This Is Wrong

     From EM-15034, just issued by Social Security:

Beginning September 25, 2015, the Social Security Administration (SSA) and VA initiated a weekly information exchange agreement in which the VA provides SSA with information concerning veterans who received the VA 100% P&T [Permanent and Total] disability compensation rating. With this release, when an individual contacts SSA, and their social security number is on our database as having the 100% P&T rating, our users will receive an immediate alert that we must expedite the case.

Additionally, when an alert identifies the individual as having this VA rating, no additional proof of the 100% P&T rating is necessary to expedite the case. ...

     We owe our veterans a lot but we don't owe veterans who have 100% VA ratings expediting on their Social Security disability claims. These vets aren't in great financial distress. They have their VA benefits. Other disabled people hurtle towards homelessness while vets who don't really need it get expediting. This is wrong.

Now If They Could Do An Honest Recalculation Of The Attorney User Fee ...

     A notice from Social Security in today's Federal Register:

We provide fee-based Social Security number (SSN) verification services to enrolled private businesses and government agencies who obtain a valid, signed consent form from the Social Security number holder. ...

To use CBSV [Consent Based Social Security Number Verification], interested parties must pay a one-time non-refundable enrollment fee of $5,000. Currently, users also pay a fee of $3.10 per SSN verification transaction in advance of services. We agreed to calculate our costs periodically for providing CBSV services and adjust the fees as needed. ...

Based on the most recent cost analysis, we will adjust the fiscal year 2016 fee to $1.40 per SSN verification transaction. New customers will still be responsible for the one-time $5,000 enrollment fee.

I Keep Asking: Does This Look Out Of Control?

     The number of people drawing Disability Insurance Benefits from the Social Security Administration declined in September. This number has declined in eleven of the last twelve months. The decline is happening because fewer claims are being filed and approved.

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.