But What About The Role Of Congress?

     From the summary of a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO):

The Social Security Administration (SSA) selects cases for continuing disability reviews (CDR) using several inputs, but it does not do so in a manner that maximizes potential savings. SSA first prioritizes CDRs required by law or agency policy such as those for children under 1 year old who are receiving benefits due in part to low birth weight. Then SSA uses statistical models to identify the remaining CDRs to be conducted each year. The models also determine which cases will receive an in-depth review of medical records by the Disability Determination Services—the state agencies that conduct CDRs—versus a lower-cost questionnaire sent directly to the beneficiary. As shown in the figure below, a growing number of cases have been set aside for future review (backlogged) over the last 10 years. Although SSA somewhat considers potential cost savings when selecting cases for in-depth reviews, its approach does not maximize potential savings for the government. For example, estimated average savings from conducting CDRs are higher for some groups of Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries than others, but SSA's selection process does not differentiate among these groups. As a result, it may be missing opportunities to efficiently and effectively use federal resources.

     I would characterize Social Security's response as being "GAO, to the extent it's practical, we're already doing everything you're recommending."

     My response is "GAO, you're picking at nits. The real problem is that the agency has been so badly underfunded that it's unable to work down its backlogs."

Proposed Change To Unsuccessful Work Attempt Rules

     The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a set of amendments to its regulations concerning unsuccessful work attempts and expedited reinstatement. Social Security does not have to release the proposal at this point. However, it does have to post a regulatory agenda in the Federal Register twice a year. Here's how the agency described this proposal last fall:

We propose to remove the additional requirements for evaluation of a Unsuccessful Work Attempt (UWA) in employment or self-employment that last between 3 and 6 months and use the current 3 month standards for all work attempts that are 6 months or less. We also propose to change the calculation for determining the amount adjusted for national wage growth for both employees and the self-employed from $530 to $700, the amount currently being used to calculate Substantial Gainful Activity (SGA). In order to avoid any unintended consequences for Ticket to Work (Ticket) holders as a result of our change to the calculation of the Trial Work Period (TWP) service month amount, we propose to change how we calculate timely progress toward self-supporting employment for the Ticket program to earnings equal to or greater than the amount representing 72 percent of SGA. Finally, we propose to allow beneficiaries to apply for Expedited Reinstatement (EXR) Eligibility in the same month they stop performing SGA. These changes would align our policies, make them easier for the public to understand, and simplify our processing procedures, thereby allowing for faster determinations.

     This proposal isn't going to be official for a long time. OMB must approve it. The proposal is then posted in the Federal Register for comments. Social Security must consider the comments. The agency may modify the proposal. If it still wants to go ahead with the proposal, it submits the final version to OMB again. If OMB approves the proposal, it is again published in the Federal Register and becomes official. The normal time frame for something like this is one to two years.

Will The Time Ever Come When Recon Is Eliminated?

     Professor Jon C. Dubin of Rutgers School of Law -- Newark Center for Law and Justice has written an article for the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy on ending the reconsideration level of review for Social Security disability claims. That article itself isn't available online at this time but an earlier draft of the piece is available at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget website.

     There are excellent reasons why "recon" should be eliminated. The problems with doing away with reconsideration, in the view of Social Security and Congress, are:

• If reconsideration is eliminated, more claimants will request hearings. At this time, both Social Security and Congress view hearings as inherently a bad thing.
• If more hearings are to be held, more Administrative Law Judges would have to be hired. At this time, both Social Security and Congress view Administrative Law Judges as sources of error.
• If more hearings are to be held, more claimants will be approved. The goal of both Social Security and Congress is to hold down the number of disability claims approved.
• More Administrative Law Judges would cost more money, far more than would be saved by doing away with reconsideration.

     I first became involved with Social Security disability in 1978. Doing away with reconsideration wasn't a new idea at the time. It's never come close to happening since that time. I regard it as a nice idea that stands no chance of happening in the foreseeable future.

Florida Man Alkeged To Have Stolen $2.2 Milllion In Social Security Checks

     From the Tampa Tribune:

A Tampa postal employee has been charged in a scheme involving more than $2.2 million in stolen Social Security checks, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said today.  

If convicted on the charges of theft of government property and theft of mail. Stacy Darnell Mitchell, 48, faces up to 15 years in prison, the office said.

Appeals Council Slides Further Into Worthlessness

     David Paletta has put together an interesting chart showing what's been happening at Social Security's Appeals Council in recent years. What's mostly been happening is that the rate at which the Appeals Council is giving relief to the claimant, either by remand or reversal, has plummeted. Click on the chart below to view it at full size. Also, though not shown on the chart below, productivity has declined from 138,262 decisions in 2013 to 116,078 in 2015.

Waiver For SSI Overpayments Resulting From Legal Acceptance Of Same Sex Marriage

     Social Security has issued Emergency Message (EM) 16013 to give its staff instructions on overpayment issues resulting from legal acceptance of same sex marriage. Some readers are now thinking "Wait, what? I thought legal acceptance of same sex marriage would result in more money being paid." Overall, yes, somewhat more money will be paid. That's almost always the case for Title II benefits, those based upon someone's earnings record. (For sticklers, I said almost always. I know marriage could eliminate entitlement to widows benefits in some cases, for instance.) However, in Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is a needs-based benefit, marriage usually causes reduction or elimination of entitlement to benefits. There are two ways that same sex marriage can hurt SSI recipients. The first and less common way is if both partners to a same sex marriage are on SSI. The rate for a married couple where both are eligible for SSI is less than the total of what the two would receive if they were not married. The second and more common way that same sex marriage can reduce SSI benefits is that if you're married the income and resources of the person you're married to are attributed to you for purposes of computing your SSI benefit. If, for instance, a disabled person is living with and being supported by a healthy person who is working and has a good income, if they're not married, the disabled person will suffer, at worst, a one-third reduction in his or her SSI benefits for "living in the household of another" whereas if they're married, the disabled person will lose his or her SSI benefits altogether.

     Now that I've explained the problem, what's Social Security going to do about the SSI overpayments resulting from legal acceptance of same sex marriage? Social Security will assume that the claimant is requesting waiver of the overpayment and will waive the overpayment. The claimant need not even file the form normally required to obtain consideration of waiver of an overpayment. The agency is saying it would be "against equity and good conscience" to try to collect these overpayments.

House Social Security Subcommittee Hearing Announced

     A press release:

House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on “Social Security and Public Servants: Ensuring Equal Treatment.” The hearing will focus on Social Security provisions that affect certain public employees, as well as proposals for calculating public employees’ benefits in a proportional manner. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 in B-318 Rayburn House Building, beginning at 10:00 AM.

     There has been substantial agitation in Johnson's home state of Texas over the application of the Windfall Elimination Provision which reduces Social Security benefits because of the receipt of pension benefits from wages not covered by Social Security. Apparently, the wages of teachers in Texas  are not covered by Social Security. 

     I'm mildly surprised that Johnson cares. In my state, North Carolina, the Republican Party is openly, bitterly, angrily hostile towards teachers. I think it's the same in many other states. 

Social Security Ruling 16-3p: A Disability Claimant's Honesty Doesn't Matter

     The Social Security Administration will be issuing Ruling 16-3p on Evaluation of Symptoms In Disability Claims tomorrow. Here's some excerpts:

...[W]e are eliminating the use of the term “credibility” from our sub - regulatory policy, as our regulations do not use this term. In doing so, we clarify that subjective symptom evalua tion is not an examination of an individual’s character. Instead, we will more closely follow our regulatory language regarding symptom evaluation . ...

In evaluating an individual’s symptoms, it is not sufficient for our adjudicators to make a single, conclusory statement that "the individual's statements about his or her symptoms have been considered" or that "the statements about the individual’s symptoms are (or are not) supported or consistent." It is also not enough for our adjudicators simply to recite the factors described in the regulations for evaluating symptoms. The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms. ... 

In evaluating an individual’s symptoms, our adjudicators will not assess an individual’s overall character or truthfulness in the manner typically used during an adversarial court litigation. The focus of the evaluation of an individual’s symptoms should not be to determine whether he or she is a truthful person. ...