News From NOSSCR

     I received a question from a reader who wanted to know why I hadn't posted news from last week's conference of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR), held in Arlington, VA, just outside D.C. The answer is simple. There really wasn't much news. Here's the little I gleaned.

     Glenn Sklar, the head of Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), said that things were going to get better because the agency was hiring more Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). However, Sklar couldn't give a clear answer when asked if there would be any net improvement after the expected attrition of ALJs retiring, quitting and dying.

     Senator Sherrod Brown gave a nice speech, promising to fully support Social Security, including disability benefits but Brown's support was never in question. The problem is on the other side of the aisle.

     Ellen Nissenbaum of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) gave a depressing talk about the challenges affecting the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund. Nothing she said would be news to any regular reader of this blog. I thought she was overly pessimistic, talking almost exclusively about the negative while failing to mention the positive -- that Democrats, to this point, are solidly against significant changes in Social Security disability benefits and Republicans haven't produced a bill. Nissenbaum seemed to think that Republicans might get away with saying they would cut "disability" but not Social Security. I wouldn't bet on that working if I were a Republican running in anything other than an extremely safe district. I can see the TV ad now accusing a Republican of cutting, let's say, $100 billion from Social Security. Would it really work for the Republican to go around complaining that the ad is misleading because the $100 billion would be "disability" instead of Social Security?

     Barbara Silverstone, NOSSCR's Executive Director, noted that the attendance at the conference was under 700. In recent years, conference attendance, particularly in D.C., has been around 1,000. The reason the attendance was off wasn't the date or the location or the hotel or anything else like that. It's the fact that it has become extremely challenging to practice Social Security law these days. A fair number of Social Security attorneys are dropping out of the practice. Fewer who are still practicing Social Security law can afford to attend a conference. The next conference is scheduled for the end of October in Denver. That may be the sort of intimate gathering that NOSSCR hasn't seen in decades.

Stop The Gaming

     From Alicia Munnell, writing for Market Watch:

In 2009, we published three briefs under the title “Strange but True” that described Social Security claiming strategies that allowed individuals to get more benefits. The idea was to show how they worked, who was most likely to benefit, and how much they could cost. Our hope was that publicity would compel Congress to close down these options.

We had mixed success. The immediate result is that these strategies continued to gain in popularity with financial planners, and individuals increasingly approached their Social Security offices asking for arrangements that some staff had never heard of. Today people are writing best-selling books about how to get the maximum out of Social Security. ...

Under Social Security, married individuals are entitled to a retired worker benefit based on their own earnings and/or to a spousal benefit equal to one half of their spouse’s benefit claimed at the Full Retirement Age (currently 66). If a married individual claims before the Full Retirement Age, the SSA assumes that the individual is claiming both types of benefits, compares the worker and spousal benefits, and awards the highest. This procedure is called “deeming.”

After the Full Retirement Age deeming does not apply, and individuals can choose which benefit to receive. As a result, married individuals can claim a spousal benefit at 66 and switch to their own retired worker benefit at a later date. This approach allows a worker to begin claiming one type of benefit while still building up delayed retirement credits, which will result in a higher worker benefit later. ...

The final strategy – “claim and suspend” – allows people who have already claimed Social Security to re-enter the labor force and continue to build their retirement benefits. However, it also offers couples a claiming advantage. For example, a husband who reaches the Full Retirement Age can claim and immediately suspend his benefits, allowing his wife to receive a spousal benefit based on his earnings record. The husband is then free to continue working and receive delayed retirement credits, which increases not only his monthly benefit but also his wife’s.

     Munnell argues that Congress should pass legislation requiring deeming even after full retirement age.

Wasted Effort

       Some Harvard researchers are arguing that Social Security's Office of Chief Actuary is being too optimistic in predicting the future of Social Security's Retirement and Survivor's Trust Fund. Right wing operatives are spreading the news. I'm not going to bother trying to understand the arguments on both sides because they're completely irrelevant. Let me clue you in to a secret. The future of Social Security has almost nothing to do with the actuarial future of the Retirement and Survivor's Trust Fund. What supports Social Security retirement benefits isn't really the Trust Fund but the political will of the American people who overwhelmingly support the continued existence of Social Security retirement benefits. If that political will were lacking, there would be no legal impediment to abolishing Social Security next week regardless of the balance in the Trust Fund. With that political will present, it wouldn't matter if the Retirement and Survivor's Trust Fund were running out of money next week. There would be hell to pay for any politician who refused to keep Social Security going. Republicans argue on the one hand that the Trust Fund is a meaningless abstraction but then try to invest the Trust Fund with an almost talismanic quality, thinking that any remote threat to the Trust Fund will bring down Social Security. Republicans can keep whining about the Trust Fund for the next 80 years the same way they have for the last 80 years and it won't threaten Social Security in the slightest. 

Most Popular Baby Names

     From Social Security, the most popular names for babies in 2014:

Boys

1. Noah
2. Liam
3. Mason
4. Jacob
5. William
6. Ethan
7. Michael
8. Alexander
9. James
10. Daniel 

Girls

1. Emma
2. Olivia
3. Sophia
4. Isabella
5. Ava
6. Mia
7. Emily
8. Abigail
9. Madison
10. Charlotte

New Anti-Fraud Effort

     From the Social Security Update:

Social Security’s Office of Anti-Fraud Programs (OAFP) is the latest member of Social Security’s team supporting our continued mission to fight and prevent fraud. Established in November 2014, OAFP’s mission is to efficiently and effectively detect, deter, and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse of our program of Social Security’s team supporting our continued mission to fight and prevent fraud. Established in November 2014, OAFP’s mission is to efficiently and effectively detect, deter, and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse of our programs.

     I hope they find whatever fraud there is but what's going on here is clear. Congressional Republicans are pressuring the Social Security Administration to use its scarce resources to find examples of fraud, not because the Republicans are genuinely interested in reducing fraud, but because they want to use any example of fraud, no matter how isolated, as grounds for cutting disability benefits. 
     It's not like no one was trying to combat fraud at Social Security. That's the primary responsibility of the Office of Inspector General. What's the point of some other office working the same beat? 

Planning To Pour Money Down A Rat Hole

     Social Security is publishing a request for comments on a plan for a research study on early intervention as a way of reducing disability caused by mental illness. The agency cites earlier research showing "promising" results from early intervention. Here's what the earlier research  actually says:

Eight  percent  of  the  study  participants  showed average  earnings  over  the  24-month study  period  that  exceeded  the  current  level  of  SGA [Substantial Gainful Activity, the level of earnings that would cause loss of benefits].  Beneficiaries  in  the  treatment group did not  experience  an increase  in work  that  SSA  considers  SGA  when  compared to participants  in the  control  group.  Neither  did participants  in the  treatment  group experience  a  reduction in  benefit  payments  when  compared to participants  in the control  group.

     If that's "promising", what would unpromising results look like? I really wish that something like this would work but it won't. The people who receive Social Security disability benefits due to mental illness are so badly impaired that very few of them will ever return to regular employment no matter what anyone does.

What's The Point?

     House Social Security Subcommittee Democrats are pushing a plan to combine the Disability Insurance Trust Fund with the Retirement and Survivors Trust Fund as a way of dealing with the looming shortfall in the Disability Trust Fund. Why? How is this better in any way than the Administration's plan to divert some FICA revenues to the Disability Trust Fund? It would have been nice if Democrats had tried this when they had control of the House but now? What's the point? It's going nowhere.

How Often Does This Happen?

     Guy gets a new Social Security number because some other guy had been using the same number and messed up his credit.

MEGAHIT Working Well -- But How Much Does It Matter?

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

Despite challenges, SSA [Social Security Administration] continued expanding health IT [Information Technology] and partnered with 38 health care organizations, exchanged electronic records in 30 States and the District of Columbia, and identified ways of enhancing health IT case processing and data analytics. In addition, the DDSs [Disability Determination Services] reported they were generally satisfied with MEGAHIT (Medical Evidence Gathering and Analysis Through Health IT); however, some suggested enhancements to the system. Some DDSs also reported MEGAHIT issues that the Agency did not know about, despite SSA previously soliciting DDS user feedback. 

Finally, our review of 275 sample cases found (a) that MEGAHIT received electronic health records 19 days faster than traditional records and (b) SSA made disability decisions, on average, 21 days faster, in the 5 cases where only health IT records were requested. 

Recommendations 

1. Continue to solicit, on a regular basis, DDS user feedback in MEGAHIT enhancements. 
2. Enhance procedures to maintain and update MEGAHIT partner data, such as addresses. 
3. Enhance methods to improve the use of information received via Health IT. 
4. Increase health IT partners — taking advantage of nation-wide Federal efforts led by Health and Human Services’ Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. SSA agreed with the recommendations.

     Before anyone gets too excited about this, it's something that works best only when dealing with huge medical providers. In fact, that's the only way it works now since huge medical providers are the only ones using MEGAHIT. However, the vast majority of disability claimants receive at least part of their evaluation and treatment from smaller medical providers. Getting those records is mostly a matter of sending a written request through the mail and receiving a written response through the mail. That's not changing any time soon. MEGAHIT won't make those cases move any faster.

A Good Question

     Here's an e-mail I received from a colleague who practices Social Security law:

Under the new improved electronic filing system, we have gotten a couple of calls from SSA to the effect that we have not filed our 1695 with the request for hearing or recon; we have in the past been sending the 1695 to the local District Office and they would enter it and obscure my personal SSN. I am concerned that filing a 1695 electronically directly with the appeal will result in my personal SSN appearing for all time in the claimant's claim file. Is this a valid concern or is someone at SSA obscuring the attorney's SSN if the 1695 is filed electronically?

     I think he's asking a reasonable question. What is Social Security doing?

SSA OIG Has Good ROI

     From a Brookings Institution study on the Return on Investment (ROI) of Inspectors General at various agencies:

Annual Statistical Supplement

     The Social Security Administration has released its Annual Statistical Supplement for 2014. It's a compendium of almost all the statistical information about Social Security that you could ask for. By the way, as of 2013, there were 760 people drawing U.S. Social Security benefits who were living in war torn Yemen.

The Great Ideas Keep Coming

     A press release:

Today, Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) and Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-LA) introduced H.R. 2135, the Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act. The bill would authorize the Commissioner of Social Security to provide information on employment support services to individuals who are not awarded disability benefits.

Currently, applicants wait 100 days on average for an initial decision regarding a claim for benefits. Research shows this time out of the workforce makes it that much harder for denied applicants to get back to work.
To help people return to work, the bill authorizes the Commissioner of Social Security to provide denied applicants information on employment support services—both public and private non-profit—so that they may reenter the workforce instead of cycling through the application process. The bill provides information to denied applicants about services that may help them return to work and would not affect any appeal for disability benefits.   
Upon introduction, Chairman Johnson said, “We must do a better job of helping those individuals who can and want to work to do so. This bill makes sure Social Security tells these individuals about services that can help them connect to jobs.”
Upon introduction, Chairman Boustany said, “This bill provides access to important employment and work supports for individuals in need so that they can gain the necessary skills and job placement services to reenter the workforce quickly. Helping Americans find and keep good jobs to support themselves and their families is and should be our top priority.”
This bill is supported by the National Council of Disability Determination Directors and Easter Seals.  
Other House Ways and Means Committee Members co-sponsoring this legislation include Rep. Black (R-TN), Rep. Reed (R-NY), and Rep. Young (R-IN).  

     It's amazing. Republicans believe that government is almost infinitely wasteful and ineffective (except for the Defense Department) yet here are Republicans who have great faith in the ability of state vocational rehabilitation (VR) departments to return disabled people to work. My experience with the North Carolina Department of Vocational Rehabilitation is that they're so obsessed with returning a high percentage of their clients to work that the only disabled people they want to help are those who will succeed in returning to work even if they get no help at all. This isn't because the people at VR are bad or lazy or incompetent. It's because they lack the resources to help many people. They don't even have sheltered workshops anymore! I don't know how VR is supposed to accomplish anything without sheltered workshops.
     I've recently had a young client with combined cognitive difficulties and mental illness who went to VR. The only thing VR could do for him was to get him a job at a fast food restaurant and provide him with a job coach for two weeks. Predictably, he failed at the job shortly after the job coach was removed. His family took him back to VR but they had no further interest in helping him. You call this vocational rehabilitation? He should have been in a sheltered workshop first. If he showed promise there, he should have been placed in a real job with a job coach. The job coach should have worked with him for far longer than two weeks. VR shouldn't have stopped helping him just because he failed at his first job.
     If this proposed legislation advances you're going to have state vocational rehabilitation agencies lobbying against it because they don't want to be inundated by denied Social Security disability applicants. If it passes, the vast number of people who are told by Social Security to go to VR will be turned away by VR. How does that look?
     These House Republicans don't get it. The vast majority of those denied Social Security disability benefits aren't going to return to work no matter what anyone does. They're too sick.

An Overpayment Story

     Woman thinks she's been overpaid by Social Security. She contacts the agency and is told to send them a check. She does so but later receives a notice saying she really was entitled to the money. It only took eight months and several phone calls to get Social Security to refund the money to her according to a story on a Michigan television station. The story doesn't say it but there's a real possibility that she'll eventually receive another notice from Social Security saying that she really was overpaid! You think I'm kidding but I've seen it happen.

Baltimore Sun On Vision 2025

     The Baltimore Sun has a piece on Social Security's Vision 2025. It demonstrates the controversies that Social Security faces in making long term plans.

Early Intervention

     Social Security is seeking information for an "early intervention mental health demonstration study." The agency is only giving 17 days to respond to its request for a good deal of information, suggesting that publication of the request is a formality, that Social Security has already identified a contractor.

     I hope this works but I'd be surprised if it does. Mental health problems aren't like appendicitis. They seldom crop up suddenly. If they do, it's usually something like a bad reaction to a prescription medication, a problem that wouldn't result in a person receiving Social Security disability benefits anyway. I have seen no sign that early intervention results in better long term results than late intervention. Less suffering but not less long term disability. You must have been disabled or be predicted to be disabled for at least a year to get Social Security disability. If mental health treatment is going to give you good relief for your psychiatric condition, you're not likely to get on benefits in the first place. In fact, even if you don't get good results from mental health treatment, you're not likely to get on benefits without a lengthy fight.

The "Vision Thing"

     The Social Security Administration has released Vision 2025, the long-awaited statement of how the agency expects to be operating ten years from now. I don't think I've ever read a more vacuous government document. Here's an excerpt from Acting Commissioner Colvin's message on the report to give readers a feel:

As the public moves confidently into the future, we must also change the way we operate. We are compelled to anticipate the social and technical advancements that offer new ways of navigating an ever-changing society. Our challenge is to embrace technological enhancements to achieve efficiency without sacrificing the personalized service for which we are known. Toward this end, we will build a stronger, ever-capable workforce, adopt engaging and contemporary training methods, expand our information and communication technologies, and modernize our operational capabilities. Of course, we must proceed toward this rapidly changing future, mindful of many present day realities. Our budgets will undoubtedly fluctuate, organized interests may express new agendas, social demographics will vary, and executive orders and congressional mandates will continue to affect the way we do business. Yet if we view such possibilities as opportunities, we can focus on creative solutions for meeting these challenges. Regardless of the complexities we might consider in the future, we must never disregard our customers’ expectations for excellence.

     No, it doesn't get specific at some later point in the document. It just stays at this level of advanced meaningless abstraction.
     Let me hasten to say that despite what I've quoted above, neither the Acting Commissioner nor upper management at Social Security is brain dead. They only produce such drivel because they're forced to. Here are the problems they're trying to address:

• The Government Accountability Office (GAO), egged on by some Republicans in Congress, keeps demanding that Social Security produce a "vision" for the future but it's not just any vision they want. For years, they have made relentless demands for a "vision" that does away with person to person service at Social Security because person to person service is just so passe in this age of the internet and so much money could be saved if we just got rid of the old fashioned idea that you should be able to actually talk with someone about your case. 
• The people at GAO have no clue about the complexity of Social Security. As far as they're concerned, it's just retirement benefits. Survivor and disability benefits are nothing more than a footnote. SSI isn't even a footnote as far as they're concerned. Mentally ill people? Let them use their computers! Cognitively impaired people? Surely, someone other than Social Security can help them with their Social Security problems. You can't expect government to do everything!
• Despite egging GAO on with its insane demands that Social Security plan for the elimination of face to face service, individual Republicans in Congress definitely don't want field offices closed in their districts. They believe, in the abstract, that technology can replace personal service but not when it comes to their districts. It goes without saying Democrats don't want field offices closed.
• Social Security management is well aware that doing away with face to face service is unthinkable. The programs they operate are far too complex to function without a field office structure. Not only can that not be done by 2025; it won't be possible by 2125.
• It's impossible to make any meaningful plans for service delivery in 2025 because of budget uncertainty. In fact, it's almost impossible to make meaningful plans for service delivery in 2016 because of budget uncertainty. 
• Even without budgetary uncertainty, who knows what technology will bring us by 2025. Does anyone think that Steve Jobs ever had a ten year plan for what would happen with the iPhone? Anyone who thinks they have a clear view of what will happen with technology in the future shouldn't be working for Social Security because they're delusional.
• Few people in upper management at Social Security now expect to be in upper management at the agency in 2025. They're responsible people but they're bureaucrats. They're mostly concerned with getting by from year to year. GAO's demands for a "vision" for 2025 are laughable, so Social Security produces a laughable "vision."

Sad

     From Social Security:

For 4/28/15, The Social Security Administration Offices at Headquarters are dismissing early as a precautionary measure. Please remain calm and follow all traffic commands. There are no credible threats at this time. Please adhere to the following schedule for an orderly dismissal. 10:30 am WOC Building/Childcare, 11:00 am Wabash/NCC/ Security West, 11:30 am West Building/East Building, 12:00 pm Annex/ RMB, 12:30 pm Altmeyer.

     Pray for everyone's safety and for the future of the city of Baltimore.

     Update: Social Security plans to open its central offices as usual on Wednesday.

Updated Disability Insurance Trust Fund Numbers

     Social Security's Office of Chief Actuary has released the first quarter numbers on the operation of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund. These numbers are crucial because the Chief Actuary's prediction is that the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will run out of money at the end of 2016.

    The Disability Insurance Trust Fund finished the first quarter of 2015 with $54.3 billion in U.S. government bonds. This was down $5.9 billion from the end of 2014. The Disability Insurance Trust Fund had lost $6.4 billion in the first quarter of 2014.

     There's no question that the Disability Insurance Trust Fund is doing somewhat better as time goes along. That's inevitable since the number of people drawing Social Security disability benefits is declining and the economy is growing. However, there's little doubt that the Disability Insurance Trust Fund will run out of money in the not too distant future. Because of the modest improvements in Trust Fund operations, I'd say that, absent some unexpected change, the exhaustion date is likely to be in the first half of 2017, perhaps around the end of the first quarter.

     Benefits do not stop if the Disability Insurance Trust Fund runs of money. There would still be enough income to pay at least 80% of benefits. However, it would be a chaotic situation with benefits reduced by varying amounts each month since trust fund income varies significantly from month to month. Some older beneficiaries would be shifted into retirement benefits since they're entitled to whichever is higher. That would reduce the draw down on the Disability Insurance Trust Fund but be an accounting nightmare.

Student Loan Debts Having Serious Effects On Social Security Recipients

     From The Hill:

A pair of Democratic senators is demanding to know more about the growing number of seniors who are seeing their Social Security benefits slashed to cover student loan debt.

Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter to the head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Thursday, calling for a study on this growing segment of senior Americans. The percentage of households headed by people aged 65 to 74 with student loan debt quadrupled from 2004 to 2010. ...

“Garnishing Social Security benefits defeats the entire point of the program — that’s why we don’t allow banks or credit card companies to do it,” said McCaskill, the top Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging, in a statement. ...

In 2014, the government withheld $161 million in Social Security payments to cover student loan debt that had fallen into default....