Social Security To Do Data Match With VA To Identify 100% Disabled Vets

     From EM-14034, released by the Social Security Administration yesterday:

This is to alert all operational components that Systems will perform a one-time data match. The purpose of this data match is to identify, flag, and message all pending SSA disability claims filed by Veterans who possess a VA compensation rating of 100% P&T as of February 28, 2014.
B. Background On March 17, 2014, SSA implemented a new policy to expedite disability claims of all Veterans rated 100% P&T [Permanent & Total[ by the VA, who subsequently filed for SSA disability benefits (see EM-14013). 

To receive expedited processing, these Veterans must self-identify and provide verification of their VA rating of 100% P&T.
On May 2, 2014, the VA signed an agreement with SSA to provide a one-time data match file to allow SSA to identify and flag for expedited processing all Veterans rated 100% P&T as of February 28, 2014 with a disability claim pending with SSA at all levels of adjudication. This is part of the ACOSS initiative to treat 100% P&T Veterans’ applications as high priority and issue expedited decisions. ...

E. DDS [Disability Determination Services] actions Upon receipt of Systems alert, the DDS should follow the terminal illness (TERI) case procedures in DI 23020.045. Do not designate these cases as TERI unless they meet the TERI criteria (i.e., there is evidence of a terminal illness). ...
G. ODAR 0Office of Disability Adjudication and Review] actions Upon receipt of Systems alert, ODAR offices should follow the critical case procedures in HALLEX 1-3-1-51. ...

     I don't understand the DDS instructions. They seem self-contradictory.

Four Arrested In Texas On Fraud Charges

     Four, including one Social Security employee, have been arrested in Texas on charges of defrauding Social Security. The allegation is that overpayments were deliberately created and then waived.

"The Attacks On Disability Insurance Will Accelerate"

     From Greg Sergeant, writing for the Washington Post:

... Dem Senator Sherrod Brown, a member of the Finance Committee, tells me that GOP Senators have requested hearings into Social Security Disability Insurance this summer. Dems expect Republicans to attack the program as wasteful and fraudulent, in part because conservative media have already done so, and in part because at least one GOP proposal in recent days took aim at the program.

Brown says Dems should seize this occasion to get behind a proposal that would lift or change the payroll tax cap, meaning higher earners would pay more, while adopting a new measure for inflation that would increase benefits for all seniors. ...

Brown said he expects Republicans to renew attacks on disability insurance (as opposed to the retirement security portion) to divide supporters of Social Security and renew the push for structural changes to the program, and said Dems could use that to draw an effective contrast. SSDI’s trust fund is set to be depleted soon, but that could be solved by a reallocation fix that’s been done before, rather than a deep benefits cut, which Republicans may press for.

“They want to separate ‘good’ Social Security (retirement security) from ‘bad’ Social Security (disability insurance), to win support for structural reform,” said Brown, who is holding a Senate Finance sub-committee hearing tomorrow on the overall program. “The attacks on disability insurance will accelerate. This is how they will try to back-door the dismantling of social insurance. But the public is with us on social insurance.” ...

Here's The Social Security Fraud -- 36,000 Instances!

     From a recent audit report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

In October 2011, we began tracking allegations that indicated individuals other than the beneficiaries or their representatives had fraudulently redirected benefit payments away from the beneficiaries’ bank accounts to accounts the individuals controlled. As of May 20, 2013, we had received over 36,000 reports concerning an unauthorized change or a suspected attempt to make an unauthorized change to an SSA beneficiary’s record. ...

We [at OIG] are committed to investigating allegations of direct deposit fraud. Unfortunately, because of the nature and methods criminals employ to perpetrate this type of fraud, the overwhelming majority of these type of allegations provided little information that lead to identifying a possible subject .

     Certainly, credible cases of fraud in the Social Security disability programs must be investigated but the big time Social Security fraud is in the redirection of benefit payments. Usually organized crime is involved and much of the crime is based overseas. So why doesn't this type of fraud get more attention from the House Social Security Subcommittee? It doesn't fit their narrative. In fact, it goes against their narrative since the vulnerability to this type of fraud was created when the federal government wanted to stop spending money cutting checks to Social Security beneficiaries. Everyone is against waste. It's just that it was usually easy to trace where the money went when a federal check was intercepted and an endorsement forged. It's not so easy when a direct deposit is siphoned into a phony bank account account and then rapidly transferred several times between accounts in places like Anjouan, Belize, Estonia, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Nevis and Vanuatu.

Field Offices Unable To Process Part Of Their Workload

     I heard last week that one North Carolina Social Security District Office had such a backlog of work to be done that they had decided not to process any paperwork appointing attorneys to represent claimants before the agency. Until that District Office processes that paperwork, those claimants are effectively unrepresented. Social Security will refuse to deal with the attorneys. The attorneys won't be sent notices sent those claimants. Social Security will refuse to give those attorneys information about those clients' cases. The attorneys won't be able to file appeals on those clients' behalf. Appeal deadlines may be missed.

     While at the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representative (NOSSCR) meeting last week, I mentioned this development to a couple of attorneys from other states. The same thing had happened in their states recently. 

    How widespread is this? Why is this happening even after Social Security finally got its appropriation for this fiscal year? If these field offices can't take care of this workload now, how are they going to catch up later?

She's A Pistol And He's Tuf But Don't Mess With Vice Or Gospel Will Get You

     Nameberry (there's a website for everything) has used Social Security's list of brand new baby names to create its own list of the most outrageous baby names of 2013, with the number of children given each wacky name:

Girls

• Vanellope, 63 
• Burklee, 10 
• Pistol, 9 
• Happiness, 8 
• Pemberley, 8 
• Envie, 7 
• Prim, 7 
• Rarity, 7 
• Avaa, 6 
• Charlemagne, 6 
• Kinzington, 6 
• Prezlee, 6 
• Ransom, 5 
• Rebelle, 5 
• Sierraleone, 5 
• Siqi, 5 
• Snowy, 5 
• Temprince, 5 

Boys

• Rydder, 10 
• Jceion, 10 
• Hatch, 8 
• Tuf, 8 
• Lloyal, 7 
• Psalms, 7 
• Xzaiden, 7 
• Charger, 6 
• Forever, 6 
• Kyndle, 6 
• Power, 6 
• Warrior, 6 
• Gospel, 5 
• Kaptain, 5 
• Subaru, 5 
• Vice, 5

EEOC Criticizes Social Security

     From the Baltimore Sun:

The Social Security Administration has failed to establish an adequate process for handling discrimination claims from employees and has sparked concerns about conflicts of interest in some of those cases, according to a scathing federal report obtained Thursday by The Baltimore Sun.

Auditors at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charged with enforcing workplace discrimination laws, said the agency failed to follow regulations when handling complaints, manipulated data to boost case completion rates and created the impression that managers had intruded into what should have been impartial investigations.

Of 2,292 complaints processed over a four-year period, not one resulted in a finding of discrimination, according to the report.

"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.