Big Fraud Investigation?

From Dominican Today:

SANTO DOMINGO.- Three United States federal prosecutors, FBI agents and investigators from other agencies are in the country to probe the whereabouts of dozens of millions of dollars bilked from its Social Security System, allegedly laundered in the Dominican Republic.

Justice minister Radhamés Jiménez yesterday said there are leads in the case agaisnt those implicated, but refused give details ...

Jiménez said the U.S. investigators are working with local prosecutors on money laundering in the country, as part of the collaboration in important cases. "In fact, those prosecutors are behind an investigation of an embezzlement committed in the United States and it’s assumes that fruit of that money, of that fiscal fraud against the United States, a large part of all that money was laundered in the Dominican Republic."

The official, who said there could be more information on the case “in a relatively short time,” doesn’t know how long they’ll remain in the country. He stressed that there’s no extradition request.

"There’s information that isn’t public knowledge," he said, but noted that neither politicians nor military have been implicated no far.

Many, Many Plaques

From FedBizOpps.Gov:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) intends to negotiate a sole-source acquisition with Lamb Awards and Engraving, 129 E. Main St., Westminster, MD 21157 to provide 7,500 wood plaques constructed per attached specifications. The proposed contract action is for supplies for which the Government intends to solicit and negotiate with only one source under the authority of FAR 13.106-1(b)(1).

Fantasy Meets Reality

At the recent conference of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives Marianna LaCanfora, Social Security's Assistant Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Retirement and Disability Programs, spoke of a plan to to introduce an automated system by which medical records are obtained automatically by Social Security before claims files ever reach Disability Determination agencies for adjudication. That was the fantasy she was talking about.

Meet the reality. Even in theory, this plan can only work if medical records are stored electronically. However, the New York Times reports on a New England Journal of Medicine study that shows that fewer than one in five doctors in this country has started using electronic records systems. Only 9% of doctors in small offices have such systems. Those who are experts in electronic records believe that smaller medical practices have little incentive to switch to electronic records and that government incentives will be required to make it happen. An upcoming experiment by Medicare will cost $150 million just to convert 1,200 small practices! The cost of converting all medical practices in this country would be astronomical.

Even if all medical practices in the country could be converted to electronic medical records, developing a fully interchangeable system such that medical records could be obtained with almost no effort would still be a long way off.

Please, no more moonbeams, Social Security. Let us talk about what can be done in the here and now about the current problems.

NPRM On Age

Relax. This is not a big deal. There was a very controversial proposal to change the age categories in the grid regulations, but this is not it.

The Social Security Administration has published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) to "to acknowledge that we make disability determinations for individuals over age 64 [since a prior statutory change is moving full retirement age up to 67]. These proposed changes are technical corrections that would help to explain how we currently determine disability for such individuals and would not have any substantive effect."

Chairman Obey Statement On Social Security Appropriation -- Moving Backwards

The Labor-HHS Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held a markup session today on the Labor-HHS Appropriation bill. David Obey is the Chairman of the full House Appropriations Committee, as well as Chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee. The Labor-HHS Appropriations bill includes the Social Security Administration's Limitation on Administrative Expenditures (LAE), which is basically the appropriation for the Social Security Administration's operating budget.

Traditionally, the Chairman of the Committee prepares a "Chairman's Mark", a proposed appropriations bill and the Committee or Subcommittee works off that, with members of the Subcommittee and later the full Committee offering amendments to the Chairman's Mark." Obey prepares the Chairman's Mark in consultation with Committee members, so the end result should be pretty close to the Chairman's Mark.

Here is an excerpt from Obey's statement before today's markup session:

“The bill [Chairman's Mark] also accelerates efforts at the Social Security Administration to ensure that seniors and the disabled receive the benefits to which they are entitled. It provides $682 million over last year ($100 million over the request) to help SSA reduce the backlog of disability hearings, improve claims processing times, and support field offices.

Let me make a few points. First, the Budget Resolution, which is only binding upon the Appropriations Committees in aggregate, provided for $240 million in extra financing for Social Security, so we are moving backwards. Second, I do not know what happened today in the Subcommittee markup, much less what will happen in the full Committee. Third, the Senate will have a say in the matter. The Senate may be more concerned about Social Security's operating budget than the House of Representatives. They were last year. Finally, it is clear that Congress and President Bush will not be agreeing upon appropriations bills. These will all be pending when the new President and Congress come to town next January. Still, the appropriations process going on now is important. This whole process cannot start from scratch in January. What is agreed to now is almost certain to be the starting point come next January and, given the urgency to get something passed, the end point is likely to be near the starting point.

Waiting In Michigan -- And Spreading A Misconception

WLNS in Lansing, MI is running a story on the backlogs in adjudicating Social Security disability claims. The story is misleading in a rather common way. Here is a quote:

"It was to the point where we had gone through all of my retirement and all of our life savings. We weren't going to be able to keep our house if something didn't happen relatively quickly."

Teresa [Brown, the claimant] finally decided to call Congressman Mike Rogers. She had her hearing two months later and finally got approved for disability.

Teresa Brown: "Relief, the end was finally here."

No, the call to the Congressman had nothing to do with the allowance. It was almost certainly coincidence. Now, thousands of people in the Lansing will believe that their Congressman has some special magic that will enable them to be approved quickly for Social Security disability benefits. Claimants may even avoid hiring an attorney who might actually be able to help them because of this misconception.

Testimony On Economic Stimulus

Linda McMahon, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner For Operations, testified today before the Oversight and Social Security Subcommittees on the status of the economic stimulus payments.

Supreme Court Decides Met Life Case

From the opinion in Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn, No. 06-923, issued today by the Supreme Court:

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) permits a person denied benefits under an employee benefit plan to challenge that denial in federal court. 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq.; see §1132(a)(1)(B). Often the entity that administers the plan, such as an employer or an insurance company, both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket. We here decide that this dual role creates a conflict of interest; that a reviewing court should consider that conflict as a factor in determining whether the plan administrator has abused its discretion in denying benefits; and that the significance of the factor will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 115 (1989).