House Social Security Subcommittee Hearing Coming

From the Payday Pundit blog:

The Payday Pundit has been informed the the House Subcommittee on Social Security may hold a hearing to investigate arrangements that permit benefit payments to be deposited into a third party’s “master” account when the third party maintains separate “sub” accounts for individual beneficiaries. ...

Social Security Owes Claimants $445 Million

From a report by Social Security's Inspector General:

[An] underpayment is any monthly benefit amount due an entitled beneficiary that has not been paid. ...

We found that SSA needed to improve its controls and procedures to ensure underpayments were appropriately paid on behalf of terminated beneficiaries. Based on a random sample of 300 underpayments, we determined that SSA needed to take corrective actions to (1) pay $177,184 in underpayments payable to 180 eligible beneficiaries and individuals and (2) remove $44,214 in erroneous underpayments from the MBR [Master Beneficiary Record] for 49 terminated beneficiaries. As a result, we estimate there are

$358.7 million in underpayments payable to 391,844 eligible beneficiaries and individuals, and

$86.7 million in erroneous underpayments on the MBR for 109,712 terminated beneficiaries

That is a lot of money! Lack of an adequate workforce could have something to do with this.

This Is What We Were Telling You

From a report by Social Security's Inspector General:

On October 29, 2007, SSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that stated "Our program experience has convinced us that the late submission of evidence to the [Administrative Law Judge] significantly impedes our ability to issue hearing decisions in a timely manner." To remedy this situation, the NPRM listed a number of potential changes to the appellate process, including (1) requiring at least 75 days' notice for hearings and (2) requiring the submission of evidence at least 5 days before the hearing to ensure the Administrative Law Judge has time to review the evidence. Subsequent to the NPRM, the Commissioner requested that the Office of the Inspector General evaluate and document the extent to which delays in the submission of evidence affects the timeliness of the hearing and appeal process.

RESULTS OF REVIEW

We determined that the Case Processing and Management System (CPMS) information being used by the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) to monitor the timeliness of medical evidence did not indicate the late submission of medical evidence before hearings was a significant issue at hearing offices. ODAR managers identified two points in the hearing process affected by the late submission of medical evidence by claimants and their representatives before the hearing: hearing postponements (where the hearing is scheduled for a later date) and post-hearing development (where evidence is reviewed after the hearing). When we reviewed these two points of the hearing process, we found that about 0.2 percent of hearings were postponed annually as a result of late medical evidence and about 1.8 percent of the workload currently in-process was significantly delayed after the hearing due to late medical evidence.

When we reviewed all medical evidence delays in the hearing process, in addition to claimant-related issues before the hearing, we found that as much as 7.2 percent of the workload currently in-process was significantly delayed because of late medical evidence. However, since the majority of these medical evidence issues occur before the claimant's hearing is scheduled, they are neither directly associated with the medical evidence problems noted in the October 2007 NPRM nor likely to be remedied by the hearing process changes proposed in the notice.

Tell Me More

Social Security recently issued a report entitled "Plan to Eliminate the Hearing Backlog and Prevent Its Recurrence: Semiannual Report Fiscal Year 2008", yet the 18 page document does not show the current state of the backlog or show any projection on when the backlog will be eliminated. You would expect this sort of data in a report with this title. The absence of this data seems remarkable.

The report does not show how many new Requests for Hearing that Social Security has received so far this fiscal year or how many dispositions of these Requests for Hearing that Social Security has made so far in this fiscal year. All the report says is "In FY 08, ODAR has been challenged by new receipts for hearings that continue to rise above FY 07 levels and the loss of experienced Administrative Law Judges through attrition." That does not sound like things are going well, especially when you consider the elliptical nature of the report.

The report contains a chart showing the decline in the number of cases pending more than 900 days. This shows that Social Security is doing a less bad job in spreading the misery around, but that tells us nothing about the overall state of the misery.

I posted a report that I had received from inside Social Security that the backlog of people waiting for a hearing before a Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was increasing at the rate of about 10,000 per month. That is a huge rate of increase. As I posted at the time, if this is true it would take an additional 200 or more ALJs just to keep the backlog from growing. Social Security is only planning to hire 175 more ALJs this year -- and the net increase in the number of ALJs will not be 175 because of the ordinary attrition of those who are already ALJs.

This week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee that covers the Social Security Administration will be marking up Social Security's operating budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, which begins on October 1, 2008. I think that Subcommittee ought to know the current state of the hearing backlogs and whether and at what rate that backlogs is expanding. The Subcommittee needs to know how many ALJs Social Security needs to stop the backlog from growing and to start reducing it and how much this will cost. This "Plan to Eliminate the Hearing Backlog ..." is just happy talk. Congress needs hard numbers.

Two Astrue Broadcast E-Mail Messages Today

From this morning:

A Message To All SSA And DDS Employees

Subject: New Homepage

Since my first day as Commissioner, I have said that the “public face” of our Internet site, our homepage, was good but could be even better. That is why over the past months, I have been working closely with the Office of Communications to develop a new version.

Today, I’m pleased to unveil the newly redesigned Social Security Online homepage. It’s more welcoming and user-friendly. The new look of our homepage follows the standard for design principles in the industry by reducing clutter, improving navigation, making better use of graphics, reducing the need to scroll down and prioritizing items on the page.

During the design phase, I insisted we direct visitors’ attention to the information and online services that can best reduce the number of unnecessary trips to a local Social Security office. As a result, links to Filing Online for Retirement Benefits, Applying for Disability Benefits and Requesting a Social Security Card are all located front and center on the new homepage. For the first time, people also can watch a brief video greeting on the site delivered by one of our agency employees, which will help many people, including those with certain visual disabilities.

While the look of our homepage has changed, the web addresses have not. Favorite sites that you and other frequent visitors have bookmarked will not change.

Please take a minute to get familiar with our new public face. See how easy it is to use at www.socialsecurity.gov.

If you have comments or suggestions, E-mail them to new.homepage@ssa.gov.

Stay tuned for more improvements to our website, including the addition of the new online Retirement Estimator, by the end of July.

Michael J. Astrue

Commissioner

And from this afternoon:

A Message To All SSA And DDS Employees

Subject: Midwest Flooding

While many of us watched the massive flooding in the Midwest on television, many of our colleagues have been living with it. Several offices, including Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Burlington, Davenport and Des Moines, were affected in Iowa; others were threatened in Kansas.

Even though several SSA and DDS offices were in the path of destruction, all came out of it unscathed. Another high point—all of our employees are reportedly accounted for and safe. Personal damage is limited to water in some employees’ basements.

Today’s news out of Cedar Rapids is encouraging with the office reopened and the water rapidly receding. Our office is undamaged, but had to be closed last Friday, because routes to the office were closed, with the river cresting at 31 feet (flood stage is at 12 feet).

Meanwhile in Iowa City, the Iowa River has crested. At its highest point, the river reached within a block of the federal building where our office is located. On Friday, local employees rushed to handle Monday’s and Tuesday’s appointments in advance of the river’s rise. Other Iowa offices are safe.

Employees in the Iowa DDS evacuated last Tuesday, and computers were moved to keep them safe. The building was spared, and DDS employees are beginning to move back in today. We expect full operations by the end of the week.

In addition to the flooding in the Midwest, Manhattan, Kansas suffered a damaging tornado, which touched down less than two miles from our office. Our office and employees, however, came out of it safe and sound.

So, let’s take a minute today to count our blessings and remember our co-workers who are dealing with so much disruption.

Michael J. Astrue

Commissioner

"Hidden Workloads"

From a June 13, 2008 letter from the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, to Linda McMahon, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner for Operations (emphasis added):

In the last two months, NCSSMA has asked our members their opinions twice on the state of operations in their offices. ...

A myriad of workloads that do not appear on any of our many lists and databases were reported as “hidden” workloads. [And NCSSMA gives a list of 46 such types of "hidden workloads", including] ...

4. Congressional inquiries ...

5. Death Reports received from funeral homes (721s)
6. Direct Deposit requests or changes received by fax or mail (1199s)
7. Email—reading and/or responding
8. Explanations for overpayments and notices ...

11. Fraud referrals ...

30. Rep. Payee misuse allegations ...

39. Training employees
40. Unanswered telephone calls
41. Voicemail messages ...

There are a number of workloads that are not being done timely and some are not being done at all. [And NCSSMA gives a list of 30 such types of workloads that are either not being done at all or not being done timely, including.] ...

8. Earnings corrections ...

15. Overpayments in the Field Offices and Program Service Centers including waivers and personal conferences ...

19. Representative payee accountings and exceptions ...

Perhaps the greatest opportunity cost is the mounting cost from medical CDRs [Continuing Disability Reviews] and SSI redeterminations that have not been done in recent years. The deferral of this work has certainly been useful in responding to the short-term challenges that field offices are facing and perhaps to address workloads that would otherwise remain hidden. The grim reality, however, is that the cost of delaying these workloads is one that still must be dealt with. ... These deferrals will ultimately produce a new volume of work that will need to be processed in addition to the mounting overpayments that will be a direct result of deferring this work ...

The competing objectives of production and quality are a common and very real dilemma that FO/TSC [Field Office/Teleservice Center] managers face on a daily basis. ... As one manager stated, “However, we can only speculate how much and how often interviewers ignore information or shape it to fit within the responses available in the system. Workload shortcuts most common are ignoring more complicated or involved responses to questions that would require development. Who is to know if the applicant was vague in a response or wanted to check on an answer when the easiest thing for the CR to do is answer “no” and ignore any potential issue or delay claims processing waiting for evidence?” ...

Field managers spend much of their time answering the telephones that would otherwise continue ringing and working the reception area to keep waiting times down. We get monthly, weekly, and daily reports related to productivity; but rarely do we hear when our quality reviews are not getting done or our training schedule is inadequate. The agency priorities are clear to us. Quality is indeed a “hidden workload.” Any change in that organizational culture must come from the top down, but it must be accompanied by a strong dose of reality and a clearer understanding of realistic expectations.

Costs Of E-Verify

From Federal Computer Week:

The House has begun to debate the effectiveness of the Homeland Security Department’s electronic employment eligibility verification system, E-Verify. Some lawmakers are considering making it mandatory for all employers while others are pushing for an alternate system ... A report from the Government Accountability Office released today estimates that a mandatory E-Verify program would cost about $765 million from fiscal 2009 through 2012 to verify only new employees and $838 million to verify new and existing employees in the same period. In addition, SSA has estimated that a mandatory program would cost $281 million for fiscal 2009 to 2013 and require an additional 2,325 employees.

Results Of Last Week's Unscientific Poll

One person wondered why they saw an ad for one Presidential candidate when they registered their vote in this poll. The reason is that I am cheap. The online provider that I used for the polling services provides it either for free or for a charge. Since I am cheap, I use the free service. But we know there is no free lunch. The "price" of the free service is advertising. Usually, the ad has nothing to do with the poll and is mostly ignored. One of the presidential candidates happened to be advertising on this polling service at the time the questioner voted in the poll, which may have seemed a bit startling, but I had nothing to do with the placement of the ad. Interestingly, when I went to retrieve the poll results this morning, the ad that came up was for the other Presidential candidate!

If the election were held today, who would get your vote for President of the United States?

Robert Barr, Libertarian Party (10)	7%
John McCain, Republican Party (37)	27%
Ralph Nader, Independent (2)	1%
Barack Obama, Democratic Party (89)	64%

Total Votes: 138