NADE Newsletter

The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), an organization that represents the people who make initial and reconsideration determinations upon Social Security disability claims at state Disability Determination Services (DDS), has issued its Summer 2009 newsletter.

The newsletter contains a good deal of information about NADE's interaction with the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). I noticed the NADE seems interested in eliminating the concept of transferable skills in determining disability.

The newsletter contains a list showing the problems caused for DDS's around the country by state budget problems. The list shows seven states with DDS hiring freezes and five states with furloughs of DDS personnel. The list is more than three months old so things may be worse in many states by now. I know that things are worse in North Carolina, where we now have a partial furlough of all state employees, including DDS employees.

Many Criminal Charges In Michigan

From WILX:

More than 200 Muskegon-area residents are accused of cashing duplicated Social Security disability checks and defrauding the federal government of more than $400,000.

The Muskegon Chronicle and WOOD-TV report state charges were announced Monday against 209 individuals.

The suspects were identified during a 10-month investigation code-named "Operation Rain Check." Investigators say many cashed duplicate Social Security checks after claiming the originals were stolen or lost. Some were collecting checks for other people as "representative payees."

Fifty-six suspects are charged with felonies and 153 with misdemeanors. Arrest warrants have been issued and the suspects will be arraigned in 60th [?] District Court in batches over the next several weeks.

Why Put Retarded People On The Hit List?

A document issued by the staff of the Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) seems to me to display a fixed intention to make it harder for persons with low cognitive abilities to qualify for Social Security disability benefits.

First, let us define a term. "Cognitive" refers to intellectual qualities -- the ability to think, reason and remember. Someone with low cognitive abilities has a low IQ. Those who have cognitive difficulties range from merely having low average intelligence to being profoundly retarded. Some disability claims are filed based solely upon very low cognitive abilities, but many more are filed by those who have a combination of somewhat low cognitive abilities with other physical or mental impairments.

There is extensive and persuasive evidence that the cognitive demands of employment have increased in recent decades. I was under the impression that this was a well-established fact that no one disputes. As one who has been around for a few decades, I though it was self-evident.

And yet, we have a statement by the staff of ODIP that they know that if they collect data about the cognitive demands of employment that there is no question about it, that it will become harder for Social Security disability claimants with low cognitive abilities to qualify for benefits. The only issue they perceive is how to defend this. I think they correctly perceive that defending this will be difficult.

How does OIDAP staff know that if they devise a system that generates data about the cognitive demands of employment that this data will make it harder for retarded people to get disability benefits? They have not finished devising a data collection system, much less collected any data. Such information as we have already tells us to expect the exact opposite, that updated data will show fewer employment opportunities for people who have low cognitive abilities. It sounds like OIDAP staff has prejudged what an updated occupational information system will show and that they intend for it to hurt retarded people. Why? How did retarded people get on the hit list? How can one interpret this as anything other than prejudice against people with low cognitive abilities? How do we trust OIDAP to devise a fair system when their staff has a preconceived intention to use the new system to hurt a class of disability claimants?

SSAB Releases Report On SSI Payment Accuracy

The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has just released a May 2009 report it prepared on payment accuracy in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. I have no idea why this report is just now showing up on the SSAB website.

The report shows a dramatic decline in SSI redeterminations between 2003 and 2007. The effect has been a dramatic increase in SSI overpayments.

The report also shows a dramatic increase in the backlog of SSI cases awaiting continuing disability reviews. When cases were reviewed, most of the time the only "review" was a mailing to the claimant asking some questions. Unless the claimant reported that he or she was improved or had gone back to work, there was little chance of the "review" leading to the termination of benefits.

This has been caused by budget problems at Social Security. While Republicans controlled Congress, Social Security was given such inadequate operating funds that the agency had to cut back on anything not immediately necessary. The result was poorer service to the public and poor stewardship of public funds. Things are getting better now, but only very slowly.

Putting Things In Perspective

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released updated long term projections for the Social Security trust funds. Here is an excerpt:

CBO estimates that if the Social Security payroll tax rate was increased immediately and permanently by 1.3 percentage points—from the current rate of 12.4 percent to 13.7 percent—the trust funds’ balance at the end of 2083 would equal projected outlays for the subsequent year.

When you put it that way, Social Security's financing problems sound like something easily solved.

Updated Fee Payment Information

Updated information on payment of fees to attorneys and others for representing Social Security disability claimants:

Fee Payments
Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-09	28,423	$101,128,880.69
Feb-09	31,352	$112,791,207.17
Mar-09	29,199	$104,155,187.96
Apr-09	30,963	$110,133,425.19
May-09	36,603	$126,725,262.45
June-09	31,799	$113,962,564.84
July-09	34,802	$124,621,068.71

E-Pulling Finally Killed Off

The Social Security Administration has finally decided to kill off the e-pulling experiment. Before being heard by Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), the files of disability claimants are normally put into some semblance of order by staff at hearing offices. This "pulling" of exhibits can be a time consuming business. Lisa DeSoto, the former head of Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), thought that a computer program could do this. A lot of people, including me, kept saying that e-pulling would never work. We were right. Too much judgment is involved in pulling exhibits to allow a computer program to perform this vital task. I wonder how much money was wasted.

Number Of ALJs To Increase

There is a report on the ALJ Discussion Forum from an anonymous but previously reliable source that Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue has decided to increase the number of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) at his agency from 1,450 to 1,600 in fiscal year (FY) 2011 and FY 2012 and to open 15 additional hearing offices in FY 2011.