Acting OIG Head To Testify

     From the House Committee on Appropriations:

Management Challenges at the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and the Social Security Administration: Views from the Inspectors General

Thursday, March 9, 2017 10:00 AM in 2358-B Rayburn

Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Witnesses

Scott S. Dahl
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Labor

Daniel R. Levinson
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Gale Stallworth Stone
Acting Inspector General, Social Security Administration

Kathleen Tighe
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education

This Hasn't Been Merely A Matter Of Courtesy

     I'm hearing reports that several hearing offices around the country are now scheduling hearings without first contacting the claimant's attorney. This is contrary to settled practice. The purported goal is to save time. I don't know whether this is something that is supposed to become universal.

     This isn't going to work. Contacting attorneys before scheduling hearings wasn't just a matter of courtesy. It was to avoid having to reschedule hearings. If you don't contact attorneys first, you're going to have endless conflicts between hearings scheduled by different Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and different hearing offices, much less conflicts with various obligations that attorney have with other cases pending before other tribunals much less personal obligations such as those associated with being a parent or medical care. No, using Social Security's online systems to identify conflicts won't work. Often, the attorney of record isn't the attorney who will actually appear for the hearings. Don't blame law firms for this. It happens because the agency refuses to recognize law firms. No, I don't think that having attorneys inform hearing offices of every item on their calendar will work. There's just too many items on anyone's schedule to expect this to work even if hearing offices knew exactly which attorney is supposed to appear at each hearing. I've also found that hearing office employees can be completely unrealistic about time and distance. Too many times I've hearing questions like, "Your hearing in Greenville is at 9:00, so why can't you do a hearing in Raleigh at 10:30?" coming from people who don't realize that it's a hour and a half drive between Greenville and Raleigh.
     Rescheduling hearings takes time and leaves blank spots in ALJ schedules. I really, really want to get hearings scheduled as quickly as possible but I don't think this will help. There are practical reasons that Social Security called before scheduling hearings. It doesn't take that much time and it avoids wasting time down the road.

OMB Head Wants To "Reform" Social Security Disability

     From The Hill (emphasis added):

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said Monday that President Trump could soon review potential reforms to Social Security and Medicare — but he stressed that the reforms under consideration wouldn’t touch payments for current beneficiaries.

Mulvaney said he plans to prepare several entitlement reform proposals for Trump after finishing the White House’s first budget outline proposal this week. Mulvaney previously said the top-line budget proposal wouldn’t address entitlements. ...

“I’ve already started to socialize the discussion around here in the West Wing about how important the mandatory spending is to the drivers of our debt,” Mulvaney told radio host Hugh Hewitt in a Monday interview. “People are starting to grab it.”

“There are ways that we can not only allow the president to keep his promise, but to help him keep his promise by fixing some of these mandatory programs.” ...

Mulvaney said Trump wasn’t likely to propose raising the age at which someone could retire and receive full entitlement benefits. Instead, he floated changes to Social Security disability payments, which Mulvaney called “one of the fastest growing and probably one of the most abused mandatory programs in the country.” ...

     I've heard the "we'll be able to get away with cutting Social Security as long as we don't touch benefits for current recipients" strategy many times before. Anybody remember that working for Republicans? I've also heard the "disability is the soft underbelly of Social Security" strategy before but the belly has always proven a lot tougher than Republicans expected. So, please proceed GOP. There's always an election coming.

Online SSI Claims Coming On March 25 -- For Some People

     From Emergency Message EM-17008:

This Emergency Message explains the policy and procedures associated with enhancements to the online benefit application (iClaim) scheduled for release on March 25, 2017.  ...

For this first release, applicants applying online for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) who answer “Yes” to the question, “Do you intend to file for SSI [Supplemental Security Income]?” are able to submit an iSSI application if they meet all of the following criteria:

· Age 18 through 64;· Resides in 1 of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands;
· Alleges disability, but not blindness;
· Never married; and
· Claimant’s Social Security Number (SSN) does not exists in any SSI system such as the Modernized SSI Claims System (MSSICS) and Supplemental Security Record (SSR).

     The "never married" provision rules out most adults. Why is that necessary? I assume the last provision would rule out anyone who has filed a prior SSI claim. Why is that necessary? Are these two provisions just intended to keep the roll-out slow to allow kinks to be worked out?

Former Social Security Employee Indicted

     From the New York Daily News:

An ex-Social Security Administration worker was indicted by a Brooklyn federal grand jury for swiping social security numbers and birthdates, authorities said Friday.

Sharon Coffee-Dean, of Queens, is charged with stealing the information of 41 people and selling them to individuals who filed fraudulent tax returns.

Imposter Phishing Scheme

     From a press release:

The Acting Inspector General of Social Security, Gale Stallworth Stone, is warning citizens about a nationwide telephone “imposter phishing” scheme.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have received several reports from citizens across the country about persons receiving phone calls from individuals posing as OIG investigators.  The caller indicates an issue exists pertaining to the person’s Social Security account or Social Security number (SSN) and directs the person call a non-SSA telephone number to address the issue. 

The reports indicate the calls include a recording from a caller stating she is “Nancy Jones,” an “officer with the Inspector General of Social Security.”  The recording goes on to say the person’s Social Security account, SSN, and/or benefits are suspended, and that he or she should call 806-680-2373 to resolve the issue.  Citizens should be aware that the scheme’s details may vary; however, citizens should avoid calling the number provided, as the unknown caller might attempt to acquire personal information. ...

Damage At Social Security Central Offices

     From the Baltimore Sun:

Severe storms brought wind gusts upwards of 60 mph Wednesday afternoon, downing trees and power lines, tearing off siding and shingles and breaking windows.  

A person was injured when a gust tore a satellite dish and part of the roof from a building on the Social Security campus in Woodlawn, agency spokesman Mark Hinkle said. A 50-by-100-foot section of the roof was stripped off, exposing heating and cooling equipment, said Natalie Litofsky, a Baltimore County spokeswoman.

Creepy Field Office Employee Quits

     From some television station that tries to keep its call letters a secret:

PORT CHARLOTTE, Fla., - A local Social Security Office worker accused of getting personal information from women while on the job, then texting them on their cell phones looking for a relationship, broke his silence exclusively with 4 In Your Corner. 

Despite the allegations, he continued to work at the Charlotte County Office until Friday, when he resigned. 

"The first day it became a news thing, I heard some off hand remarks I just couldn't take. It was the day before my birthday. I just had to explain this to my children and I left in tears," Foster said.

Ruling Rescinded

     The Social Security Administration has rescinded its Ruling 87-6 on The Role of Prescribed Treatment in the Evaluation of Epilepsy due to the adoption of new Listings for seizure disorders.

Some Relief For Confused Claimants Because "Nobody Knew Healthcare Could Be So Complicated"

     From Emergency Message EM-16033-REV:

This emergency message (EM) provides instructions for handling Medicare Part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) enrollment requests from beneficiaries with Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) who also are or were enrolled in an individual Marketplace plan. It also contains instructions for Part B premium surcharge rollback for certain beneficiaries with both Medicare Part A and Part B who have or had Marketplace coverage.

Coverage under Medicare Part A meets the legal requirement for minimum essential coverage. Individuals with Medicare Part A are not eligible to receive premium and cost-sharing assistance (often referred to as advanced payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) or income-based cost sharing reductions (CSRs)) to help pay for a Marketplace plan premium and covered services to make the costs of a Marketplace plan more affordable. Individuals receiving APTC while dually-enrolled in coverage through the a Marketplace and Medicare may have to pay back all or some of the APTC received for months an individual was enrolled in both Marketplace coverage with APTC and Medicare Part A when they file their federal income tax return.

Some people may have had coverage through the Marketplace (and possibly received APTC or CSRs) before being eligible for Medicare. When first eligible for premium-free Medicare Part A, these individuals may have refused or dropped Medicare Part B coverage because the costs for Marketplace coverage, with any financial assistance they may have been receiving, was more affordable than Medicare Part B, and they believed they were eligible for APTC and CSRs. In addition, some people with Medicare Part A coverage may have enrolled in coverage through the Marketplace believing it was an alternative way to get medical coverage equivalent to Medicare Part B at a more affordable cost. These individuals may not have found out they were not eligible for APTCs or CSRs or not learned about the coverage rules prior to the end of their Medicare Initial Enrollment Period (IEP), resulting in them either 1) declining to enroll in Medicare Part B at all; or 2) enrolling in Medicare Part B during the General Enrollment Period (GEP) and being assessed a Medicare Part B late enrollment penalty.

CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] believes that many of these individuals did not receive the information necessary at the time of their Medicare IEP or initial enrollment in coverage through the Marketplace to make an informed decision regarding their Medicare Part B enrollment. ...

Equitable relief will be considered on a case-by-case basis for certain dually-enrolled beneficiaries (those who have or had both Medicare and Marketplace coverage) of any age who refused or dropped Part B and for those who subsequently enrolled in Part B during the 2015, 2016 or 2017 GEP. 

Beneficiaries who refused or dropped Part B may receive equitable relief in the form of an enrollment opportunity with an effective date outlined in Section E of this instruction. The ability to provide the enrollment opportunity under equitable relief is limited to Part B enrollment requests received from September 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. No late enrollment penalty will be applied for individuals who enroll in Part B under this limited equitable relief. ...

     By the way, I had clients who asked about declining Part B for this reason and I told them not to do it. I can't think of a reason to decline Part B other than getting all of one's healthcare from the VA (and being happy with it) or living outside the U.S.
     Also, by the way, I can just imagine a Trump transition team member trying to review this Emergency Message and being completely befuddled by it. As President Trump said, "nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated."