COLA Estimated To Be 2.8%

Click on image to view full size

     The Senior Citizens League estimates that this year's Social Security cost of living adjustment (COLA) will be 2.8%, which would be the highest since 2012.

Report On Confirmation Hearing

     Federal News Radio is reporting on yesterday's confirmation hearing on Andrew Saul's nomination to become Commissioner of Social Security. It's a more complete summary than what I gave yesterday.

     The Federal News Radio piece doesn't go into it but don't think that if Andrew Saul is confirmed that he'll have to vacate his office on January 20, 2019. Although the term the Senate is considering at this point only goes through January 19, 2019, the Social Security Act allows a Commissioner to stay in office after his or her term ends until a new Commissioner is confirmed. Even if the Senate is controlled by Democrats next year and refuses to confirm Saul for a full term, he would be able to stay in office for the rest of Trump's term as President. By the way, if Saul is confirmed for a full term, he'll be 78 years old by the time he finishes his term. Maybe he'll be able to do it but that's not the sort of thing you can count on.

Saul Confirmation Hearing

     The Andrew Saul confirmation hearing has ended. There was no obvious opposition nor even any difficult questions. Saul promised to stay out of issues like privatizing Social Security. He couldn't be confirmed otherwise. Saul tried to downplay his association with the Manhattan Institute that has called for privatizing Social Security.

     One thing that concerns me is that Saul seemed to believe that his management abilities might improve backlogs at Social Security. It's understandable that he might think that. Usually, new Social Security Commissioners think the same thing. However, those backlogs, can't be managed away. They're caused by lack of operating budget. Believing that backlogs can be managed away got previous Commissioners in trouble. They came up with schemes that they thought would work wonders but which only made the problems worse. I may have to dig up some old posts describing what happened before but I think those who have been around a while know implicitly that the backlogs can't be managed away.

     In his opening remarks, the chairman of the Committee, Senator Hatch spoke about why only the nomination for the term ending January 19, 2019 was being considered. He said it was to avoid setting a precedent about confirming someone for a term that only begins in another Congress. The ranking member, Senator Wyden, however, promised that the Saul nomination for a full term would be taken up in the next Congress. I have no idea why he would make such a promise. I hope he got something in return. However, if Wyden is Chairman of the Committee next year, the nomination could still be derailed in other ways. At least I hope it would be. I don't see why Democrats would want Saul in that position until January 2025.

Saul Nomination Hearing Starts At 10:30 Today

     The Senate Finance Committee nomination hearing for Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security begins at 10:30 today. You can watch online.

     There may be fireworks. Social Security Works has put out a press release strongly opposing the nomination.

     Social Security Commissioners have fixed six year terms. The nomination being considered today is only for a term ending in a little more than three months. Why bother confirming him? The Social Security Act says that once confirmed a Commissioner can stay in office after his or her term has ended until a successor is confirmed. Confirm Saul now and he can stay in office as long as President Trump stays in office. Perhaps they'll try later to confirm him for the full six year term beginning in January 2019. Perhaps not.

Three New Rulings

     The Social Security Administration will publish in the Federal Register tomorrow three new Social Security Rulings. On cursory examination, Social Security Rulings 18-01p Determining the Established Onset Date (EOD) in Disability Claims and 18-02p Determining the Established Onset Date (EOD) in Blindness Claims are of little consequence. 

     The third may matter a little although it is an issue that rarely arises. From Social Security Ruling 18-3p, Failure to Follow Prescribed Treatment:

... We will not determine whether the individual failed to follow prescribed treatment if the treatment was prescribed only by a consultative examiner (CE), medical consultant (MC), psychological consultant (PC), medical expert (ME), or by a medical source during an evaluation conducted solely to determine eligibility to any State or Federal benefit. ...

Prescribed treatment does not include lifestyle modifications, such as dieting, exercise, or smoking cessation. ...

The following are examples of acceptable good cause reasons for not following prescribed treatment: ...

The individual’s fear of surgery is so intense that it is a contraindication to having the surgery. We require a written statement from an individual’s own medical source affirming that the individual’s intense fear of surgery is in fact a contraindication to having the surgery. We will not consider an individual’s refusal of surgery as good cause for failing to follow prescribed treatment if it is based on the individual’s assertion that success is not guaranteed or that the individual knows of someone else for whom the treatment was not successful. ...

     I don't see the point of asking  a medical source to give information about their patient's fear about having surgery. Wouldn't it make more sense to rely directly upon the patient's own testimony about those fears? Isn't this an inherently subjective matter? Why rely upon statements from a physician who regards their patient's objections as ridiculous? This seems like it's searching for a way to hurt fearful people.

Report On Last Week’s IT Hearing

     Federal News Radio reports on last week’s hearing before the House Social Security Subcommittee on the agency’s software issues, particularly the Disability Case Processing System (DCPS) it’s developing. I hope it’s starting to work. 

     If they ever get this taken care of, it’s past time to once again tackle the Windfall Offset problem. That ought to be easier but in past decades the agency invested huge sums of money in developing software to automate the calculations without achieving any success.  If you work at a hearing office you wouldn’t know but I assure you, this is a very big deal. Way too many man hours are spent on something that computer systems ought to handle in a flash.

Agency Argument On Lucia

     For what it's worth, here's the argument that Social Security filed in one case pending in District Court on a Lucia issue. They're probably filing something like this in every case.

     The really powerful argument going against them is that Social Security had announced that they were refusing to consider any Lucia arguments administratively. Why require a claimant to make an argument that wouldn't have been considered anyway?

     Click on each page to view full size.

If This Is Allsup, No Wonder They've Been In Trouble

     One prominent non-attorney group representing Social Security claimants allowed researchers to peek at some of its data. The group isn't identified but I'll guess it was Allsup. Below are some numbers from the study that resulted. Click on each image to view full size.

     I'll speak here mostly to others who represent Social Security claimants since Social Security employees may find what I'm about to say mystifying or boring.
      Note that the company won only 62.6% of the time when they represented (or arranged representation) for claimants at hearings even though 77.5% of their clients came from Long Term Disability (LTD) insurance companies or self insured employers. LTD cases are gold plated. You should win a very high percentage of them. The reported success rate is very unimpressive. If this is Allsup, no wonder they've had problems.These LTD carriers ought to look at other options.
     This study also demonstrated the big problem with internet advertising -- low yield. This company reports that 55.6% of its potential clients came from "Internet/PR" but only 5.2% of their actual clients came from "Internet/PR." (By the way, the use of the term "PR" suggests this is Allsup since Allsup engages in heavy PR.)  That's a very low yield. From my somewhat limited experience with internet advertising, that's a low yield even for internet advertising.