DSI In Serious Trouble?

Social Security's Disability Service Improvement (DSI) plan may be in serious trouble. The statement below is an anonymous report from the ALJ Improvement Board, supposedly quoting from some communication received from the National Treasury Employees Union.

DSI is underway. Last month training began in Falls Church for the new FedROs. Management has not released much information about the new FedROs but it appears that the Agency was only able to find about 30 (it wanted 70) individuals willing to accept their offer of appointment to the FedRO position in Falls Church. In response to our request for information, the Agency reported that 11 ODAR hearing office GS-12 attorneys accepted the FedRO appointment, but not one single GS-13. I do not know whether that is because no GS-13 accepted an offer or if no offers were made. About 20 agency attorneys have opted to become FedROs and five management personnel have accepted the GS-15 supervisor position. Additionally, about 10 attorneys were hired from the outside.

If true, DSI is in very, very serious trouble and may fail before it even has a chance to get off the ground. The Federal Reviewing (FedRO) job is the centerpiece of DSI. If Social Security is unable to hire enough FedROs the plan cannot possibly be implemented even in Social Security's small Boston Region.

Why might Social Security have trouble hiring Federal Reviewing Officers? The answer is fairly simple -- fear that the program will not last after Jo Anne Barnhart's term as Social Security Commissioner ends in January 2007. If DSI ends after Barnhart leaves SSA, the career of anyone hired as a FedRO may be in jeopardy. Many federal employees are attracted to government employment by the promise of extremely stable employment. Federal employees are on average vastly more frightened of any danger of becoming unemployed than their counterparts in private employment. Few Social Security employees are going to be willing to move to the Washington-Baltimore area to take a job if there is any threat that the job will not last.

Can any Social Security employee in a position to know confirm this report on the ALJ Improvement Board? You may e-mail me at charles[@]charleshallfirm.com.

ID Requirements For Attorneys and Rep Payees

Social Security has published a new directive in its Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) to protect the privacy of Social Security claimants. The directive requires certain identity proof from persons acting on behalf of a claimant, primarily attorneys and representative payees, before information may be given out over the telephone. As a practical matter this requires the attorney or representative payee to know the date of birth, place of birth and mother's maiden name of a claimant.

President Wants To Revisit Social Security

The Washington Post reports that President Bush plans to make another attempt at Social Security "reform" after this November's election. He hopes to be able to "drain the politics out of the issue."

Washington Post on SSA Budget Problems

From the Federal Diary Column by Stephen Barr in today's Washington Post:

The Social Security Administration would be forced to send employees home without pay and shut offices 10 days next year if Congress does not increase its funding in fiscal 2007, the agency has told Congress.

"Fewer resources mean fewer people to serve the public in all areas of SSA's operations," Jo Anne B. Barnhart , the Social Security commissioner, said in a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee. "Because these budget reductions will affect all employees, they will result in major service disruptions across all workloads."

If the agency resorts to furloughs, the Social Security network of 1,300 field offices would close, probably a day at a time over a five- to six-month period. On those days, the public would not be able to apply for Social Security numbers, replace Social Security cards, file for retirement or disability benefits or obtain decisions on pending disability claims and appeals. ...

"For an agency like ours, it is kind of a shock," said Richard Warsinskey , president of the National Council of Social Security Management Associations.

Warsinskey said he understands that companies lay off and furlough employees in bad economic times, "but this is a public service issue." He said, "We don't want to take a well-run agency and make it mediocre because we don't get enough money."

Mark Lassiter , the Social Security press officer, said no decisions on furloughs have been made. The House and Senate have not finished work on the agency's budget and Barnhart "remains hopeful that the president's budget request will be approved by Congress," he said.

The Senate bill would provide about $9 billion for the agency -- about $400 million less than the president's request and about $54 million less than what the agency received for this year's budget. The House proposal would leave Social Security about $200 million short of what the White House is seeking.

The agency's budget may not be resolved until after the November elections, congressional aides said. A spokeswoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee said House and Senate negotiators would review the agency's funding and staffing levels later this year. Many agencies are likely to face budget squeezes next year, in part because Congress faces tough decisions on financing the Iraq war and homeland security.

Social Security, headquartered in Baltimore, has about 65,000 employees, and officials estimate that more than 40 percent of its workforce will retire by 2014. It appears that not all departing employees will be replaced because of budget pressures. Only one employee is being hired for every three that depart, according to 2006 and 2007 budget plans.

Darryl Perkinson , president of the Federal Managers Association, said reduced appropriations for Social Security will probably worsen the backlog of cases in the agency's Office of Disability and Adjudication Review. The association estimates the backlog has grown to 730,000 cases with an average processing time of 481 days. The group is urging Congress to pass the president's budget request and support adequate staffing levels in the disability review office. ...

In her letter, Barnhart indicated that the Senate's proposal to provide $400 million less than in the president's budget would require a hiring freeze, overtime reductions and other overhead cuts in addition to a 10-day furlough of staff. ...

Arkansas DDS Director Criticized

WREG-TV reports that Arthur Boutiette, the director of Arkansas Disability Determination Services which makes decisions on Social Security disability claims, has been drawing a salary of $110,197 a year, even though the maximum salary for his job is supposed to be $89,923. The higher salary was achieved by paying Boutiette as a medical consultant, even though he is not any sort of medical consultant.

NPRM On Privacy

The Social Security Administration has published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in the Federal Register on privacy and disclosure of official records. At first reading there is nothing new in the NPRM that should be controversial. Perhaps the only thing that might cause a problem is the following language:

§ 401.100 Disclosure of records with thewritten consent of the subject of the record.
(a) General. Except as permitted by the Privacy Act and the regulations in this chapter, or when required by the FOIA, we will not disclose your records without your written consent.
(b) Disclosure with written consent. The written consent must clearly specify to whom the information may be disclosed, the information you want us to disclose (e.g., social security number, date and place of birth, monthly Social Security benefit amount, date of entitlement), and, where applicable, during which time frame the information may be disclosed (e.g., during the school year, while the subject individual is out of the country, whenever the subject individual i receiving specific services).
(c) Disclosure of the entire record. We will not disclose your entire record. For example, we will not honor a blanket consent for all information in a system of records or any other record consisting of a variety of data elements. We will disclose only the information you specify in the consent. We will verify your identity and where applicable (e.g., where you consent to disclosure of a record to a specific individual), the identity of the individual to whom the record is to be disclosed.
(d) A parent or guardian of a minor is not authorized to give written consent to a disclosure of a minor’s medical record. See § 401.55 (c)(2) for the procedures for disclosure of or access to medical records of minors.

If applied too literally, this could make the job of an attorney representing a Social Security disability claimant more difficult, since the mere appointment of the representative would not be enough to authorize the attorney access to the client's records at Social Security. A separate, detailed authorization would be required for each disclosure. It is unlikely that this was intended.

This is only a proposal. The public can comment on the proposal until November 13, 2006.

Oral Appeals Nixed

From today's Federal Register:

We are withdrawing the notice we published in the Federal Register Notice on August 14, 2006. That notice explained that the Agency intended to expand the methods available for requesting administrative review by accepting oral requests from claimants in person or by telephone. In developing the business process, we discovered this change would not provide the same protections to the claimant that exist in the current process. As a result, we have determined that we will not change the appeal process in this manner at this time.

DATES: Effective Date: This withdrawal will be effective on September 12, 2006.

Oral Appeals To No Longer Be Allowed

A few weeks ago Social Security stunned many of its own employees with a notice that it would accept appeals filed orally. The agency had long demanded that all appeals from its decision be filed in writing. The decision to accept oral appeals went against long establised procedures and seemed unworkable, even to attorneys who represent Social Security claimants on these appeals. Social Security has now filed a new notice to be published tomorrow that will rescind the right to file appeals orally. Here is the item from the Office of Federal Register:

Social security benefits and supplemental security income:

Determination or decisions; administrative review requests; additional options; withdrawn, E6-15055