Wanna Read All About What Social Security Wants From De-Dup? Probably Not, But Here It Is Anyway

     The agency has put out 98 pages of detail about what it wants from a computer program designed to remove duplicate medical exhibits from Social Security disability claim files.

Make Of It What You Will

     Donald Trump has now given two addresses to Joint Sessions of Congress. He has yet to use the words "Social Security" in either address. He hasn't used the word "Medicare" either.

Social Security Starting To Respond To Supreme Court Case On ALJ Constitutionality

     From Emergency Message EM-18003:

This emergency message directs administrative law judges (ALJs) to acknowledge Appointments Clause arguments raised in connection with the appeal of an administrative action without discussing or making any findings on any such arguments. This message also provides instructions in the Case Processing and Management System (CPMS) and the Appeals Review Processing System (ARPS) for flagging cases in which claimants or representatives raise such arguments. ...
[F]our plaintiffs challenging their denials of benefits in Social Security Administration (SSA) cases have raised in one district court the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA’s ALJs are appointed. The district court has stayed the Appointments Clause issue pending action by the Supreme Court in Lucia and Bandimere [the Supreme Court cases concerning SEC ALJs], while litigation of the disability issues in the cases proceed....If a claimant or representative challenges at a hearing the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs ...
What will an adjudicator do if a claimant or representative challenges the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs?

1. Challenge made orally at the Hearing level

If a claimant or representative challenges at a hearing the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs,
ALJs will only respond, “the hearing decision [/dismissal] will acknowledge that the argument was raised.” Because SSA lacks the authority to finally decide constitutional issues such as these.
ALJs will not discuss or make any findings related to the Appointments Clause issue on the record.

When issuing the hearing decision or dismissal, ALJs will acknowledge that the issue was raised by adding the following language “The claimant[/representative] also raised a challenge to the manner in which I was appointed as an administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause to the Constitution. I do not have the authority to rule on that challenge and do not address it further in this decision[/dismissal].”

2. Challenge made in writing at the hearing level

If a claimant or representative challenges in writing the constitutionality of the manner in which SSA appoints its ALJs,
ALJs will acknowledge that the issue was raised by adding the following language to the hearing decision or dismissal “The claimant[/claimant’s representative] also raised a challenge to the manner in which I was appointed as an administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause to the Constitution. I do not have the authority to rule on that challenge and do not address it further in this decision[/dismissal].”
ALJs will not otherwise discuss or make any findings related to the Appointments Clause issue.

3. Challenge made at the Appeals Council (AC) level

As challenges of the constitutionality of the appointment of SSA’s ALJs are outside the purview of the administrative adjudication, the AC will not acknowledge, make findings related to, or otherwise discuss the Appointments Clause issue. ..

If a claimant or representative raises an Appointments Clause issue, Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) and Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) staff will flag the case in CPMS and ARPS by adding the case characteristic “LUCI,” which can be found in both systems under the “Other” case characteristic type.
ALJs who receive appointment clause objections will notify hearing office management. Hearing office management will either add the LUCI case characteristic in CPMS or delegate to staff to do so....

$38.5 Million?

     From a contracting notice posted recently by Social Security:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a need to acquire a commercial off the shelf (COTS) software product solution including software licenses, maintenance, training and engineering / implementation support, for an enterprise-level Document Identification Process (DIP) solution to identify duplicate documents in the Social Security Administration's electronic folder and provide the ability to remove those duplicate documents to support streamlining agency business processes. ... The size standard is $38.5M. ... SSA anticipates awarding one firm fixed price/Indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract for this effort. The period of performance shall be for a 1-year base, with four 1-year option periods. ... It is anticipated that the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued on or about January 30, 2018.

Something's Gotta Give

     From the Washington Post:

A new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation has found out-of-pocket health-care costs for Medicare beneficiaries are likely to take up half of their average Social Security income by 2030. ...\

[I]n 2013, among all Medicare beneficiaries, average out-of-pocket health-related expenses consumed 41 percent of the average Social Security income, according to a report made available exclusively to The Washington Post.

"This is substantially higher than the share reported by the Medicare actuaries for the same year (23 percent) because it takes into account the full array of out-of-pocket health expenses that people on Medicare face," according to the report. ...

"Five Keys To Evaluating Intellectual Disorder"

     You might find training materials used recently at the Office of Hearings Operations on "Five Keys to Evaluating Intellectual Disorder" interesting.

Intellectual Disability ALJ Training by charles4304 on Scribd

Boomers, Sooner Or Later

     Half of all baby boomers are now over 62, making them at least potentially eligible for Social Security retirement benefits.

Why The Delay?

     The Social Security Administration submitted proposed changes to its musculoskeletal listings to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the White House, on August 25, 2017. OMB approval is required before the proposal can be published in the Federal Register for public comments. The proposal is still pending at OMB. By the standards of past administrations, this is a very long time for a proposed regulation to sit at OMB. I have no idea what the delay means, if anything. Anyway, it's not like I'm eager for the proposal to be published. I doubt that I'll like it.