Imposter Phishing Scheme

     From a press release:

The Acting Inspector General of Social Security, Gale Stallworth Stone, is warning citizens about a nationwide telephone “imposter phishing” scheme.  The Social Security Administration (SSA) and its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have received several reports from citizens across the country about persons receiving phone calls from individuals posing as OIG investigators.  The caller indicates an issue exists pertaining to the person’s Social Security account or Social Security number (SSN) and directs the person call a non-SSA telephone number to address the issue. 

The reports indicate the calls include a recording from a caller stating she is “Nancy Jones,” an “officer with the Inspector General of Social Security.”  The recording goes on to say the person’s Social Security account, SSN, and/or benefits are suspended, and that he or she should call 806-680-2373 to resolve the issue.  Citizens should be aware that the scheme’s details may vary; however, citizens should avoid calling the number provided, as the unknown caller might attempt to acquire personal information. ...

Damage At Social Security Central Offices

     From the Baltimore Sun:

Severe storms brought wind gusts upwards of 60 mph Wednesday afternoon, downing trees and power lines, tearing off siding and shingles and breaking windows.  

A person was injured when a gust tore a satellite dish and part of the roof from a building on the Social Security campus in Woodlawn, agency spokesman Mark Hinkle said. A 50-by-100-foot section of the roof was stripped off, exposing heating and cooling equipment, said Natalie Litofsky, a Baltimore County spokeswoman.

Creepy Field Office Employee Quits

     From some television station that tries to keep its call letters a secret:

PORT CHARLOTTE, Fla., - A local Social Security Office worker accused of getting personal information from women while on the job, then texting them on their cell phones looking for a relationship, broke his silence exclusively with 4 In Your Corner. 

Despite the allegations, he continued to work at the Charlotte County Office until Friday, when he resigned. 

"The first day it became a news thing, I heard some off hand remarks I just couldn't take. It was the day before my birthday. I just had to explain this to my children and I left in tears," Foster said.

Ruling Rescinded

     The Social Security Administration has rescinded its Ruling 87-6 on The Role of Prescribed Treatment in the Evaluation of Epilepsy due to the adoption of new Listings for seizure disorders.

Some Relief For Confused Claimants Because "Nobody Knew Healthcare Could Be So Complicated"

     From Emergency Message EM-16033-REV:

This emergency message (EM) provides instructions for handling Medicare Part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance) enrollment requests from beneficiaries with Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) who also are or were enrolled in an individual Marketplace plan. It also contains instructions for Part B premium surcharge rollback for certain beneficiaries with both Medicare Part A and Part B who have or had Marketplace coverage.

Coverage under Medicare Part A meets the legal requirement for minimum essential coverage. Individuals with Medicare Part A are not eligible to receive premium and cost-sharing assistance (often referred to as advanced payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) or income-based cost sharing reductions (CSRs)) to help pay for a Marketplace plan premium and covered services to make the costs of a Marketplace plan more affordable. Individuals receiving APTC while dually-enrolled in coverage through the a Marketplace and Medicare may have to pay back all or some of the APTC received for months an individual was enrolled in both Marketplace coverage with APTC and Medicare Part A when they file their federal income tax return.

Some people may have had coverage through the Marketplace (and possibly received APTC or CSRs) before being eligible for Medicare. When first eligible for premium-free Medicare Part A, these individuals may have refused or dropped Medicare Part B coverage because the costs for Marketplace coverage, with any financial assistance they may have been receiving, was more affordable than Medicare Part B, and they believed they were eligible for APTC and CSRs. In addition, some people with Medicare Part A coverage may have enrolled in coverage through the Marketplace believing it was an alternative way to get medical coverage equivalent to Medicare Part B at a more affordable cost. These individuals may not have found out they were not eligible for APTCs or CSRs or not learned about the coverage rules prior to the end of their Medicare Initial Enrollment Period (IEP), resulting in them either 1) declining to enroll in Medicare Part B at all; or 2) enrolling in Medicare Part B during the General Enrollment Period (GEP) and being assessed a Medicare Part B late enrollment penalty.

CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] believes that many of these individuals did not receive the information necessary at the time of their Medicare IEP or initial enrollment in coverage through the Marketplace to make an informed decision regarding their Medicare Part B enrollment. ...

Equitable relief will be considered on a case-by-case basis for certain dually-enrolled beneficiaries (those who have or had both Medicare and Marketplace coverage) of any age who refused or dropped Part B and for those who subsequently enrolled in Part B during the 2015, 2016 or 2017 GEP. 

Beneficiaries who refused or dropped Part B may receive equitable relief in the form of an enrollment opportunity with an effective date outlined in Section E of this instruction. The ability to provide the enrollment opportunity under equitable relief is limited to Part B enrollment requests received from September 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017. No late enrollment penalty will be applied for individuals who enroll in Part B under this limited equitable relief. ...

     By the way, I had clients who asked about declining Part B for this reason and I told them not to do it. I can't think of a reason to decline Part B other than getting all of one's healthcare from the VA (and being happy with it) or living outside the U.S.
     Also, by the way, I can just imagine a Trump transition team member trying to review this Emergency Message and being completely befuddled by it. As President Trump said, "nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated."

Something We Rarely See

     Here's a report from Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG) about Social Security underpaying claimants. Underpayments happen a lot but OIG seems vastly more interested in overpayments. Both issues deserve attention.

SSR On Application Of Supreme Court Rulings On Constitutionality

     From Social Security Ruling 17-1p, to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow (footnote omitted):

In recent years, we have received a number of questions regarding how our reopening rules should be applied when we applied a Federal or State law in making our determination or decision, and the Supreme Court of the United States later determines that the law we applied is unconstitutional. The issue has arisen most recently in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) and the constitutionality of State law bans on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). We are issuing this SSR to explain our policy on reopening a determination or decision due to an error on the face of the evidence when, in making that determination or decision, we applied a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional, and we find that application of that law was material to our determination or decision. ...

When we make a determination or decision by applying a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional, and we find that application of that law was material to our determination or decision, we may reopen the determination or decision within the time frames specified in our regulations based on an error on the face of the evidence under 20 CFR 404.988(b), 404.988(c)(8), 404.989(a)(3), 416.1488(b), and 416.1489(a)(3). In this specific situation, we do not consider a holding by the Supreme Court that a Federal or State law is unconstitutional to be a “change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which the determination or decision was made,” as contemplated in 20 CFR 404.989(b) and 416.1489(b). ...

When we have made a determination or decision by applying a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional, the application of that law would not have been correct and reasonable when made. Consequently, we do not interpret the change in legal interpretation criteria in our rules to prevent us from applying our reopening rules in that specific situation. Accordingly, we may reopen a determination or decision based on an error on the face of the evidence in the limited circumstance where all of the following criteria are met:

1. we made our determination or decision by applying a Federal or State law that the Supreme Court of the United States later determines to be unconstitutional;

2. we find that the application of that law was material to our determination or decision; and

3. we reopen and revise the determination or decision within the following time frames:

-- For claims under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), within four years of the notice of the initial determination, for good cause, under 20 CFR 404.988(b), 404.989(a)(3);

-- For claims under title II of the Act, at any time, if the determination or decision was fully or partially unfavorable, under 20 CFR 404.988(c)(8); and

-- For claims under title XVI of the Act , within two years of the notice of the initial determination, for good cause, under 20 CFR 416.1488(b), 416. 1489(a)(3). ...

Missing A Crucial Page

     We've had several reports from North Carolina attorneys of Administrative Law Judge decisions arriving in attorney offices that lack their final page and the final page is crucial because it contains the decisional paragraph which says what the actual decision is. This is affecting decisions from multiple hearing offices. I suspect this could be a national problem since the printing of decisions has been centralized. I hope that the field offices and payment centers that effectuate these decisions are receiving the entire decision.