this study, it wouldn't even save much money.

New Acquiescence Ruling

     Social Security is publishing Ruling AR-14-1(8) today, acquiescing to Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012). According to Social Security:

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] erred by relying solely on the Grid rules to determine that Brock could adjust to work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Court held that ``[b]ecause the ALJ determined that Brock suffered from severe mental impairments, the ALJ should have consulted a [VE] in determining whether Brock had the RFC to perform other jobs that exist in significant number in the national economy.''