Exits From The Social Security Disability Rolls

     Lakshmi K. Raut has written a research piece for the Social Security Bulletin, the agency's scholarly publication, on exits from the disability rolls. Judge for yourself but I don't see any policy implications. Here are a few charts from the study (the conversion he's talking about here is conversion to retirement benefits at full retirement age):

Cumulative probability of DI program exit, by reason and duration on the rolls

Cumulative probability of DI program exit because of recovery or death over the first 9 years on the rolls, by age at entitlement

Cumulative probability of DI program exit because of recovery or death over the first 9 years on the rolls, by selected disability type and age at entitlement

Oops!

     Based on an Emergency Message that the Social Security Administration has sent out to its staff, it looks as if between September 2016 and March 2017 the agency failed to notify some or all beneficiaries in the following situations: 

• Beneficiary is no longer disabled (cessation).
• Beneficiary is no longer entitled to disability benefits or payments on the current application (adverse reopening).
• Beneficiary received erroneous payments after a decision of denial (overpayment).  
• Social Security changes the onset date to a later date. 
• Social Security changes the cessation date to an earlier date.

     Failure to send notice means that the beneficiaries had no idea why their benefits had stopped or that they could appeal.

     The Emergency Message tells Social Security staff that  "If the beneficiary alleges he or she did not receive a notice during the relevant period, technicians should take the allegations seriously, carefully review the case and provide due process as required by existing regulations and agency policy."

     The Emergency Message says nothing about the agency sending belated notices to the beneficiaries affected. Maybe, they're going to send out the notices. They certainly should.

     By the way, I saw instances of this happening. I thought it was isolated errors rather than a systems problems. I expect that many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of claimants were affected.

Another In The Washington Post Series

     There's another in the series of Washington Post articles about Social Security disability. It repeats many of the same themes we've come to expect from the Post:

• Disability recipients can go back to work if they really want to -- but they mostly don't want to because they don't want to lose their disability benefits.
• There's a lot of disability in rural areas because there aren't many jobs in rural areas, meaning that disability benefits are little more than disguised unemployment benefits.
• Disability is mostly due to things like mental illness which people can overcome if they really want.
• Drugs and alcohol are a major factor in disability.

     The article is misleading. It presents mental illness as if it were no more than feeling a bit anxious, depressed and discouraged. Who among us doesn't feel that way sometimes? I know nothing about this woman's case but I know you don't get on Social Security disability due to the sort of mild psychiatric symptoms discussed in this article.

     I also know that in any case, mental illness is but a fraction of the disability picture. If you wanted a more typical disability recipient, you'd have an older man or woman with physical health problems that will only get worse with time but a case like that wouldn't display what the Post wants to display.

     The unstated message of this series is that Social Security ought to approve fewer people for Social Security disability and should be required to take a more coercive approach to getting disability recipients back to work. I don't think that's justified. It's already incredibly difficult to get on Social Security disability benefits. No further effort to get people back to work will be effective because the vast majority of disability recipients are far too sick to work and don't get any better over time.

Change In Policy On Voluntary Remands After Allowance Of Subsequent Claim

    From Transmittal I-1-90 explaining a change to HALLEX §I-1-10:

... [E]xcept in unusual circumstances, the AC [Appeals Council] will not stipulate to affirm a subsequent allowance when considering whether to voluntarily remand a pending court case in a prior claim because such a stipulation would limit the AC's ability to correct other possible issues in the subsequent claim(s), such as unreported earnings. ...

     I'm not going to bother trying to explain this. If you do much federal court work on Social Security appeals, you understand its significance. If you don't, you probably don't care.
     I will say that if the agency wanted to do so it would be easy to draft a stipulation to affirm a subsequent allowance while leaving open a narrow window for unexpected issues such as unreported earnings. I don't think the agency would have trouble getting plaintiff's attorneys to agree to properly drafted language. I think this is more likely a reflection of increased contentiousness at Social Security. It will result in the agency having to defend weaker decisions in federal court. I don't think that's a good idea for Social Security.

Acting Commissioner's Message On Harvey

From: ^Commissioner Broadcast
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2017 10:22 AM
Subject: Our Thoughts Are With Texas

A Message to All SSA and DDS Employees

Subject: Our Thoughts Are With Texas

As we experienced over the last few days the absolute devastation of Hurricane Harvey, we are pleased to report that all SSA and DDS employees in Texas and Louisiana are safe and accounted for, though many sustained property damage and have evacuated from their homes.

Please keep those affected by the flooding in your thoughts and prayers as this storm continues.  We will provide additional information as it emerges.

Nancy A. Berryhill
Acting Commissioner

Proposed Changes To Musculoskeletal Listing

     The Social Security Administration has asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House, to approve proposed changes to its listings on musculoskeletal disorders. If OMB approves the proposal, it will be published in the Federal Register and the public will be allowed to comment on the proposal. Social Security must then consider the comments before sending proposed final regulations back to OMB for final approval. 

     This is the first regulatory proposal from Social Security since Donald Trump became President.

Declining Labor Force Participation Not Caused By Social Security Disability Benefits

     From Kathy Ruffing at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:

Labor-force participation — the share of adults 16 and older who are working or looking for work — peaked at just over 67 percent in 1996-2000 and has fallen since then. Some analysts observe that the number of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries grew steeply after 2000, and assume the two trends are related. But evidence for that connection is weak. ...

Rising SSDI receipt and falling labor-force participation aren’t affecting the same age groups. SSDI receipt has grown modestly among older people, especially older women (see graph) — but so has their labor-force participation, as older workers postpone retirement. The drop in labor-market activity is concentrated at younger ages, particularly men, where SSDI receipt has not risen.

      I'd call that chart a definitive answer to the question.

Daugherty Sentenced To Four Years

     From the Washington Post:

A former administrative law judge has been sentenced to four years in prison for taking bribes from a Kentucky lawyer in a $600 million Social Security fraud case. 

Eighty-one-year-old David B. Daugherty of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, pleaded guilty in May to taking more than $600,000 in bribes in cases involving clients of Eric C. Conn, who is now a fugitive and was sentenced in absentia to 12 years in prison. ...