House Budget Resolution

The Budget Resolution pending in the House of Representatives is finally available. It "assumes" the same budget amount for Social Security's operating budget as proposed by the President, $11.6 billion (page 33).

The Budget Resolution, however, is not the same as the Appropriation Bill. The Budget Resolution merely sets goals. It is a sign of what may be coming, but the Appropriation Bill is the real deal that actually determines how much money Social Security gets to spend.

Social Security Field Offices In Trouble

The National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security management personnel, has issued its annual survey of its members. Some highlights (emphasis added):

• Recent funding for SSA [Social Security Administration] has been inadequate to provide for the immediate needs of the public. Only 13.1% of FO/TSC [Field Office/Teleservice Center] managers believed that SSA’s budget is sufficient to provide good public service. ...
• Present staffing levels at SSA FOs and TSCs are inadequate. Inadequate funding affects SSA at all levels but is most directly felt by the public through service delivery of FOs and TSCs. 77.4% of respondents reported having insufficient staff to keep workloads current. Only 20.1% thought that their offices were adequately staffed. Managers estimated that they would need an additional staffing increase of 13.5% to have enough resources to provide adequate levels of service. Managers specifically attributed the effect of inadequate staffing levels on the ability of their offices to provide public service in several areas:
• FO Waiting Times – 67.2% of FO managers reported that office waiting times are longer or significantly longer than they were just one year ago. As the most significant reason for long waiting times, 83.1% of FO managers identified issues related to inadequate staffing – high volume of walk-in traffic (56.7%) and insufficient staff (26.4%). ...
• Employee Training – Less than half of managers agreed or strongly agreed that their staffs receive adequate training (49.1%). ...
• Quality of Work Product – While only 22.5% of managers said that the quality of work produced in their office had improved in the last two years; nearly one-third of managers (33.6%) reported that the quality of work produced in their offices was worse or significantly worse. ...
• Electronic services (eServices) is a beneficial service delivery option but has not had a significant effect on reducing FO/TSC involvement with claimants who use eServices. 58.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that recent SSA policy changes to facilitate eServices have improved public service. However, it is not having a significant effect on reducing public demand for services from FOs/TSCs. Only 33.6% of managers believed that it has helped to reduce public demand for services from their office while 54.5% reported that eServices has had either no effect on demand for services or has actually increased demand.

Commissioner Astrue has not addressed these problems in any meaningful way.

Backgrounds For Members Of Occupational Panel

Here is a brief summary of the backgrounds of the individuals selected to be on Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel:

• Gunnar B. J. Andersson, M.D., Ph.D. -- Orthopedic surgeon; No apparent relevant background
  
• Mary Barros-Bailey, Ph.D. -- Vocational expert; History of being a consultant for Social Security on vocational matters
  
• Robert T. Fraser, Ph.D. -- Rehabilitation counselor
  
• Shanan Gwaltney Gibson, Ph.D. -- Assistant professor of Management at East Carolina University with background in occupational analysis; Consultant to State Farm Insurance
  
• Thomas A. Hardy, J.D. -- Attorney in private practice concentrating his work in Social Security and Long Term Disability Appeals; previously a Vocational Disability Counselor; Worked in past as manager of vocational rehabilitation services for major long term disability insurance carrier and has served as representative of the private insurance industry to Social Security.
  
• Sylvia E. Karman -- Director for Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) Occupational Information Development Project
• Deborah E. Lechner -- developer and marketer of Functional Capacity Evaluation instrument
  
• Lynnae M. Ruttledge -- "A person born with a disability"; Director of the Washington Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
• David J. Schretlen, Ph.D. -- Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, as well as an Associate Professor of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is board-certified in clinical neuropsychology. He currently is analyzing predictors of functional disability in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
• Nancy G. Shor -- Executive Director, National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR)
  
• Mark A. Wilson, Ph.D. -- Associate Professor of Psychology, NC State University; Involved in human-resource planning, job analysis, selection (managerial assessment centers), performance appraisal, and compensation for a market-leading insurance company
• James F. Woods -- Led development of the O*NET system

Barking Up The Wrong Tree

I don't know whether to post this or just avert my eyes from someone making making a fuss about something he does not understand. From a press release issued by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa):

Senator Chuck Grassley said his survey of private insurers has found that some are needlessly contributing to the Social Security disability backlog, and he urged the Social Security Administration to recommit itself to preventing disability benefit application fraud and to work with the Inspector General to penalize and prosecute those filing false disability claims. ...

Grassley’s said his conclusions about the way private plans are burdening the public program are based on his review of responses from nine major insurance companies to an inquiry he made late last year about private insurers’ policies and practices concerning disability insurance claims.

Every insurer surveyed by Grassley said it “encouraged, requested, required, expected, asked or suggested” that long-term disability claimants apply for Social Security disability payments once a claim is approved. One private insurer requires that individuals apply. All nine of the insurers’ policies reduce claimants’ disability benefits by the assumed amount of Social Security disability insurance benefits unless it granted an exception. Four private insurers provided information to Grassley about approval rates for Social Security disability claims. Of those four, three had approval rates generally below all disability claims processed by the Social Security Administration.

My experience is that the Social Security disability claims of Long Term Disability (LTD) recipients have very good prospects of success. on Social Security disability claims. Why shouldn't LTD carriers encourage their beneficiaries to apply for Social Security disability benefits? The LTD carriers have more at stake than the claimant. Almost all of these claimants will eventually apply anyway. The sooner, the better for them, since they have a stake in the Social Security disability claim also, because of the Cost of Living Adjustment that applies to Social Security disability benefits but not LTD -- and for other reasons not worth detailing here. I have no idea where Grassley is getting his information about LTD recipients having a lower chance of success. I am nearly certain that he misunderstood something.

It is easy to think that there is something scandalous about the offset in LTD plans for Social Security disability benefits. However, without that offset, the costs of LTD would be far too high and no one would have LTD. Far better to have LTD with an offset for Social Security disability benefits than no LTD at all. Most people just misunderstand what LTD is about, probably because the insurance companies do not go out of their way to explain it. Mostly, LTD insures against the delays and uncertainties in the Social Security disability programs. When you think about it that way, things start to make sense. Also, when you think about it that way, you start to wonder whether the real problem is with the delays and uncertainties at Social Security.

Remember, I do not even like the LTD carriers. They jerk too many of my clients around, not by making them apply for Social Security disability benefits, but by cutting off their LTD benefits inappropriately. I only defend the LTD carriers on this issue because it is a bum rap and a distraction from the real problem at Social Security, which is primarily a lack of staff.

Mom On Ice

From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

An upstate New York man has been accused of stashing his 98-year-old mother's dead body in a freezer in their home so he could keep cashing her Social Security checks.

State police say they discovered Herta Auslander's body in a freezer chest in October after receiving a tip she had died more than a year earlier. An autopsy concluded she died of natural causes.

Astrue On Obama's Body Language And Social Security Solvency

I missed this piece from March 9 in the St. Louis Beacon (emphasis added):

Are you concerned that Social Security will go broke before you reach retirement age?

Michael Astrue, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, certainly isn't.

Not only that, but Astrue (right) -- who was appointed to the post by President George W. Bush -- believes the issue of insolvency will be addressed before the end of President Barack Obama's first term in office. ...

Astrue said the Obama administration has shown strong interest in tackling the issue of solvency, but he doesn't expect movement until the current debate over health care reform is resolved. ...

In one of his more unusual observations, Astrue said that he sees evidence of Obama's commitment in his body language.

"He has a hand gesture that he makes when he talks about Social Security being a solvable issue," Astrue said. ...

"It is an extraordinary time. ... There are huge amounts of money going out with very little consideration and thought for oversight, and things are being cobbled together after the fact. But, generally, there is an attitude of trying to get some things done in a new and different way."

2008 Annual Statistical Supplement Released

Social Security has released its Annual Statistical Supplement for 2008. This contains every imaginable statistic on Social Security other than basic data on operations at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, which for some perverse reason is never presented. Here is one table of interest:

Number of work years, fiscal years 1995–2007

Year	Full-time permanent staff	Total work years
1995	62,504	67,063
1996	62,133	66,726
1997	61,224	69,378
1998	59,943	67,210
1999	59,752	66,459
2000	60,434	65,521
2001	61,490	65,562
2002	61,914	65,742
2003	63,569	65,343
2004	63,186	66,154 c
2005	63,696	68,026 d
2006	61,692	66,878
2007	60,206	63,939

Claimants Getting Shortchanged?

I just noticed this in Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) §SI 00206,200.A.1 (emphasis added):

It is longstanding SSI policy to deduct the expenses of obtaining income from that income before counting it in the SSI eligibility and payment computations. See SI 00830.100. In all title II and title XVI offset cases these expenses include any attorney or nonattorney representative fees that apply to the title II benefits, even if part of the fee is determined based on title XVI past-due benefits. These expenses may also include out-of-pocket expenses that are not part of the fee but are paid by or billed to the claimant.

I know how to notify Social Security of the out of pocket expenses paid by my clients under the fee petition process, but how am I supposed to notify them of the costs under the fee agreement process, which is used about 98% of the time? It looks to me as if Social Security never developed a process for this and that claimants are getting shortchanged as a result. I cannot be the first person to notice this. What is the history on this?