Work Incentives Planning And Assistance Projects

From today's Federal Register:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) announces its intention to competitively award cooperative agreements to establish community-based work incentives planning and assistance projects in thefollowing locations:

• State of Alabama, the counties of Autauga, Baldwin, Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Dale, Dallas, Elmore, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, Lee, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Mobile, Monroe, Montgomery, Pike, Russell, Washington, and Wilcox;
• State of Indiana, the counties of Clark, Crawford, Daviess, Dearborn, Dubois, Floyd, Gibson, Greene, Harrison, Hendricks, Jackson, Jefferson, Jennings, Knox, Lawrence, Martin, Monroe, Ohio, Orange, Parke, Perry, Pike, Posey, Ripley, Scott, Spencer, Sullivan, Switzerland, Vanderburgh, Vermillion, Vigo, Warrick, Washington;
• State of Kentucky, the counties of Bath, Bell, Bourbon, Boyd, Bracken, Breathitt, Carter, Clark, Clay, Elliott, Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Greenup, Harlan, Harrison, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Madison, Magoffin,
• State of Ohio, the counties of Ashtabula, Mahoning, Portage, Stark, Martin, Mason, McCreary, Menifee, Montgomery, Morgan, Nicholas, Owsley, Pendleton, Perry, Pike, Powell, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Whitley, and Wolfe;
• State of Nevada, all counties;
• State of New York, the counties of Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, and Westchester; Summit, and Trumbull; and
• Pacific territories of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, andAmerican Samoa.

New Rules On Suspending Benefits For Failure To Cooperate

Social Security has published final rules on suspension of disability benefits for failure to cooperate with a continuing disability review.

Social Security Advisory Board Draft Report On Social Security Hearing Process

The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued a draft report on Social Security's hearing process, by which they mean the way in which Social Security claimants get hearings on disputed Social Security claims, usually disability claims.

The report contains the following paragraph demonstrating clearly the bizarre lack of current concern about the enormous current backlog of claimants awaiting hearings, as compared to concern in the past about much lower backlogs:

In 1976, Congress enacted legislation to facilitate an expansion in the number of ALJs. It characterized that legislation as being of an “emergency” nature to address the “tremendous” backlog of approximately 105,000 cases, with the objective of eliminating that backlog and reducing the average processing time for hearings to 90 days. In 1991 SSA was concerned about a 229-day processing time and formed a Strategic Priority Workgroup to deal with the problem. Average hearing offi ce time for SSA cases soared in the mid 1990s, as the wave of initial claims filed in the early 1990s made their way through the system. In 1995 when processing time hit 350 days, SSA launched a Short Term Disability Project. After falling to 274 days in 2000, processing times rose to 415 days in 2005. It should be noted that this average includes dismissals and decisions made on the record without a hearing. The average processing time for a claimant who has a hearing and waits for a decision is closer to 500 days.

The SSAB describes the current situation as "an intolerable burden on claimants and simply unacceptable."

The report includes the following recommendations:

• The selection process for ALJs should be reformed to make it more responsive to the needs of SSA.
• The ALJ pay system should be revised to provide additional incentives to recruit and retain hearing offi ce chief ALJs (HOCALJs). SSA should also explore with the Office of Personnel Management the possible use of pay for performance for ALJs, with due care for the need to protect decisional independence.
• SSA should address the de facto dual management structure for the hearing offi ce process, which results in confusion and lack of accountability and should provide HOCALJs with the tools and supports they need to do their job well.
• SSA’s multilevel appraisal system should be expanded to all parts of the hearing process. Appraisals should be based on quantifi able performance data, including both quality and quantity of work performed.
• There is a need for additional training and ongoing professional development.

SSA Multilingual

The Lake County News-Sun has published a Social Security press release touting new web-based Social Security information in Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Farsi, French, Greek, Haitian-Creole, Italian, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog and Vietnamese.

As I have indicated before, while Social Security has a website on which it supposedly links its press releases, it still issues many press releases which it does not link.

$5.6 Billion Overpayment

It seems that the Social Security Administration does not just make overpayments to claimants. This is from a statement by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget:

In FY 2006, Social Security Administration (SSA) outlays were $586 billion, $5 billion below the MSR. SSA received a refund from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for $5.6 billion as a result of overpayments SSA made for tax years 1999-2005 under the voluntary income tax withholding program for Social Security benefit payments. Payments made to individual beneficiaries were not impacted. This refund reduced outlays and receipts by equal amounts with no effect on the deficit.

Fraud In West Virginia

WTAP reports on a Mineral Wells, WV couple who have been indicted for defrauding the Social Security Administration out of $90,000 by operating a business without notifying Social Security. One or both of the couple had been on Social Security disability benefits.

$102,452 Overpayment -- Whose Fault?

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports on a case in which Social Security claims a $102,452 overpayment to a mentally retarded Highland Springs, VA woman who worked off and on after starting to draw Social Security disability benefits. The woman's brother insists that he told Social Security about the work and was told there was no problem.

One person quoted in the article suggests that many people in this situation are overpaid because they fail to report the work activity. It is possible that that is what happened here, but one should not jump to conclusions. In 2004, Congress had to enact legislation to require Social Security to adopt a system for recording reports of return to work. This was done after many reports that Social Security had no system to record reports of return to work, leading to large overpayments, even after claimants reported return to work.

Delays -- Where Does The Fault Lie?

Tim Moore at My Social Security Disability SSI Blog posts about what has become an all too common problem. A claimant for Social Security disability benefits files a claim or an appeal and the claim or appeal sits for many monhts on the desk of someone at a Social Security field office without being forwarded to the office that is supposed to adjudicate the case. How could this happen? Why would the field office employee not just put the claim or the appeal in an envelope and mail it? The answer is not given by Moore, but it is not too hard to figure out. The problem is that all that information was handwritten by the claimant or their attorney on Social Security's paper forms -- forms that have become longer and longer over the years. Someone at the Social Security field office must then type all that information into Social Security's computer system before sending the information along to an adjudicator. Field office staff has been and is being cut dramatically. No one has time to do all the data entry, so the file sits and sits. This is a significant problem already and threatens to become a horrific problem over the next year, given the near total hiring freeze at Social Security.