While Straining To Prove A Minor Point, David Autor Undermines His Entire Thesis

     David Autor is an MIT economist who has done research on the Social Security disability programs. His basic beliefs seem to be that the existence of Social Security disability benefits is a bad thing because if it did not exist some people who are now drawing these benefits would still be working. At the least, he thinks it is too easy to get Social Security disability benefits and that this takes people out of the workforce unnecessarily. I have recently been critical of Autor because it appears to me that he has not taken the time to study the statutes and regulations and policies defining disability and encouraging return to work. Instead, he has just made his own mistaken assumptions about what must these must say. Autor seems far more comfortable with mathematical equations than with the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, much less with the flesh and blood people who apply for Social Security disability benefits.

     Autor is the lead researcher on a new study titled Does Delay Cause Decay? The Effect of Administrative Decision Time on the Labor Force Participation and Earnings of Disability Applicants. Autor and his colleagues go to a lot of trouble to try to prove that the existence of time-consuming appeals mechanisms at Social Security discourage return to work. In the end, by making a lot of possibly questionable assumptions and extrapolations, Autor and his colleagues come to the conclusion that there is some minor decrease in work as a result of the appears process, 3.6% for denied applicants and 5.2% for allowed applicants. And to that, I give a big yawn. I don't doubt that there is some small, fairly meaningless decrease in return to work but I have no idea how we avoid it without doing vast injustice to disabled people.

     However, Autor does not seem to note he has collected data that dramatically undermines his thesis that it is too easy to get on Social Security disability benefits. Below are his numbers from table 1 on page 25 of the report (page 29 of the PDF) concerning return to work by those who apply for Social Security disability benefits and who are then either denied or approved, either initially or after appeals:

      If it is so easy to get on Social Security disability benefits, why is it that such a low percentage of denied applicants go back to work? According to Autor's theory many of those approved should be working but it turns out that even the vast majority of those denied don't go back to work. Four years after being denied at the initial level, 85% are still out of work and Autor thinks it's too easy to get Social Security disability benefits! Yes, if you hold an economic gun to the heads of people who apply for Social Security disability benefits, a few will go back to work but the vast majority don't. Doesn't that mean something? Shouldn't that also be worthy of Autor's attention?

Memorial Day 2012

Looking For A Shortcut But Not Finding One

     From the minutes of the February 22, 2012 meeting of the Social Security Advisory Board (with emphasis added):

During the afternoon, the Board met with representatives from both SSA [Social Security Administration] and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) regarding their collaboration ...

The SSA-NIH presentation highlighted two projects: 1) CAL 1 – an analytic project where NIH researchers developed a systematic approach to select conditions for inclusion in SSA’s Compassionate Allowance (CAL) list; and 2) Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) tools – instruments that will help SSA to measure individual function comprehensively, consistently, and quickly. ... The goal of the CAT tool is the systematic collection of information regarding a claimant’s functioning which can then be scored as part of the determination process.

      CAT appears to be a type of test that might have some usefulness in evaluating potential employees or students but I have a hard time imagining that they would be of any use in disability determination.They tell you nothing about a person's physical abilities. In terms of mental ability, they wouldn't, for instance, tell you whether a claimant suffers from hallucinations or delusions or panic attacks. One might think of them as an alternative to IQ testing but unless you plan to dramatically increase the number of people found disabled, CAT would be useless because anyone close to being found disabled by Social Security due to mental retardation is functionally illiterate and incapable of using a computer for anything like this.
     The SSAB is looking for shortcuts. This is a dead end.

Social Security Faulted For Lack Of Action On Transgender Issues

     From the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

Late last week, the ACLU joined a letter to the Social Security Administration (SSA) drafted by our coalition partners at the National Center for Transgender Equality. The letter expresses a shared concern over a lack of action from SSA on several policy matters of critical importance to transgender people and their families. 

The three areas addressed in the letter include the need for an updated policy for changing gender information in SSA records; revising guidance regarding marriages involving a transgender spouse to accurately reflect state and federal law; and phasing out the use of gender data in SSA computer matching programs.

Please Keep It Coming Senator Simpson!

     Former Senator Allan Simpson, who was the co-head of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, often known as "Bowles-Simpson", is a crotchety old man who has great difficulty taking criticism, especially criticism of the "report" of his panel. I say "report" since it was never officially adopted. Here are some excerpts from a recent screed from Simpson reacting to a flyer, yes, a mere flyer:

Your little flyer entitled “Bowles! Simpson! Stop using the deficit as a phony excuse to gut our Social Security!” is one of the phoniest excuses for a “flyer” I have ever seen. You use the faces of young people, who are the ones who are going to get gutted while you continue to push out your blather and drivel. My suggestion to you — an honest one — read the damn report. The Moment of Truth — 67 pages, and then tell me if we’re not doing the right thing with Social Security. What a wretched group of seniors you must be to use the faces of the very people that we are trying to save, while the “greedy geezers” like you use them as a tool and a front for your nefarious bunch of crap. You must feel some sense of shame for shoveling out this bulls**t.

Veterans Get Big Break On Becoming ALJs

     From a Social Security press release:

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently announced that 10-point preference eligible veterans [those with service connected disabilities] interested in becoming an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and working for Social Security can take the examination now even though the test is closed to all other applicants. More information about this opportunity is available at www.fedshirevets.gov. ...

So far this fiscal year, the agency has hired 210 veterans, including 91 disabled veterans, representing 34% of total new agency hires. Most of these veterans handle benefit claims and help reduce Social Security’s backlog of disability cases. Overall, veterans represent almost 10% of Social Security’s current workforce.

COLA May Be Much Lower

     There's a warning out that the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security is going to be way down this year, to around 1.7% instead of last year's 3.6%

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

    From the Boston Globe:

Federal officials overseeing a fast-growing $10 billion children’s disability program have failed to follow up on the progress of 400,000 beneficiaries with behavioral, learning, and mental disorders, allowing families to receive monthly cash benefits for years even if their children’s condition has improved, according to a draft report from the Government Accountability Office obtained by the Globe.

The report by the investigative branch of Congress estimated that the Social Security Administration, which runs the Supplemental Security Income program, might save $9 for every $1 it spends on disability reviews by determining that some children no longer qualify. Reviews are typically required once every three years for the 1.3 million children now receiving benefits, a record high.

      And why is Social Security not doing these reviews? Because they don't have enough operating funds, that's why.