SSI Overpayments Due To Real Estate Ownership

From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnotes omitted):

SSI [Supplemental Security Income] is a needs-based program, and SSA [Social Security Administration] considers the applicant’s resources, including real property ownership, when determining program eligibility. Real property consists of land and buildings or immovable objects attached permanently to the land. ...

SSA staff can access the LexisNexis Risk Management Solutions database (LexisNexis) as an optional tool to obtain information about SSI applicants’ or recipients’ real property ownership, transfer of real property for less than fair market value, or recent sale of real property. ...

In a July 2009 report, Supplemental Security Income Recipients with Unreported Vehicles, we found that the Agency would have prevented about $551 million in improper payments had its staff used LexisNexis to identify unreported vehicle ownership. ...

While conducting the 2009 audit, we also found that many individuals who did not disclose their vehicle ownership also did not disclose their real property ownership. ...

[W]e used LexisNexis to determine whether there was any indication these individuals owned real property beyond their primary residences. We also reviewed LexisNexis for evidence of other ineligibility issues. In total, we referred 52 cases to SSA for further development since LexisNexis indicated the recipients owned real property that was not accounted for in SSA’s records. ...

SSA’s determinations of SSI recipients’ resources related to real property agreed with public property records in LexisNexis for 298 (85 percent) of the 350 records we reviewed. For the remaining 52 cases, the information in SSA’s records on real property ownership disagreed with information in LexisNexis. LexisNexis data indicated that the recipients owned one or more properties that were not recorded in SSA’s records. SSA reviewed these 52 cases. For 27 of the 52 cases, SSA determined that the information in LexisNexis was accurate; the recipients owned one or more real properties that they had not previously reported to the Agency....

Projecting our findings to the entire population, we estimate that about 541,580 recipients misreported real property ownership, and SSA improperly paid 320,940 of these recipients over $2.2 billion because of their unreported real property.

I would be a bit cautious about this projections. I have dealt with many SSI real property ownership situations where things turned out to be far more complicated than Social Security originally thought. The most common reason is something called "heir property," property in which an SSI recipient has an undivided interest in common with other heirs. Often, there is no practical way for the SSI recipient to demand that the property be divided or sold because land ownership is badly fractionated and there is no way to finance the  transactional expenses involved in dividing the property or forcing a sale. This sort of property usually ends up being sold for unpaid taxes. There are also many, many tracts of property not worth what county tax records show. This is especially the case when we are talking about undeveloped rural real estate which is often almost unmarketable. This is the type of real estate that SSI recipients are most likely to own in my part of the country. The real estate owned by SSI recipients is a can of worms, probably one that Social Security needs to open, but it is still a can of worms. In any case, Social Security can barely open this can of worms with its current staffing level. OIG can issue reports and the House of Representatives can hold hearings but without more personnel it just isn't going to happen.

Zombie-Nihilists

From the Crooks and Liars blog:

Good grief, this nonsense is just exhausting. Nothing is ever settled with these people, they have been coming after Social Security for 75 years, and they just don't quit, no matter how many times they get chased down with walkers and eaten alive by gray panthers. It's like they are programmed or genetically manipulated, like one of those creepy super-soldiers from science fiction that can't stop fighting after the war is over, even though they recognize the reality. 

Nah, I give them too much credit in that scenario. They are just zombie-nihilists and Social Security is the brain they are driven to eat.

STD And LTD Coverage Plummets

From a press release:

According to new research¹ from The Hartford, 49 percent of U.S. workers have short-term disability insurance [STD] and 44 percent have long-term disability insurance [LTD]. This represents a drop of 6 percent and 3 percent, respectively, over last year’s survey in the number of Americans with the coverage that provides an income if one cannot work due to an illness or non-work related injury.

Does Rehabilitating Disability Benefits Recipients Cost More Money Than It Saves?

Social Security has some very preliminary results from the Benefits Offset Pilot Demonstration (BOPD) (emphasis added):

We designed the four-State BOPD project to provide information about the implementation and the effect of a benefit offset for SSDI beneficiaries.  We used the information collected in BOPD to help design the BOND [Benefits Offset National Demonstration] project....

The pilot includes a targeted group of SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance] beneficiaries who chose to volunteer for the project.  We gave them the opportunity to receive a $1 reduction in benefits for every $2 earned above the SGA [Substantial Gainful Activity] threshold amount during the extended period of eligibility (EPE), instead of losing their entire benefit, as they would have under our usual rules....

The State [by state] reports show that the benefit offset had a positive effect on the percentage of beneficiaries who have earnings above the SGA amount ($980 per month for the non-blind in 2009).  We conducted our own analysis using Internal Revenue Service earnings data and our benefit payment administrative records.  We found similar effects on earnings.  However, our analysis also showed an increase in benefit payments because we made partial benefit payments under the benefit offset to beneficiaries who would have had their benefits suspended due to SGA under the current program rules....

 No wonder Social Security wants to stretch out BOND over ten years.

Let's Just Abolish FICA And Be Done With It

From Bloomberg News:

President Barack Obama’s advisers have discussed seeking a temporary cut in the payroll taxes businesses pay on wages as they debate ways to spur hiring amid signs that the recovery is slowing, according to people familiar with the matter. 

The idea, which is in preliminary stages of discussion, is among several being talked about at the White House...

A hiring stimulus based on a tax break for employers may appeal to Republican lawmakers, many of whom have called for measures to help businesses....

A temporary break on employer payroll taxes would echo a centerpiece of the deal Obama and congressional Republicans reached in December 2010 to extend tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush. That package included a two- percentage-point reduction in employee contributions to the payroll tax during 2011.

Update: Daniel Marans at FDL lays out the case against this sort of "temporary stimulus."

More Fallout In West Virginia

From the Wall Street Journal:

The chief Social Security Administration judge in Huntington, W.Va., has stepped down from his post, an agency official told employees Wednesday, broadening the fallout from a recent page-one Wall Street Journal article about the office.

The decision by Charlie Andrus, who became Huntington's chief judge in 1997, was voluntary, two people familiar with the matter said. Debra Bice, the acting national chief judge, told employees in Huntington he would remain with the agency as a judge, the people said.

"Revisions To Direct Fee Payment Rules"

Below is the notice of a regulatory package that the Social Security Administration has sent over to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

AGENCY: SSA	RIN: 0960-AH21
TITLE: Revisions to Direct Fee Payment Rules (3625I)
STAGE: Interim Final Rule	ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 06/06/2011	LEGAL DEADLINE: None

Social Security must have OMB approval before publishing this in the Federal Register. 

No, I don't know what this is. The "interim final" process that Social Security wants to use suggests that  the agency regards this, or at least wants OMB to regard it, as very minor. Could anyone enlighten us?

Update: I found this:

We are revising our rules to include changes made by the Social Security Disability Applicants’ Access to Professional Representation Act of 2010 (PRA). We are revising the requirements that an eligible non-attorney representative must meet to receive direct fee payment under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). We are also making permanent the direct fee payment rules for eligible non-attorney representatives under titles II and XVI of the Act and for attorney representatives under title XVI of the Act. 

It's Only Crazy People

From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (footnotes omitted):

Our objectives were to determine whether the California Disability Determination Services (CA-DDS) (1) incorrectly denied initial claims based on failure to cooperate (FTC) . ...

RESULTS OF REVIEW
CA-DDS did not always comply with SSA’s policies and procedures for FTC denials. Based on our review of 150 FTC denials, we found that 37 (24.7 percent) did not comply with SSA’s policies and procedures ...

We also found that CA-DDS branch offices’ interpretations of the FTC policies resulted in an inconsistent level of service for disability applicants. ...

A DDS is required to assist claimants who allege a mental impairment.When this occurs, a DDS should consider contacting a third party, SSA field office, treating physician, or the claimant. We found that CA-DDS staff did not request assistance from third parties for 12 claimants, as required. These claimants had alleged mental impairments including depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. The claimants had listed authorized representatives, family members, or friends who would provide assistance during the application process. However, CA-DDS did not contact these individuals before denying the claimants for FTC.