Why So Much Disability In Rural Areas?

     I'm not sure exactly what The Center for Michigan is but they have posted a long piece about the high rate of disability in poor regions of the state. You wonder if they, unlike the Washington Post, have their numbers right.

     As I've said before, the high rate of disability in poor rural areas is nothing new. It's been a prominent fact for me since I started in the private practice of law in 1979. It's where my clients are clustered. As I've also posted, I see nothing surprising in this. Younger, healthier, smarter, better educated individuals leave poor rural areas to find jobs in urban areas. The population left behind is on average older, sicker, less smart and less well educated. These are all factors that lead to higher rates of disability. People who live in poor rural areas have poor access to health care. Poor access to health care also predisposes to disability.

     The subtext of pieces such as this is that these people aren't really disabled; they're just poor. And all these poor people who aren't sick getting on Social Security disability just shows how lax the standards are. The solution, of course, is to tighten up on disability and enact policies which "grow" the economy. Of course, the best way to "grow" the economy is to cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans. I think virtually everyone actually involved in the Social Security disability process knows it's quite difficult to get on Social Security but that's not what people are hearing.

     By the way, pieces like this don't simply arise out of a reporter's curiosity. Whenever you see David Autor quoted, you can bet that a Washington think tank supported by Koch brothers money planted the piece. All these pieces seem like they come out of a cookie cutter which is why I sort of expect that the stats quoted might be wrong.

Pete Peterson Keeps Wasting Money

     The McCrery-Pomeroy SSDI Solutions Initiative, which is part of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), has issued a book containing "Ideas to Strengthen the Social Security Disability Insurance Program." 

     CRFB is officially bipartisan and has Democrats as well as Republicans on its board. However, it is closely affiliated with Pete Peterson who seems to have cutting Social Security as his primary goal in life. Peterson has huge wealth to support his mania.

     The book has been out for a month or two but has not been promoted, probably because there's little in the book that would actually bring about cuts in Social Security disability or which is practical.

     The book is a mishmash with each chapter by a different author or group of authors. For the most part, I'd say that few, if any, of the authors have ever met a Social Security disability claimant or recipient. It seems to mostly be "blind people describing an elephant" or perhaps describing how they would build a better elephant. I think that if the authors of this book had to actually try to help real, live Social Security disability claimants that they would be likely to say "Who knew disability could be so complicated?"
     One of the most important types of recommendation in the book is for "early intervention" to prevent disability. Roughly speaking, the idea is that if people can receive "early intervention" of some type after they become sick or injured, that reliance upon disability benefits can be avoided. I have no idea how this would work. I have no idea what the "early intervention" would consist of. More important, I'm pretty sure the authors don't have much idea how this would work or what the "early intervention" would consist of. I see no reason to believe that such "early intervention" would help any significant group of people. One of the authors is at least honest enough to tell us:

What is clear to me from all three papers in this section is that there is neither completed research nor an evidence base upon which to enact nationwide early intervention or work support programs. Additional study and evaluation will be needed to generate this evidence; certainly before making changes to the SSDI program.

      However, even this statement assumes that such evidence would be forthcoming if the "additional study and evaluation" is done. I think there's strong reason to doubt that.
     There already is a good deal of "early intervention" in workers compensation cases, at least where I am. All I've seen from that is heavy-handed pressure on claimants to resume work, even for brief periods of time, not because the injured person achieves any long term benefit but because it helps the employer's insurance company limit what it has to pay. I've seen no evidence that it has done anything to reduce reliance upon Social Security disability benefits. If there were such evidence, I think one of the authors of this book would be touting it.
     Otherwise, the book makes recommendations such as eliminating reconsideration, introducing some sort of government representative at hearings, encouraging private long term disability insurance, performing more continuing disability reviews, time limited disability benefits, partial disability benefits and changing the definition of disability. I'm not going to bother to discuss any of this since none of it could possibly be adopted at this time or at any foreseeable time in the future. Yes, for example, doing away with reconsideration would be nice but it would cost a lot of money since far more people would request hearings and hearings are more expensive so it's not going to happen. If you really think this is possible, you fail to understand the problems that Social Security has in getting enough money to continue its current operations much less more money to fund a more expensive version of its operations.
     Overall, when I read this book, I keep thinking the authors are nothing more than amateur dilettantes whose "advice" to Social Security policymakers is no more valuable than the "advice" I might give to the head coach of an athletic team I follow.

Hearing On Stopping Disability Fraud

     From a press release:

House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) announced today that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing, entitled “Stopping Disability Fraud: Risk, Prevention, and Detection,” on Wednesday, April 26, at 10:00 AM in room 2020 of the Rayburn House Office Building. At the hearing, Members will discuss the status of the Social Security Administration’s efforts to prevent disability fraud after several high-profile multi-million-dollar fraud schemes. On the day of the hearing, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will release a new report to update Members on the SSA’s efforts to fight disability fraud. ...

In 2015, the GAO created the Fraud Risk Framework as a guide to federal agencies in developing antifraud strategies by using leading practices for managing fraud risk. As part of the framework, the GAO recommends that agencies like the SSA conduct a fraud risk assessment and develop their antifraud strategies based on identified fraud risks. In response, Chairman Johnson requested the GAO to conduct a study of the SSA’s implementation of the Fraud Risk Framework and to provide an analysis of the SSA’s antifraud activities. GAO will release the findings of its study at the Subcommittee’s April 26 hearing.

We Remember

     A message sent yesterday:

From: ^Commissioner Broadcast Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:01 PM Subject: Oklahoma City Bombing, Remembering Those Affected

A Message to All SSA and DDS Employees

Subject: Oklahoma City Bombing, Remembering Those Affected

Tomorrow we commemorate the 168 Oklahomans who died on April 19, 1995, when a bomb destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. 

The nation suffered a great loss with this act of terrorism and we experienced our own personal sorrow with 16 Social Security employees being among the fatalities.  Today, the Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum stands where the Murrah Building once stood.  The museum chronicles the journey of loss, resilience, justice, and hope – something we can all build from and remember. 

Please join me tomorrow in a moment of silence at 9:02 a.m., to remember those lost and their loved ones.

Nancy A. Berryhill
Acting Commissioner

Failing To Take Responsibility For a Drive-By Shooting

     After being criticized for inaccuracies in Disabled, Or Just Desperate?, the Washington Post has issued a "correction." However, as  Rebecca Vallas, Rachel West and Katherine Gallagher Robbins point out, the "correction" doesn't go anywhere near correcting all the mistakes in the misleading article.

Appropriations Situation Looking Surprisingly Good

     From the Huffington Post:

Republicans may hold the House, the Senate and the White House, but when it comes to the upcoming omnibus spending bill, it’s Democrats who look in control. ... 

It’s the first real instance where Republicans and President Donald Trump need Democratic votes to enact their agenda ― short of once again blowing up Senate rules ― and that leverage has Democrats blocking many Republican priorities. ... 

The difficulty for Republicans is that they need eight votes in the Senate to pass an omnibus spending bill, which will fund the government until October. Needing eight Democratic votes in the Senate is basically akin to needing all Democrats, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will have to sign off on the bill. And if Schumer has to give the deal his blessing, it’s tough for Republicans to get much. ...

Almost every lawmaker concedes they are going to blow through the Budget Control Act spending caps Congress set in 2011. The question is by how much and for what priorities. Republicans would like to add substantial money to defense. But the traditional agreement between Republicans and Democrats in Washington has been that, for every dollar of defense spending above the caps, non-defense priorities get a dollar too. ... 

Perhaps the best sign of just where a deal stands is that Democrats told The Huffington Post that negotiations were going well, whereas conservatives sounded hopeless about supporting the measure. ...

Will The Last One To Leave Please Turn Out The Lights

      The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has posted updated figures for the number of employees at the Social Security Administration -- and the downward trend continues:

• December 2016 63,364
• September 2016 64,394 
• December 2015 65,518
• September 2015 65,717
• June 2015 65,666
• March 2015 64,432
• December 2014 65,430
• September 2014 64,684
• June 2014 62,651
• March 2014 60,820
• December 2013 61,957
• September 2013 62,543
• June 2013 62,877
• March 2013 63,777
• December 2012 64,538
• September 2012 65,113
• September 2011 67,136
• December 2010 70,270
• December 2009 67,486
• September 2009 67,632
• December 2008 63,733
• September 2008 63,990

I Wonder Why Mick Mulvaney Thinks Trump Didn't Mean What He Said

     From The Hill:

President Trump scrapped potential reforms to Social Security and Medicare while preparing his first budget request, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. ...

“I laid to him the options that Mick Mulvaney would put on a piece of paper,” Mulvaney told CNBC in an interview that aired Tuesday. “And [Trump] looked at one and said, ‘What is that?’ And I said, ‘Well, that's a change to part of Social Security.’ He said, ‘No. No.’ He said, ‘I told people I wouldn't change that when I ran. And I'm not going to change that. Take that off the list.’ ”