Proposed Endocrine Listings Changes Sent To OMB

Social Security and all other federal agencies must submit all proposed new regulations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House, for approval before publication in the Federal Register. Social Security sent proposed changes to its endocrine system listings to OMB for approval on September 11. It would be nice if the listing for diabetes were made less harsh, but the trend at Social Security in recent years has been to make the listings longer and longer and harsher and harsher. The day may come when the listings run to hundreds of pages.

I still cannot believe that an amputation at the ankle due to diabetes is not enough to meet the listings. That is one of the changes made a few years ago. That is ridiculously harsh in my opinion. My guess is that there are few people even at Social Security who would argue all that much with my opinion on this point.

Astrue Finds "Callous Kumbaya Attitude" Beyond Comprehension

From Government Executive:

According to [Social Security Commissioner Michael] Astrue and other experts on disability claims, the faltering economy is causing an increase in applications of between 15 percent and 25 percent. SSA originally anticipated receiving 2.6 million to 2.65 million applications for disability benefits in fiscal 2009, but upped its prediction to 3 million and another 3 million for 2010. Recently, the agency adjusted its estimates again, increasing the projection for 2010 to 3.3 million applications. ...

Astrue says the agency has been making inroads, reducing processing times by 4 percent each of the past two years. The recession, however, has reversed the progress on the backlog of cases. At the beginning of 2009, SSA had 550,000 cases pending at the state level. The state-run SSA-funded Disability Determination Services do much of the initial processing and eligibility determination for applicants. The number of claims pending at the state level, which does not account for applications at other stages of adjudication, is now up to 725,000. ...

"We've been stymied at the state level," Astrue says. "There's this callous 'Kumbaya' attitude that if there's going to be pain, everyone has to suffer. For me, it's beyond comprehension that you would make a civil service suffer unnecessarily and make claimants in desperate need of assistance wait much longer than they otherwise would." ...

Astrue says having that budget in place by the start of the fiscal year would be a tremendous benefit to the agency.

"There's a possibility - I don't even know the last time this happened - that we could have an appropriation by the start of the fiscal year," he says. "For planning purposes, being able to plan for the full fiscal year is enormous; we should be able to deliver much more use to the public."

I might not have used the word "kumbaya" in discussing the matter but I too find the state government furloughs of Disability Determination employees beyond comprehension.

By the way, I'm still not buying that the increase in claims filed has that much to do with the recession. My understanding is that the huge increase in claims filed did not start until after the inauguration of Barack Obama. I think this has far more to do with public perceptions about the adjudicative climate at Social Security.

SSAB On Health Care Costs

The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued a report with the title The Unsustainable Cost of Health Care. The basic premise of the report, that health care costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate, is beyond debate. What is odd is that the report fails to discuss in any meaningful way the possibility of the so-called "public option," a government run insurance program that competes with private insurers, as a solution or part of a solution for this problem. The possibility of a single payer system is not even hinted at. There may well be no public option in the final plan passed by Congress and signed by the President, but this is certainly on the table. Instead of evaluating the public option as a possible fix for the problem the report states that one reason for increasing health care costs is that too many people have health care insurance! The report says flatly that reducing the ranks of the uninsured would lead to a greater problem with health care costs. The report seems to offer a compilation of plans backed by Republicans as the only possible solutions for the problems identified.

I do not understand why Democrats on the SSAB would sign on to this document.

It is my opinion that the SSAB as presently constituted is a waste of money. This report is certainly a waste of money. Why do Democrats in Congress keep funding SSAB?

Update: One poster noted that the SSAB was set up by statute. That is true but statutory bodies can be defunded. Without an appropriation, SSAB dies. It has happened to other agencies in the past. One that I recall well was the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS). ACUS still exists as a statutory body, but it offended Republicans and was defunded in 1995. For that matter, maybe ACUS should be revived.

Another Year With A Continuing Resolution?

When Congress is unable to complete work on an appropriations bill by the beginning of a fiscal year (FY) -- October 1 -- it passes what is called a continuing resolution that allows the agencies involved to continue spending at the same rate until an appropriations bill is passed.

Take a look at the status of the appropriations bills for FY 2010 which begins in 16 days. Social Security is covered by the Labor-HHS bill. It does not seem likely that all of these bills will be passed by the end of the month. Continuing resolutions hamstring agencies. They make planning difficult.

How Far Will This Go?

From The Hill:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation this week that would provide seniors and others who receive Social Security payments a one-time $150 payment to make up for the loss of the COLA [Cost Of Living Adjustment]. The bill has 14 Democratic cosponsors.

First Meeting Of Social Security Board Happened On This Date In 1935

Picture from left to right are Arthur J. Altmeyer, John G. Winant (Chairman), and Vincent M. Miles.

"Emergency Clause" For Disability Determination

The budget crises that are causing many states to partially furlough their employees, including disability determination employees who make initial and reconsideration determinations and whose salaries are paid by Social Security, has led to the issuance of a new item in Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) concerning the "emergency clause." The "emergency clause" is what Social Security is calling an agreement with a state to transfer some of that state's disability determination workload to Social Security for adjudication at the Office of Central Operations (OCO), Program Service Center - Disability Processing Branch (PSC-DPB), or Disability Quality Branch (DQB).

Unfortunately, Social Security has only very limited ability to help any state, so this may mean little. It may also make it more difficult for OCO, the PSCs and the DQBs to process their regular workloads. I am sure that Social Security realizes that this is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, but they must feel that they have no choice.

Does This Mean Anything?

From a press release:

A poll taken by [a law firm] asked the question, "Do you feel the Social Security Administration will handle your Social Security disability claim fairly?"

The response was astounding. Eighty three (83) percent of the responses to the yes/no question were No; they do not trust the Social Security Administration to handle their claim fairly. At the time of this release 389 people had responded. When such a huge majority of people do not trust the government to handle their disability claim, it simply cannot be ignored.