Doing As Little As Possible On Same Sex Marriages

     It appears that the Department of Justice is still telling the Social Security Administration to do as little as possible on same sex marriage. The approach is still state by state, waiting for each frivolous appeal to end. This could drag on for months.

Mass Mailing To Some Workers Compensation Recipients

     This is an Administrative Message (AM) sent out recently to Social Security field offices:

Instruction

Identification Number AM-14066 Effective Date: 10/07/2014 Intended Audience: All RCs/ARCs/ADs/FOs/TSCs/PSCs/OCO/OCO-CSTs

Originating Office: DCO OPSOS

Title: Workers' Compensation (WC) or Public Disability Benefits (PDB) Offset Pending Mass Mailings

Type: AM - Admin Messages

 

Program: Disability

Link To Reference: See References at the end of this AM.

 

Retention Date: April 7, 2015

 

A. Purpose

 

This administrative message (AM) advises you of the mass mailing project for the Workers' Compensation Pending Cleanup workload.

B. Background

 

Disability (DIB) beneficiaries are subject to possible offset if they receive WC [Workers Compensation] or PDB [Public Disability Benefits] payments. When SSA [Social Security Administration] adjudicates a disability award and the claimant's WC or PDB claim is still pending, or under appeal, the Modernized Claims System (MCS) posts limited WC or PDB claim data to the Master Beneficiary Record (MBR) with an alert "WC Type OFFSET PENDING."

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) discovered that beneficiaries often do not report when their WC or PDB claims are approved and, prior to March 2011, SSA did not have an effective systems control to ensure processing center (PC) technicians follow up and resolve OFFSET PENDING cases. As a result, SSA has a backlog of OFFSET PENDING cases that the PCs must review and resolve.

 

C. Mass mailings to solicit information on pending WC or PDB claims

 

Effective October 2014 through December 2014, the PCs will send mass mailing letters to a group of DIB beneficiaries for whom:

 

We first processed the claims in 2001-2003; and MBR [Master Beneficiary Record] data indicate a WC or PDB claim is still "pending." The letters solicit information about the outcome of the WC or PDB claim. Based on the MBR language indicator, we will print the mass mailing letters in English or in Spanish. When the PCs release the letter, a special message will post to the MBR indicating that the PC sent the letter and includes a reference to this AM.

Example of Special Message Text:

 

" PROGRAM CENTER MASS MAILING DIRECT CONTACT LETTER SENT TO BIC A FOR STATUS OF WC/PDB CLAIM--SEE AM-14066".

 

The letter provides and requests the following information:

 

Reminds the beneficiary that "you told us you filed or intended to file for workers'

compensation or public disability benefit payments or that you were appealing the decision made on your workers' compensation or public disability benefit claim" and "we are writing to update the information;" Asks the beneficiary to answer the questions in the letter by checking each item that applies, to fill in any requested information, to sign and date the letter, and return it in the enclosed envelope; Requests the beneficiary to enclose proof of any workers' compensation or public disability benefit payments received; Includes SSA's 800# (including TTY) for any questions; and Includes a return envelope addressed to:

Social Security Administration

Western Program Service Center

P.O. Box 4213

Richmond, CA 94804-0213

 

NOTE: Although the beneficiary should return the letter to the Richmond CA address, the Richmond office dispatches the returned letters to the PC [Payment Center] of jurisdiction for final action.

See the attached facsimile of the English language mass mailing letter.

 

WCPE FY15 MASS MAILING ATTACHMENT (ENGLISH).doc

 

D. Handling inquiries from beneficiaries

 

The following instructions provide guidance for handling inquiries from beneficiaries regarding the mass mailing letters.

 

1. Field Office (FO) instructions

 

If the beneficiary:

misplaced the return envelope enclosure, ask him or her to send the completed and signed letter to the Richmond CA address shown in section C.; brings proof of WC or PDB payments into the FO instead of mailing it to the PC address, the claims representative should promptly input the information into the Interactive Computation Facility (ICF) system. After update to ICF, fax the proof into NDRED [Non-Disability Repository for Evidentiary Documents]; and states he or she already provided SSA with proof of the WC or PDB claim or appeal status, check eView, NDRED, and PCACS [Processing Center Action Control System] to determine whether SSA has received the documents. Advise the beneficiary if the FO or PC has already input the information or if it is still under review. If the documents are not in eView, NDRED, or PCACS, ask the beneficiary to resubmit the proof to the FO and input the information when receive

2. 800 Number instructions

 

If the beneficiary:

 

misplaced the return envelope enclosure, ask him or her to send the completed and signed letter to the Richmond CA address shown in Section C.; and states he or she already provided SSA with proof of the WC or PDB claim or appeal status, send an MDW to the servicing FO. On the MDW, indicate WC Pending Cleanup workload and that the beneficiary alleges providing SSA with proof of WC or PDB claim. Advise the beneficiary that someone from the FO will contact him or her.

 

Direct all program-related and technical questions to your Regional Office support staff or Processing Center Operations Analysis staff.

RO [Regional Office] support staff may refer questions or problems to their Central Office contacts.

 

Reference:

 

DI 52140.010 Processing Center (PC)

Responsibilities for Processing Workers'

Fee Petition Process Problems

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

Our control testing of 50 fee petition payments that exceeded $6,000 in Fiscal Year 2012 found controls were not always working as intended. Specifically, while we found sufficient support authorizing the fee payments, SSA did not always (1) pay fees in accordance with SSA policies and the petition specifications, (2) maintain required documentation for the fee petition process, or (3) adequately track fee petitions in its management information systems. For example, we identified payment processing errors in 16 (32 percent) of the 50 cases we reviewed. In seven instances, SSA incorrectly issued direct fee payments to former claimant representatives who withdrew or, had been discharged, before the favorable decision.

Risk Of Unauthorized Access To Social Security Computers

     Sometimes, Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) completes a report but doesn't want to release it to the public. In these cases OIG issues a "Limited Distribution" report. All that is available to the public is a brief blurb. Here are some excerpts from one of these recent "Limited Distribution" blurbs:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology recommends that security issues be patched timely to maintain the operational availability, confidentiality, and integrity of information technology systems. ...

SSA [Social Security Administration] did not have a comprehensive server patch management program. Consequently, the Agency did not always address known vulnerabilities timely. Specifically, we found that the Agency did not always : 

• patch Windows servers according to its patch management policies ; 
• have effective policies and procedures to ensure UNIX servers were patched timely; or 
• address software vulnerabilities on the Windows servers. 

Without an effective patch management process in place, systems are at risk of unauthorized access

Report On Federal Employee Unions

     After repeated requests from a Congressman, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has put together a report on federal employee unions. The report shows that as of 2012 Social Security had 50,815 bargaining unit employees. Union leaders get official time to attend to union business. This official time amount to 247,563 hours in 2012 at Social Security, which is the equivalent of 119 full time positions or one for every 427 bargaining unit employees.

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.