It's OK With Me If You Pretend This Is New -- As Long As You Do It!

     From the Federal Eye column in the Washington Post:

When The Post dug into the backlog for disability benefits at the Social Security Administration a year ago, it discovered that the line was approaching one million applications long. The number of people in this queue was so large that it exceeded the population of six different states.

Since then, the line has only gotten longer, according to a new report...

In July, Social Security replaced the two officials in charge of the appeals office, shifting them to other jobs at the agency in favor of new leadership to tackle the backlog.

Three months later, the new head of the office says she is “putting the finishing touches” on a plan to reduce the number of pending cases and speed the system up.

Terrie Gruber said in an interview that her goal is “compassionate and responsive” service to applicants for disability benefits ...

"We’re committed to new ways of doing business,” she said.

One of the biggest changes will include better triage of cases, so many don’t ever get to a lengthy hearing before a judge. New, electronically-generated data has helped the agency determine which appeals could be screened by attorneys and federal claims examiners, who can make decisions themselves, faster than judges, Gruber said. The number of attorneys is being increased.

When cases do go before judges, a new initiative is assigning support staff to arrange the files in better order, getting rid of duplicate medical documents and evidence that take a long time for judges to sort through. ...

A primary goal is hiring more judges, Gruber said, about 1,800 to 1,900 by fiscal 2018, an increase of about 400. Also, she is making use of new technology to enhance the quality of video hearings in remote locations where there are no judges, and improving support staff’s communications with judges when video hearings are involved.

A new pilot program is creating “pre-hearing” conferences at a handful of  local Social Security offices, so applicants who don’t have attorneys can know what to expect when a judge hears their case.

     The statement that these plans show that the agency is "committed to new ways of doing business" is ridiculous. That doesn't mean I disagree with the plans. It's just that there's virtually nothing new here. I'm actually an enthusiastic supporter of the pre-hearing screenings part and I'd love to see more ALJs hired. The rest is harmless. Let's go through the elements of the plan:

• New, electronically-generated data has helped the agency determine which appeals could be screened by attorneys and federal claims examiners, who can make decisions themselves, faster than judges. This is just the revival of the Senior Attorney and re-recon programs that have been used successfully in the past. Social Security certainly didn't have to replace Glenn Sklar to do this since he supervised the exact same programs in the past. This can make a significant difference. They never should have been dropped. The only reason they were dropped was concern that the agency would be criticized for "paying down the backlog." By the way, ALJs, this is your Bat Signal. It's now OK to issue on the record reversals.
• [A] new initiative is assigning support staff to arrange the files in better order, getting rid of duplicate medical documents and evidence that take a long time for judges to sort through. There's nothing new about this. Support staff has been "pulling" exhibits for at least 37 years. I know. I've been involved with Social Security disability for 37 years. It wasn't new when I started. I don't know why this would even be listed. I can't imagine anything they could be planning that would be new. If anything, ALJs ought to be hearing cases on unpulled files! Yes, ALJs, that's been done before. No, I don't like cases being heard with unpulled files but I'm quite willing to put up with them if we can just get more cases heard. People are waiting two years for hearings. This is a horrible situation that demands urgent action. When cases are heard with unpulled files, the exhibits are eventually pulled, but only if it's going to be a denial.
• A primary goal is hiring more judges, Gruber said, about 1,800 to 1,900 by fiscal 2018, an increase of about 400. They're been saying something like this for at least twenty years. It seems like the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) always makes it impossible for the agency to hire as many ALJs as Social Security says it wants to hire. At least that's what Social Security has claimed.  I've never fully bought into OPM being the villain. I've always suspected that the real reason more ALJs aren't hired is that the agency's budget is way too tight and decisions have been made to devote resources elsewhere. I suspect that the agency uses OPM as its fall guy. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of names on the ALJ register who could be hired almost immediately if the agency really wanted to hire them.
• A new pilot program is creating “pre-hearing” conferences at a handful of  local Social Security offices, so applicants who don’t have attorneys can know what to expect when a judge hears their case. Pre-hearing conferences haven't been done lately but they may date back a quarter-century. So claimants can know what to expect? Hardly. The primary reason for holding these pre-hearing conferences for unrepresented claimants is to weed out those who don't show up. Send them a show cause notice and then dismiss their cases when they don't respond. Dismissing these cases earlier makes the average numbers look better but it really doesn't reduce the workload by much. Many ALJs already schedule hearings for unrepresented claimants five minutes apart on the assumption that most won't show up. What may be new here is that the agency is talking about doing pre-hearing conferences at local Social Security offices.  Could it be field office personnel doing the pre-hearing conferences?

Opting Out Of The Workers Compensation Offset In Texas

     Let me explain first why I'm writing about a development in workers compensation law. Claimants receiving Social Security disability benefits as well as workers compensation benefits are subject to an offset. Usually, Social Security disability benefits are reduced because of the receipt of workers compensation benefits. Sometimes the offset works in the opposite direction. 

     The states of Texas and Oklahoma now allow employers to opt out of workers compensation. You read that right -- opt out of workers compensation. The employers have to set up benefits that parallel workers compensation but they can arrange things in ways that save money, such as refusing to pay for carpal tunnel syndrome or refusing to pay benefits unless a worker reports an injury by the end of his or her work shift or cutting off all benefits after two years. 

     In terms of workers rights, these plans are very worrisome but I'm writing about the Social Security implications. Social Security has decided that benefits under the company plans that substitute for workers compensation aren't subject to the workers compensation offset. This development is already costing Social Security's Disability Insurance Trust Fund money. Other states are studying what Texas and Oklahoma have done. There may be significant effects upon Social Security. Employers are trying to shift the burden of providing for workers injured on the job to Social Security and Medicare. This needs Congressional scrutiny.

Senate Hearing Postponed

     The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Understanding Social Security’s Long-Term Fiscal Picture that had been scheduled for October 20 has been postponed. No new date has been announced.

The Sad Situation In Kentucky

     The Lexington Herald-Leader has an op ed from Ned Pillersdorf, the attorney who has brought class actions both against Eric Conn seeking damages for his representation of claimants before the Social Security Administration and against the Social Security Administration for its efforts to cut 1,787 of Conn's former clients off disability benefits. 

      It's a sad situation. It's surprising that we're still waiting for a decision from a federal District Court Judge. It's surprising that Social Security has started holding hearings in these cases. It may only be days before some benefits are terminated. Without intervention from the federal courts within a few months hundreds will have lost benefits.

Senate Committee Schedules Hearing

     The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has scheduled a hearing for October 20 on Understanding Social Security’s Long-Term Fiscal Picture. Here's the witness list:

• Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary U.S. Social Security Administration 
• Jagadeesh Gokhale, Ph.D.,  Director of Special Projects Penn Wharton Public Policy Initiative 
• Dean Baker, Ph.D., Co-Director Center for Economic and Policy Research

Andrew Biggs Is Still Annoying -- And Wrong

     When George W. Bush campaigned for the partial privatization of Social Security, Andrew Biggs, a Social Security employee, was at his side. That rankled me. I felt it was deeply inappropriate for a Social Security employee to take on such a politicized role. Bush later nominated Biggs to become Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. Senate Democrats blocked that nomination, suggesting that I wasn't the only one rankled by what Biggs did.
     After his stint at Social Security, Biggs landed a job at the American Enterprise Institute, a Koch brothers front organization.
     Biggs has a blog at the Forbes website on which he's posted a response to the Social Security discussion at the Democratic Presidential debate Tuesday night. The ideas of expanding Social Security and lifting the cap on wages covered by FICA both came up in the debate. Biggs makes the point that lifting the FICA cap wouldn't generate enough revenues to fund an increase in Social Security benefits. This is accurate but it's also rich coming from someone who campaigned for completely undermining Social Security's finances. President Bush never released a plan for partially privatizing Social Security but he was promising to keep paying benefits to everyone already drawing benefits or near retirement age, to not increase the FICA tax and yet to divert much of the FICA tax receipts to private accounts. Put all of that together and it would cost trillions of dollars. Did Biggs and Bush ever put forward a plan for paying for this? Of course not. Republicans never have to pay for their Social Security plans. Only Democrats have to pay for their plans.

     Biggs points out that raising the FICA cap wouldn't be enough to assure that no further change would have to be made anytime in the next 75 years to protect Social Security's funding. He seems to believe that means there's no point in raising the FICA cap. Right. Lifting the FICA cap would only assure program funding until 2080 so obviously that idea is worthless. In fact, if you remove the FICA cap, you could do some modest benefit increases and still assure the future of the Trust Fund well into the future. That was what the Democratic Presidential candidates were talking about.
     I think that Biggs will have to come up with some better arguments to convince the American people that it's a bad idea to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to give higher Social Security benefits to many.

No COLA This Year

     As expected, there will be no Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) this year for Social Security recipients. This is the third time this has happened since 2010. It had never happened before 2010.
     Unfortunately, unless there's a change in the law, Medicare premiums will be increasing dramatically for almost one-third of Social Security recipients. Since the Medicare premiums are deducted from Social Security benefits that means that a lot of Social Security recipients will see a significant drop in the payments they receive.

Colvin Heading To Florida

     Carolyn Colvin, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, will be in Sarasoto, FL for a town hall discussion on Thursday. Representative Vern Buchanan invited her. Buchanan, a Republican, is a member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee.