"Cost Per Case"?

     I received an e-mail recently from a company offering a free "analysis" of my firm's "cost per case" during the conference of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) this week.
     The company didn't explain exactly what they meant by "cost per case." I think they were talking about the cost of advertising for cases and screening prospective new clients. The company said that the "industry average" of "cost per case" is $500-$800. They claim to be able to do it for $275-$395 per case.

     I have no idea how they could possibly compute an "industry average" since law firms aren't sharing this sort of information. Indeed, I don't think that law firms are computing this sort of thing nor could they do so on any reliable basis. If a prospective client calls my firm, we ask who referred them, but we can't rely upon their statement of how they got our name. They may say it was a former client and then not be able to give the referrer's name because they are embarrassed to be relying upon a television ad rather than a personal referral. They may say it was a television ad but they may have first heard of my firm from a former client and merely been reminded about my firm by the television ad. Much of the time, a prospective client will have heard of my firm in more than one way. It's the same for other law firms.

     Still, that company's "cost per case" number may not be that far off from what's normal these days. Those not practicing in this field may not understand the heavy expenses associated with representing Social Security claimants.  Despite what you may think if you're not involved in this field, representing Social Security claimants is a low profit margin business. Advertising is just one element of those expenses. Unfortunately, it's one element that we can't skimp on and stay in business.

From The NOSSCR Conference -- Via Tweets

     I have been tweeting like crazy from the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) this morning. You don't have to have a Twitter account to read the tweets.
     By the way, it's possible to have a Twitter account but never tweet. You can just use the twitter account to follow the tweets of those people you want to follow. That's a lot easier than going separately to the Twitter account of each individual tweeter.

Oh, Those Days When Cutting Social Security Seemed Inevitable

     From Huffington Post:

American deficit hawks gathered in the nation's capital on Wednesday to commiserate over the collapse of the U.S. austerity movement, solemnly hobnobbing with political royalty to reminisce about the days when slashing Social Security seemed all but inevitable. 

For the past five years, billionaire Peter G. Peterson's annual Fiscal Summit has been a Washington sensation, buzzing with top Obama administration policymakers, celebrity journalists and caffeinated think-tankers pitching budget plans to anyone who would listen. But the centrist scream for a Grand Bargain on taxes and spending has quieted as the budget deficit has declined and prophecies of a debt apocalypse remain unfulfilled. Interest rates on government bonds are near historic lows, and even Republicans appear to have abandoned "government spending" as a political weapon in favor of feverish Benghazi accusations.

Strengthening Social Security To Be Subject Of Senate Hearing

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a hearing for May 21 on "strengthening Social Security." Stephen Goss, the agency's Chief Actuary, among others, is scheduled to testify.

Social Security "Fully Committed" To Field Office Structure

     The recent appropriations bill required the Social Security Administration to provide Congress with a report on its polities and procedures for closing and consolidating field offices. That report has now been filed. Given the ongoing study of closing all field offices, it's interesting that the report says that the agency is "fully committed -- now and in the future -- to sustaining a field office structure that provides face-to-face service..."

     It may be worth noting that the National Academy of Public Administration's website is careful to state that its study is being done "at the request of Congress."
     Closing the field offices may be popular with some members of Congress but it looks like it is an idea that many other members of Congress and Social Security Administration's own leadership oppose.

Waterfall Chart 2013 -- What Changed?

     Compare the chart above to the 2012 waterfall chart showing Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) approving 52% of the cases they reviewed and the 2011 waterfall chart showing ALJs approving 58%. Does anyone think the claims got weaker? What did cause this dramatic change in just two years?

Social Security Managers Think Eliminating Field Offices Would Be A Bad Idea

     The National Council of Social Security Management Associatons (NCSSMA), an organization of Social Security frontline management personnel, has sent its comments to the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) on their plan to eliminate almost all Social Security's field offices by 2025. If the link given above doesn't work (it's a Scribd link and Social Security has blocked Scribd in the past) try this link.

     Here's some excerpts from the NCSSMA comments:

We do not believe this [using online, self-service delivery as Social Security's primary service channel] is a realistic achievement. In order for online services to be our primary service channel, the majority, if not all, of our services would need to be available online. The agency still has too many obstacles to overcome for this to be a reality. This may be a vision for 20-25 years from now, but not a realistic vision for 2025. ...

Online services do not work for our most vulnerable clients. The vision should take into account how we will provide service to those individuals in rural areas where access to online services is still non-existent. We have seen little change in rural area services over the last decade. What will rural areas look like in 10 years and how does the agency satisfy their needs?

In order for online self-service delivery to be feasible at any time in the future, program simplification must take place. SSA programs are very complex and require highly trained and skilled technicians. Most program simplification requires legislative action and the agency has not been overly successful in the last several years in achieving program simplification. ...

It appears SSA is following IRS down the path of very little direct service. This means the public will be potentially paying third parties to explain complex rules. ...

Much of the above [plan] would describe a vision appropriate to SSA as an organization administering the Retirement Survivors and Health Insurance (RSHI) programs. However, the reality of Disability and SSI is one of growing numbers of people who are ill-equipped to do “virtual business” with us due to language, education, physical and mental barriers, as well as programs requiring ongoing stewardship review. It would be an impressive triumph of technology and efficiency to continue to provide service with the existing workforce numbers and community-based infrastructure as this population increases. Significantly reducing our community presence and/or workforce would adversely impact the vision to deliver high quality services. ...

Congress does not support most of the reductions in our physical infrastructure now and it is unlikely this will change by 2025. ...

From a philosophical perspective, it seems that this vision plan allows technology to dictate public service instead of envisioning what public service we want and the public wants and using technology to provide that service. Technology is a tool for humanity to use as we see fit and for our purposes. We control technology; technology should not control us.

     By the way, the comments were made on an NAPA form. NCSSMA's name isn't at the top or bottom of the form but I assure you that these are NCSSMA's comments.

     Both union and front line management personnel are in agreement that this is a bad plan. How are upper Social Security managers reacting to this? What about the Regional Commissioners? What about Nancy Berryhill, the Deputy Commissioner, Operations? What about Erik Jones, the Associate Commissioner for the Office of Public Services and Operations Support? And, of course, what about the Acting Commissioner? Are they leading or just holding up a finger in the wind, figuring they'll be gone before anything is ever implemented?

Do We Need Those Field Offices?

     Take a look at Social Security's video on the history of the agency's field offices. And now, we're going to shut them down?