Differing Proposals On Unemployment Benefits And Disability

     From a piece in U.S. News & World Report (they're still in business?) by Chad Stone:

The other major policy issue that derailed the emergency [unemployment] benefits program was a proposal to curtail the joint receipt of unemployment insurance and disability benefits. Reid included a proposal from President Obama's budget to do that. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, had his own proposal, which he said would merely "[end] double-dipping between unemployment and disability benefits," and that it's "in the president's budget." As my CBPP [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities] colleague Paul Van de Water points out, however, the Portman proposal would go well beyond merely ending "double-dipping" and is far different from the president's proposal.

To receive disability benefits, an applicant must have a severe impairment that has prevented him or her from engaging in "substantial gainful activity," defined as earning more than $1,070 a month, for at least five months. In other words, it allows a recipient to work a modest amount, and thus be exposed to a job loss that would legitimately qualify the recipient for unemployment insurance.

The Portman proposal would define receiving unemployment insurance as a substantial gainful activity that, as Van de Water explains, would not only prevent people from receiving both benefits simultaneously – what Portman calls "double-dipping" – but would also delay eligibility for both disability and Medicare for some people with serious disabilities and hasten benefit losses for others. 

The Reid/Obama proposal is quite different from Portman's – and far preferable. It would eliminate "double-dipping" by reducing disability benefits dollar-for-dollar by the amount a person receives in unemployment benefits. In effect, a person who was legitimately eligible for both sets of benefits could receive the higher of the two – but not both.

Incidence Of Disability Going Down

     From a report by Social Security's Office of the Chief Actuary:

The projected probability of becoming disabled before normal retirement age has decreased for insured men between the 1966 and 1993 cohorts [that is, people born in 1966 and 1993], but has increased for insured women. For the 1993 insured cohort, we project that the probability of surviving from age 20 to normal retirement age without ever being disabled is 64 percent for males and 69 percent for females. Comparable probabilities projected for the 1966 insured cohort are 58 percent for males and 70 percent for females. Between the 1992 and 1993 cohorts, the projected probability of death before normal retirement age decreased slightly for both sexes.

Central Offices Closed Due To Weather

     Social Security Administration offices in the Washington-Baltimore area are closed today because of severe weather conditions. They're expecting 5-8 inches of snow and wind gusts to 25 miles per hour.

Some Hypothetical Questions

     Let me pose a hypothetical situation. A woman is drawing Social Security disability benefits. She posts on Facebook: "Having a great time visiting Disneyworld with my grandchildren." Along with this she posts a photo taken of her and her grandchildren at Disneyworld. In the photo, she's smiling.

     Does this hypothetical situation bother you? If so, why? Do you think the information given should trigger some sort of investigation? If so, what sort of investigation and why? Do you feel that you need more information in order to answer these questions? If so, why?

AALJ Gets A NY Times Op Ed

     Randall Frye, the President of the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), the union that represents Social Security's ALJs, has an op ed piece in today's New York Times that tries to use the recent fraud allegations in New York City to promote a longstanding AALJ proposal to make Social Security's hearings adversarial.

      There are a couple of simple reasons why adversarial hearings aren't coming to Social Security. First, they would cost a lot of money. Second, and more important, it's been tried before and it didn't have any effect that anyone could claim was beneficial. The same people were bring approved and denied.

     If you think I oppose adversarial hearings out of fear for what they would do to my practice, you're wrong. My clients would still win at the same rate and my fees would go up significantly because adversarial hearings would subject Social Security to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which would shift the attorney fee burden to the Social Security Administration itself in most cases. I oppose adversarial hearings because they are a bad idea. What the agency needs is increased funding so it can deal with its serious backlogs. Almost everything else is a distraction.

Being Told You're A Prisoner When You're Not Sucks

     Can you imagine having the Social Security benefits you depend upon being cut off with no warning on the grounds that you're a prisoner even though you've never been in prison in your life? It happens much more often than you'd think.

     I had a client who was suddenly cut off benefits. When I asked what was going on, I was told that my client was in prison in New Mexico. My client gave a classic response: "I've never been in Mexico in my life!" The New Mexico prison authorities told me that they had no record of any inmate with either the name or Social Security number of my client. It took two months to get the benefits resumed.

Up In The Clouds

     The Social Security Administration is seeking information about using cloud computing in its operations. In general, Social Security has resisted cloud computing since it would disperse computing over many non-agency computers. However, Social Security is now seeking information about an "on-premise private cloud."

Disability Shaming

     I don't think I've ever seen a newspaper article dealing with disability that is as rancid as the one in the New York Post today. The article tells us that Kevin Simpkins is a New York city firefighter. On November 1, Simpkins was driving a fire department van when he was T-boned by another vehicle. Simpkins pulled the driver from her vehicle moments before it was engulfed by flames. The fire department plans to give Simpkins an award for bravery for what he did after the crash. Simpkins tried to go back to work after the accident but lasted only a week before he went out complaining of neck and shoulder injuries. He has filed a claim for disability benefits but it's not clear whether he's seeking temporary or permanent benefits.

     See anything remarkable about Simpkins story? I don't. He was involved in what was obviously a serious car crash. I don't have any problem believing that Simpkins received significant injuries. At this point probably no one, including Simpkins, knows how long it will take him to recover from his injuries or what residuals he may have. His return to work for a week before realizing he couldn't handle it is nothing rare. That sort of thing happens all the time. What's the problem with Simpkins filing a disability claim? 

     Why did the New York Post think it appropriate to try to shame Simpkins for filing a disability claim? They have a few reasons. Simpkins had tested positive for marijuana in the past and was suspended by the fire department for a week. He wasn't supposed to have been driving the van because he had been barred from driving fire department vehicles because of the positive marijuana test. However, there's no allegation that Simpkins was intoxicated at the time of the crash. Otherwise, Simpkins had had a conversation with a neighbor where he suggested that he wasn't all that happy with his fire department job. Also, Simpkins is black and has been involved in a lawsuit against the Fire Department alleging racial discrimination in hiring. That's it. 

     Marijuana may be legal in New York and other states within a few years at the rate things are going. There's no evidence that marijuana had anything to do with this accident. Simpkins wasn't supposed to have been driving that vehicle but that has nothing to do with how seriously he was injured. What difference does it make that Simpkins had some conversation with a neighbor suggesting that he thought he could do better than working at the Fire Department or that Simpkins had filed a discrimination lawsuit? The issue is the severity of Simpkins' injuries. Is the New York Post planning to investigate every city employee who files a disability claim to try to find something derogatory to publish? Will anyone filing a disability claim seem pure enough to the New York Post?