No Match Resolution Process Working Poorly

From a report by Social Security's Inspector General:

As part of the Annual Wage Reporting process, the Social Security Administration (SSA) attempts to match the names and Social Security numbers (SSN) on Wage and Tax Statements (Form W-2) that are submitted by employers against SSA’s Numident file — the repository for all issued SSNs. A Form W-2 that contains a name and SSN combination that matches the Numident file is posted to the Master Earnings File (MEF). However, in cases where the name and SSN combination cannot be matched to SSA’s records, the wage information on the Form W-2 is posted to the ESF—the repository of unmatched items.

To resolve name/SSN combinations that cannot be matched, also known as “no-matches,” SSA began sending EDCOR letters to employers in 1994. These letters are commonly called “no-match letters.” The EDCOR letter was designed to help educate employers about their name/SSN no-matches and remind employers about the importance of submitting accurate information on Forms W-2. The EDCOR letter explains to employers that some of the name/SSN combinations reported do not agree with SSA’s records and asks employers to submit a Statement of Corrected Income and Tax Amount (Form W-2C) within 60 days for each SSN listed on the letter. In addition, it explains that some of the name/SSN no-matches may be the result of common mistakes, such as transcriptions or typographical errors, incomplete or blank name/SSN, or the failure of an employee to report a name change to SSA. SSA mails EDCOR letters to employers on a flow basis beginning in February of each year. As shown in Table 1, over the years, SSA has used various criteria to determine whether employers should receive an EDCOR letter....

SSA’s EDCOR letters were not effective in communicating wage-reporting problems to employers and reducing the size of the ESF. While EDCOR letters were established to help employers resolve name/SSN no-matches, for TY 2005, we found about 74 percent of employers who reported wage items with mismatched names and SSNs did not receive an EDCOR letter primarily because of the Agency’s criteria for issuing the letters. In addition, employers who received EDCOR letters were not always informed about all of their no-matches because the EDCOR letters only listed up to 500 mismatched SSNs. For example, about 1,650 employers received EDCOR letters that did not include about 1.7 million of their 2.6 million no-matches. Moreover, our review found EDCOR letters provided employers with limited information needed to resolve name/SSN no-matches. The letters only included mismatched SSNs and not the reported names.

Furthermore, name/SSN no-matches were less likely to be resolved under the EDCOR process as compared to the DECOR process. In TYs 2001 through 2005, about 680,500 wage items were reinstated because of the DECOR process, whereas only 60,500 wage items were reinstated because of the EDCOR process. Finally, although SSA had developed a more effective process for employers to review and correct name/SSN no-matches electronically, we found employers seldom used the Business Service Online, which is a suite of Internet services for employers to exchange information with SSA.

Video Hearings From Representatives Offices -- Claimant Must Be There

Social Security is making extensive use of video hearings. Recently, Social Security has begun experimenting with allowing attorneys and other representatives to do video hearings through their own equipment. I have been concerned that an attorney or other representative could appear via video without ever meeting their client in person, even on the day of the hearing. There is too much substandard representation already. Social Security should not be aiding those who engage in this.

I have recently obtained from Social Security a copy of the agreement that the agency is having those participating in this experiment sign. Here is an excerpt, making it clear that Social Security wishes to make this impossible:

The claimant and his or her representative must both appear from the same representative-owned VTC [Video Tele-Conference] site, except in instances where the ALJ determines that it is in the best interests of the claimant to penmit the claimant and his or her representative to appear from separate locations. Examples of such exceptions would be when the claimant lives in a remote area and there is limited access to representation within the standard 75 mile commuting area, or the claimant moves to a different area of the country but wishes to keep a representative with whom there is an existing business relationship. Please note that any and all non-SSA locations being used for a multi-point connection must be certified as a representative-owned VTC site and otherwise meet all the requirements for this program.

Preponderance Of Evidence Standard Adopted

The Social Security Administration is publishing final regulations in the Federal Register tomorrow to officially adopt a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof at all levels other than the Appeals Council. Unless there is some deep purpose that I cannot understand, this is so trivial that I cannot see why Social Security went to the trouble.

Update: And here is the link to the final regulations as posted in the Federal Register. By the way, I have gotten a number of messages about this saying that, yes, this should be so obvious that no regulation is needed, but that there are enough confused Administrative Law Judges that this regulation really is needed.

More Deflation -- COLA Consequences?

Consumer prices were down by 1% in October. It has just been announced that they declined by a record 1.7% in November! Neither of these was factored into the cost of living adjustment that affects Social Security benefits paid beginning next month, but both will affect the cost of living adjustment to be announced in mid-October 2009. The odds now are pretty good that there will be a net deflation in the year leading up to next year's cost of living adjustment. My reading of the statute is that there will be no negative adjustment in Social Security benefits if that is what happens, but Social Security will need to put out some press release on this in the not too distant future. What about the following year, however? Would any deflation in 2009 be taken out of the 2010 cost of living adjustment -- assuming there is inflation in 2010?

Electronic Records Touted

A press release from Social Security:

The Social Security Administration announced today that it will be the first government agency to utilize the Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN). Beginning in early 2009, Social Security will receive medical records for some disability applicants electronically through the NHIN gateway.

“Social Security is proud to be a leader in the use of health information technology,” said Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. “This safe and secure method for receiving electronic medical records will allow us to improve our service to the public by cutting days, if not weeks, off the time it takes to make a disability decision.”

Through the NHIN, Social Security will have instantaneous access to medical records. This will significantly shorten the time it takes to make a disability decision and make the process more efficient. Social Security uses individual medical records when making a decision for more than 2.6 million people who apply for disability each year. To make those decisions, Social Security relies on doctors, hospitals, and others in the healthcare field to provide medical records in a timely fashion. The NHIN will help ensure records are received timely by making it easier and less labor-intensive for medical professionals to submit records.

Social Security is working with MedVirginia, the North Carolina Healthcare Information and Communications Alliance, and Kaiser Permanente to implement the NHIN. In early 2009, the first real-world use of the system will begin between Social Security and MedVirginia.

The NHIN is an initiative of the Department of Health and Human Services and is supported by multiple government agencies and private sector entities. Please go to www.hhs.gov/healthit/healthnetwork/background/ for more information.

I am glad they are doing this, but talking of cutting weeks off the process is unrealistic. Only hospitals and the largest medical practices are involved. In the vast majority of cases, Social Security will have to get medical records on a claimant from other medical practices that do not have electronic records. Like all other technology changes at Social Security, this is being oversold. Disability determination is a labor intensive business no mater what technology you implement and Social Security is terribly short of labor.

Proposed Rules On Protective Filing

Social Security will have a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) in the Federal Register tomorrow on protective filing dates. Here is Social Security's summary:

We propose to revise our rules for protective filing after we receive a written statement of intent to claim Social Security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (the Act). Specifically, we propose to revise from 6 months to 60 days the time period during which you must file an application for benefits after the date of a notice we send explaining the need to file an application. We are proposing this revision to make the time period used in the title II program consistent with the time period used in other programs we administer under the Act. We believe that eliminating the difference between the time periods in the programs we administer would make it easier for the public to understand and follow our rules.

Would it not work just as well to revise the SSI rules to provide for a six month period there? It seems that the intent is to save a modest amount of money.

Update: This has now been published in the Federal Register.

Could Social Security Take Over Some Functions From Railroad Retirement?

The New York Times has been reporting on troubles at the Railroad Retirement Board, (RRB) which, unlike Social Security, has been approving a very high percentage of disability claims. Today's New York Times article on the situation reports that the Inspector General At RRB has been proposing that the Social Security Administration assume some of RRB's duties.

Fee Cap Legislation Introduced

Representative John Lewis of Georgia has introduced H.R. 7285 on Social Security attorney fees. Here is the relevant language of the bill:

(a) In General- Section 206(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 406(a)(2)(A)) is amended--

(1) in clause (ii)(II), by striking `$4,000' and inserting `$6,264.50'; and

(2) in the matter following clause (iii), by striking `The Commissioner of Social Security may' and all that follows through `such date.' and inserting the following: `The Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust annually (after 2008) the dollar amount set forth in subclause (II) of clause (ii) under procedures providing for adjustments in the same manner and to the same extent as adjustments are provided for under section 215(I)(2)(A), except that any amount so adjusted that is not a multiple of $0.10 shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $0.10.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to fees to be recovered to compensate for services with respect to claims of entitlement to past-due benefits presented to the Commissioner of Social Security on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

It is way too late for action on the bill in this Congress, but Representative Lewis will presumably reintroduce the bill in the next Congress, which convenes on January 3.

Update: By the way, is Lewis' sponsorship of this bill a sign that he is interested in becoming the new Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee? Lewis has been the Chairman of the Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee.