Social Security Workforce Declining Rapidly

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated figures for the number of employees at Social Security. Here they are, with earlier numbers for comparison purposes.

• December 2011 65,911
• September 2011 67,136
• June 2011 67,773
• March 2011 68,700
• December 2010 70,270
• June 2010 69,600
• March 2010 66,863
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990
• September 2007 62,407
• September 2006 63,647
• September 2005 66,147
• September 2004 65,258
• September 2003 64,903
• September 2002 64,648
• September 2001 65,377
• September 2000 64,521
• September 1999 63,957
• September 1998 65,629

     That's 6% decline since Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives. Just imagine what they could do with control of the White House and Senate.

Insurance Companies Worry About Social Security's Operating Budget

     From LifeHealthPro, an insurance industry website:

Michael Astrue, commissioner of the Social Security Administrator (SSA), is begging Congress to give the agency at least as much funding as it has requested for fiscal year 2013.

The new fiscal year starts Oct. 1.

SSA has asked Congress to provide $11.9 billion in budget authority for 2013, up from $11.6 billion for 2012.

For private disability insurers, the statue (sic) of SSA's Social Disability Insurance (SSDI) program is a high priority

     It's a high priority for them since long term disability benefits paid by insurers is reduced by Social Security disability benefits. Slowdowns in processing and paying Social Security disability claims cost these insurance companies money. Perhaps it happens and I don't see it but I've never seen any sign that the insurance companies lobby for increased appropriations for Social Security. 

Obesity And Social Security

     Christopher Pashler of the State University of New York at Buffalo has done a study of Social Security's treatment of disability claims filed by the obese since the agency rescinded its obesity Listing. His conclusion is that the elimination of the Listing has made the agency less able to render consistent decisions in obesity cases and that the obese are more vulnerable to bias. I will warn you that Pashler's study contains way too many literary references, especially if you count references to The Simpsons as literary.

     I think that a lot of other people, even including Pashler, who consider this issue in the abstract, have trouble comprehending the reality that Social Security is denying the disability claims of people who weigh over 600 pounds. Have you ever met someone who weighed this much? Can you really understand their difficulties? Do you feel revulsed by the idea of someone weighing this much? Do you think it appropriate to deny disability claims based upon that revulsion?

     I have always had the gut feeling that the obesity listing was eliminated to please the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). My guess is that OMB wanted Social Security to save some money on disability claims somehow and Social Security chose to hit on the obese. Can anyone tell me whether my gut feeling is correct?

Republicans Continue Their Quest For Electoral Disaster

     In a major policy address today at a nearly empty Ford Field, Mitt Romney promised that if he is elected President that he would "slowly raise the retirement age" and "slow the growth in benefits for higher-income retirees" meaning that he wants to means test benefits. He believes that saying this will help him get elected President. Most people believe he's the most electable Republican.

Budget Committee Schedules Hearing

     The House Budget Committee, chaired by Paul Ryan, the fellow who persuaded Congressional Republicans to embrace a plan to end Medicare, has a hearing scheduled for February 28 on Strengthening Health and Retirement Security. The Chief Actuaries of the Social Security Administration and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services are scheduled to testify. 

I'm Shocked! Shocked!

     From a press release issued by Sam Johnson, Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee:

Recently, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued the first of two reports looking at Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) who are outliers because of the number of cases they have or have not handled or the number of awards they have handed out. ... The request was made in the wake of a Wall Street Journal article exposing the practices of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in a West Virginia hearing office who granted awards in 1,280 of the 1,284 disability cases he decided.  

“As Chair of the Social Security Subcommittee, I am extremely troubled by the enormous freedom this ALJ had in assigning himself cases – and then rubberstamping approval for nearly all of them with no accountability or oversight,” said Sam Johnson (R-TX). 

“This report is a real eye opener.  How can we trust the fairness of ALJ decisions when even some of their own co-workers say that the decisions could be influenced by the ALJ’s own political views and personal biases?  While ALJs must be free to do their jobs without agency interference or reprisal, they are supposed to follow the rules, not make their own.  The Subcommittee’s hearing series on securing the future of the disability insurance program will ask the tough questions and seek the right answers in order to ensure that the public is served fairly and that precious taxpayer dollars are not wasted,” added Chairman Johnson.  

     Political views and personal biases affecting judicial decisions! I'm shocked! Shocked!
     Let me let Representative Johnson in on a secret that lawyers don't generally share with laypeople. There is no judge whose decisions are completely unaffected by their political views and personal biases. This is especially the case when judges make decisions in cases where there is no clear cut "right" answer. This is more visible in Social Security disability cases because they are unusually difficult to judge.
     The same problem is also quite visible at the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that Representative Johnson is quite happy with political views and personal biases affecting judicial decisions when it's, let's say, Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas making the decisions.
     In any case, I don't know what report Representative Johnson was reading. The one I read didn't show anything that would shock anyone familiar with Social Security disability hearings. I was under the impression that there wasn't anything like a bombshell in the report.

New Regs On Recontacting Medical Sources And Dangerous Claimants

     Social Security has posted two separate notice in today's Federal Register. Here's an excerpt from the first:

We are modifying the requirement to recontact your medical source(s) first when we need to resolve an inconsistency or insufficiency in the evidence he or she provided. Depending on the nature of the inconsistency or insufficiency, there may be other, more appropriate sources from whom we could obtain the information we need. By giving adjudicators more flexibility in determining how best to obtain this information, we will be able to make a determination or decision on disability claims more quickly and efficiently in certain situations.

      And from the second:

We are revising our regulations at Sec. Sec. 404.937 and 416.1437 to further describe when the Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judge will find a claimant or other individual poses a reasonable threat to the safety of our employees or other participants in the hearing. We are making these changes to respond to public comments we received.

ODAR Processing Time Report

     Below is a processing time report for Social Security's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). This is from the newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR).

Processing Time Report 1-27-12