Social Security Warns Of Scam

From KOLO-TV:

Watch out for callers who try to get your personal information, Social Security warns.

The latest telephone scam appears to be targeted at the Latino community. In this scam, the caller tells beneficiaries that they will be receiving additional payments from Social Security. All they need to do is verify their bank account information and Social Security Number in order to receive these funds. The caller also told beneficiaries that they would not receive the money unless they provided the requested information by a specified date.
Click here to find out more!

As a general rule, Social Security will not call you for your personal information such as your Social Security Number or banking information.

"If something about a call doesn't feel right, it probably isn't legitimate," Social Security Regional Communications Director Leslie Walker warned.

Financial Literacy Plan Runs Into Obstacles And Opposition

From a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG), responding to a request from House Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy (footnotes omitted):

In a May 20, 2010 letter, you requested that we conduct an audit of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Financial Literacy Initiative. Specifically, you requested that we determine (1) why SSA considered its Financial Literacy Research Consortium (FLRC) necessary; (2) whether SSA coordinated with other agencies or the Office of Management and Budget to ensure research and development efforts were not duplicative; and (3) what SSA’s expert panel found when reviewing the FLRC grant proposals. ...

In April 2009, SSA published a Request for Applications (RFA) soliciting research proposals for a 5-year cooperative agreement for which SSA would award grants. ...

In the first stage of the review process, SSA deemed all 10 applications received to be responsive to the RFA criteria.

The second stage called for an expert panel to conduct a technical review and score applications. SSA selected a 12-member expert panel to provide seasoned and respected input. The panel was highly diverse with respect to expertise, organizational representation and outlook, and personal demographics. The panel included Federal executives, experts from the private sector, and academia. ...

After the official review and scoring was complete, some panel members discussed the non-scoring feedback they provided to SSA. Because many had concerns about the proposals, 8 of the 12 expert panelists signed and submitted a letter to SSA contracting personnel. The letter stated that panel members did not believe SSA should fund any of the submitted proposals because they did not address the needs discussed in the RFA. The letter also stated that SSA should cancel the RFA and develop a new one if it wished to focus on improving financial management and decision-making among lower- and middle-income Americans. ...

Results of Review ...

When developing the RFA, requesting resources for the initiative, and ultimately funding the proposed activities of the research centers, SSA coordinated with OMB, other Federal agencies, academia, and leading experts in the field of financial literacy. Although avoiding duplication with other research and development activities may not have been SSA’s primary goal, the Agency was proactive in briefing numerous stakeholders regarding its plans. ...

In our interviews with 11 of the 12 expert panel members, almost all echoed the concerns outlined in the letter they sent to SSA contracting personnel after reviewing and scoring the FLRC grant applications. In fact, although only 8 of the 12 panel members signed the letter, 10 of the 11 we interviewed generally agreed with the concerns expressed. ...

Because SSA officials did not believe Federal grant-making rules allowed them to discuss the concerns expressed in the letter with the expert panel members, SSA did not directly respond to the panel’s letter. ...

In response to congressional questions about duplication of other initiatives, the Commissioner of Social Security responded, “Now that I am aware of these concerns, I have directed staff to closely monitor the progress of the FLRC . . . I will thoroughly review this situation and determine if further action is necessary.” ...

In addition to the concerns expressed in their letter, some panelists told us they had other concerns with the FLRC review process. For example, most of the panelists told us there was a lack of communication with SSA during and/or after the FLRC review. One panelist told us that SSA representatives who were present during the full panel meeting did not want to address panelists’ concerns. In fact, one panelist told us if SSA decisionmakers had addressed their concerns during the panel meeting, they probably would not have written the letter. ...

One panel member stated that, to an extent, the panel’s criticism of the proposals reflected criticism of the financial literacy initiative as a whole. He said that SSA was “reinventing the wheel” in that the proposals were similar to efforts already undertaken by other Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. ...

One panel member believed the panel was uncertain what the RFA was trying to accomplish. She believed the centers receiving the panel’s top scores were already receiving substantial funding from other sources, and she did not think any of the proposals would accomplish more than what was already being done in the area.

Was this plan in the works before Michael Astrue took office?

Watch Out Houston!

From a presolicitation notice posted by the Social Security Administration on FedBizOpps.gov:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) , Region VI Dallas Region, intends to solicit for Fraud Investigation Services for the Dallas Region VI Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit (CDI) located in Houston, TX. The requirement is for the investigation of suspected fraud activities against the Social Security Administration's Title II and Title XVI Disability Programs (including Title XIX Medicaid) in the Houston, TX metropolitan area. The contractor shall provide the necessary personnel, materials, services, equipment and perform all tasks necessary for or incidental to providing the required services. The contractor must be able to provide the following: (1) State wide arrest authority as defined by the statutes and regulations of the State of Texas; (2) Access to reports which are restricted to law enforcement officials; (3) A license to carry a concealed weapon (must be armed); (4) Training in arrest techniques and (5) A valid certification by a Class A Law Enforcement Department (6) Ability to testify in court.

I Predict No Response Before The Election And A "Hell No" After The Election

From Political Brief:

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote to his counterpart today asking for GOP support on helping social security recipients who will not receive cost-of-living adjustments next year.

In a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Reid urges the Republican to support Democratic legislation that would provide one-time $250 checks to seniors in 2011. ...

Reid’s letter was co-signed by 18 other Senate Democrats ...

OIDAP Asks For Comments

Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) has posted a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments on its plan for Social Security to develop its own new occupational information system.

Raising Retirement Age Unpopular In France

From the Associated Press:

Masked youths clashed with police and set fires in cities across France on Tuesday as protests against a proposed hike in the retirement age took an increasingly radical turn. Hundreds of flights were canceled, long lines formed at gas stations and train service in many regions was cut in half. ...

The protesters are trying to prevent the French parliament from approving a bill that would raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 ...

Study On CEs

The Social Security Administration recently released a 2008 study of consultative medical examinations (CEs) performed by Comprehensive Occupational Medical Services (COMS), a contractor. Not all, but many, disability claimants are sent to these exams conducted at Social Security's expense. I have no idea why Social Security took so long to release this. Here are a few findings from the study:

• The mean Quality Rating (QR) of the CE’s reviewed was 2.97 within a range of 1-5: “1” represents an unsatisfactory and unredeemable CE Report and “5” a superbly documented, consistent, and logical report. This finding implies that the majority of CE Reports reviewed were sufficient to provide the DDS with enough clinical information to make an informed claim decision, but were deficient in the amount of clinical detail provided. The common deficiencies noted included: an inadequate history of present illness(es), failure to note medications or medication dosages, an absent or incomplete review of systems, omissions of important details of the physical findings, most commonly involving the musculoskeletal or neurological body systems, and an absent or qualitative medical source statement (MSS).
• Medical evidence of record (MER) was often not forwarded to CE providers. On the other hand, when MER was forwarded, it was unusual to find in CE Reports an adequate description of what items of MER were reviewed by the CE provider. COMS did not find any current policy or regulatory guidance requiring the inclusion of such information in CE Reports.
• The mean QR for CE’s associated with allowance decisions was statistically higher than for denials.
• COMS found that about 25% of X-Rays purchased by DDS’s as part of the CE process were probably unnecessary. Also, most purchased X-Rays, even when apparently indicated based on other CE findings or MER, do not demonstrate important pathological findings for SSA purposes.
• A consistent theme expressed by the DDS’s is that it is difficult at current fee levels to recruit and (retain) CE providers, especially specialists.

This Is Odd

From a notice posted by Social Security on FedBizOpps:

Region X of the Social Security wishes to identify vendors who may provide Verbatim Hearing Recordings (VHR) at various locations. The government contemplates the pursuit of up to three Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery type contracts. One contract would provide all VHR needs in the States of Washington and Idaho, one contract would provide all VHR needs in the State of Oregon, and one contact would provide all VHR needs in the State of Alaska. The period of performance would be one year, with four one-year option periods.

There are a couple of things that I find surprising about this notice. First, my understanding is that Social Security has been contracting with individuals who perform this service rather than trying to contract out the service for an entire state. Second, on April 27 of this year Social Security Commissioner Astrue told the House Ways and Means Committee that "We are in-sourcing verbatim hearing reporting to further improve ALJ productivity."

Can someone tell me what is going on? This is not such a small thing to the hundreds of people who work as hearing reporters.