Study On Effects Of Great Recession On Disability Claims

     From the abstract of a study done by Norma Coe and Matthew Rutledge for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

Much as in previous recessions, the number of applications to public disability insurance programs increased sharply during the Great Recession.  We find that the composition of applicants also changes across business cycles.  For example, applicants during economic downturns, and especially during the Great Recession, are younger, better educated, higher income, and more likely to have recent work experience.  However, we find only mixed evidence supporting the theory that the increase in applications in downturns is caused by healthier applicants who apply to disability programs only because they are unemployed. ...

We find that changing demographics and unemployment rates explain less than half of the increase in the application rate and only one quarter of the increase in the awards to applicants (the allowance rate) between the 2004-2006 expansion and the Great Recession.  Further, these same factors predict a fall in the award rate (among eligible individuals), in contrast to the increase observed in the data.  Together with the fact that there have been no programmatic changes in the disability programs in the 2000s, these results suggest there have been fundamental changes over the last decade in the way that people apply to disability and in the way these applications are evaluated that cannot be explained by observable differences.

     I have read through this report and do not see any explanation of the logic used by the authors in coming to the conclusion that there must have been some "fundamental change" in the last decade in the way that disability claims are evaluated. It is just stated baldly. The report indicates that the authors were, in general,  considering demographic factors such as age but it's quite clear that their focus was on macroeconomic factors. In general, I'm just leery of a report by economists who has no real understanding of how disability is determined at Social Security.
    In reports like this there is always the underlying assumption that working people with health problems sit around thinking about whether they should continue work or apply for Social Security disability benefits. I'm sure that some do but I'm also sure that's generally not the case. Only a few people stop work due to illness and then immediately file Social Security disability claims. The vast majority wait months, even years, to file disability claims. They hope they'll get better. They don't want to apply for Social Security disability benefits because they view it as difficult and unpleasant and an admission of a personal failing. Speedups and slowdowns in disability claims are primarily due to demographic factors but secondarily due to factors that increase or decrease the financial pressures faced by potential claimants who have already left employment. Often, potential claimants, that is people who have already left work due to illness, are motivated to file claims by the loss of some other family income, such as their spouse being laid off and their family being desperate for income. Almost always people stop work and only later start thinking about Social Security disability.

Cato Isn't Expecting Privatization

     Giving us an idea how the right wing views their chances of privatizing Social Security, Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute writes that that Australia's privatized Social Security system would be a great model for the U.S. All it will take for such a thing to happen in the U.S. is "some sort of Greek-style fiscal meltdown that led to a societal collapse." In a footnote, Mitchell says he doesn't think the U.S. is heading for such a collapse. I guess that means he thinks privatization of Social Security isn't going to happen.

    By the way, Australia never had anything like the U.S. Social Security system. What they had was a means tested program like the U.S. Supplemental Security Income program. That program never went away. They just added a mandatory retirement savings plan on top of it. Basically, Australia uses means tested programs a lot more than the U.S. If you try to compare Australia and the U.S.on income security, I think you're going to find far more indicia of government dependence in Australia.

Inspector Javert Is Alive And Well And Working At Social Security

     From the State Journal-Register of Springfield, IL:

About 50 years ago, Harry and Gladys Samonds owned Ferrell’s Corner, a tavern, and the Illini Court Motel at Clear Lake and Dirksen.  Harry was pretty well-known in Springfield when he died in 1969. He left behind Gladys and his son, Mike, at their home on Ridge Avenue.

Mike was only 15 when his father died. As a minor, he qualified for survivor benefits through Social Security. Monthly checks were sent to Gladys since Mike was a minor. ...
Today, Mike and his wife, Brenda, live in Glenarm. After filling out their federal tax return for last year, they were due a refund. A few weeks ago the refund check arrived. But it was $189.10 light.

Mike and Brenda thought that was odd and were wondering what the explanation could be. They soon found out. A letter to them from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Management Service out of Alabama said money was being deducted from the Samonds’ refund and would be taken by Social Security to satisfy Mike’s debt to said agency. ...

The notice from Treasury says, and I quote, “The Agency has previously sent notice to you at the last address known to the Agency.” (That would be Gladys’s 40-year-old address) “That notice explained the amount and type of debt you owe, the rights available to you, and that the Agency intended to collect the debt by intercepting any Federal payments made to you, including tax refunds.”

A letter, dated April 10, arrived from the folks at Social Security. It says, “We recently received $189.10 of a Federal payment you were due and used it toward the overpayment of Social Security benefits paid to you.”

Social Security says, then, that over 40 years ago it overpaid $189.10 in Mike’s survivor benefits and it took that amount from the Samonds’ tax refund to make it good. ...

The letter to Mike and Brenda from Social Security included a Chicago phone number for Mike to call if he had any questions. Of course he did. But I don’t even need to tell you what happened when Mike called the number.

“I was on hold for 45 minutes,” he says. “I put the phone down but could hear the music playing. When it stopped, I picked it up.”

He might as well have called Mars for all the assistance he got.

     What happened here was not some weird accident. It's official policy. There is no statute of limitations on collection of overpayments by administrative offset. Not even 50 years.
     Is this reasonable?

Retirement Of Nancy Shor

     The following is a message just sent out by the President of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) to NOSSCR members: 

Nancy Shor, our long-time Executive Director, has advised the Board of her decision to step down as Executive Director. I am pleased that she will continue with NOSSCR during this transition and that she will be staying on in another capacity. I know I can speak for all of us when I say that words cannot express our gratitude for the wonderful job Nancy has done as our one and only Executive Director.

As NOSSCR president, I have set up a search committee to find our new Executive Director. If you or anyone you know is interested in this position, please forward a resume to me at ________. Resumes need to be submitted by May 5, 2013.

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, send me an email or call me at _______. 

Debra S. Shifrin Attorney at Law.

     I'm leaving out Debra's e-mail address and telephone number since those were intended for NOSSCR members. I'm sure that any resumes or messages sent to NOSSCR's offices will reach Debra.

     I'm sorry that this day has arrived. Nancy Shor has been NOSSCR's Executive Director since it was formed in 1979. I've been amazed by Nancy's ability to deal with the multitude of issues that have confronted NOSSCR. There has never been any internal NOSSCR issue that ever posed a significant threat to the organization. That's all due to Nancy's skill. When you're talking about a 34 year time period, that's just astonishing.  Nancy has been a trusted friend to generations of NOSSCR presidents, board members and NOSSCR members in general and all of those categories include me. I'm glad to see that Nancy will still be around in a consultant relationship. Her abilities and experience will be greatly missed but what we'll mostly miss is -- Nancy.

     Nancy's importance in the Social Security world extended well beyond NOSSCR. She represented NOSSCR in its dealings with Social Security, Capitol Hill and other organizations. There have been 19 Social Security Commissioners since Nancy first became Executive Director of NOSSCR. There's no way of counting the number of members of Congress, Congressional staffers, Social Security officials and executives of other organizations she's dealt with. Everyone knew Nancy. Everyone listened to Nancy.

     I hope that despite retiring, Nancy will have a long continued relationship with NOSSCR.

ALJ Assignments Now Shown On Hearing Office Status Report

     Social Security's Hearing Office Status Report in the ERE system now shows the name of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to whom a pending request for hearing has been assigned. This is done not merely for cases that have been scheduled for hearing. Most of mine with a request for hearing date after the middle of July 2012 have an assigned ALJ even those most of these clients will not have a hearing scheduled for several months. Some cases where the request for hearing was only filed in the last three months have an assigned ALJ. Perhaps these are cases that were considered for dismissal or on the record reversal. This may vary from office to office.

Examining That NPR Series

     From a press release:

Online now and airing this Sunday at 5:30 p.m. (April 21) on the Philadelphia CNN-News affiliate WFMZ-TV, The American Law Journal presents "Social Security Disability- Unfit for Work?" examining a March 22, 2013 National Public Radio broadcast of "This American Life" that according to panelists on the program has drawn both staunch praise and heavy criticism.

Joining host Christopher Naughton are Pennsylvania claimants' attorney, Jess Leventhal of Leventhal, Sutton & Gornstein, former SSA representative and New Jersey claimants' attorney, Alan Polonsky of Polonsky & Polonsky, Rebecca Vallas, staff attorney for Community Legal Services of Philadelphia and Jagadeesh Gokhale, Senior Fellow with the CATO Institute, from CNN studios in Washington, D.C.

     This is a "debate" between three well-informed people and one uninformed ideologue who sticks to talking points.

Is It Wrong For A State To Do This?

     From the New Hampshire Union-Leader:

Four years ago, in the depths of the Great Recession, staffers in the state Division of Family Assistance started to notice that people were applying for disability income through the state, but not following through with their federal applications.

"In 2009, we began asking the question: Are we maximizing federal revenue in our state programs?" said Terry Smith, division director. "So I met with Social Security, and we did a case load analysis."

The analysis showed the state could save millions by making sure all federal options were exhausted before state assistance kicked in through Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTD), which was intended to supplement, not replace, Social Security Disability Income (SSDI).

In March 2010, three staff members in the division were reassigned to a newly created Facilitated Social Security Unit, with impressive results. ...

"We push clients into doing the Social Security applications and appeals," said Smith. "We don't actually do any of the work for them, but we require them to provide verifications to us that they have done their job."

Ever Wonder How It Was That Social Security Started Compiling Lists Of The Most Popular Baby Names?

     From The Atlantic:

In 1997, Michael Shackleford was an employee of the Office of the Actuary at the Social Security Administration's headquarters in Baltimore; his wife was pregnant and he was determined to avoid giving the child a common name like his own. With his access to Social Security card data, he wrote a simple program to sort the information by year of birth, gender, and first name. Suddenly he could see every Janet born in 1960. He could see that the number one names in 1990 were Michael and Jessica. He realized this could be important. "I knew that my eyeballs were seeing this list of the most popular baby names nationwide for the first time," he recalled recently. "It was too good to keep to myself."