Washington Post On Proposed Regs On Inability To Speak English

     The Washington Post has an article out on the proposal to eliminate consideration of inability to speak English in determining disability under Social Security's grid regulations.

     I don't see why anyone would think that English proficiency has no effect on one's ability to hold down a job. Sure, people who can't speak English hold down jobs in the U.S. but they can't be cashiers or bank tellers or bus drivers. Even in Puerto Rico, you can't work in the tourism industry or many other jobs if you can't speak English. Also, there are far, far more job opportunities for those who only speak Spanish than there are for those who only speak Russian or Yoruba or Greek.

     One thing that needs to be said about this proposal, however, is that it won't affect that many people. The regulations in question matter in only a few borderline cases.

     It's rich that the Trump Administration is protesting criticism of this proposal by saying it isn't intended to be anti-immigrant. We all know why this proposal is coming forward during the Trump Administration.

The Trump Administration Never Ceases To Amaze

     From The Hill:

President Trump has quietly appointed his Social Security Administration (SSA) Inspector General to also oversee a much different agency: the Interior Department. 

On May 28 Gail Ennis began her second job overseeing the Interior Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), a role she will keep for the foreseeable future, an OIG office source confirmed to The Hill.

The Trump administration is still awaiting the confirmation of Mark Greenblatt, the former Commerce Department Inspector General (IG), to formally head the Interior’s OIG office. ...

Ennis is the second Trump political appointee who the administration has attempted to put in the Interior OIG role.

Earlier this year, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson announced to staff that Assistant HUD Secretary Suzanne Tufts would replace Kendall. Because Tufts had been previously confirmed by the Senate, she would not have to go through another confirmation process for the role. 

However, following backlash to that announcement, the Interior Department later said the announcement was a misunderstanding and Carson reversed the move. Tufts resigned not long after. ...

     There's the obvious problem here of one person trying to do two jobs but there's the less obvious problem that even though the Inspectors General are appointed by the President, they're supposed to act in a non-partisan way. This indicates to me that Ennis is involved with the White House more than I think appropriate.

The Kentucky Bar Association's Shameful Role In The Eric Conn Debacle

     There is one part of the debacle left behind by Eric Conn that has received little attention and that is the irresponsible behavior of the Kentucky Bar Association (KBA). Ned Pillersdorf has written an op ed for the Louisville Courier Journal on this aspect of the case.

     After Social Security started its highly dubious effort to cut off benefits for thousands of Conn's former clients you would expect that the KBA would try to organize or at least assist pro bono legal representation for the claimants involved but the KBA did nothing. While individual Kentucky attorneys, including most prominently Ned Pillersdorf, did pro bono work to help those affected, most of the representation of Conn's former clients has been done by out of state attorneys in an effort organized by AppalReD Legal Aid.  The KBA has been nowhere to be seen while this effort has been going on.

     The biggest failing by the KBA has been its refusal to appoint a receiver for the files that Conn had on his clients. Yes, Conn did keep files. I've seen some. They weren't nearly as disorganized as I expected. Yes, he did request some medical records and certainly received some others from clients. However, his office did not always file medical records they received with Social Security. It wasn't that the records not submitted were harmful to the cases. Conn's office just never got around to submitting them. Getting access to Conn's files was an obvious step in representing his former clients. Some of the doctors involved are no longer in practice. Some of the claimants have forgotten which doctors they saw. I am representing one of Conn's former clients who is now in the early stages of Alzheimer's but you don't have to have dementia to have forgotten some of the details of your medical treatment history. Once it became clear that there were client files left behind by Conn, you would expect that the KBA would step in to appoint a receiver for the files. since their own rules give them this authority. Occasionally, an attorney gets arrested or suddenly dies. That's why there are rules for this sort of thing in Kentucky and other states. As the agency that regulates Kentucky attorneys you would expect the KBA to step up to help out with Conn's files but to the amazement and dismay of everyone involved, including the U.S. Department of Justice and federal judges, the KBA refused to do anything.

     I hate to be critical of another state's bar but I cannot comprehend the KBA's behavior. I find it shameful. I would be up in arms about it if the the KBA's counterpart in North Carolina where I practice behaved like this but I cannot imagine that happening.

Medicare Screwup At SSA Affects 250,000 People

     From National Public Radio:

A quarter of a million Medicare beneficiaries may be receiving bills for as many as five months of premiums they thought they had already paid.  ...

Because of what the Social Security Administration calls "a processing error" in January, it did not deduct premiums from some seniors' Social Security checks and it didn't pay the insurance plans, according to the agency's "frequently asked questions" page on its website.

The problem applies to private drug policies and Medicare Advantage plans that provide both medical and drug coverage and that substitute for traditional government-run Medicare.

Some people will discover they must find the money to pay the plans. Others may find their plans canceled. Medicare officials say approximately 250,000 people are affected. ...

There's Also The Problem That They May Not Have The Money To Put Away

     From the New York Times:

New state-based accounts that let disabled people work and save money without risking the loss of government aid are slowly catching on. But advocates say millions more people with disabilities could be taking advantage of the accounts.

Forty-one states and Washington, D.C., now offer the accounts, which first became available in 2016. The tax-free accounts, known as ABLE accounts, are named after the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act, the 2014 law that created them. ...

But just a tiny fraction of people eligible for the accounts are using them so far.

More than 40,000 ABLE accounts were open by the end of March, with combined balances of about $225 million, said Michael Morris, executive director of the National Disability Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group. But the institute estimates that as many as eight million people are eligible under current rules, which limit the accounts to people who became disabled before age 26. ...

Part of the challenge in fostering more growth is that ABLE accounts have nuanced rules, and states have limited budgets to promote the accounts, said JJ Hanley, director of the Illinois ABLE program. When people do hear about the accounts, she said, they are often skeptical that opening one truly won’t jeopardize their benefits. ...

     ABLE was always about helping well to do parents put away money to help their disabled offspring without jeopardizing their SSI and Medicaid. Most families just don't have the money to put away and there's little to be done about that.
     My thought all along is that ABLE is OK but that we need reforms to remove some of the harshness in the SSI and Medicaid income and resources rules. That would help far, far more people and is long overdue. ABLE targeted a small amount of relief from these rules at a few relatively well off people while ignoring the large number of people who suffer under antiquated income and resource limits.

That Title Is Jarring

     The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College is funded by the Social Security Administration. It's now produced a "brief" entitled The Implications of Social Security's "Missing Trust Fund." Here's how it starts:

As policymakers consider restoring financial balance to Social Security, understanding the reason for the shortfall is important. If the cost of currently scheduled benefits simply exceeds what today’s workers are paying into the system, the traditional proposals to reduce benefits or raise payroll taxes would be most relevant. However, the cause of the shortfall lies elsewhere. Specifically, the program’s “pay-as-you-go” approach – with the exception of the recent build-up and spend-down of a modest trust fund in anticipation of the baby boom – makes the program expensive. This financing approach is the result of a policy decision in the late 1930s to pay benefits far in excess of contributions for the early cohorts of workers. The decision essentially gave away the trust fund that would have accumulated and, importantly, gave away the interest on those contributions. This brief, based on a recent paper, explores the implications of the “Missing Trust Fund.”

     Basically, this is the Republican argument against the very existence of Social Security. I find reading this in a government financed report jarring. "Missing Trust Fund"? Were they trying to incite Democrats? I will say that the article goes on to say that it may be best to partially fund Social Security out of general income tax revenues which definitely is not a Republican position.

Caseload Analysis Report

Click on image to view full size

     This was obtained from Social Security by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and published in its newsletter, which is not available online except to members. It concerns hearings, primarily on disability claims.

DCPS Making Progress, I Guess

     From an Emergency Message issued by Social Security:

Purpose
This Emergency Message (EM) is to notify all disability claims adjudicating components that the Disability Case Processing System (DCPS) is a policy compliant place to record case information for adjudicating components using DCPS.

Background
DCPS is a critical initiative that will replace 52 independently operated legacy systems used by state agencies (Disability Determination Services or DDSs) that make disability determinations for SSA as required by statute. DCPS will replace the legacy systems with a modern, accessible, and secure application capable of providing the flexibility and high performance that the DDSs and federal sites need to process disability claims timely and efficiently.

Chair Of Social Security Subcommittee Wants GAO Investigation Of DDS Docs

     From The Tennessean:

The chairman of a Congressional Ways and Means subcommittee is requesting an investigation into doctors hired to review applications to the federal disability program.

U.S. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., cited recent reports by the USA TODAY NETWORK in a letter sent Wednesday to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the federal government's chief fiscal watchdog agency. ...

In Tennessee, an investigation revealed some doctors were racing through applications submitted by people seeking to prove they are too sick or injured to work.

Paid by the case, doctors were reviewing up to five application files per hour. Experts said such speedy review of applications, which can contain thousands of pages of medical records, isn't plausible. ...

Larson, who chairs the Social Security Subcommittee, is asking the GAO to conduct its own state-by-state examination of doctors' performance.

Former Commissioners Ask For Budget Process Change

     From Mark Miller, a columnist for Reuters:

A worsening customer service crisis at the Social Security Administration has prompted three of its former commissioners to urge the U.S. Congress to fix the annual budgeting process that has starved the agency of the resources it needs to do its job.

A letter calling for administrative budget reforms signed by the former commissioners - two appointed by Democratic presidents, and one by a Republican - will be delivered to congressional leadership later on Wednesday.

An advance copy of the letter was provided to this column by the authors, and by advocates pushing for reform of the Social Security budget process. It will be sent to 19 key lawmakers, including the leadership of both parties and the chairs and ranking members of all the key congressional committees controlling budget, appropriations and finance.

To read the letter and view the list of recipients, see: (https://bit.ly/2KnIt3C) ...

Congress cut the agency’s budget nearly 11% between fiscal years 2010 and 2019, after adjusting for inflation, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, while the number of beneficiaries grew by more than 16%. ...

Since passage of the 2011 Budget Control Act, which places caps on nondefense discretionary spending, the Social Security budget has been forced to compete with other federal spending priorities - for example, the National Institutes of Health. ...

The trio of former commissioners is proposing a legislative fix to the problem. The letter to be sent to Congress on Wednesday is signed by Ken Apfel, who served as commissioner during the Clinton administration, Jo Anne Barnhart, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and served from 2001 to 2007; and Carolyn Colvin, who served from 2013 to 2017 during the Obama administration.

The former commissioners propose that Congress eliminate the requirement that the Social Security administrative budget be included in the caps. Congressional appropriations committees would still approve the agency's budget. "But importantly," they write, "the Committees would be able to approve the funding that would be needed for the Social Security Administration to provide adequate service to the public." ...

     You can bet that Andrew Saul will be asked about this when he testifies before the House Ways and Means Committee in the near future. I think this will be an early test of his independence from the Trump Administration. You would expect him to agree with these former Commissioners but I doubt that this would be the position of the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the White House, or of Congressional Republicans.
     By the way, I wonder who organized this letter. The timing is interesting. Could Saul have been in on this?