Return Of No Match Letters

     From National Public Radio:

The Social Security Administration may be the latest front in the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.  

 The agency is reviving the controversial practice of sending "no match" letters to businesses across the country, notifying them when an employee's Social Security number doesn't match up with official records.  

That may sound innocuous. But these no-match letters are expected to set off alarm bells. That's what happened when they arrived in the mail back in the mid-2000s. ...

There are a lot of reasons someone's Social Security number might not match: name changes or clerical errors, for example. But it can also mean that a worker is using a fake Social Security number. And when an employer gets one of these letters, it has to ask the worker to fix the problem. 

Labor unions and immigrant advocates took the issue to court in the mid-2000s. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce complained that the government was trying to turn businesses into "immigration cops." Eventually, the Obama administration stopped sending these letters in 2012. ...

En Banc Denied In Hicks Case

     The United States Court of Appeals has denied the petition for rehearing en banc in Hicks v. Berryhill. Hicks held that the process that Social Security used to do new reviews of benefit entitlement for the former clients of Eric Conn was unconstitutional. Social Security may ask the Supreme Court to hear the case but the Court is unlikely to accept it. The normal criteria for Supreme Court review -- conflict between different Circuits or broad national importance -- do not apply here. Social Security must redo these cases or give up on terminating these benefits.

About What I Would Have Expected

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

In a deferred OASDI [Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance] case, SSA [Social Security Administration] withholds an individual’s monthly benefit to collect prior incorrect payments or past-due Medicare premiums. An erroneous benefit deferral can occur if a technician incorrectly updates a beneficiary’s record.

The Agency designed systems to alert staff of errors in updating individuals’ records. However, staff could still make an error without causing a system alert. As a second line of review, in 2008, SSA deployed a program to identify cases with a high risk of error that leads to deferred benefits on individuals’ records. Therefore, the technician must review and correct the record as quickly as possible because the beneficiary’s payments have stopped. 

We identified 19,661 cases that SSA’s program classified as having a high risk of error in deferring payment of OASDI benefits based on the information gathered from program service centers (PSC) 2 through 6 for Fiscal Year 2017. 

SSA did not always correctly process cases it identified as having a high risk of error in deferring payment of OASDI benefits. Of the 100 sampled beneficiary records we reviewed, SSA did not correctly process 66 it identified as having a high risk of error. Of the 66 errors, 54 resulted in improper payments. This included approximately $115,000 in overpayments and $87,000 in underpayments. We found four types of payment errors: (1) incorrect manual overpayment adjustments, (2) inaccurate manual adjustments to Medicare premiums owed, (3) failure to release underpayments, and (4) failure to take corrective action. We project SSA incorrectly processed the deferred cases for about 13,000 beneficiaries, which resulted in incorrect payments of approximately $40 million to about 11,000 beneficiaries.

Additionally, we identified two beneficiaries who had incorrect overpayment amounts, totaling approximately $6,000, posted to their records. Finally, SSA did not have consistent procedures among PSCs for identifying and correcting deferred benefit cases. Specifically, three of the eight PSCs did not use the program other PSCs used to identify deferred benefit cases. ...

     OIG didn't work out how a dollar figure for much these sorts of errors would work out to if they are happening at the same rate across all of the high risk cases but it would surely be a lot of money.
     Before anyone starts blaming incompetent bureaucrats, remember that the payment centers are overworked and understaffed. Errors are inevitable in any large organization but they are far more likely in an organization that lacks adequate staffing. If you want to improve payment center performance, it's going to cost money. On the other hand, if you want Social Security to fail in order to fulfill you own prophecies about government incompetence, we're on the right track.

Payment Center Processing Times Improved But Is Service Really Better?

     From Social Security's explanation of the Trump Administration fiscal year 2020 budget proposal:

Currently, the PCs [Payment Centers, where Social Security, but not SSI benefits, are authorized] are working through a backlog of pending actions. Our PCs reduced the number of pending actions to 3.2 million as of September 2018, a 37 percent decrease from an all-time high of more than 5 million in January 2016. We targeted hiring and overtime in the PCs, and we continue to focus on automation, workflow enhancements, and quality initiatives to improve PC performance. Through our IT [Information Technology] modernization initiative, we will continue to pursue opportunities to reduce the PC backlog by streamlining and automating manual PC workloads. These efforts will help us work towards reducing the number of pending actions to 2.5 million by the end of FY 2020. However, the outcome of the court case, Steigerwald v. Berryhill [a class action that will probably require recomputations of benefits for a large group of claimants who had been underpaid], could impede our progress in reducing the PC backlog.

     What I'm seeing is some small improvement in speed of payment -- but only for the simple, easy cases. The PCs seem to be fast tracking, that is doing the quick, easy stuff first but God help you if your case involves any level of complexity because it's going to take forever. Fast tracking leads to better looking numbers but is it a fair trade-off to improve service to a lot of people by a few days by imposing many months of delay on a smaller group of people?

Saul Nomination Moves Forward

     By a unanimous vote, the Senate Finance Committee has reported out favorably the nomination of Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security.

Trump Administration Wants To End Attorney Fee Withholding

     From a list of Trump Administration legislative proposals for Social Security:

Change the Representative Fee and Approval Process. This proposal would eliminate fee caps, and relieve SSA of responsibility for fee approval, withholding, and payment functions; however, it would not affect our ability to prescribe who may and may not represent claimants. This proposal would streamline and decrease SSA’s operations and hearings workloads, allowing employees to focus on adjudicating more cases and completing other high priority workloads, thereby better serving the public.

     No, this isn't happening with Democrats in control of the House of Representatives but it does give an insight into Trump Administration attitudes.

Dreadful Public Service To Get Worse

     Below is a page from Social Security's materials on the fiscal year 2020 budget proposed by the Trump Administration. Click on the image to view full size. There are other things to notice but note in particular that the budget anticipates the average speed of answer on the agency's 800 number to go up from 13 minutes to 15 minutes and the average busy rate to go up from 9% to 12%. On what planet is that acceptable service?

Saul Nomination Moves Forward

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled an Open Executive Session for tomorrow to consider reporting out the nomination of Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security. The final step in the nomination process would then be consideration by the entire Senate.