Do People Retire At Age 62 Because They Want To Retire Or Because They're Sick

     From the Squared Away Blog of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

Are people who claim their Social Security retirement benefits when they’re 62 too sick or impaired to work? ...

 [R]esearchers, from the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins University, examined Medicare claims from 1991 through 2008 for the four groups during the year following their 65^th birthdays. They found no evidence of persistent health problems that would have kept the 62-year-olds from continuing to work for a few more years. ...

Controlling for race, sex, education and other factors that have a bearing on health, the $287 annual difference in Medicare claims between people who started receiving retirement benefits at 62 and at 65 was not significant. Similarly, the healthcare spending of people who received disability benefits and those who were rejected was virtually the same.

But there was a large gap between the group who claimed a retirement benefit at 62 and the group on disability: Medicare claims for disability recipients were $4,400 more annually than the claims for early pensioners. 

It’s important to note that this analysis doesn’t capture any differences in healthcare spending that may’ve occurred prior to age 65.

     Because of the methodology problem indicated in the last paragraph quoted above, I don't think we can call this study definitive.

Unthinkable Interference With ALJ Independence

     From the Associated Press:

Amid complaints about lengthy waits for Social Security disability benefits, congressional investigators say nearly 200 administrative judges have been rubber-stamping claims, approving billions of dollars in lifetime payments from the cash-strapped program. ...

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., was incredulous that so many judges would rule that initial rejections were so often wrong.

"Are the people below you always wrong?" Issa asked Judge Charles Bridges of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

"I would say they are not legally trained," replied Bridges, who approved 95 percent of the cases he decided.

When pressed further about his approval rate, Bridges said: "I don't pay attention to those figures. All I do is concentrate on each case, one at a time."

Issa: "You don't notice that you're essentially saying 'approved, approved, approved,' almost all the time?"

Bridges: "I don't want to be influenced by that."

The committee's report found that 191 judges approved more than 85 percent of the cases they decided from 2005 to 2013. All told, those judges approved $153 billion in lifetime benefits, the report said.

     At some point in the future, I can't say when, Democrats will control the House of Representatives.  Should they hold hearings then and browbeat ALJs with low reversal rates?

Don't Cut Social Security, Increase It!

     From Greg Sergent writing for the Washington Post:

The idea has long remained outside the boundaries of acceptable Beltway discourse, but more and more Dems are coming around to it: Instead of getting drawn onto GOP austerity turf — into a debate over how much to cut Social Security — Dems should instead go on offense on the issue and push for an expansion of the program.

Today, I’m told, Senate Democrats will introduce a proposal to expand Social Security benefits for certain groups — and it is picking up the support of a member of the Democratic leadership, Senator Patty Murray of Washington State. Senator Mark Begich of Alaska will take the lead on the proposal, and he and Murry will speak about it on the Senate floor this afternoon. ...

The framing reflects a growing sense among Dems that they can win the argument over entitlements by framing it as a battle over which party would boost the retirement security of the elderly, and which would erode it.

Totally Irrelevant Way Of Responding To Today's Congressional Hearing

     The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the following change in Social Security's regulations:

We will revise our rules to protect the integrity of our programs and to address public concerns regarding the removal of an administrative law judge's name from the Notice of Hearing and other prehearing notices. To accomplish both objectives, these final rules state that we will provide an individual with notice that his or her hearing may be held by video teleconferencing and that he or she has an opportunity to object to appearing by video teleconferencing within 30 days of the notice. We have also made changes that allow us to determine that claimant will appear via video teleconferencing if a claimant changes residences while his or her request for hearing is pending. We anticipate these changes will increase the integrity of our programs with minimal impact on the public and result in more efficient administration of our program.  

     Expect to see this in the Federal Register soon. I have no doubt that clearing this is a response to today's Congressional hearing. This has zero to do with the subject of the hearing but doing something anti-claimant must just feel right to Social Security and OMB in this climate.

Conflicting Views On ALJs

     From the Associated Press:

Four Social Security judges are headed to Capitol Hill to face accusations they rubber-stamped claims for disability benefits, approving billions of dollars in payments from the cash-strapped program.

Each of the judges approved more than 90 percent of the cases they heard from 2005 to 2013, according to a new report by the Republican staff of the House Oversight Committee. The report says the high approval rates indicate the judges didn't follow proper procedures or conduct meaningful hearings. ...

A report by the committee's Democratic staff said the judges at Tuesday's hearing don't reflect the vast majority of administrative law judges. The Democratic report says oversight and training for the agency's 1,400 judges has improved over the past decade.

Both reports note that, overall, judges are approving claims at the lowest rate in years. In 2013, judges approved 56 percent of the cases they decided, down from 72 percent in 2005. ...

This Congressional Hearing Would Have Been Unthinkable Five Years Ago

     Here is the witness list for tomorrow's hearing before the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, with the reversal rate for the Administrative Law Judges in parentheses:

• Tom Coburn, M.D. Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate 
• Charles Bridges Administrative Law Judge, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (80% reversal rate)
• James A. Burke Administrative Law Judge, Albuquerque, New Mexico (87% reversal rate)
• Gerald I. Krafsur Administrative Law Judge, Kingsport, Tennessee (96% reversal rate)
• Harry C. Taylor II Administrative Law Judge, Charleston, West Virginia (83% reversal rate)

     Commissioner Colvin is the only scheduled witness at the hearing on Wednesday.

HALLEX Gets Columbia Law Review Attention

     Timothy Gray has written a note for the Columbia Law Review on Manual Override?Accardi, Skidmore, And The Legal Effect Of The Social Security Administration’s HALLEX Manual.

House Committee Schedules Hearing

     The House Committee on Oversight & Government Operations has scheduled hearings for June 10 and 11 at 9:30 on Social Security Administration Oversight: Examining the Integrity of the Disability Determination Appeals Process.