Memorial Day

Mental Illness Is Worse For Your Life Expectancy Than Smoking

     From the University of Oxford:

Oxford researchers say their figures on life expectancy should galvanise governments and health and social services to put a much higher priority on how mental health services can prevent early deaths. ...

The average reduction in life expectancy in people with bipolar disorder is between nine and 20 years, while it is 10 to 20 years for schizophrenia, between nine and 24 years for drug and alcohol abuse, and around seven to 11 years for recurrent depression. 

The loss of years among heavy smokers is eight to 10 years.

Take The Quiz

     Take the Social Security Disability Quiz.

CRS Study On UI Offset

     The Congressional Research Service is out with a report on the concurrent receipt of Social Security disability benefits and unemployment insurance benefits. The report is superficial but it does contain an estimate from Social Security's Chief Actuary that only about 0.39% of Social Security disability recipients also receive unemployment benefits. In other words, it's a tiny problem. Doing something about it wouldn't save much money.
     The report doesn't deal with the considerable technical problems in implementing an offset. Many states now have an offset that goes in the opposite direction, reducing unemployment insurance for Social Security disability benefits. How do you avoid a double offset? Similarly, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits are already reduced for the receipt of unemployment benefits. Many people receive both SSI and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). Add an offset to DIB and you're doubly offsetting the same benefits. And there's the tax issue. Yes, the tax issue. Unemployment benefits are fully taxable. Social Security disability benefits usually aren't. If you have an offset that goes one way in some states and another one in other states, you have to add a provision to the Internal Revenue Code to equalize treatment. You say that you can't imagine that kind of provision in the Internal Revenue Code? Well, we already have such a provision in the Internal Revenue Code to equalize treatment between states that have a regular workers compensation offset and those which have a reverse offset. Here's I.R.C. 86(d)(3), for your reading pleasure:

For purposes of this section, if, by reason of section 224 of the Social Security Act (or by reason of section 3(a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974), any social security benefit is reduced by reason of the receipt of a benefit under a workmen’s compensation act, the term “social security benefit” includes that portion of such benefit received under the workmen’s compensation act which equals such reduction.

     Overall, it's questionable whether this sort of offset would even save money once you factor in the costs of administration. It's got superficial appeal but it's a dumb idea in my opinion.

Millie Tyssowski Passes

     Millie Tyssowski, formerly Social Security's top budget official, has passed away at the age of 93.

In Fantasyland We Can Do Away With The Medical Improvement Standard

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

Our objectives were to (a) determine whether the Social Security Administration (SSA) would consider beneficiaries disabled using the Initial Disability Standard, rather than the Medical Improvement Review Standard (MIRS), during continuing disability reviews (CDR) and (b) evaluate data on the MIRS exceptions . ...

We estimated, after all appeals, SSA will pay about $269 million in benefits until the next CDR due date to about 4,000 adult beneficiaries who would not be disabled if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard , rather than MIRS , during a CDR.  Additionally, although the cessation determinations were correct, we found issues with the reason coded for cessation for some types of MIRS exceptions. ...

 Our review of 275 sample cases (with a CDR continuance because of no medical improvement) found that if SSA used the Initial Disability Standard instead of MIRS, 12 individuals would not be considered disabled ; 242 individuals would be disabled; and 21 individuals had insufficient evidence available to determine whether the individual would be disabled. ...

     I wonder who asked OIG to look at this question. Who thinks it would be possible to do away with the medical improvement standard? It would have to be someone unlike me who wasn't around in the early 1980s. I know it's not happening in any political environment I can imagine. If it did happen, from the looks of this study, it wouldn't even save much money.

New Acquiescence Ruling

     Social Security is publishing Ruling AR-14-1(8) today, acquiescing to Brock v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2012). According to Social Security:

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] erred by relying solely on the Grid rules to determine that Brock could adjust to work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Court held that ``[b]ecause the ALJ determined that Brock suffered from severe mental impairments, the ALJ should have consulted a [VE] in determining whether Brock had the RFC to perform other jobs that exist in significant number in the national economy.''

If We Can't Do It One Way, We'll Do It Another Way

     From a transmittal of changes to Social Security's HALLEX Manual: 

The AC will not consider referrals or requests from OIG [Office of Inspector General] to review an administrative law judge (ALJ) decision for the following reasons:

• OIG does not have the authority to refer a case to the AC for possible own motion review.
• OIG is not a party to the decision and therefore cannot request review of an ALJ decision.
• OIG units are statutorily precluded from participating in program operating functions, and may not express opinions about whether benefits should be awarded or denied. ...

 B. If the folder contains OIG evidence that the claimant has not previously had the opportunity to review, the AC will also notify the claimant in the Notice of Review that the file contains OIG evidence. If the OIG evidence is associated after the Notice of Review is sent, and the AC anticipates granting review, the AC will send an interim notice to the claimant with a copy of the evidence, providing the claimant the opportunity to comment before the AC takes action. See HALLEX I-3-6-1 C.

     So what's the rule? OIG can't refer a case to the Appeals Council for review but it can just give whatever evidence it has to some other component of the agency and that other component can refer the case to the Appeals Council? How else would the Appeals Council come by evidence developed by OIG that the claimant hadn't seen? Isn't this an open invitation to do by indirection that which cannot be done directly?