Outrage In Iowa

     From the Des Moines Register:

A judge’s long delays in deciding scores of backlogged Social Security disability cases have resulted in Iowa applicants losing their eligibility or homes, or even dying while waiting for benefits, a Des Moines Register investigation has found. ...

[T]he delays go back years, yet only in September were Gatewood’s back cases reassigned from the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review in West Des Moines to another regional office in Topeka, Kan. ...

On average, disability applicants in Iowa wait about 13 months to get a judge to hear their cases. That's about a month less than others nationwide, according to Social Security data reviewed by the Register. Once the hearings are held, decisions typically follow within one to two months, lawyers here say.

But applicants among Gatewood's caseload often waited another year for a decision, and their lawyers say some people in desperate need are still waiting. ...

The Register's Watchdog probe was triggered by attorney David Leitner, who raised questions on behalf of client Shannon Hills.

Hills, 32, applied for disability benefits in 2013 after being denied twice before. Gatewood presided over her hearing in April.

But Leitner was notified last week that the case was among those transferred to Topeka. When he called to ask if a new hearing was scheduled, he was told 300 of Gatewood’s cases are in the pipeline there. ...

Tamara Wolff, 51, who suffered multiple heart attacks and a stroke that permanently damaged her eyesight, said she first applied for disability in 2009.

Gatewood finally heard her case on March 26, 2014, and Wolff was told she could expect a decision in about a month. Seven months later, after Wolff had been hospitalized several times, her lawyer sent a letter to the judge asking that she make the case a priority and expedite the ruling.

Still, no decision was rendered until April 18 — nearly 13 months after the hearing. ...

Lawyers say their clients have been afraid to speak out or complain because they don’t want to risk being denied benefits.

Jensen says 12 of her clients whose cases are being transferred had been waiting 12 to 18 months for a decision from Gatewood. ...

Administrative records from the Merit Systems Protection Board show the Social Security Administration's presiding administrative law judge tried to remove Gatewood from cases in Oklahoma more than a decade ago.

But Gatewood succeeded in an appeal in 2005, arguing that the agency had interfered with her judicial independence.

     I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, as terrible as this is, it affects only a limited number of people. The bigger outrage is that it's taking longer and longer to get a hearing in the first place. That affects everyone requesting a hearing on their claim for Social Security disability benefits. The backlog is rapidly rising to two years. There's every reason to believe it will just keep climbing beyond two years. This will, in effect, deprive claimants of any meaningful right to a hearing on their claim. Second, if you're an attorney with clients caught in a mess such as that described in this article, there is an avenue to relief -- mandamus. I've got an example of a mandamus complaint if anyone is interested. (And, for sticklers, yes I know that technically mandamus no longer exists but the exact same relief exists and everybody still calls it mandamus because we all remember Marbury v. Madison.)

SSAB Position Paper On Windfall Elimination Provision

     The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has released a position paper on the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) which reduces Social Security benefits when an individual has income from a pension derived from earnings not covered by Social Security. The SSAB recommends a "proportional formula." There has been agitation for some WEP fix for more than 30 years. I doubt that the SSAB position paper is going to make a difference.

They Worked Hard Before They Became Disabled

Consensus Forming?

     Another sign that a consensus is forming in favor of some sort of transfers from Social Security's Retirement and Survivors Trust Fund to its Disability Trust Fund, accompanied by some sort of tweak to the disability work incentives. There will be claims that the tweak will encourage disabled people to return to work but they'll actually do the opposite since that's the only way to save money. We'll have to hope there isn't some secret agenda which will only be released after the 2016 election.

Here's The Big Fraud Problem At Social Security

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

In May 2012, the Social Security Administration (SSA) introduced my Social Security — an Internet services portal that allows individuals to create a personal online account to access their own information. In January 2013, the Agency enhanced my Social Security, allowing individuals to change their mailing address or direct deposit bank information. In April 2013, we began receiving reports of changes to address and direct deposit information that beneficiaries did not make or had not authorized. ...

Based on our sample results, we estimated about $20 million in benefit payments to approximately 12,200 beneficiaries was misdirected between January 1, 2013 and January 9, 2014. Furthermore, we estimated about $11 million was not returned to SSA as of August 2015. Additionally, we estimated that SSA prevented about $6 million in benefits from being misrouted for about 5,300 beneficiaries whose direct deposit bank account was changed without their authorization. ...

     I want all cases of fraud at Social Security addressed but this is by any measure Social Security's biggest fraud problem. I expect that it's far bigger than all other types of fraud combined. So why doesn't it get more attention? For many years Congress, the Office of Management and Budget and many outside groups have been pressing Social Security to transfer all its operations online. All of those pressing for greater availability of online services think there will be big savings for taxpayers as well as better service for the public. The big savings haven't materialized. They may never materialize. People who just want to file a simple retirement claim may get better service but there's little benefit for those filing disability claims. Those filing survivor claims online are often at a disadvantage because they don't know what claims they should be filing. They need the help of trained personnel. Those who have been pressing Social Security to transfer more of its operations online don't like to admit the fraud risks involved since it undermines their arguments in favor of increased online services so they just try to sweep it under the rug.

Five New Cooperative Disability Investigation Units

     A press release from Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced that five new Cooperative Disability Investigations (CDI) Units opened across the country this week. As part of the nationwide CDI Program, the new units will identify and prevent Social Security disability fraud throughout their respective states. The new CDI units opened in Birmingham, Alabama; St. Paul, Minnesota; Raleigh, North Carolina; Charleston, West Virginia; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The CDI Program is one of Social Security’s most successful anti-fraud initiatives, contributing to the integrity of Federal disability programs. CDI brings together personnel from SSA, its OIG, State Disability Determination Services (DDS), and local law enforcement agencies to analyze and investigate suspicious Social Security disability claims, to help resolve questions of fraud before benefits are paid. CDI efforts help disability examiners make informed decisions, ensure payment accuracy, and generate significant taxpayer savings for Federal and State programs.

“For 18 years, CDI has had tremendous success in identifying and preventing disability fraud and abuse,” said Inspector General Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr. “We’re pleased to partner with Social Security, DDS, and local law enforcement agencies to combat fraud and to promote the integrity of Social Security’s disability programs

There's Social Security Disability As It Really Exists And Social Security Disability As Members Of Congress Imagine It To Be

     Here's some excerpts from an opinion piece written by Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Cotton (R-AR) for Fox News with comments from me in brackets and bolded:

According to the 2015 annual report from the Social Security system’s trustees, the SSDI [Social Security Disability Insurance] trust fund will run out in late 2016. ...

SSDI was established as an insurance program for the “totally and permanently disabled.” [You're putting it in quotes but the phrase "totally and permanently disabled" has never been part of SSDI. Not now. Not ever. Depending upon how you interpret the term "total disability", it can be synonymous with chronic vegetative state. Is that the sort of definition of disability that you'd prefer? Permanence has never been required. However, the one year duration requirement that we have isn't that different from a requirement of permanence, as a practical matter.] ...

Today, nearly 300,000 Arkansans and West Virginians rely on SSDI. In some of our counties, nearly 20% of working-age people receive SSDI benefits. [This might be important enough to your constituents for you to actually learn something about it.]

Many of these individuals are permanently disabled, and we’re committed to protecting this vulnerable population. But we must also dramatically improve the program for the temporarily disabled to help them recover and return to work. [How many temporarily disabled people do you really think receive SSDI? You have to have been or be predicted to be disabled for at least a year to be found disabled. How much ground do you think there is between a year and permanent? In the real world, there's little.]...

We must intervene early. On average, applicants wait more than a year before getting an SSDI eligibility decision. [So, the agency needs more money so it can decide cases quicker? However, Manchin and Cotten are enthuaistic budget hawks who favor endless cuts to the federal budget.] We can use this time to help applicants who are disabled, but have the potential for work activity stay connected to the workforce by providing support services. This can be done through vocational training, supportive employment, health services, incentives for employers, and more. [All of this already exists. What more do you want?]

We also need to shift SSDI from a one-size-fits-all mindset to a smarter approach that differentiates between the permanently disabled and those who, with medical treatment and rehabilitation services, can recover. [We have 50 years of evidence that there is no significant number of people drawing SSDI who have the realistic capacity to return to work on a regular basis, regardless of the assistance they receive.]

While SSA categorizes beneficiaries based on likelihood of medical improvement, there’s no requirement to pursue rehabilitation or medical services to prepare for a return to work. [You're attacking straw men. There's zero evidence that claimants are refusing to pursue vocational rehabilitation. Mostly, they're way too sick to take advantage of it. The idea that a claimant would avoid medical treatment in order to stay on SSDI is bizarre. We have strong evidence that this virtually never happens.] We need to help individuals with temporary disabilities gain access to rehabilitation and recovery services and offer a timeline to re-enter the workforce. [They already have such access. It doesn't work. There's no reason to believe that it will ever work] ...

     I suppose I shouldn't complain. It's better for Manchin and Cotton to concentrate upon worthless ideas than upon dangerous ideas.

New Mental Listings Coming Next Year?

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

...[T]he American Psychiatric Association revised the manual [DSM] used to diagnose and classify mental disorders, which it published in May 2013. However, SSA [Social Security Administration] had not updated the mental medical listing since August 1985. ...

[T]he mental medical listing represents the most used body system, and any proposed changes are usually controversial. SSA issued an NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rule-Making] in August 2010, and it had to address many public comments while considering changes in technology and medicine. SSA’s Office of Disability Policy addressed public comments and circulated the draft to other SSA components for review. According to SSA, these revisions were contentious, and the Office of Disability Policy received and addressed substantive comments then circulated a revised draft for comments. SSA needs to reach consensus among its various components. With all these issues, it has taken the Agency over 5 years to move the mental medical listing update from the NPRM to the final revision. SSA projects that the mental medical listing will be finalized in spring 2016 ...

     Why do I have a feeling that these mental Listings will get pushed back even further?