Big Decision Coming?

     From the Washington Post:

With the Supreme Court only days away from major rulings on same-sex marriage, President Obama faces the prospect of having to make his own difficult decisions about the definition of wedlock. ... 

Obama’s choices on federal benefits arise from the other case, in which the justices are expected to determine the constitutionality of a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that prohibited the federal government from making benefits available to same-sex couples. ... 

If the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act, full benefits would be available to same-sex couples who marry and live in the dozen states that legally recognize their relationships. But legally married gay couples that live in states that don’t recognize their marriages would be ineligible for a range of federal benefits.

Advocates say Obama could eliminate the discrepancy with an executive order or new regulations setting a couple’s “place of celebration” as the deciding factor in whether the U.S. government recognizes a marriage for the purposes of providing benefits. ... 

Only one section of the law is under challenge, and it might yet be upheld. Another section states that no state “shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding” of any other state “respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage.” ... 

“There will be tremendous pressure on the White House and on the president personally to move very quickly to implement the judgement and to implement it broadly,” said Richard Socarides, a longtime gay rights activist who was an adviser in the Bill Clinton White House. ...

“Thirty days is what he’s got,” Socarides added. “These are real people suffering real injury. If anybody tries to argue that they need six months or a year, there are going to be riots in the streets.”

$300,000 Fraud Alleged

     From KDKA in Pittsburgh:

Chauncey Clinton, 65, of Ross Township was indicted Tuesday by a federal grand jury on charges he cashed his late mother’s social security checks for nearly four decades.

Clara Clinton died in May, 1973, and Clinton allegedly began cashing her checks the very next month. ...

Clinton allegedly received more than $300,000 he was not entitled to through the social security scam involving his late mother.

It Seems Like There's A Congressional Hearing On This Every Year

     From a press release:

U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, today announced a hearing on encouraging work through the Social Security Disability Insurance program.  The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, in B-318 Rayburn House Office Building beginning at 10:00 a.m.

DSM-5 On Autism Spectrum Disorders

     I had earlier posted an excerpt on Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder from the newly issued Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the so-called Bible of psychiatry. It's not at all clear what Social Security will do with that new diagnostic criteria which will greatly reduce the diagnosis of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents but it is not the only part of DSM-5 which may bring about changes in disability determinations at Social Security. The DSM-5 also does away with the diagnostic category of Asperger's Syndrome, opting instead for a solitary diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. I'm doubting that this change will make much difference but here is the language from DSM-5:

Autism Spectrum Disorder 299.00

A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):
     1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, tor example, from abnormal social approach and tailure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.
     2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures; to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication.
     3. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.

     Specify current severity:
          Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior (see Table 2).

B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text):

    1. Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypies, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases).
     2. Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat same food every day).
     3. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests).
     4. Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g., apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement).

     Specify current severity:
          Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, repetitive
patterns of behavior (see Table 2).

C. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life).
D. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

E. These disturbances are not better explained by Intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbjd diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that expected for general developmental level.

Note: Individuals with a well-established DSM·IV diagnosis of autistic disorder. Asperger's disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Individuals who have marked deficits in social communication, but whose symptoms do not otherwise meet criteria for autism spectrum disorder, should be evaluated for social (pragmatic) communication disorder.

OMB Clears Proposed Regs On Objecting To Video Hearings

     After nearly five months of review, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has cleared proposed new regulations concerning objecting to video hearings. This proposal was submitted while Michael Astrue was still Commissioner. OMB is part of the White House. OMB has to clear any regulatory proposal made by any agency. Five months is a very long time for one of Social Security's proposals to stay under review at OMB. I would guess that OMB identified this proposal as significant and possibly controversial. OMB's website indicates that there was some change made in the proposed rule while it was under review. Here is Social Security's original summary of the proposal:

We propose to revise our rules to protect the integrity of our programs and to address public concerns regarding the removal of an administrative law judge's name from the Notice of Hearing and other prehearing notices. To accomplish both objectives, these proposed rules state that we will provide an individual with notice that his or her hearing may be held by video teleconferencing and that he or she has an opportunity to object to appearing by video teleconferencing within 30 days of the notice. We have also made changes that allow us to determine that claimant will appear via video teleconferencing if a claimant changes residences while his or her request for hearing is pending. We anticipate these changes will increase the integrity of our programs with minimal impact on the public and result in more efficient administration of our program. 

     We should know soon how this proposal ended up, since it will probably be published in the Federal Register in the next week or two. Note that Social Security will not be publishing a final rule at this time. They will only be publishing a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM). The public will get a chance to review the NPRM and comment on it. It will be many months at least before anything becomes final.
     My opinion is that under a rule such as described above many attorneys will advise their clients to refuse video hearings. The main reason that attorneys now advise their clients to accept video hearings is to avoid delay. It's not like we think that a video hearing is just as good as an in-person hearing. If the decision to refuse a video hearing can be made well before any hearing is scheduled, there should be no reason for additional delay associated with asking for an in person hearing. If this goes forward, things may not work out in the way that Social Security expects.
     Also, if a Social Security claimant moves from North Carolina to Minnesota while his or her request for hearing is pending, why does he or she abandon their right to an in person hearing?

Online Crooks Going After Online Accounts

     From WPTV:

A new kind of Social Security scam has left local beneficiaries wondering where their money is.

Pills and bills eat up Patricia Bell's monthly Social Security check.
"Without Social Security, we'd have nothing," said Bell, 71, of Okeechobee.
When she got a letter in the mail saying she had created an online account on Social Security's website, she called her son.
"Right then, I stopped, I said, I didn't do this," said Bell.
But someone had, stealing her personal information, including her Social Security number.
"I have no idea how they did that, " said Bell.
A crook used Social Security's new online system to change her direct deposit information.
They redirected her $1,200 check to themselves. ...

Nationwide, 36,000 have fallen victim since May of 2011. 

     This will only get bigger and bigger. Social Security management needs to face the facts. The online accounts are way too susceptible to fraud. This is probably becoming a cottage industry in places like China or Nigeria. I believe that all you need is access to credit reports and that's not that difficult. Identify an older person using the credit reports, use the information from the older person's credit report to open an account Social Security account in the person's name, divert one month's benefits to a bank account you control and withdraw the money using an ATM. If you're overseas, what's your risk?

A Top Ten List

     The right is really getting invested in the idea that fraud is rampant in Social Security's disability programs. The National Review has posted its Top Ten List of the most outrageous disability cheaters of the past year.

Legislation Proposed

     From a press release:

U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Angus King (I-ME), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced the Reducing Overlapping Payments Act, which aims to protect the Social Security Disability Insurance and Unemployment Insurance programs by reducing overlapping benefits. The bill requires the Social Security Administration (SSA) to suspend Disability Insurance (DI) benefits  during any month in which a recipient also collects Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits, while also ensuring the SAA [SSA?] has the necessary information to identify overlapping DI and UI payments. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), in fiscal year 2010 over 117,000 individuals received more than $850 million in overlapping payments.