New Genitourinary Listing

     The Social Security Administration has posted new final rules in the Federal Register revising its listing of Impairments for genitourinary disorders.

Advisory Council For "McCrery-Pomeroy SSDI Initiative"

     I've already written about my concern that the "McCrery-Pomeroy SSDI Initiative" which is supposedly going to come up with bipartisan solutions for the fact that the Social Security Disability Trust Fund will probably run out of money in the not too distant future, is sponsored by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), which has a long association with Pete Peterson's crusade against Social Security.
     I've now seen a list of individuals who have agreed to be part of the Advisory Council for this project. Here's the list:

•  Michael Astrue
•  Lawrence Atkins
•  Andrew G. Biggs
•  Barbara Butz
•  Mary C. Daly
•  Marty Ford
•  Steve Goss
•  Ron Haskins
•  Andrew Houtenville
•  Andrew Imparato
•  Neil Jacobson
•  Stanford Ross
•  C. Eugene Steuerle
•  William Taylor
•  Rebecca Vallas

      You can read the biographical blurbs on the Advisory Council members. No person, including members of this group, can be accurately described in the shorthand way that I'm about to, so I won't describe them individually, but I still think it's useful to break these Advisory Council members into several rough groups. You could certainly argue with my groupings. Here's a rough guide to how I think these Council members break down based upon past positions held or views publicly expressed:

• Very favorable to Social Security Disability claimants -- 3
• Moderately favorable to Social Security Disability claimants -- 2
• Neutral or unknown -- 4
• Moderately hostile to Social Security Disability claimants -- 2
• Very hostile to Social Security Disability claimants -- 3
• Mostly interested in Social Security spending as much money as possible on rehabilitation -- 2

     In a sense this is a balanced group. Some of the members of this Advisory Council have actually met Social Security disability claimants. I wish more had. The main thing about this group is that a unanimous recommendation is pretty much out of the question. There's just too big a spread of viewpoints. Bipartisanship in Washington? Get real.
     I hope this group wastes lots of Pete Peterson's money on something that may not matter once it becomes clear that the Disability Trust Fund is going to last at least into 2017. Please, hold public hearings at expensive hotels all over the country. Travel to other countries to see what's happening abroad. Demand huge per diems. Commission lots of expensive studies. Pete Peterson can afford it.
     For those Advisory Council members who care about such things, remember that when I and others talk about Social Security disability claimants who have been denied becoming homeless or committing suicide, we've not making it up. It happens all the time. These are not abstract issues. Real people's lives are affected in horrific ways when Social Security disability claims are denied.
     From where I stand, it would be far better to let the Disability Trust Fund run out of money and have Social Security disability benefits cut by a certain percentage than to agree to something that reduces the number of people granted Social Security disability benefits. Lowered benefits would hurt but SSI puts a floor under the income of disability recipients. Medicare and/or Medicaid wouldn't be cut. Reduced benefits wouldn't last. A change in the definition of disability would be permanent

Social Security Attorneys Are Hurting Because Social Security Claimants Are Hurting But The Disability Trust Fund May Do Better

     A company that sells "leads" to attorneys has done an interesting analysis that breaks down some of the reasons why fees paid to attorneys representing Social Security claimants have gone down so much in recent years. Here are some numbers they came up with, which point to a significant reduction in the percentage of claims approved by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), a significant increase in the backlog of claimants awaiting a decision after an ALJ hearing and a significant decrease in the number of disability claims filed as the reasons:

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Year	% Denied	Fully Favorable	Partially Favorable
2011	37.5417	56.6575	5.8008
2012	42.2793	51.8778	5.8430
2013	44.4754	49.5381	5.9866
2014	46.0591	47.7659	6.1750

Administrative Law Judge Hearings Held And Decisions Issued

Year	Decisions	Hearings Held	Hearings Held to Decisions
2011	628738	644057	0.976214838
2012	646809	672352	0.962009483
2013	638063	685840	0.93033798
2014	605967*	680769*	0.890121319

Volume of Disability Claims Filed

Year	Applications
2011	2,878,920
2012	2,820,812
2013	2,640,100
2014	2,619,399*

*projected at current pace

     Note that this last set of numbers has implications for the Disability Trust Fund. The current midrange projection is that the Fund will be exhausted in 2016 but that projection is based upon an assumption that the disability incidence rate would actually be increasing slightly at this time.

The Frustrations Of Dealing With A Bureaucracy That Has Too Few Employees To Do Too Much Work

     Claimant receives a favorable decision from an Administrative Law Judge on July 25. In mid-September the client still hasn't been paid so we call the payment center which says they're working on it. By October 8 there's still been no payment of benefits so we call back. An exasperated employee at the payment center tells us (inaccurately) that they told us in mid-September that it takes 45-60 days for these to be paid and asks that we not call back for at least a month. You notice that as of October 8, it had already been well over 60 days since the favorable decision.

Is This Significant?

    The Social Security Administration has posted a notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website indicating that it wishes to hire a contractor to study position descriptions for its Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). Here's some background information:

The organizational changes associated with this growth, most recently with the reorganization of SSA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) into the current ODAR, has contributed, over time, to the accrual of multiple Position Descriptions (PDs), which describe the functions of the various jobs our workforce performs.  As a result, ODAR now has over 1,000 PDs, some so antiquated they still refer to OHA, and some similar enough such that employees performing essentially the same duties in one region have difficulty qualifying for promotion in another region because the same duties there are under a different PD. ...  Rather than continue with the status quo, ODAR desires a smaller set of PDs.  With the exception of revising ALJ [Administrative Law Judge], AAJ [Administrative Appeals Judge], and AO [Adjudicative Officer] PDs, ODAR would like a revised set of national, updated, standard (de-specialized) workload PDs.  ODAR would then present this revised set to SSA’s Office of Human Resources for classification approval and institutionalization.

Social Security Headcount Rebounds But Still Less Than A Year Ago

     The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated figures for the number of employees at the Social Security Administration.

• June 2014 62,651
• March 2014 60,820
• December 2013 61,957
• September 2013 62,543
• June 2013 62,877
• March 2013 63,777
• December 2012 64,538
• September 2012 65,113
• September 2011 67,136
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990
• September 2007 62,407
• September 2006 63,647
• September 2005 66,147
• September 2004 65,258
• September 2003 64,903
• September 2002 64,648
• September 2001 65,377
• September 2000 64,521

COLA Will Be About 1.7%

     Investment News is projecting that Social Security's cost of living adjustment (COLA) for 2014 will be 1.7%, slightly more than last year's COLA of 1.5%.

No Need For More Delay -- Same Sex Marriage Battle Is Over

     The Supreme Court has decided not to hear any of the cases concerning same sex marriage. Several of the Courts of Appeals have held that it is unconstitutional for a state to refuse to marry same sex couples. All of these decisions are now final. At least in the states where those cases arose, and probably in the entire judicial circuits where those cases arose, states cannot refuse to allow same sex marriage and Social Security must recognize those same sex marriage as long as those involved stay in those states. In theory, the Supreme Court could decide at a later time to hear a new case arising from a Court of Appeals that has not yet acted on one of these cases. That seems unlikely at the moment but I would guess that Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas would be happy to go down this route should a Republican be elected in 2016 and the composition of the Court changes.

     The Attorney General can now say that the matter is resolved and that the Social Security Administration and other agencies must immediately recognize same sex marriages in every state. However, the Attorney General could study the matter for many months and then say that the issue must be legally resolved separately and tediously in each state or at least every judicial circuit  until the Supreme Court has refused to hear a case from each state or at least each judicial circuit, a process that will take another year or more. I think the Attorney General should do the former but based on past action will probably do the latter.