SSAB To SSA: We Don't Know How But You Need To Do Better On Rep Payees

     The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued an Issue Brief on representative payees at Social Security. Rep payees are appointed to handle funds for Social Security claimants who can't manage their own money. This is one of those reports that details some problem at Social Security and then tells the agency to do better without identifying any way in which the agency can realistically do better. How quickly do you think this sort of report gets thrown in the trash by Social Security management?

     The report does include the map shown below which is interesting. Click on it to view it full size. I don't know what to make of it. Does it show a correlation with the percentage of the population that's African American? Does it show a correlation with the percentage of the population that has low educational attainments? Is it something else? Is it several things?

If You Want To Be An ALJ, Listen Up! I Said LISTEN UP!

     I'm hearing that the Office of Personnel Management (OMB) will soon start taking applications for Administrative Law Judge positions at Social Security. In the past when this has happened, OMB decided in advance to only hold the application process open until they received a set number of applications. If I remember correctly, it was something like 1,000 the last time. They start receiving applications almost immediately after they announce they're taking applications and often fill up their quota in a day or two. Thereafter, they refuse to accept any more applications. It's usually not long after we receive such an advance warning until OPM starts taking applications. Keep looking at this website. It could happen tomorrow, Good Friday. It could be early next wee. I'll try to post something here but don't count on getting word from me immediately.

Social Security To Hire 27 Administrative Appeals Judges -- Act Quick If You Want A Job, But Only If You Already Work For SSA

     From a job posting by Social Security:

Job Title:  Attorney-Examiner (General) (Administrative Appeals Judge)

SALARY RANGE: $133,515.00 to $170,400.00 / Per Year

OPEN PERIOD: Monday, March 14, 2016 to Friday, March 25, 2016 ...

DUTY LOCATIONS: 27 vacancies ...

WHO MAY APPLY: Agency Employees Only ...

OIG On Compassionate Allowances And Quick Disability Determinations

     The summary of a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General:

Although 25 percent of allowed claimants in our sample [who were granted a Compassionate Allowance or Quick Disability Determination] died within 3 months of submitting their application, SSA’s CAL [Compassionate Allowance] and QDD [Quick Disability Determination] initiatives enabled the Agency to identify and expedite benefits to these disabled claimants before their death.

Based on our review, we estimated that SSA medically allowed about 76,000 and denied about 6,000 cases. As of June 2015, we estimated that, of the cases selected for CAL and QDD processing, about 

• 54,000 claimants were deceased; 
• 15,000 claimants allowed benefits were alive, were in current pay status, and had received approximately $214.1 million in benefits per year;
• 7,000 claimants allowed benefits were alive but did not meet Title XVI non - medical eligibility criteria. SSA stopped the ir Title XVI payments of approximately $34 million per year; 
• 3,000 claimants allowed had benefits ceased because of medical improvement, stopping payments of approximately $46.1 million per year; and 
• 3,000 claimants denied benefits, appealed or reapplied, and were subsequently approved. 

In addition, we estimated that, for about 13,000 claimants previously allowed benefits, SSA assessed approximately $43.9 million in overpayments and recovered approximately $15.9 million. Finally, we estimated that SSA reviewed approximately 22,000 allowance cases by conducting a CDR or redetermination and generally evaluated earnings for disabled individuals whose record contained work activity or income.

OIG On "Vision 2025"

     The Chairman of the House Social Security Subcommittee asked the agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review Social Security's Vision 2025 plan. Here's a summary of the OIG report:

Vision 2025 does not include specific, measurable goals or outline the strategy needed to implement SSA's proposed vision. It presents three priorities: superior customer experience, exceptional employees, and innovative organization. Per SSA, these priorities will guide the development of clear goals, detailed plans, and performance measures, which will be outlined in the Agency’s strategic plans and annual performance reports. With this approach, SSA is using short-term strategic planning documents to support a broadly stated “aspirational vision.” We believe SSA’s long-term strategic vision should include specific, measurable goals that clearly outline the service delivery model SSA envisions in 2025 and beyond. This would allow SSA to use its shorter- term planning documents to outline the steps needed to achieve a larger and clearly defined objective.

Also, while Vision 2025 describes its future environmental drivers, it does not explain how the environmental factors will affect its ability to provide services in the future. Additionally, Vision 2025 addresses many of the issues outlined in NAPA’s [National Academy of Public Administration's] long-range strategic plan for SSA, but NAPA’s plan is more specific than Vision 2025. Most importantly, NAPA concluded that SSA needs to develop a more cost- effective service delivery system that is primarily virtual. Vision 2025 does not choose one service delivery method over another and promises a service delivery system that will meet each customer’s desire.

     Let me try to make this easier to understand. Republicans in Congress (and some Democrats) as well as NAPA are frustrated with Social Security. In their view, the current service delivery model, which includes field offices around the country, is inefficient, wasteful and delivers poor service. They don't understand why the agency doesn't move all of its operations online, eliminate its field offices and lay off most of its staff.  That's the "vision" they want from the agency. In Social Security's view, this criticism comes from people who have only the most simplistic idea of what the agency does. These critics envision Social Security as dealing mostly with simple retirement claims and mostly with capable people who can do business online. In reality, while retirement claims involve lots of money and lots of claims, they are only a small part of what the agency does. Most of what the agency does has to do with disability claims, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claims and survivor claims. These cases are inherently complicated and the claimants are often seriously impaired. There's no realistic way to put this workload online. There's no realistic way to eliminate field offices.
     Let my give a simple example of the problems that Social Security must cope with. The daughter of an 85 year old woman who is drawing Social Security retirement benefits contacts the agency to say that she believes that her mother is no longer mentally capable of handling her money and needs a representative payee. Someone at the agency contacts the mother who says that she certainly is still capable of handling her money and that the daughter is a drug addict who just wants to steal the Social Security benefits. The person talking with the mother and daughter isn't sure what to do. The mother sounds a little addled but is her condition so bad that she can't handle money? Is the daughter a drug addict? Even if she isn't, is she the best representative payee since it's obvious that the mother and daughter aren't getting along? Is there someone else in the family who could be a representative payee? How is the agency going to deal with this situation only through an online process? Are you really comfortable with someone who is 3,000 miles away investigating this situation and making a decision about what to do? How would you feel about this if this situation was happening in your family?

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.