Colvin Testifies Before House Committee

Carolyn Colvin, Social Security's Deputy Commissioner, is testifying today before the House Appropriations Committee on overpayment issues at Social Security. Her written testimony repeatedly emphasizes that reducing overpayments depends greatly upon an adequate operating budget for Social Security.

Can't We Do Better?

This is a slightly edited version of an e-mail I recently from another attorney who represents Social Security claimants. He was asking for advice on what to do:

I was original attorney, another attorney in my office covered hearing for me. We filed new fee agreement and forms 1695 and 1696. My staff didn’t withdraw my name and waive fee. In any event, the Administrative Law Judge approved the fee agreement. Social Security issued 2 fee checks -- one for me and one for the other attorney in my office (split down the middle). This was back in January. I get a letter today from the Regional Chief Judge, stating that the processing center protested the fee agreement because one or more reps from the same office did not sign a single fee agreement. They cited Hallex I-1-2-12. Then goes on to say we have 60 days to submit fee petition.

Does this make sense to anyone? Yes, it is in accordance with obscure, pointless Social Security policies but does it make sense?

When I have raised issues concerning the absurdities of attorney fee regulation as applied to law firms on this blog, the responses I have gotten from Social Security employees have ranged from "Who cares?" to "It's our policy and you'd jolly well better follow every jot and tittle of it or else!" to "Good! You attorneys make more money than I do."

This is bureaucracy at its worst: obscure, pointless policies that have nothing to do with implementing any statute or protecting the public interest being implemented haphazardly by an agency that refuses to deal with the issue.

We need regulations that address the reality that there are such things as law firms and that often the representation of a single client may involve more than one attorney at a law firm.

New Regional Commissioner In Atlanta

From the Anderson, SC Independent Mail:

Michael W. Grochowski has been selected as the regional commissioner for the Atlanta Region of the Social Security Administration. Grochowski began his federal career in 1974 with the Veterans Administration after serving in the armed forces, including a tour in Vietnam. He has held executive positions with the Health Care Finance Administration and the Social Security Administration and was appointed to the Federal Senior Executive Service in 1988.

It appears that Grochowski has been regional commissioner in Social Security's Kansas City region. The Atlanta region is, by far, the largest of Social Security's regions. Regional commissioner in Atlanta is one of the Social Security Administration's most important career positions.

Commissioner Holds Hearing On Compassionate Allowances In Autoimmune Disorder Cases

The Commissioner of Social Security held a public hearing on compassionate allowances in autoimmune disorder cases on March 16.

Just last week I met with three new clients suffering from systemic lupus erythematosus, (SLE) an autoimmune disorder, or at least one that is frequently classified as an autoimmune disorder. These days I am taking on more multiple sclerosis (MS) cases than ever before. MS can also be characterized as an autoimmune disorder.

Is anything the Commissioner doing with compassionate allowances going to help my SLE or MS clients? Not likely. Can anyone give me an example of someone who would be helped by compassionate allowances who wouldn't have been quickly approved anyway?

As pet projects go, compassionate allowances is innocuous. It is certainly better than former Commissioner Barnhart's Disability Service Improvement (DSI) fiasco although DSI included "Quick Disability Determinations" (QDD) for those who were "obviously disabled." I have not seen any explanation of the difference between QDD and compassionate allowances. As a practical matter, I do not think there is a difference beyond the fact that Astrue is Commissioner and Barnhart is gone.

Enter The Social Security News March Madness Bracket Challenge

At the extreme risk of embarrassing myself once again, I have set up a Social Security News NCAA March Madness bracket group. Click here to enter.

The password for our group is:

SSA

There is no prize for winning except for the recognition you receive here. Social Security employees should not enter the competition while on the clock.

Chances Of Government Shutdown Increase?

From David Rogers, writing at Politico:

Tuesday’s breakdown in Republican discipline weakens Speaker John Boehner’s hand in White House budget talks and raises the chances of a government shutdown next month unless he and President Barack Obama greatly step up their game.

Fifty-four Republicans broke ranks with Boehner, leaving him suddenly dependent on Democrats to win House approval of a must-pass three-week spending bill to keep the government operating past Friday. Tea-party-backed freshmen contributed to the embarrassment, but an equal force was a set of more veteran conservatives — some with their own political agenda but also more willing to risk an immediate fight with the White House.

“I think we have to have a fight. I think this is the moment,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) told POLITICO prior to the vote. “Things don’t change around here until they have to, and Republicans ought to draw a line in the sand.”

Brian Beutler, writing at TPM argues that the defection of many House Republicans increases the power of House Democrats.

House Democrats Press For Adequate Social Security Budget

From a press release:

Today 125 members of the House Democratic Caucus sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) urging him to restore reasonable funding levels to the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the House Republican 2011 budget to avoid shutting down the agency for the equivalent of a month this year.

Least Discussed And Most Muddled

From The Economist:

Thomas Scully has a busy law office in Lake County, Indiana. He mainly practices disability law, with good reason. Lake County is home to steel mills. Workers have aching backs and hands warped by machinery. Mr Scully helps them win Social Security Disability Insurance (DI), which provides cash and, after two years, access to Medicare, government-subsidised health insurance meant mainly for the elderly. DI is not supposed to be a safety net for the jobless. “I tell clients”, Mr Scully explains, “disability insurance is not unemployment insurance.” But they should be forgiven for being confused.

Politicians like to deride expensive programmes. DI may be the least discussed and most muddled. The programme is severely strained. The number of awards has spiked in the downturn, rising 28% since 2007. This surge follows decades of growth. DI accounted for about 10% of Social Security spending in 1989 but 18% by 2009. This is not because beneficiaries are bending any rules; the real problem is that the rules are a mess.

The article goes on to make a classic argument about the Social Security program which I will paraphrase: "It's much easier to get disability benefits now than it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s; therefore the program has run amok." A more sensible take would be to first examine what was going on in the late 1970s and early 1980s to determine whether that was some golden age. It was not. Disability standards were preposterously tight in those days, by far tighter than anything before or since. The problem is not what is going on now; the problem was what was going on then, but that does not make for an interesting story.

Of course, the author is right in saying that discussions of Social Security disability benefits are frequently muddled.