Attorney Fee Payments

Social Security has released its attorney fee payment numbers for May 2007. Below, I have reproduced the numbers for this year.

Let me explain why these are significant for people other than attorneys. These are the only numbers that Social Security releases showing how well or how poorly its payment centers are functioning. The payment centers are Social Security's back office. They are where the actual work of authorizing payment of Title II Social Security benefits is done. Regardless of what happens in other parts of Social Security, no one gets Title II Social Security benefits until a payment centers does its job. Attorneys who represent Social Security claimants get paid at about the same time as their clients, so these numbers reflect what Social Security claimants are experiencing.

When you look at these numbers, you see dramatic fluctuations in attorney fee payments. This is a direct reflection of dramatic fluctuations in payments to claimants. These dramatic fluctuations occur because the payment centers are under stress. They lack sufficient personnel and they are being called upon to backup other parts of the Social Security Administration, particularly the teleservice centers. When calls to Social Security's 800 number spike up, the payment centers get "spiked" as they put it -- called away from their regular duties to answer the telephone -- which they do poorly. The payment centers get spiked badly in January and February of each year, because of seasonal fluctuations in the number of calls to the 800 number, but, in general, spiking is becoming more frequent because the teleservice centers are understaffed. Since the payment centers are also understaffed, the result is more backlogs and delays in payment of benefits.

The payment centers are not sexy. No one is going to pay much attention to the payment centers unless they completely break down, in which case all hell breaks loose. My understanding is that the payment centers are under enough stress that a breakdown is not inconceivable.

Fee Payments
Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-07	15,331	$55,149,991.81
Feb-07	19,301	$69,731,683.72
Mar-07	26,505	$94,396,916.02
Apr-07	26,889	$96,650,134.82
May-07	24,429	$86,625,391.60
Fee payments also include payments made to eligible non-attorneys participating in the demonstration project authorized by section 303 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-203).

Bill Introduced To Waive Disability Waiting Period

Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.)and Chip Pickering (R-Miss) have introduced a bill to waive the five month waiting period for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act for claimants who are terminally ill, according to the Senior Journal. Pomeroy is on the House Social Security Subcommittee.

It will be difficult to pass even such a limited change. The "paygo" rules that Congress is working under require that any bill that goes forward in Congress that would increase expenditures must contain some provision to pay for the increased expenditures. In this case, if a bill eliminated the waiting period, even for a small group of people, it would have to contain some other provision that would cut costs or raise money to offset the increased expenditure.

Baltimore Sun On Social Security Role In Immigration Enforcement

Some excerpts from a Baltimore Sun article:

... the linchpin of future of immigration enforcement is stored in a secure facility in Woodlawn [Maryland, where the Social Security Administration's central offices are located], where computer servers hold the digital Social Security records of hundreds of millions of Americans.

Since 1996, a growing number of employers have logged on to a password-protected Web site and queried those records to see whether job applicants are here legally. ...

The now-imperiled Senate immigration proposal would require such a search, starting with new hires and, within three years, the rest of the work force...

[T]he Social Security database contains errors. A recent report from the agency's inspector general found a 4.1 percent error rate. ...

No matter whose fault it is, the error rate is still enough to generate an enormous amount of work for Social Security employees. ...

If the program is to expand, the agency will need more staff and, therefore, more money. ...

NCSSMA Posts Minutes

The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, has posted the minutes of its annual meeting from May 1 to May 4, 2007. Here are two excerpts from a meeting on May 3, 2007 between the NCSSMA Board and Mary Glenn Croft, Social Security's Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Operations, and Roger McDonnell, head of the Office of Public Services and Operations Support in the office of Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Operations:

Mary said there’s no good or easy answer for staffing. Even for FY08, Congress may stipulate that specific workloads be processed with any extra money we receive and the money may not go to address staffing shortages. Jim Burkert [a member of the NCSSMA board] asked why field component staff is dropping faster than any other component. He further stated that Part D hires are no longer helping because staffing levels are lower now than they were before we had the Part D workloads. ... Mary stated that there is no master plan to close or consolidate offices. Infrastructure costs (leases and guard service) are extremely high however, and the regions look at leases when they are ready to expire to determine whether it makes good sense to close or consolidate the office.

Note that Social Security is already expecting earmarks in its 2008 budget requiring that it deal with the hearing backlogs. Note also that Social Security's budget is so tight that the agency is starting to close field offices. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate will not like to hear about field office closings.

Senate Finance Committee Hearing

The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing on June 21 at 10:00 on "Barriers to Work for Individuals Receiving Social Security Disability Benefits."

AALJ Files Suit

Anonymous posters on the ALJ Improvement Board are stating that the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) has filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia over a recent decision by the Office of Personnel Management that requires that federal Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) retain active bar status. A copy of the complaint has been forwarded to me. The named plaintiffs in addition to the AALJ are David Agatstein of Milwaukee, WI, Karl Alexander of Morgantown, WV, Jon Hunt of Raleigh, NC, John Kraybill of Oakbrook, IL, James Norris of Indianapolis, IN, Cheryl Rini of Cleveland, OH and Edwin Shinitzky of Chicago, IL, all of them Social Security ALJs.

The problem with retaining active bar status is that one must meet continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. Many ALJs are not in compliance with the CLE requirements of their state bars.

Social Security Subcommittee Hearing

From the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee:

McNulty Announces a Hearing on Protecting the Privacy of the Social Security Number from Identity Theft

Congressman Michael R. McNulty (D-NY), Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine the role of Social Security numbers (SSNs) in identity theft and options to enhance their protection. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 21, in room B-318 Rayburn House Office Building, beginning at 10 a.m.

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.

BACKGROUND

As many as ten million Americans fall victim to identity theft every year. The effects of identity theft can be catastrophic to the lives of affected individuals. The reported costs are significant - according to the Federal Trade Commission, businesses lose $50 billion and consumers expend another $5 billion annually to recover from identity theft. The SSN is a critical tool for identity thieves looking to establish a credit account in someone else’s name. And it is often the key that identity thieves use to gain access to other personal information such as bank accounts.

Because it is a unique piece of personal information that does not change over time, the SSN provides a convenient way to track individuals throughout public and private records. As a result, SSNs have become ubiquitous in these records, and they are being used for purposes far beyond their original role of tracking earnings in order to compute Social Security benefits. While the widespread use of SSNs can be advantageous to business and government, it is also useful for identity thieves and other criminals. Moreover, records containing the SSN are increasingly available in electronic form, and easily accessible over the Internet. Thus, the need for streamlined business processes and openness of public records must be balanced against the increasing risks of identity theft and other crimes.

Despite its widespread usage, there is no Federal law that requires comprehensive confidentiality protection for the SSN. An SSN may be found on display to the general public on employee badges and in court documents, or offered for sale on the Internet. Some limited protection of SSN confidentiality is provided by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (P.L. 91-508) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102), which restrict the use and disclosure of SSNs by financial institutions. Also, many states have enacted legislation to restrict the use, disclosure or display of SSNs. Still most private sector use of the number remains unregulated.

In the 108th Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means approved comprehensive legislation to enhance SSN privacy to protect against identity theft (H.R. 2971; H. Rept. 108-685). Among other provisions, the bill would restrict the use, sale, purchase or display of SSNs. Members of Congress concerned about the magnitude of identity theft and its devastating effects on victims have introduced similar legislation this year.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman McNulty stated “there is no question that we need stronger protections for Social Security numbers to combat the growing crime of identity theft. Identity theft can destroy an individual’s or family’s financial well-being with a touch of a button. We must begin to place some common-sense limits on the use of the SSN by government and business in order to ensure the privacy of the information and prevent theft.”

FOCUS OF THE HEARING

The Subcommittee will examine what role the SSN plays in identity theft, and the steps that can be taken to increase SSN privacy and thereby limit its availability to identity thieves and other criminals. The hearing will examine how SSNs are currently used, what risks to individuals and businesses arise from its widespread use and options to restrict its use in the public and private sectors.

Markup Of House Appropriations Bill Delayed

The House Appropriations Committee website shows that the markup session for the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that covers Social Security's administrative budget has been canceled. A dispute over earmarks is the likely cause. See this article from the Green Bay Press Gazette.