This Happens Thousands Of Times Each Year All Across The Country

     Why mistakes in Social Security's death master file are a big deal.

Biographical Information On Deputy Commissioner Nominee

     From the White House:

Andrew LaMont Eanes, Nominee for Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security Administration
Andrew LaMont Eanes has been the Vice President of Agile Government Services Incorporated since 2012.  From 2011 to 2012, Mr. Eanes was the Chief Operating Officer of Dynis. Previously, Mr. Eanes was Chief Operations Officer of BT Conferencing from 2006 to 2010.  He was the Executive Vice President of IT/Services Operations with Premiere Global Services from 2004 to 2006. From 1995 to 2003, Mr. Eanes held various positions at Sprint, Inc., including Vice President and General Manager.  Mr. Eanes was the Vice President and General Manager for Sprint/United Telephone Florida from 1992 to 1994 and the Director of Network and Facilities Operations for Sprint United Management Company from 1989 to 1992.  Mr. Eanes received a B.A. from Ohio Northern University and an M.B.A. from Baldwin Wallace College.

Video CEs Now Authorized

     The Social Security Administration has recently posted instructions in its manual on ordering video consultative examinations (CEs). CEs are ordered by the Social Security Administration to use in determining disability. The instructions indicate this is only for psychiatric and some psychological examinations. This is supposed to be for rural areas and for areas where it's hard for the agency to get CEs done. The claimant is supposed to be able to object to a video CE but what will be done then? Just deny the claim for lack of evidence? Social Security will limit this to psychiatrists and psychologist licensed in the state where the claimant is located but adds that this limitation is only "at this time."

Not Fading Away

     The controversy over seizing tax refunds to satisfy thirty and forty year old debts to the Social Security Administration isn't going away.

Nominee For Deputy Commissioner

     The President has nominated Andrew LaMont Eanes, of Kansas, to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. If confirmed his term would run through January 19, 2019. I'm trying to find biographical information on Eanes but having no success so far.

Differing Media Takes On Social Security

     The New Republic has a piece on the politics of Social Security disability. Meanwhile, Forbes is running a weird piece that puffs one company's Social Security software while telling us that Social Security is riddled with inequities and doomed to fail. And there's a Newsmax piece which includes these gems:

[T]he public should demand to know why 8.9 million people are collecting disability. It’s inconceivable that so many — more than the population of New York City — are truly incapacitated. Americans are healthier than ever before, and jobs require less physical exertion.

The answer to that riddle is that the Social Security administrators encourage all comers. ...

Desire to work. If you don‘t have that, you may qualify....

And get ready for even more claims, now that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just defined pregnancy as a “disability.”

Smooth Sailing For Colvin

     From the Baltimore Sun:

Criticism of President Barack Obama's nominee to lead the Social Security Administration appeared to evaporate Thursday at a confirmation hearing that featured few questions about controversial service cuts and recent allegations of mismanagement. 

Carolyn W. Colvin's hearing before the Senate Finance Committee — which took place hours ahead of a scheduled monthlong recess — drew only two Republicans and lasted less than an hour, an indication the Maryland native might face an easier path to the job than initially expected.

The Weakness And Timidity In The Plan To Cut Social Security Disability

     Sam Johnson, the Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, posted a summary of his proposed “Stop Disability Fraud Act of 2014” yesterday. The title makes it clear that he believes that there is rampant fraud in Social Security's disability programs but the significant aspects of this proposal have nothing to do with fraud and everything to do with simply making it much harder to get on Social Security disability benefits.

     The impression of weakness is underlined when you look at the most important aspects of the proposal:

Sec. 201-Requires the Commissioner to conduct quality reviews of hearing dispositions in sufficient numbers to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and other guidance issued by the Commissioner. These reviews include reviews both before and after a case has been finalized, or “effectuated.” The Commissioner is also required to annually report the results of these reviews to Congress.

Sec. 202- Requires the Commissioner to establish standard qualifications for all decision makers and their advisors (medical consultants, medical advisors, and vocational consultants) involved in the disability determination process.

Sec. 301-Requires the Commissioner to update the 1979 medical-vocational regulatory guidelines for determining disability by considering new employment opportunities made possible by advances in treatment, rehabilitation and technology. (Effective as soon as possible after the date of enactment)

Sec. 302-Expands current research and demonstration authority to:

     ·Develop instruments to assess function that are rapid, reliable,and objective to inform the disability determination process. (To be completed no later than the end of calendar year 2016)

     ·Study the availability and effects of more fully considering assistive devices and workplace accommodations in the disability determination process. (To be completed no later than the end of calendar year 2016).

     Notice a common theme here? None of this actually changes a thing about Social Security disability. It just tries to force the Social Security Administration to change things.
     The big problem with the approach of trying to make the Social Security Administration do the dirty work is that the agency can do essentially nothing if it wishes. It can tell Congress that it is already conducting quality reviews of Administrative Law Judges to the extent that funding allows. It can tell Congress that it already has "standard qualifications for  decision makers and their advisors" and that it sees no need to change those. It can tell Congress that it has reviewed the medical-vocational rules and that it sees no need to change anything about them or even that they need to be liberalized. (Yes, Social Security Subcommittee staffers reading this, whether you believe it or not, updated vocational information may push Social Security in the direction of liberalization of the grid regulations. More people than ever work in offices but those jobs can't be done by Americans who have reduced cognitive abilities and that's most people who file claims for Social Security disability benefits. The number of sedentary jobs that can be done by people with reduced cognitive abilities has gone down significantly over the last 40 years.) Social Security can "study" functional capacity evaluation methods and tell Congress that it still finds them unreliable. Social Security can tell Congress that it has studied the "workplace accommodations" in the Americans with Disabilities Act and still believes that they have no place in disability determination.
     If you genuinely want to change Social Security disability in the ways indicated in this bill, it would make a lot more sense to directly change Social Security disability. You could order Social Security to review each and every hearing decision that grants benefits. You could specify the "standard qualifications" you wanted for Administrative Law Judges, such as, say, quotas on the percentage of claims they could approve. You could change the definition of disability so that age would not be considered or would be given less consideration. You could order Social Security to use functional capacity evaluations. You could order consideration of Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations.
     There's a reason that Mr. Johnson's proposal wouldn't actually force any of this. He's scared to do so. He wants all of his proposal to become fact but he doesn't want his fingerprints on it. He knows that Republicans in Congress generally want all of this but also don't want their fingerprints on it. They're all scared of Social Security. They want to dramatically cut Social Security disability but they're afraid to do so. They want to force the Social Security Administration to make the unpopular changes and then blame the agency and the Administration for the changes.
     And, by the way, the proposal does nothing to extend the life of the Social Security Disability Trust Fund which suggests that Congressional Republicans are scared that their base will be intolerant of doing anything to help disability recipients continue receiving benefits.