Notice Some Trends Here?

     Social Security has released its Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2016. Here are some numbers from the report to consider:

 Approval rate at the initial level on all disability claims

• 2008 -- 38.7%
• 2009 -- 38.5%
• 2010 -- 36.9%
• 2011 -- 35.7%
• 2012 -- 35.7%
• 2013 -- 35.3%
• 2014 -- 34.9%
• 2015 -- 35%

Approval rate at the reconsideration level on all disability claims

• 2008 -- 10.8%
• 2009 -- 9.9%
• 2010 -- 9.0%
• 2011 -- 9.0%
• 2012 -- 8.8%
• 2013 -- 8.6%
• 2014 -- 9.1%
• 2015 -- 9.0%

Approval rate at the hearing level or above on all disability claims

• 2008 -- 68.3%
• 2009 -- 64.5%
• 2010 -- 59.9%
• 2011 -- 55.9%
• 2012 -- 52.9%
• 2013 -- 54.2%
• 2014 -- 53.7%
• 2015 -- 48.8%

Some Tidbits From NADE

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization of the personnel who make initial and reconsideration determinations on Social Security disability claims, has issued its most recent newsletter. Here's some tidbits from a summary of remarks made by Deborah Harkin, Senior Advisor in Social Security's Office of Disability Policy (ODP), at a NADE conference:

ODP explored many factors while updating the musculoskeletal listings to ensure the new listings adequately addressed the needs of the disability program and disability adjudicators. Among those factors were: Requirements for objective/diagnostic imaging criterion for a disorder of the spine resulting in nerve root compromise; How to assess adults who have had unsuccessful back surgeries; Adult and childhood listings for pathologic fractures; and New childhood listings for musculoskeletal developmental delays in infants from birth to age 3 ...

When complete, OIS [Occupational Information System, being developed by the Department of Labor for Social Security to replace the Dictionary of Occupational Titles] : 

• Will contain fewer than 1,000 occupations 
• Will utilize the O*NET - Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 
• Will code occupations’ strength and skill requirements like the DOT but also include detailed information 
• For manipulative requirements, will specify whether one or two hands are needed; reaching will include above shoulder level vs. at or below; and will include alternating sit/stand 
• Will eventually include descriptors of the basic mental and cognitive work requirements. ...

     The problem with having fewer than 1,000 occupations in your OIS is that many, perhaps most, of the occupations described would actually be composites, covering disparate jobs performed in significantly different ways. Doing this makes makes the data presentation muddy. Many of the occupations will be done at the sedentary, light and medium exertional levels as well as at the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled levels, depending upon how it's done at the exact employer. You can use such such muddy data to justify anything you want to justify. I fear that the ability to justify any desired result is exactly the point for Social Security. The agency can say that there are some jobs in a broad category that are performed at the sedentary level and that there are some jobs in that same broad category that are performed at the unskilled level without having to show that they are the same job. The "basic mental and cognitive work requirements" would be the least that is required by any employer rather than what is normally required by an employer. Instead of the horribly outdated DOT, we'd have a synthetic OIS that would give "answers" for which there would be no real world proof. Real people would be denied disability benefits based upon a "let them eat cake" OIS.

It Just Keeps Getting Worse

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- updated from 2010

Senate Budget Would Dramatically Cut Social Security Administrative Funding

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLdyOMzW4AE_w01.jpg

NOSSCR Response To SSR 17-4p

     The National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) has responded to Social Security Ruling 17-4p.

COBRA Only Disability Claim?

     From a recent addition to Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS):

Claimants do not have to meet the non-disability requirements for Title II (e.g., insured status or an onset date more than 5 months before full retirement age (FRA)) or Title XVI (e.g., income or resources) to qualify for the additional 11 months of health care benefits under COBRA. ...

To extend health care coverage under COBRA based on disability, the individual must:

• File for disability benefits (Title II, Title XVI, or concurrent) with COBRA extension, or

• File for COBRA extension only. ...

     I've never seen any of these claims. I can't imagine many are filed.

They Keep Piling On

     The Washington Post has added one more piece to its series stigmatizing Social Security disability benefits recipients.

Can They Do This?

     Here's something from the preamble to Social Security Ruling (SSR) 17-4p:

Through SSRs, we make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans’ benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner’s decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations. 

Although SSRs do not have the same force and effect as statutes or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration. 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).

     The SSR specifically says that it does not have the same force or effect as a statute or regulation. It only talks about it being binding upon the Social Security Administration itself. Doesn't this say on its face that it doesn't bind members of the public?
     The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) says that regulations, which have the force and effect of law, can only be adopted after a cumbersome process which requires publication of the proposed regulation in the Federal Register, allowing the public to comment on the proposed regulation and considering those comments before final adoption. Presidential orders also require that proposed and final regulations be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the White House, for approval before publication in the Federal Register. The APA provides that the notice and comment procedure applies to all rules other than "interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice." That's why the preamble quoted above is attached to all SSRs. Isn't the fact that regulations can bind the public the reason why the APA requires notice and comment? Binding the public is the role of statutes and regulations, not SSRs.
    I don't think this SSR passes muster under the APA. I know the agency is trying to address conduct it has good reason to consider obnoxious but there are limits. Would Social Security really try to discipline someone based upon the contents of a mere ruling?

How Much Does Motherhood Cost Women in Social Security Benefits?

     From the abstract of How Much Does Motherhood Cost Women in Social Security Benefits?, a study by Matthew S. Rutledge , Alice Zulkarnain and Sara Ellen King:

• The lifetime earnings of mothers with one child are 28 percent less than the earnings of childless women, all else equal, and each additional child lowers lifetime earnings by another 3 percent.

• When examining Social Security benefits, the motherhood penalty is smaller than the earnings penalty. But mothers with one child still receive 16 percent less in benefits than non-mothers, and each additional child reduces benefits by another 2 percent.

• The motherhood penalty is almost negligible among women receiving spousal benefits, but mothers who receive benefits on only their own earnings histories see significantly lower Social Security income.

And Down We Go

      The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated figures for the number of employees at the Social Security Administration -- and the downward trend continues:

• June 2017 61,592
• March 2017 62,183
• December 2016 63,364
• September 2016 64,394 
• December 2015 65,518
• September 2015 65,717
• June 2015 65,666
• March 2015 64,432
• December 2014 65,430
• September 2014 64,684
• June 2014 62,651
• March 2014 60,820
• December 2013 61,957
• September 2013 62,543
• December 2012 64,538
• September 2012 65,113
• September 2011 67,136
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990