Why Would They Trust The Obama Administration On This?

     A press release:

Today, Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) introduced H.R. 1800, the Guiding Responsible and Improved Disability Decisions Act of 2015 (the GRIDD Act). The legislation would require the Social Security Administration (SSA) to update the medical and vocational regulatory guidelines for determining disability, which have not been updated since they went into effect in 1979.

Recently, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report highlighting one of the problems with these outdated rules for cases in Puerto Rico. The OIG found that these rules favor claimants who are unable to speak English, even though Spanish is one of the island’s official languages.
 Upon introduction, Chairman Johnson said:

"Hardworking American taxpayers expect Social Security to fairly, consistently and accurately decide who should receive disability benefits. That's why it makes no sense that Social Security uses rules from 1979 to decide if someone should receive benefits today! I've been calling on Social Security to update its rules, and the recent Inspector General report just further makes that case. This legislation sends a clear message to Social Security: It's time to update your rules—and now. This is what Americans want, need, and deserve."

House Ways and Means Committee Members co-sponsoring the legislation include Tom Reed (R-NY), Kenny Marchant (R-TX) and Diane Black (R-TN). Other original co-sponsors include Representative Mimi Walters (R-CA).

For more information, click here.

     Here is the entire relevant text of the bill:

As soon as possible after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall prescribe rules and regulations that update the medical-vocational guidelines, as set forth in appendix 2 to subpart P of part 404 of title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, used in disability determinations, including full consideration of new employment opportunities made possible by advances in treatment, rehabilitation, and technology and full consideration of the effect of prevalent languages on education.

     If you're sure that passage of this bill would result in fewer people drawing Social Security disability benefits, you don't understand the situation. The number of unskilled jobs has declined dramatically over the last thirty years. Any honest updating of the grid regulations is almost certainly going to result in more disability claims being approved, not fewer. Don't believe me? Read back in this blog about the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP). There was plenty of tension as Social Security tried to stage manage OIDAP so it could avoid paying more claimants. That didn't work so well. That controversy has gone underground as the responsibility for developing a new Occupational Information System (OIS) has shifted to the Department of Labor but it's going to burst into the open eventually. Pass this bill and you're opening Pandora's box a little sooner.
     This bill is evidence to me that the Subcommittee lacks a Republican Social Security disability policy wonk on its staff.

Nice Idea But It's Not Going To Work

     There's a bill pending before the House Social Security Subcommittee that would require that the Social Security Administration "develop online tools to help beneficiaries assess the impact of earnings on eligibility for and benefit amounts of state and Federal programs." 

     It's a nice idea but I have my doubts that anything developed will be helpful. The problem is that Social Security's work incentives are so incredibly complex that they won't fit easily into an online format. You don't just plug in your earnings for a month to determine the effect upon your benefits. There's far more involved than just how much you earn. Earn $2,000 in the first month you work and there's no effect upon your benefits. Keep working and earn $2,000 a month for twelve months and your benefits probably stop -- and note that I said probably, since there's the separate blind standard, there's the issue of whether it's self-employment which has different standards, there's Impairment Related Work Expenses (IRWE) and there's the question of whether you're performing a made-work or subsidized employment job. Keep working at that some pay rate for a time before stopping and what happens depends upon how long you were working before you stopped. There's no simple way of explaining it because it's quite complex. See the image above from the Subcommittee summary of the bill to get an idea of the complexity. 

     This isn't a partisan issue. I think that virtually everybody familiar with this subject would agree that we need a much simpler system of work incentives. I think that almost all would agree that even with a much simpler system few Social Security disability benefits recipients will return to work. They're too sick.
     The work incentives have gotten so complex because members of Congress over several decades have believed that there must be some way of returning lots of Social Security disability recipients to work. They haven't bothered to study the incentives that already existed. They just kept adding more. Additional incentives or tweaked incentives or better explanation of incentives -- none of it is going to work. The idea that large numbers of disability benefits recipients can ever be forced or enticed to return to work is a fallacy.

A Hypothetical

     Let’s say I’m interviewing a client and ask him or her, “Do you get any exercise? And the client answers, “Yes, I get on my exercise bike for 15 minutes a day.” Does this relate to the disability claim? Is my client obliged to tell this to Social Security? Am I obliged to force my client to tell Social Security such information? 

     If I am obliged to force my client to reveal such things, have I been turned into Social Security's investigative agent? Should I just stop asking my clients any questions? Can a claimant have effective representation if this is the standard?

Do They Even Read Their Own Regs?

     I have no idea why they believe this to be consistent with their own recently adopted regulations but Social Security is now taking the position that claimants are not just under an obligation to inform the agency of evidence that "relates to" their disability claim but to submit such evidence, regardless of the expense or difficulty, and are to be hounded to do so.

How Do You Answer The Question?

     From a section added to Social Security's HALLEX manual last week:

Before closing the hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) will remind the claimant that he or she must inform the ALJ about or submit, in its entirety, all evidence known to him or her that relates to whether he or she is blind or disabled. See 20 CFR 404.1512 and 416.912. If the claimant has a representative, then the ALJ will remind the representative that he or she must help the claimant obtain the information that the claimant must submit. See 20 CFR 404.1512, 404.1740, 416.912, and 416.1540. The ALJ must ask the claimant and the representative if they are aware of any additional evidence that relates to whether the claimant is blind or disabled.

Twenty Years Ago Today

     Twenty years ago today domestic terrorists bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One hundred sixty-eight people were killed, including these sixteen Social Security employees:

• Richard A. Allen, Claims Representative 
• Saundra G. Avery, Development Clerk 
• Oleta C. Biddy, Service Representative 
• Carol L. Bowers, Operations Supervisor 
• Sharon L. Chesnut, Claims Representative
  Katherine L Cregan, Service Representative
• Margaret E. Goodson, Claims Representative 
• Ethel L. Griffin, Service Representative 
• Ronald V. Harding, Service Representative 
• Raymond L. Johnson, Senior Community Service Volunteer
• Derwin W. Miller, Claims Representative
• Charlotte A. Thomas, Contact Representative
• Michael G. Thompson, Field Representative
• Robert N. Walker, Jr., Claims Representative 
• Julie M. Welch, Claims Representative 
• William S. Williams, Operations Supervisor

Social Security May Be Central Issue In 2016 Election

     It's now becoming mainstream for Republican presidential candidates to express a desire to cut Social Security. House Republicans seem determined to try to cut Social Security disability benefits, perhaps dramatically. Meanwhile, even though Hilary Clinton has yet to announce a position, it's become mainstream for Democrats to embrace expanding Social Security.

Did They Even Read Their Own Regs?

     I have no idea why they believe this to be consistent with their own recently adopted regulations but Social Security is now taking the position that claimants are not just under an obligation to inform the agency of evidence that "relates to" their disability claim but to submit such evidence, regardless of the expense or difficulty, and are to be hounded to do so.