Astrue Trashes Democratic Candidate At House Hearing

     Former Commissioner of Social Security, Michael Astrue, testified before some House subcommittee yesterday. The article I'm getting this from says it was the "Health Subcommittee" but the House Ways and Means Committee site doesn't show its Health Subcommittee having a hearing this week. Anyway, Astrue was there to trash Donald Berwick, who is running for governor of Massachusetts. Berwick used to be head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Astrue was blaming Berwick for the terrible rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

     The big problem with Astrue's criticism of Berwick is that Berwick left his position as head of CMS twenty-three months ago. Maybe the early planning for the Affordable Care Act rollout was lacking but most of the rollout preparation happened after Berwick left office. How much of the responsibility can one legitimately lay on Berwick? It's also clear from the description of Astrue's testimony that Astrue simply has a personal distaste for Berwick. I don't know whether Astrue's feelings are justified but they are irrelevant to the question of responsibility for the rollout of the Affordable Care Act or Berwick's qualifications for governor of Massachusetts.

NPRM On Obtaining And Submitting Evidence Coming

     From the description -- and a short description is all that's available now -- of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that Social Security has sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval:

We propose to require claimants to inform us about or submit all evidence known to them that relates to their disability claim, subject to two exceptions for privileged communications and work product. This requirement would include the duty to submit all relevant evidence obtained from any source in its entirety, unless subject to an exception. We also propose to require a representative to help the claimant obtain the information or evidence that the claimant must submit under our regulations. 

     This NPRM may be changed as a result as a result of OMB concerns. At best, it will take some months to get this through OMB. OMB has slowed down greatly as a result of the government shutdown and sequestration. If this gets through OMB, it is still just a proposed rule. It would have to be published in the Federal Register. Social Security would have to allow comments on the NPRM and then consider them. My gut feeling is that this proposal will prove to be problematic. Let me list a few concerns that occur to me off the top of my head which may indicate why this is more complicated than it may seem at first:

• What does "all evidence known to them" mean? How far does this extend? A single hospital admission can generate more than a thousand pages of medical records. Does Social Security really want all of these? If Social Security doesn't really mean "all", how are attorneys supposed to decide what to obtain without using their judgment? Once attorneys start using their judgment, is this going to mean anything?
• What does "relate to their disability claim" mean? What if a client has had treatment for infertility or something else probably unrelated to their disabling impairment or impairment that the client may reasonably feel is none of Social Security's business? How does one determine what is "related" to the disability claim?
• How far does the duty to assist a claimant to obtain medical records extend? Medical records can be expensive to obtain. Are attorneys obliged to spend $500 to get medical records that Social Security, itself, declined to obtain? Does the Social Security Act even allow the imposition of this sort of financial burden on attorneys?
• When does an attorney have this obligation? If attorneys have this obligation at the initial level, they're going to be duplicating Disability Determination Services efforts. If attorneys do have this obligation at the initial level, maybe they just won't take on cases at the initial level anymore since the effort and expense will be disproportionate to the potential fees. Does Social Security wants attorneys to withdraw from initial and reconsideration representation?

     If Social Security goes ahead with this and it has teeth, expect endless controversies and unintended consequences. I know the Republicans in Congress are howling about Binder and Binder but be careful. This isn't simple. Those Republicans are going to be howling about something no matter what Social Security does.

Why Eliminating The Cap On Earnings Taxed By FICA Is A Great Idea In One Chart

Effect of eliminating  cap on wages subject to FICA. From Office of Chief Actuary, SSA

Why Chained CPI Is Almost Pointless In One Chart

Effects of beginning chained CPI in December 2014.  From Office of Chief Actuary, SSA

Veterans Day

Fee Payment Update

Social Security has issued updated numbers on payments of fees to attorneys and some others for representing Social Security claimants. These fees are withheld and paid by Social Security but come out of the back benefits of the claimants involved. The attorneys and others who have their fees withheld pay a user fee for this privilege. Since these fees are usually paid at the same time that the claimant is paid, these numbers show how quickly or slowly Social Security is able to get claimants paid after a favorable determination on their claims.

Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-13	32,663	$96,690,734.65
Feb-13	35,508	$102,242,540.93
Mar-13	45,189	$130,690,281.94
Apr-13	33,178	$92,566,832.32
May-13	42,841	$122,781,135.03
June-13	33,954	$97,627,420.68
July-13	35,221	$103,494,644.97
Aug-13	46,695	$129,774,228.90
Sept-13	33,295	$93,251,401.56
Oct-13	31,811	$87,109297.64

NADE Issues Newsletter

     The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE), a membership organization of state agency personnel responsible for making initial and reconsideration determinations on Social Security disability claims, has issued its Fall 2013 newsletter.

Bombarding This Blog

     If you read the comments posted on this blog you might come to the impression that everyone knows that:

• Social Security employees do most of their "work" from at home but they don't really work because they're all lazy. The agency has way too many employees.
• Social Security's Administrative Law Judges are particularly lazy. They approve Social Security disability claims because they're lazy. A lot of the judges are crooks in cahoots with crooked disability claimants and their crooked attorneys.
• Most Social Security disability claimants are just crooks trying to scam the program.
• It's way too easy to get on Social Security disability benefits, especially for "mental illness." Anyone can get on Social Security disability benefits for "mental illness" just by pretending to be crazy.
• SSI child's benefits are the biggest scam. It's nothing but lazy, drug addicted mothers coaching their kids to act crazy. They get child after child on SSI child's benefits and then steal the money to support their drug habits.
• Attorneys who represent Social Security claimants are lazy. They're paid huge sums of money by Social Security but they do nothing for their clients. If anything, they're just crooks who assist their crooked clients in perpetrating fraud.
• There is no money in the Social Security trust funds. The money was all stolen by Democrats. The U.S. government bonds that are supposed to be in the trust funds are meaningless pieces of paper.
• Social Security is going bankrupt.You'll never get back the money you paid in. It's all a scam.

     Some of this comes from individuals legitimately expressing their opinions. However, it's long been apparent to me that most of this is coming from people who have been paid to post online comments about Social Security. Often, these people pretend to be Social Security employees, Social Security claimants or Social Security attorneys. Often, their comments just don't ring true because they're pretending to be someone they're not.

     Does it seem outlandish, even paranoid to think that someone would be paid to post slanted comments online? Take a look at this article from the Baltimore Sun. Officials at the University of Maryland had a problem. They wanted to shift the University's athletic programs from the Atlantic Coast Conference to the Big Ten. They knew that many of the University's alumni would be furious with this move. Here's what they did:

Brian Ullmann, the university's assistant vice president for marketing and communications ... wrote that the school planned to "engage professional assistance in helping to drop positive messages into the blogs, comments and message board sites. I will arrange for this service today." ...

Lee Zeidman, the corporate communications consultant who helped Maryland draft letters and talking points, said Wednesday that it is "standard operating procedure" in the business world to weigh in directly on message boards. "There are special PR agencies who work in the digital space who bombard blogs and newspaper sites where no one puts their name," Zeidman said.

     Who would pay online shills to post on Social Security issues? Pete Peterson and the Koch brothers are the prime candidates. They're tossing around tens of millions of dollars in their fight against Social Security. They certainly wouldn't be going after just this blog. It's quite unlikely they know anything about it. They would mostly be going after message boards at news media sites. However, I don't know that there's any other web site quite like this one where there's an ongoing discussion on Social Security issues. If you're doing an online campaign to malign Social Security both as a social program and as an agency, you're going to come here.
    I wonder how someone who works as an online shill would feel about their job. Would it make them proud? Would they tell their children about what they do for a living?