Online Social Security Fraud Decreasing

     From Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

... [I]n 2012, SSA implemented my Social Security, an internet portal that allows people to create a personal online account to access their Social Security information. In January 2013, SSA enhanced my Social Security to allow beneficiaries to change their direct deposit bank information. The innovation was helpful for SSA and beneficiaries alike; however, soon after SSA added the direct deposit function, the agency began to receive reports of misdirected benefits due to unauthorized direct deposit changes in my Social Security....

To address this issue, SSA said it would strengthen controls over my Social Security accounts to address fraud and improve service to beneficiaries. ...

Our auditors followed-up on this issue in a recent report, and they estimated the amount of misdirected benefit payments from 2014 to 2016 was considerably less than it was in 2013. ...

Hurricanes May Increase Social Security COLA

     From The Motley Fool:

... Unquestionably, these hurricanes were respective disasters for Texas and Florida, and it's going to take months for some individuals and families to get their lives back together. ... 

But the more immediate impact from the U.S. being hit with this double-whammy is that it's pushed crude oil prices, and thusly prices at the pump, higher. ... 

More importantly, per the BLS' August report that was released last week, the CPI-W increased to 1.9% on an annualized basis from the 1.6% reported in the previous month. This implies that Social Security beneficiaries are in line for a larger benefit increase in 2018 than was expected just a month or two ago. ...

Why Do More Experienced ALJs Approve More Disability Claims?

     From a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

In FY [Fiscal Year] 2015, the most experienced ALJs [Administrative Law Judges] had, on average, higher allowance rates than ALJs who had fewer years’ experience. Also, on average, ALJs who had more experience had agree rates [the rate of accuracy according to Social Security management but I would submit that this number is meaningless since there is no way of validating these numbers, i.e., there is no gold standard of ALJ decisional accuracy] of about 84 percent — about 6 percent lower than the ALJs who had less than 5 years’ experience. 

     While I don't recall any prior studies on the issue, the increase in ALJ allowance rates with more experience is nothing new. Attorneys who represent Social Security disability claimants pay close attention to this sort of thing.It's been a matter of common knowledge among us for a long, long time. We've long speculated that this is caused by the training process for new ALJs. However, I have heard many new ALJs who had represented claimants in the past assure me that the training wasn't slanted. They were all surprised that it wasn't slanted.

     Although I've presented it here, I think the "agree rate" is meaningless. You're just fooling yourself if you think there's a gold standard of disability determination. It doesn't exist. It's never existed. It's never going to exist.

Updated CARES Plan

     From Social Security's newly updated CARES Plan for dealing with its hearing backlog:

The original CARES Plan issued in January 2016 assumed a certain hiring of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) – 250 ALJs in each of fiscal years (FY) 2016, 2017 and 2018 along with the corresponding support staff. While we were able to hire 264 ALJs in FY 2016, an agency-wide hiring freeze hindered the hiring of corresponding support staff. At the start of FY 2017, the agency-wide hiring freeze continued and included ALJs followed by an Executive Order initiating a government-wide hiring freeze. While we were able to obtain an exception for hiring staff in the hearings operation, our funding level in FY 2017 did not support hiring at the levels originally assumed in the original 2016 CARES Plan. Our 2017 Updated CARES and Anomaly Plan builds on the tactical initiatives laid out in the 2016 plan. We are also introducing new initiatives in 2017. ...

... Proactive Analysis and Triage for Hearings (PATH) – PATH is a new initiative introduced in FY 2017. However, this initiative builds upon successful screening and data analytic tools developed for the SmartMands and National Adjudication Team (NAT) initiatives from the 2016 CARES Plan. PATH also incorporates the robust use of naïve Bayes classification that will identify cases likely for allowance prior to hearing assignment. Through this initiative, we will assign appropriate staff to review and process cases identified through our screening methodologies. We plan to continue developing the PATH methodology in an effort to use this robust analysis at all levels of disability processing. Through PATH, we expect an increase in non-ALJ adjudications (reversals, on-the-record decisions), which will create a significant savings and opening a hearing slot for another case where a hearing is necessary. Our early projections for PATH modeling efforts in March 2017 suggested that approximately 3 percent (about 22,000) of unassigned cases pending at the hearing level could be identified by this model to be appropriately reviewed for a fully favorable decision without a hearing. We continue to monitor the percent of cases that are selected through the PATH model to validate our expected outcomes and will continue to update and improve our triage models as we learn from and incorporate the results of our efforts. ...

Move from Office-Based to National-Based First-In First-Out (FIFO) Model – This is a new initiative in FY 2017 that enhances the method of FIFO workload assignment by sharing resources across the country and matching up resource availability. This assists in prioritizing cases that have been waiting the longest. We will begin testing in the Seattle Region with the first stage of our process, when the hearing office first gets the case. We expect to see a balance in wait times and reduce bottlenecks in key parts of case processing (e.g., case intake, workup). ...

Pre-Hearing Conference (PHC) Expansion – We introduced this initiative with our original CARES Plan. As of December 31, 2016, over 30 participating offices conducted over 6,000 PHCs since May 2015. Data showed PHC participants had completed their hearing without postponement or rescheduling 56 percent of the time compared to 28 percent for those who did not participate in a PHC. Due to competing priorities, we paused this initiative in December 2016 to allow offices to focus on decision writing. With support from special anomaly funding, we will resume the PHC program on a limited basis in FY 2017, eventually normalizing the practice of PHCs for unrepresented claimants nationwide. Overall, we should see an increase the number of successful first time hearings a reduction in postponed hearings that needlessly take up hearing slots. ...

Voluntary Standby List – This CARES initiative is new for FY 2017 and may be supported by special anomaly funding for systems support to develop new notices. We will create the opportunity for claimants to have their hearings sooner by filling empty hearing slots on short notice. Participation will be voluntary, and participants must sign a waiver of advanced hearing notice should a spot become available. We expect to increase flexibilities with scheduling hearings by filling every available hearing timeslot. ...

     I salute those who drafted this document for trying but the only things that will really work are hiring more personnel and getting serious about screening cases for approval by a senior attorney or at what has been referred to informally as "re-recon." They can't do much hiring now because of budget constraints. While this plan talks of screening cases for early approval the way they have actually done this has been so restrictive that almost no cases have been disposed of. It appears to me that they are almost literally terrified of doing anything that results in more claims being approved even if, as here, it's just a matter of claims being approved earlier. Virtually all the cases approved in the past in the senior attorney and re-recon programs would have been approved eventually.

     Unfortunately, I'm not expecting anything but a worsening of the backlogs until there's a change in the control of the House of Representatives. That will get more resources for the agency and bring about different ways of thinking.

     By the way, the backlogs would have been much worse except for a major downturn in the number of Social Security disability claims filed. I hear that the agency's actuaries can't figure out the downturn. I can. Prospective claimants are discouraged by the huge backlogs and high denial rates. They delay filing claims. It may seem irrational to delay filing a disability claim because of bad backlogs. Wouldn't you want to get your place in line as soon as possible? Sure, if you're rational but humans are deeply irrational beings, especially when they're facing a crisis in their lives, as is the case with newly disabled people.

Caseload Analysis Report

     Below is a report that the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) obtained from the Social Security Administration and published in its newsletter. That newsletter is not available online. Click on the thumbnail to view it full size. The published original is a bit fuzzy but it's readable.

Another Editorial On Backlogs

     The Denver Post has published an editorial on the backlogs in processing Social Security disability claims. It's got a reference to fraud but I think that the Republican effort to portray the Social Security disability programs as being rife with fraud is fading. They could only go so far with that because it's just not true. Instead, we're seeing more reporting on the horrible backlogs.

CUFF That Impulse

     From a press release issued by the Coalition for Citizens with Disablities (CCD), the major umbrella group of nonprofits working to help the disabled:

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee passed an amended version of H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons [CUFF] Act of 2017. This bill would cut off Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits entirely for certain people with disabilities, as well as seniors. The proposed cut would bar payment of SSI benefits to people with an outstanding arrest warrant for an alleged felony or for an alleged violation of probation or parole. 

H.R. 2792 would revive an old, failed policy that had catastrophic effects for many people with disabilities and seniors, employing procedures that did not withstand judicial scrutiny. This proposal would not help law enforcement secure arrests. The Social Security Act already prohibits payments to people fleeing from law enforcement to avoid prosecution or imprisonment. The Social Security Administration (SSA) currently notifies law enforcement of the whereabouts of every person with a warrant for an alleged felony or an alleged violation of probation or parole who turns up in SSA’s databases. This bill would not change these policies and procedures.

Based on prior experience with SSA’s failed former policy, the people who would be affected are those whose cases are inactive and whom law enforcement is not pursuing. Most of the warrants in question are decades old and involve minor infractions, including warrants routinely issued when a person was unable to pay a fine or court fee, or a probation supervision fee. Many people are not even aware that a warrant was issued for them, as warrants are often not served on the individual. Some people will be swept up as a result of mistaken identity, or paperwork errors, which can take months or even years to resolve.

Resolving these warrants can be extremely hard and costly: people often must go before a judge in the issuing jurisdiction, and typically need counsel to assist them in navigating the process. Often, people have moved in the intervening years and live far from the issuing jurisdiction. ...

     Having seen this before, I definitely agree with CCD. This is the sort of thing that looks good from 30,000 feet. However, at ground level it's obviously unfair. People are deprived of their income over minor matters from many years earlier and sometimes they've done nothing wrong. They have to persuade prosecutors to dismiss ancient charges that couldn't possibly be prosecuted. Prosecutors are sometimes cooperative, sometimes hostile. It just depends upon the prosecutor. It's not fighting crime. It's not achieving any worthy goal. It's just harsh.

Equifax And Social Security

     Dave Lindorff at Salon wonders "How badly did Equifax breach damage the Social Security system?" The question arises because Equifax, which has suffered a massive hacking breach, has a contract with Social Security to help with security for the mySocialSecurity system that allows Americans to have some degree of access to their Social Security records.

     It's a reasonable question to ask. Unfortunately, when Lindorff asked Social Security, he got nothing. Their public affairs office refused to answer questions.

     Let my try to give the answer that Social Security should have given. Social Security obtains information from Equifax to verify identities but gives none to Equifax in return. For example, Social Security would ask Equifax for information on a person who is attempting to establish a mySocialSecurity account and those records might show that the person had recently purchased a car. Social Security would ask the person what brand of car they purchased. If the person attempting to open the mySocialSecurity account is the true number holder, they'd be able to answer the question and open the account. The key fact is that there is no information exchange. All of the information goes in one direction, from Equifax to Social Security. Equifax gets no information in return apart from the knowledge that Social Security was asking for information on that person.

     If there is a problem, it would be that the information hacked from Equifax could be used to open mySocialSecurity accounts but that risk quickly disappears assuming Equifax has stopped the data breach since Social Security is only using recent information to verify identity. Also, even apart from the Equifax hack, identity thieves have been able to access mySocialSecurity accounts to change bank deposit information to divert payments made to claimants. So far, Social Security has regarded this as a low level problem. To some extent that's true. It doesn't take long for people to complain about not receiving their Social Security benefits so little money is stolen and it's all eventually restored to the rightful people. However, it's a big problem for those who are deprived of their Social Security benefits for a month or two or three. Social Security seems to prefer that this not be publicized since it undermines their effort to get people to open mySocialSecurity accounts.
     I should say that Social Security eventually got its act together and was able to give a terse but accurate response when the Wall Street Journal asked the same question. The Wall Street Journal article is behind a pay wall.
     Update: Social Security really should have put out a statement on this as soon as possible after the Equifax breach became public. Two Senators have written a letter to  the Acting Commissioner asking about Equifax.