New Process For 1696s And Fee Agreements

      Social Security requires documentation (primarily a 1696 form and fee agreement) in order to accept that a claimant is represented by an attorney or other person. Even though a case might be pending at a hearing office, these documents had to be submitted to the field office. There have been very serious problem processing this documentation at the field offices due to inadequate staffing. Processing the forms has also been delayed because the process for inputting data has been more complicated for agency employees than it should be. It has often been treated as a low priority matter meaning weeks, if not months, of delay. This leads to many telephone calls and letters from attorneys. Attorneys often resubmit the paperwork which causes unnecessary work at the field offices. The attitude of the field offices seems to be "Quit bugging us. We'll get to it when we get to it." The attitude of the attorneys is "We can't represent our clients at all until you take care of this. It can't wait for weeks or months." 

     Effective on December 13, this process has been changed to some extent. Now the documentation may be submitted directly to the hearing office if the claimant's case is pending there. This cuts down on the work at the field offices. Also, I understand that the process for inputting data into Social Security's systems has been simplified. That should also cut down on the workload at the field offices.

     Let's hope for some improvement in performance.

Social Security Directed To Stop Requiring So Many Wet Signatures

      From an Executive Order signed by President Biden on December 13:

... (k)  The Commissioner of Social Security shall:
            (i) within 120 days of the date of this order, provide a report to the Director of OMB [Office of Management and Budget] that analyzes all services of the Social Security Administration that currently require original or physical documentation or in-person appearance as an element of identity or evidence authentication, and that identifies potential opportunities for policy reforms that can support modernized customer experiences while ensuring original or physical documentation requirements remain where there is a statutory or strong policy rationale;
            (ii) develop a mobile-accessible, online process so that any individual applying for or receiving services from the Social Security Administration can upload forms, documentation, evidence, or correspondence associated with their transaction without the need for service-specific tools or traveling to a field office;
            (iii) consistent with applicable law and to the extent practicable, maintain a public policy of technology neutrality with respect to acceptable forms of electronic signatures;
           (iv) consistent with applicable law and to the extent practicable, revise any necessary regulations, forms, instructions, or other sources of guidance (to include the Program Operations Manual System of the Social Security Administration) to remove requirements that members of the public provide physical signatures; and
            (v) to the maximum extent permitted by law, support applicants and beneficiaries to identify other benefits for which they may be eligible and integrate Social Security Administration data and processes with those of other Federal and State entities whenever possible. ...

     Should anything at Social Security really require a wet signature? I'd say "no."

Two New Tasks For Social Security?

     The Senate Finance Committee has released an updated version of its portion of the Build Back Better Act, the huge budget reconciliation bill that has already passed the House of Representatives. It contains two parts that affect the Social Security Administration. At the very beginning of the 1,180 document is a four week comprehensive paid leave benefit to be administered by Social Security and at the very end of the bill is extension of SSI to U.S. territories. As best one can tell, extension of SSI to the territories is uncontroversial, at least among Democrats, while paid leave is very controversial with one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin. His possible opposition is crucial since it will take every Democrat in the Senate voting for the bill to pass it.

     The comprehensive paid leave part of the bill would appropriate to Social Security at addition $1.5 billion in the current fiscal year and $1.59 billion a year thereafter for administration of the benefit. §2206(b). There would be an additional half a billion for FY 2024, the year in which comprehensive paid leave would start. §2206(c). By the way, there's no additional money appropriated in the bill for the extension of SSI to the territories.

     No doubt Social Security will find administration of comprehensive paid leave challenging, if it passes. The thing about this is that if this passes getting it going will become a huge priority for the Biden Administration. The Social Security Administration's current backlogs cannot be allowed to persist or it will be impossible to implement comprehensive paid leave. If it is to get this additional workload, the agency's field offices, payment centers and teleservice centers must be massively buttressed with additional staff and this can't wait until the last minute. This can't be accomplished just with overtime. The agency will need to completely clear off its current backlogs and fully train its staff. If this passes in its current form the money may be there to do that. If this bill doesn't appropriate enough, the Biden Administration will be highly motivated to find additional money. I don't know how this sounds to Social Security employees but to someone like me who's on the receiving end of the agency's services, it sounds great.

Federal Student Loan Discharge Changes Coming

      From Forbes:

The Biden administration took a big step this week towards making significant changes to a key federal student loan forgiveness program that provides relief for disabled student loan borrowers.

The Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program provides student loan forgiveness to federal loan borrowers who are unable to maintain substantial, gainful employment due to a physical or psychological medical impairment. …

The Education Department is moving forward to implement significant changes to the TPD Discharge program through a process called negotiated rulemaking — a lengthy, formalized procedure where a committee of key stakeholders must hold public meetings and reach consensus to overhaul the rules that govern federal student loan programs.

Yesterday, the negotiated rulemaking committee reached an agreement on implementing several big changes to the TPD discharge program:  …

• Expand Eligibility For Recipients of Social Security. For borrowers receiving Social Security disability benefits, the new rules would eliminate the requirement that a borrower’s disability review period be at least five to seven years. Instead, borrowers who have been receiving Social Security disability benefits for at least five years prior to applying for TPD relief, or have a disability onset date at least five years before applying, would be eligible. This would effectively expand the pool of eligibility for disabled borrowers and make it easier for borrowers to show that they qualify for relief.

     Far more disabled people have federal student loans outstanding than you might imagine. This is a big deal for them. 

Senate Republicans Urge Reopening Of Social Security Field Offices

      From a press release:

U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Ranking Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, sent a letter urging Acting Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi to immediately reopen SSA’s field offices to the public. …

Joining Ranking Members Crapo and Scott were 13 members of the Finance and Aging committees: Senators Todd Young (R-Indiana), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Rick Scott (R-Florida), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), John Thune (R-South Dakota) and Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania).

Presidential Rank Award Winners

      Elias Hernandez and Sean Brune of the Social Security Administration have been announced as Presidential Rank Award winnners for 2021 by the Office of Personnel Management. Brune is Deputy Commissioner/Chief Information Officer, Systems. I can’t find Hernandez online. 

SSA Wants Monthly Payroll Data

      From a Request for Information posted by the Social Security Administration (emphasis added):

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a need to acquire contractor services to provide an online wage verification system that SSA can use to substantiate employment, wage amounts, and other employment-related data. The SSA is seeking information on how an interested contractor could meet our requirement to establish a data exchange with payroll data providers to provide monthly wages per individual and employer data for use in SSA’s administration of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program on a monthly basis.

OHO Caseload Analysis Report

     The report shown below 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 to non-members. It contains basic operating statistics for Social Security's Office of Hearings Operations (OHO).

Click on image to view full size

 

Why Is Such Terrible Telephone Service Considered Acceptable?

      The House Social Security Subcommittee asked Social Security's Office of Inspector General to do a study on Social Security's telephone service during the pandemic. The Inspector General's office prepared The Social Security Administration’s Telephone Service Performance in response to this request. None of the data presented by OIG is less than a year old and most of it is from before the pandemic even began. Was it too much trouble to obtain more recent data? By the way, the Inspector General's cover letter includes a sentence that may encapsulate the current Inspector General's attitude: “My office is committed to combating fraud, waste, and abuse in SSA’s operations." Right, but what about how well the agency serves the public? Isn't that part of your mission, too. You were asked to produce a report on that. Why are you emphasizing "waste, fraud and abuse" in your cover letter?

     Anyway, here are some interesting charts from the report -- click on each of them to view full size:

 

Is It OK To Cut Someone Off Benefits Because They Are "Likely" To Be Dead?

    From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

SSA suspends benefit payments for a variety of reasons. Suspending benefits stops ongoing monthly payments, and SSA technicians receive alerts to resolve the reason for the suspension. However, SSA does not initiate actions to recover payments made after a beneficiary’s death until technicians add death information and terminate the payment record.

 We identified three populations of beneficiaries who were in suspended payment status as of December 2019. We used death data from 24 States to identify approximately 5,000 beneficiaries in suspended payment status who were deceased according to State death records. We then identified about 6,000 beneficiaries suspended for development of unverified death reports. Finally, we used data analytics to identify approximately 23,000 beneficiaries suspended for address development who we determined were likely deceased. We randomly selected and reviewed 100 beneficiaries from each of the three populations (300 total).

Findings

We determined 263 (88 percent) of the 300 sampled beneficiaries in suspended payment status had died before December 2019. These deceased beneficiaries remained in suspended payment status because SSA (1) technicians did not follow existing policy for beneficiaries suspended for death development, (2) did not have adequate controls to identify beneficiaries suspended for address development who were likely deceased, and (3) policy does not consistently instruct technicians to search for or recognize all available sources of death information. Additionally, SSA policy does not provide sufficient information to guide technicians when they post a beneficiary’s unverified death based on a returned payment from Treasury, which results in erroneous dates of death on SSA records.

Because of these control weaknesses, we estimate SSA issued approximately $298 million in payments to about 24,000 deceased beneficiaries in suspended payment status. SSA did not initiate actions to recover these payments, but it did receive approximately $84 million in recovered funds. SSA erroneously recorded about $33 million of the returned funds as underpayments. We estimate SSA has neither recovered approximately $214 million of the payments nor recorded approximately 24,000 beneficiaries’ death information in the Numident. ...

      Note that there is literally zero concern expressed over the fact that Social Security suspended payments to people who were still alive based upon unverified death reports. In fact, OIG is eager to have Social Security cut off benefits to many more people whom they regard as "likely" dead even though some of them are certainly alive. Would "likely" be a high enough standard for you if one of your loved ones got cut off benefits because some bureaucrat thought they were "likely" dead even though they were very much alive?  Remember that when Social Security decides you’re dead, you don’t just lose your cash benefits, you lose your Medicare and all your bank accounts and credit cards are frozen.