Hearing On SSI Administration

     The Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on July 25 on the use of technology to improve Supplemental Security Income (SSI) administration. I noticed nothing of much import in the written statements. There were two witnesses who clearly should not have been testifying, in my opinion, but I won't go into that. I think anyone who takes even a cursory look at this will quickly understand why I say this. 

     I found this bit from the written testimony of Patrick O'Carroll, Social Security's Inspector General, interesting since it's not something that would have occurred to me -- even though I have told clients in the past to apply for these types of benefits:

A recipient may not be eligible for SSI if SSA advises him or her of potential eligibility for other benefits—such as Title II benefits, veterans’ benefits, workers’ compensation, or unemployment insurance—and he or she does not take all steps to obtain such payments within 30 days.

Another type of benefit that falls into this category is a foreign-based pension. We currently have an audit in process that is examining the issue of SSI recipients who are eligible for or receiving a pension from Russia. Foreign entities that pay income to individuals living in the United States do not usually make this information available to the IRS; therefore, SSA cannot detect these pensions as it can with domestic entities. In Russia, pensions may be payable to individuals with as few as five years of work in
the country, even though the individuals reside in the United States.

Through data analysis, we identified a population of more than 25,000 SSI recipients nationwide who might be eligible for Russian pensions.

Danger Ahead

     According to a Senate Appropriations Committee report(page 77), the Social Security Administration would suffer a major blow if the budget cuts provided for in last year's budget deal are applied uniformly across the board to all domestic agencies. Social Security would lose 5,000 employees and all of the agency's employees and all Disability Determination Services employees would suffer approximately six weeks of furloughs. The average processing time at the initial level on disability claims would raise from 111 days to 180 days and the number of pending disability claims would nearly double from 861,000 to almost 1.5 million by the end of the fiscal year.

     Let me state again that this report assumes that the sequestration would be applied uniformly across all agencies. Neither the appropriations bill reported out of committee in the Senate nor the appropriations bill reported out of subcommittee in the House would do that. They would cut Social Security but not as badly as the sequestration. We have not heard exactly what the results would be under the House or Senate bills but there would still be considerable pain for Social Security. That does not mean that this report means nothing. We are a long way from any appropriations bill passing Congress. I can certainly predict that it will not happen before the election and probably won't happen for six months or more into the fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2012. This report shows what will happen if we go into a Continuing Funding (CR) Resolution to keep government going, which is almost certain to happen, and the CR is at the sequestration rate, which may or may not happen, and Social Security is not protected -- which is a very real possibility. These dramatic reductions in Social Security's administrative budget could happen before the election and could extend well past the election regardless of who is elected President. It could even last the entire fiscal year.

     Don't assume that Social Security will be protected from this disaster. Other agencies have their own arguments for protection from sequestration. Exempt Social Security and some other agency gets hit even harder. If Congress can't pass an actual appropriations bill that deals rationally with sequestration, how will it get its act together well enough to craft a CR that makes a rational allocation of the pain of sequestration?

I Haven't Noticed Social Security Changing Its Notices To Make Them Easier To Understand -- Have You?

     From the Baltimore Sun:

Advocates for plain language have issued their first report card on how clearly federal agencies communicate with taxpayers and others — and the Social Security Administration has drawn a pair of C's.
That put the Woodlawn-based administration in the middle of the dozen agencies assessed by the Center for Plain Language. The Washington-based organization promotes clear, easy-to-understand communication in government, business, nonprofits and academia.
On the first anniversary of the Plain Writing Act, the center graded each agency this month on how well it has met the requirements of the law and how well it has followed the "spirit" of the legislation. The Social Security Administration earned C's in each category. ...
A spokesman for the Social Security Administration said the agency strongly encourages plain writing, "because it is important that our millions of public communications are clear and concise."
"Even prior to the Plain Writing Act, we began a massive overhaul of our online services, our notices, and even our internal instructions to adhere to the principles of plain language," spokesman Mark Hinkle said. "We know that we can do more to improve our communications."
But Hinkle also defended the agency, saying the report card focused more on the process of conforming to the law than the agency's actual communications.

AC Policy On Extensions Of Time

     The most recent newsletter of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) includes this recent memo concerning Appeals Council policy on extensions of time to submit additional materials. It's nothing earth shaking but it's the sort of thing that needs to be in the public record. I know that this cannot be viewed from Social Security computers but you should have other ways of finding this document. Posting it on Scribd puts it in a more accessible archive than just putting it on this blog. Besides, Social Security ought to unblock Scribd. There's nothing dangerous about Scribd.

AC Extensions Policy

The Downside Of Receiving Social Security Benefits Via Debit Card

      I posted over the weekend about a study showing that the vast majority of those who receive their Social Security benefits via government issued debit card are pleased with the arrangement. Susan Tompor writing in the Detroit Free Press writes about the downside of these debit cards -- fees and costs -- and of ways of avoiding them. If you deal with those who use these debit cards, note in particular the areas below that I have bolded and there's one part so important and so little known that I have put it in a larger font:

A study released last week showed that 95% of cardholders are satisfied with the Direct Express card. About 93% would recommend the card to someone else. More than 2 million active cardholders receive Social Security retirement benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits, as well as other benefits.

Thankfully, the government's debit card does not have the outrageous fees of other prepaid debit-card plastic that you might pick up off the shelf at the store.
But it doesn't mean consumers are completely off the hook.

One free ATM withdrawal is allowed each month on the Direct Express Debit MasterCard. Additional ATM withdrawals are 90 cents.

To get one free ATM withdrawal, consumers must go to one of about 60,000 ATMs in the network. That network includes ATMs at Comerica Bank, Charter One, PNC Bank, Privileged Status, Alliance One, the MasterCard ATM Alliance and MoneyPass.

Plenty of bank names, though, aren't in the network. And it could cost up to $3 or so a pop to get access to your Social Security money at some ATMs -- no free withdrawals -- if you go out of the network. ...

A consumer with the Direct Express card could go to any bank or credit union that displays the MasterCard acceptance mark and get cash from a teller -- not an ATM -- free of charge. ...

There is a $1.50 fee to transfer money from the card to a personal bank account. ...

There's a 75-cent monthly fee to get a paper statement. ...

One free replacement of the card is allowed each year. After that, there is a $4 fee to replace the card. If you wanted to expedite the replacement, there's a $13.30 fee, too.

New Ruling On Fibromyalgia

     Social Security will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow a Ruling 12-2p on the evaluation of fibromyalgia in disability claims. The ruling states that "FM [Fibromyalgia] is an MDI [Medically Determinable Impairment] when it is established by appropriate medical evidence. FM can be the basis for a finding of disability." The ruling specifies that either the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia or the 2010 ACR Preliminary Diagnostic Criteria may be used to determine if the claimant has FM as a MDI. 

     As to determining Residual Functional Capacity, the Ruling states that (footnotes omitted):

Widespread pain and other symptoms associated with FM, such as fatigue, may result in exertional limitations that prevent a person from doing the full range of unskilled work in one or more of the exertional categories ... People with FM may also have nonexertional physical or mental limitations because of their pain or other symptoms. Some may have environmental restrictions, which are also nonexertional.

      The problem with the Ruling is that it demands that a physician write down a long list of the factors used in the ACR criteria which led to the diagnosis of FM. Even rheumatologists don't do that generally any more than psychiatrists record each factor leading to a diagnosis of major depression. If you're a specialist, you may "know it when you see it" without bothering to record each step leading to the diagnosis.

Don't Blame Social Security

     From WOAI:

Knowing how tight money is at the federal level one local company is questioning Social Security spending right here in San Antonio. The agency has decided to move one of its offices .... The two locations are just seven miles apart.

"The figures we're talking about are astronomical,” Henry Bonilla, former US Representative, told us.

Henry Bonilla is a consultant for MAGI Realty. Since June of 1985 the Social Security Administration has been one of their tenants. But back in February SSA signed a new lease agreement with another company. ...

The new lease agreement says before moving in Social Security will pay to renovate the building off San Pedro. The cost for improvements is $1,749,169.

But rent is also going up. At the old place, found off Woodcock Drive, SSA was paying $500,249 a year for 30,079 square feet. The new location has 32,369 square feet and Social Security will pay $1,062,089 a year for the first ten years. ...
 
We reached out to the Social Security Administration to ask about the costs associated with their new move. A representative out of Dallas sent us this response: "This office is hiring more judges and more staff to serve the public. The prior location could not accommodate the need for additional space."

      There is one thing anyone considering this story needs to know immediately. For better or worse, Social Security wasn't responsible for this leasing decision. That's done for all federal agencies by the General Services Administration (GSA). Social Security has a say but it's GSA's call.
     The reason for this move may be as simple as the one indicated by the Social Security spokesperson -- the agency needed more space than it could get at its old location. Obviously, there could have been other problems with the old location. We just don't know about that. The article also mentions the difference in the rental rates at the two sites. Undoubtedly, this article is giving the rental rate on the old site at the rate Social Security was paying under its old lease. What rate was MAGI offering on a new lease? What sort of renovations were they willing to do to get a new lease and who was going to pay for those renovations? That's often the game when you're negotiating office leases.
     Leasing office space is a complicated matter. I've done it for spaces a fraction the size of the one being discussed here. Even with the help of a good realtor who specializes in representing commercial tenants, I've found it confusing. It's way different from leasing an apartment. We do know that GSA handles lots and lots of leases. The agency has an incredible amount of experience in handling office leasing matters. Historically, the problem at GSA hasn't been making bad decisions on leases. The problem has been how long it takes GSA to make decisions on leases.
     Hiring a former Congressman to lobby for you on a federal office space lease? I hope this is not a common thing.
     If you've got such a great office space, why would you worry so much about losing a tenant? Wouldn't you expect to find a new tenant soon enough?

Those Who Want To Cut Social Security Never Let Up

     Dean Baker writing at FDL warns that corporate executives are working behind the scenes to pressure Congress into accepting a budget deal that would include cuts to Social Security and Medicare.