Colvin Heading To Florida

     Carolyn Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, will be in Sarasoto, FL for a town hall discussion on Thursday. Representative Vern Buchanan invited her. Buchanan, a Republican, is a member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.

GOP May Demand Social Security Cut

     From CNN Politics:

... [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell privately wants the White House to pay this price to enact a major budget deal: Significant changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and funding the government. ...

McConnell is seeking a reduction in cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security recipients and new restrictions on Medicare, including limiting benefits to the rich and raising the eligibility age, several sources said. ...

Editorial On Hearing Backlog

    The Des Moines Register recently ran an editorial decrying Social Security's enormous backlogs of hearings on disability claims. The paper said that "Congress needs to give the SSA the resources it needs while resisting the urge to strong-arm judges who appear to be too productive" but also said that the agency needs a "long term strategy" for reducing its hearing backlog. The problem with calling for a "long term strategy" for reducing the backlog is that no long term strategy can succeed in the absence of an adequate agency operating budget. 

     Iowa is represented in Congress by two Republican Senators, three Republican representatives and one Democratic representative. Congressional Republicans are the sole reason this hearing backlog problem exists. They stand in the way of Social Security getting an adequate administrative budget. Backlogs went up rapidly when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives while George W. Bush was President. They started going down once Democrats took control of the House in 2006 and gave the agency a bigger operating budget. The backlog continued to decrease until the 2010 election which put Republicans in control of the House of Representatives. At that point, the agency's operating budget went to hell. The hearing backlog did a U turn and started shooting up. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is so deeply entrenched in gerrymandered districts that it is hard to imagine any change in the control of that body for many years into the future. The hearing backlog is rapidly heading to two years. These is nothing to prevent the backlog from going far higher than that. Claimants are losing their right to a hearing.

Benefits Began In 1940

No COLA This Year?

     Looks like there will be no Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustment this year. If I remember correctly, the announcement is due out in mid-October.

CCD Benefit Offset Proposal

     There are signs of a possible consensus forming in favor of some tinkering with the work incentives for Social Security disability benefits, probably some sort of benefit offset program, as the "price" for extending the life of the Social Security Disability Trust Fund. The Social Security Task Force of the Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), a major umbrella group, has released its benefit offset proposal. I won't detail the whole proposal but the most important parts are the elimination of the Trial Work Period and Extended Period of Eligibility combined with a benefit offset program whereby claimants would lose one dollar for every two they earn over the amount required to trigger a trial work period month, currently $780 per month.

     First key question: Would the CCD proposal cost money or save money? I'm not sure. I doubt that it will have much effect either way.
     Second key question: Would the CCD proposal give further encouragement for claimants to return to work? The proposal would be easier for Social Security to administer, which is a good thing, but I don't think it would have any significant effect upon claimant behavior. Claimants already want to return to work. The problem isn't the incentives; it's the state of their health. Huge bargains won't induce people to shop at a store if the store's doors are locked.

   Third key question: Can any tinkering with work incentives achieve the goal of reducing program costs. The answer to this one is clear. You certainly can save money by tinkering with work incentives. All you have to do is to reduce the work incentives. Can someone come up with a proposal that reduces work incentives while simultaneously pretending that they are increasing work incentives? Probably. That's the sort of thing that politicians excel at. That may be where we're heading.
     Fourth key question: Is there really a consensus forming to only tinker with work incentives or is this just the game that Republicans play until after the election at which point they reveal their real plan to use the exhaustion of the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to force dramatic cuts?

The Goat Rodeo Continues For Eric Conn's Former Clients

     I've learned a few things about Social Security's re-adjudication of the disability claims of Eric Conn's former clients. Let me share some of what I've heard:

• In at least one case, Social Security's file contains reports from Drs. Huffnagel and Adkins, two of Eric Conn’s pet physicians. The report from Dr. Huffnagel has been excluded from consideration but the report from Dr. Adkins is supposed to be considered. Even though he also did work for Conn, Adkins was also working for Social Security. The agency wants the report that Adkins did for them considered. However, any reports that Adkins did at the behest of Eric Conn are excluded from consideration. He was an upstanding physician when he did work for Social Security but he was a crook when he did work for Eric Conn.
• The claimants who had medical exams at the behest of Eric Conn universally describe the exams as reasonably thorough. The claimants say the exams took about twenty minutes. The write-ups of the exams seem professional. There may be problems with forms completed by these physicians but there's no sign of problems with the exams or the exam reports themselves. For example, there seems to be no reason to disbelieve a report by one of these physicians that he detected crepitation in a claimant's knee. Nevertheless, everything from these physicians has been excluded – unless SSA ordered the exam.
• None of the claimants involved reports having been contacted by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) or the FBI.
• I had thought that Social Security must have given Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) more instructions for these cases than what is contained in the agency's HALLEX manual. It looks like I was both right and wrong. I was right in believing that they should have been given more instructions but wrong in believing that they must have given additional instruction. It appears that they didn't. The result is confusion. At least one ALJ has refused to admit any evidence dated after the prior ALJ decision. Other ALJs are pondering whether they should admit into evidence the reports from Conn’s pet physicians. Nobody has any idea what the process is for asking permission to consider developments in the claimant’s health condition after the date of the prior ALJ decision. It’s not clear that there is a procedure or that any such procedure would be consistent with the agency's regulations, ALJ independence and the prohibition on ex parte contacts.
• There are signs suggesting that no one at Social Security's St. Louis National Hearing Center, which is hearing the vast majority of these cases, has much enthusiasm for the task they’ve been given.
• So far, it looks like well over half of the claimants involved have not sought legal help. There is reason for concern that these claimants are so intimidated by the criminal investigation that they are too scared to do anything even though none of them has done anything remotely criminal.
• We’re still waiting on action from the District Court on the lawsuit aimed at stopping these hearings. The delay doesn’t seem like a good sign for these claimants since the Court knows that the hearings have begun. I’m pretty sure that there are those at Social Security who decided not to worry too much about what the agency was doing in these cases since they figured that the courts would intervene to stop this mess. I thought so too but it looks like we may have been wrong. The Court may dismiss the case on narrow technical grounds. That won't prevent these claimants from eventually getting relief. It just delays it until after these cases grind through the administrative process for a year or two.

This Is Wrong

     From EM-15034, just issued by Social Security:

Beginning September 25, 2015, the Social Security Administration (SSA) and VA initiated a weekly information exchange agreement in which the VA provides SSA with information concerning veterans who received the VA 100% P&T [Permanent and Total] disability compensation rating. With this release, when an individual contacts SSA, and their social security number is on our database as having the 100% P&T rating, our users will receive an immediate alert that we must expedite the case.

Additionally, when an alert identifies the individual as having this VA rating, no additional proof of the 100% P&T rating is necessary to expedite the case. ...

     We owe our veterans a lot but we don't owe veterans who have 100% VA ratings expediting on their Social Security disability claims. These vets aren't in great financial distress. They have their VA benefits. Other disabled people hurtle towards homelessness while vets who don't really need it get expediting. This is wrong.

Now If They Could Do An Honest Recalculation Of The Attorney User Fee ...

     A notice from Social Security in today's Federal Register:

We provide fee-based Social Security number (SSN) verification services to enrolled private businesses and government agencies who obtain a valid, signed consent form from the Social Security number holder. ...

To use CBSV [Consent Based Social Security Number Verification], interested parties must pay a one-time non-refundable enrollment fee of $5,000. Currently, users also pay a fee of $3.10 per SSN verification transaction in advance of services. We agreed to calculate our costs periodically for providing CBSV services and adjust the fees as needed. ...

Based on the most recent cost analysis, we will adjust the fiscal year 2016 fee to $1.40 per SSN verification transaction. New customers will still be responsible for the one-time $5,000 enrollment fee.

I Keep Asking: Does This Look Out Of Control?

     The number of people drawing Disability Insurance Benefits from the Social Security Administration declined in September. This number has declined in eleven of the last twelve months. The decline is happening because fewer claims are being filed and approved.

Outrage In Iowa

     From the Des Moines Register:

A judge’s long delays in deciding scores of backlogged Social Security disability cases have resulted in Iowa applicants losing their eligibility or homes, or even dying while waiting for benefits, a Des Moines Register investigation has found. ...

[T]he delays go back years, yet only in September were Gatewood’s back cases reassigned from the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in West Des Moines to another regional office in Topeka, Kan. ...

On average, disability applicants in Iowa wait about 13 months to get a judge to hear their cases. That's about a month less than others nationwide, according to Social Security data reviewed by the Register. Once the hearings are held, decisions typically follow within one to two months, lawyers here say.

But applicants among Gatewood's caseload often waited another year for a decision, and their lawyers say some people in desperate need are still waiting. ...

The Register's Watchdog probe was triggered by attorney David Leitner, who raised questions on behalf of client Shannon Hills.

Hills, 32, applied for disability benefits in 2013 after being denied twice before. Gatewood presided over her hearing in April.

But Leitner was notified last week that the case was among those transferred to Topeka. When he called to ask if a new hearing was scheduled, he was told 300 of Gatewood’s cases are in the pipeline there. ...

Tamara Wolff, 51, who suffered multiple heart attacks and a stroke that permanently damaged her eyesight, said she first applied for disability in 2009.

Gatewood finally heard her case on March 26, 2014, and Wolff was told she could expect a decision in about a month. Seven months later, after Wolff had been hospitalized several times, her lawyer sent a letter to the judge asking that she make the case a priority and expedite the ruling.

Still, no decision was rendered until April 18 — nearly 13 months after the hearing. ...

Lawyers say their clients have been afraid to speak out or complain because they don’t want to risk being denied benefits.

Jensen says 12 of her clients whose cases are being transferred had been waiting 12 to 18 months for a decision from Gatewood. ...

Administrative records from the Merit Systems Protection Board show the Social Security Administration's presiding administrative law judge tried to remove Gatewood from cases in Oklahoma more than a decade ago.

But Gatewood succeeded in an appeal in 2005, arguing that the agency had interfered with her judicial independence.

     I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, as terrible as this is, it affects only a limited number of people. The bigger outrage is that it's taking longer and longer to get a hearing in the first place. That affects everyone requesting a hearing on their claim for Social Security disability benefits. The backlog is rapidly rising to two years. There's every reason to believe it will just keep climbing beyond two years. This will, in effect, deprive claimants of any meaningful right to a hearing on their claim. Second, if you're an attorney with clients caught in a mess such as that described in this article, there is an avenue to relief -- mandamus. I've got an example of a mandamus complaint if anyone is interested. (And, for sticklers, yes I know that technically mandamus no longer exists but the exact same relief exists and everybody still calls it mandamus because we all remember Marbury v. Madison.)

SSAB Position Paper On Windfall Elimination Provision

     The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has released a position paper on the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) which reduces Social Security benefits when an individual has income from a pension derived from earnings not covered by Social Security. The SSAB recommends a "proportional formula." There has been agitation for some WEP fix for more than 30 years. I doubt that the SSAB position paper is going to make a difference.

They Worked Hard Before They Became Disabled

Consensus Forming?

     Another sign that a consensus is forming in favor of some sort of transfers from Social Security's Retirement and Survivors Trust Fund to its Disability Trust Fund, accompanied by some sort of tweak to the disability work incentives. There will be claims that the tweak will encourage disabled people to return to work but they'll actually do the opposite since that's the only way to save money. We'll have to hope there isn't some secret agenda which will only be released after the 2016 election.

Here's The Big Fraud Problem At Social Security

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

In May 2012, the Social Security Administration (SSA) introduced my Social Security — an Internet services portal that allows individuals to create a personal online account to access their own information. In January 2013, the Agency enhanced my Social Security, allowing individuals to change their mailing address or direct deposit bank information. In April 2013, we began receiving reports of changes to address and direct deposit information that beneficiaries did not make or had not authorized. ...

Based on our sample results, we estimated about $20 million in benefit payments to approximately 12,200 beneficiaries was misdirected between January 1, 2013 and January 9, 2014. Furthermore, we estimated about $11 million was not returned to SSA as of August 2015. Additionally, we estimated that SSA prevented about $6 million in benefits from being misrouted for about 5,300 beneficiaries whose direct deposit bank account was changed without their authorization. ...

     I want all cases of fraud at Social Security addressed but this is by any measure Social Security's biggest fraud problem. I expect that it's far bigger than all other types of fraud combined. So why doesn't it get more attention? For many years Congress, the Office of Management and Budget and many outside groups have been pressing Social Security to transfer all its operations online. All of those pressing for greater availability of online services think there will be big savings for taxpayers as well as better service for the public. The big savings haven't materialized. They may never materialize. People who just want to file a simple retirement claim may get better service but there's little benefit for those filing disability claims. Those filing survivor claims online are often at a disadvantage because they don't know what claims they should be filing. They need the help of trained personnel. Those who have been pressing Social Security to transfer more of its operations online don't like to admit the fraud risks involved since it undermines their arguments in favor of increased online services so they just try to sweep it under the rug.

Five New Cooperative Disability Investigation Units

     A press release from Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced that five new Cooperative Disability Investigations (CDI) Units opened across the country this week. As part of the nationwide CDI Program, the new units will identify and prevent Social Security disability fraud throughout their respective states. The new CDI units opened in Birmingham, Alabama; St. Paul, Minnesota; Raleigh, North Carolina; Charleston, West Virginia; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The CDI Program is one of Social Security’s most successful anti-fraud initiatives, contributing to the integrity of Federal disability programs. CDI brings together personnel from SSA, its OIG, State Disability Determination Services (DDS), and local law enforcement agencies to analyze and investigate suspicious Social Security disability claims, to help resolve questions of fraud before benefits are paid. CDI efforts help disability examiners make informed decisions, ensure payment accuracy, and generate significant taxpayer savings for Federal and State programs.

“For 18 years, CDI has had tremendous success in identifying and preventing disability fraud and abuse,” said Inspector General Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr. “We’re pleased to partner with Social Security, DDS, and local law enforcement agencies to combat fraud and to promote the integrity of Social Security’s disability programs

There's Social Security Disability As It Really Exists And Social Security Disability As Members Of Congress Imagine It To Be

     Here's some excerpts from an opinion piece written by Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Cotton (R-AR) for Fox News with comments from me in brackets and bolded:

According to the 2015 annual report from the Social Security system’s trustees, the SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance] trust fund will run out in late 2016. ...

SSDI was established as an insurance program for the “totally and permanently disabled.” [You're putting it in quotes but the phrase "totally and permanently disabled" has never been part of SSDI. Not now. Not ever. Depending upon how you interpret the term "total disability", it can be synonymous with chronic vegetative state. Is that the sort of definition of disability that you'd prefer? Permanence has never been required. However, the one year duration requirement that we have isn't that different from a requirement of permanence, as a practical matter.] ...

Today, nearly 300,000 Arkansans and West Virginians rely on SSDI. In some of our counties, nearly 20% of working-age people receive SSDI benefits. [This might be important enough to your constituents for you to actually learn something about it.]

Many of these individuals are permanently disabled, and we’re committed to protecting this vulnerable population. But we must also dramatically improve the program for the temporarily disabled to help them recover and return to work. [How many temporarily disabled people do you really think receive SSDI? You have to have been or be predicted to be disabled for at least a year to be found disabled. How much ground do you think there is between a year and permanent? In the real world, there's little.]...

We must intervene early. On average, applicants wait more than a year before getting an SSDI eligibility decision. [So, the agency needs more money so it can decide cases quicker? However, Manchin and Cotten are enthuaistic budget hawks who favor endless cuts to the federal budget.] We can use this time to help applicants who are disabled, but have the potential for work activity stay connected to the workforce by providing support services. This can be done through vocational training, supportive employment, health services, incentives for employers, and more. [All of this already exists. What more do you want?]

We also need to shift SSDI from a one-size-fits-all mindset to a smarter approach that differentiates between the permanently disabled and those who, with medical treatment and rehabilitation services, can recover. [We have 50 years of evidence that there is no significant number of people drawing SSDI who have the realistic capacity to return to work on a regular basis, regardless of the assistance they receive.]

While SSA categorizes beneficiaries based on likelihood of medical improvement, there’s no requirement to pursue rehabilitation or medical services to prepare for a return to work. [You're attacking straw men. There's zero evidence that claimants are refusing to pursue vocational rehabilitation. Mostly, they're way too sick to take advantage of it. The idea that a claimant would avoid medical treatment in order to stay on SSDI is bizarre. We have strong evidence that this virtually never happens.] We need to help individuals with temporary disabilities gain access to rehabilitation and recovery services and offer a timeline to re-enter the workforce. [They already have such access. It doesn't work. There's no reason to believe that it will ever work] ...

     I suppose I shouldn't complain. It's better for Manchin and Cotton to concentrate upon worthless ideas than upon dangerous ideas.

New Mental Listings Coming Next Year?

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

...[T]he American Psychiatric Association revised the manual [DSM] used to diagnose and classify mental disorders, which it published in May 2013. However, SSA [Social Security Administration] had not updated the mental medical listing since August 1985. ...

[T]he mental medical listing represents the most used body system, and any proposed changes are usually controversial. SSA issued an NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rule-Making] in August 2010, and it had to address many public comments while considering changes in technology and medicine. SSA’s Office of Disability Policy addressed public comments and circulated the draft to other SSA components for review. According to SSA, these revisions were contentious, and the Office of Disability Policy received and addressed substantive comments then circulated a revised draft for comments. SSA needs to reach consensus among its various components. With all these issues, it has taken the Agency over 5 years to move the mental medical listing update from the NPRM to the final revision. SSA projects that the mental medical listing will be finalized in spring 2016 ...

     Why do I have a feeling that these mental Listings will get pushed back even further?

BOND Study Offers Further Proof That Work Incentives Don't Work

     There has been a longstanding Congressional wish to encourage those who receive Social Security disability benefits to return to work. Some of this comes from a genuine desire to help the disabled but most of it comes from a desire to reduce the amount spent on disability benefits. This has led to one piece of legislation after another, each one adding a new layer of work incentives. There has been a persistent belief that some tinkering with work incentives will result in more disabled people returning to work. None of this has made a difference. Few Social Security disability recipients return to work. What we have now is a preposterously complex system of work incentives that is difficult for Social Security to administer and impossible for the disabled to understand. Most important, the mess we have now just doesn't work.
     The latest work incentive plan is to dramatically simplify, gradually Social Security disability benefits on account of work earnings from work rather the current systems which allow Social Security disability recipients to work for a significant length of time with no reduction in their benefits until they get to a certain point at which their benefits abruptly terminate (although they're easily restarted). The idea is to implement a slope instead of a cliff. Social Security has been conducting a lengthy study of substituting a benefit offset. The call this the BOND (Benefit Offset National Demonstration) project.
     The agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) just released a study of the BOND project. Here's an excerpt from the OIG report:

As of January 2015, the BOND project’s total cost was approximately $86.8 million. As of October 2014, only 2,333 (2.7 percent) of the 85,140 BOND project’s participants had used the offset for 1 or more months. Also, Abt [the contractor] reported that the BOND project’s benefit offset did not have a statistically significant impact on average total earnings in 2012 for Stage 1 participants; and the Stage 2 two treatment groups’ average total 2012 earnings increased above the control group by only $279 and $301 (about 8 percent), respectively.

     This is what I expected. The study has been expensive. Few have taken advantage of BOND. It has had no significant effect upon the behavior of Social Security disability benefits recipients.
     The reason why BOND isn't working in the way its supporters envisioned is simple. Social Security disability recipients are quite sick. Few have any capacity to return to work. Those who are unfamiliar with the program visualize claimants getting better and returning to work. However, the one year duration requirement in Social Security's definition of disability means that happens only rarely. If you're sick enough to be disabled for a year or more, it's unlikely that you'll get significantly better at some later time. In fact, it's very likely your medical condition will just get worse as time goes on. Yes, recovery does happen but it's rare. Those who are not familiar with Social Security disability determination also believe that many Social Security disability recipients aren't really that sick. (Why, my barber told me that he heard from his sister that her neighbor got on Social Security disability and there's not a thing wrong with him!) This belief is unshakable. It persists even in those who are disabled themselves and struggling to get on Social Security disability benefits. The truth is that it's ridiculously difficult to get on disability benefits. Many people are incapable of believing this.
     A benefit offset program should be adopted, not because it will induce more disabled people to return to work, but because it will be simpler to implement. We've had one ill-advised work incentive plan after another for decades. They haven't worked and they're not going to work. It's time to stop tinkering.  Have a little consideration for the people who have to administer the program. Simplify.

Is The Social Security Disability Crisis Over?

      Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times thinks that the Social Security disability "crisis" is over. I'd say that it's a bit early to say that the political battle is over. For that matter, the political battle over the existence of any form of Social Security is far from over as far as many Republicans are concerned.