Why Wasn't There Anyone At This Town Hall To Challenge Him?

     Tom Reed is the Ranking Republican member on the House Social Security Subcommittee. He recently held a town hall meeting on Social Security in his district. The Olean Times Herald report on the town hall says that Reed was asked about the impending shortfall in the Social Security trust funds. Reed  answered that "We need to make sure we keep the economy humming and get people working.” That means he doesn't want increased taxes which means the only way to deal with the shortfall that is acceptable to him is to cut Social Security benefits, although Reed certainly didn't say this. Congressional Republicans carefully avoid saying that. They always imply it's some sort of puzzle that someone needs to figure out, as if there's some way of dealing with the shortfall that doesn't involve cutting benefits or raising taxes, which is nonsense. Apparently, no one at the meeting challenged Reed on this.

Some Thoughts On The Declining Number Of Disability Claims

 Why Are There Fewer Social Security Disability Claims Now?

     There has been a 32% decline in the number of disability claims received by the Social Security Administration between the peak year of 2010 and 2018. See the chart below.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/dibGraphs.html

     There must be some explanation for this dramatic change. I'm going to explore what might be behind this.

Reduction In Unemployment Doesn't Fully Explain What's Happened

     The most commonly given explanation is the reduction in unemployment between 2010 and 2018, which is shown on the chart below.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

       

      It just makes sense that disabled people would have a harder time holding down a job in a time of high unemployment. 

     The theory that the answer is unemployment appeals to many on the right because it allows them to claim that disability benefits are thinly disguised unemployment benefits. In their view, many of those drawing disability benefits aren't really disabled; they just can't find jobs. Of course, they don't want to give them unemployment benefits either but that's another story. 

     This theory never made sense to me as an explanation for the earlier increase in the number of disability claims. It wasn't what I was seeing on the ground. I did see a few disabled people who had been struggling to hold down a job who became the first to be laid off during the great recession but not many.

    Don't rely upon my anecdotal account of what was going on during the great recession, though. The big problem with the unemployment theory is that while the unemployment rate went down dramatically between 2010 and 2016, the reduction started flattening out in 2017 and there was little or no reduction in 2018 and so far in 2019 yet the number of disability claims filed has continued its steep decline in 2018 and early 2019. Why would that be if unemployment is the answer?

     While it's certainly possible that the reduction in unemployment was a factor in the decline in the number of disability claims, it certainly cannot be the only factor at work.  

No Fewer Disabled People Now

      One possible explanation that has occurred to me is that fewer people regard themselves as disabled than was the case a few years ago. Maybe it's medical advances. Maybe it's more people able to get medical care as a result of the Affordable Care Act. 

     The chart below suggests otherwise. The number of people who described themselves as disabled went up between 2010 and 2016 as the rate of unemployment went down and has stabilized since. That doesn't match up at all with the number of disability claims.

From Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Increased Labor Force Participation Rate Isn't The Explanation Either

     The unemployment rate is only the percent of those who are looking for work who can't find work. People who are neither working nor looking for work don't show up in the unemployment rate. Maybe the improving economy drew more people into the workforce and away from disability claims. However, the chart below suggests that didn't happen at all. The labor force participation rate actually went down as the rate of unemployment went down. That's the opposite of what you would expect if more disabled people were working instead of filing disability claims. If anything, this data undermines the theory that there's a strong link between unemployment and disability claims.

From Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Increased Labor Force Participation By The Disabled Isn't The Explanation Either

      I've wondered whether the disabled population was participating in the labor force at a greater rate even if the rest of the population isn't but that isn't the case. I don't have a chart for it but in June 2010 21.7% of persons with a disability age 16 and over were participating in the civilian labor force while in 2018 20.8% were participating. That's a minor reduction, not an increase. Again, if anything, this data undermines the theory that unemployment and disability claims are closely linked.

Demographics May Be A Part Of The Answer

     The incidence of disability goes up sharply as people age as shown on the chart below from the Urban Institute. Age 50 is an important break point around which the incidence of disability starts going up significantly.

    

     During the Great Depression and World War II the birth rate in the United States was quite low but that changed dramatically after World War II. However, the number of births didn't eventually just level off. They actually started going down in 1962 and didn't start picking up again until 1979. See the chart below.

U.S. Live Births and Birth Rate

1910	2,777,000	30.1
1915	2,965,000	29.5
1920	2,950,000	27.7
1925	2,909,000	25.1
1930	2,618,000	21.3
1935	2,377,000	18.7
1940	2,559,000	19.4
1945	2,858,000	20.4
1950	3,632,000	24.1
19523	3,913,000	25.1
19533	3,965,000	25.1
19543	4,078,000	25.3
1955	4,104,000	25.0
19563	4,218,000	25.2
19573	4,308,000	25.3
19583	4,255,000	24.5
19593	4,295,000	24.3
19603	4,257,850	23.7
19613	4,268,326	23.3
19623	4,167,362	22.4
19633	4,098,020	21.7
19643	4,027,490	21.0
19653	3,760,358	19.4
19663	3,606,274	18.4
19674	3,520,959	17.8
19683	3,501,564	17.5
19693	3,600,206	17.8
19703	3,731,386	18.4
19713	3,555,970	17.2
1972	3,258,411	15.6
1973	3,136,965	14.9
1974	3,159,958	14.9
1975	3,144,198	14.8
1976	3,167,788	14.8
1977	3,326,632	15.4
1978	3,333,279	15.3
1979	3,494,398	15.9
1980	3,612,258	15.9

     Fifty years after the decline in births was 2012. That's about when the number of Social Security disability claims started going down. Also, by that time, the oldest of the baby boom generation had aged out of Social Security disability because they had hit full retirement age. Maybe there were just fewer people in the most disability prone age group.
     There's reason to believe that this demographic change has something to do with the decline in Social Security disability claims. However, demographics can't fully explain the rapid rise then 32% fall in the number of disability claims. The change in the birth rate in the 1960s wasn't anywhere near that dramatic.

Could Some Of It Be Discouragement?

     I don't have any charts or data to support or undermine this theory but I wonder if some of the change is discouragement -- claimants who delay filing disability claims either because they feel they won't be approved or because they find the process of filing a claim to be too daunting.
     People who stop work on account of illness or injury don't just rush in to file disability claims right away or, at least, few do so. There's usually a gap of at least a few months before they file a claim. It's not unusual for the gap to be years. Does the median gap between onset of disability and the date of filing a Social Security disability claim change over time?
     Those who are considering filing a disability claim often ask "Do I have a chance?" I think people ask the question because they're afraid of being crushed by a denial. My theory is the general fear of denial is affected by the political zeitgeist. If I'm right, people thought that the chances of success with a Social Security disability claim went down after the 2010 election put Republicans in control of the House of Representatives who started pressuring Social Security to deny more claims. I know that before that election I often heard clients say things like "If Social Security approved that lazy guy down the street, why haven't they approved me?" I don't hear that sort of thing so much today. I think it's because people now perceive that it's more difficult to be approved. That's true to some extent but not enough that people should be discouraged about filing a claim. Sitting around doing nothing as one's financial situation crumbles is a bad idea but most disabled people have very mixed emotions about filing a disability claim. It doesn't take much to cause many of them to delay filing a claim based upon a vain hope that their medical condition will improve.
     People may also be discouraged by the increased difficulty in actually filing Social Security disability claims. It became much harder to get through to the agency on the telephone after the 2010 election. The agency's budget suffered. Wait times on the 800 line and at the field offices soared. Yes, it's possible to file some disability claims online but it's a lot harder than filing a retirement claim and you can't file an SSI claim online. On the whole, I'm pretty sure that disability claimants have a harder time filing any kind of claim online than retirement claimants. Disability claimants have, on average, less education, fewer computer skills and greater psychiatric difficulties interfering with their ability to use online resources. Disabled people usually have very mixed emotions about filing disability claims. It doesn't take much to discourage them because they keep hoping they'll get better.
     I would like to see numbers on how the median difference between alleged onset date and claim date has changed over the years. I suspect the gap went up substantially after 2010. Perhaps the data would support my theory. Perhaps not.

In Summation, I Don't Know And I Don't Think Anyone Else Knows

     I wish I had a good explanation for what has happened and what is happening. If anything, I may have somewhat knocked down the theory that it's the unemployment rate without being able to substitute an alternative theory that fully explains what has happened. I'd be interested in the theories that others have. Please give data to support your theories.

Unacceptable Service Draws Criticism

     From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle:

Saying that the Rochester field office has one of the poorest records in the state, Sen. Charles Schumer on Monday called on the Social Security Administration to increase staffing to address long wait times and a backlog of cases.

Schumer said the Administration's internal reporting showed that the Rochester office only answered about 41 percent calls from customers seeking help on the phone in January.  Those that ventured into the office had to wait an average of 30.4 minutes to be seen by a screener and hours longer to meet with a claims representative to discuss their problem.  Hundreds simply gave up and went home. ...

Fred Happel’s Place In Social Security History

Happel’s original design

     From Social Security’s website:

Fred Happel of Albany, N.Y. designed the original Social Security card back in 1936. He was commissioned by the Social Security Board to submit three designs, one of which was ultimately selected. Mr. Happel was paid $60 for his work. (Mr. Happel was a skilled artist who also designed the famous "Flying Tigers" logo used by General Chennault's forces during World War II.)

They Were Waiting For The Right Person To Call

     From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Imagine paying your utility bill and having the cashed check to prove it, but still getting threatened over and over with having your power turned off.

Wendy Arnold ran into a scenario like this, but it was the giant Social Security Administration that couldn't figure out that she had sent back an overpayment of disability benefits for her 27-year-old son, despite the evidence she kept waving at them. 

What part of the $17,615 she mailed to the SSA didn't they understand? They kept telling Arnold, 62, her son's payee, to pay up and threatening to dock her own Social Security benefits if she didn't.

This has been going on for eight months. ...

 I'm happy to report the problem suddenly is fixed, and all it took was one news media contact to the Social Security Administration. Within a couple of hours of my call, Arnold received a voicemail from a Social Security rep saying, "We have zeroed out the overpayment that was on your son's record, and it's currently reflecting a zero balance now." ...

No Match Letter Worries

     Fruit growers are starting to worry about "no match" letters from Social Security telling them that an employee's name and Social Security number don't match.

How Is A Disabled Person Supposed To Look?

     From Imani Barbarin, writing for Forbes:

A new policy proposal by the Trump Administration calls for the surveillance of disabled people’s social media profiles to determine the necessity of their disability benefits. The proposal, which reportedly aims to cut down on the number of fraudulent disability claims would monitor the profiles of disabled people and flag content that shows them doing physical activities. When it comes down to it, the policy dictates that disabled people shouldn’t be seen living their lives for fear of losing vital financial aid and, possibly, medical care. ...

The proposal, like many of its policies regarding disabled people, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of disability and takes advantage of how social media operates in order to cut them off from the support they need. Disabled people don’t all function in the same way and disability is not a set of stereotypes like taking selfies staring longingly at the world. They live lives while managing their energy for the activities they can handle and trying to make those they cannot more accessible. ...

The truth about disability is that it isn’t a series of down moments but both highs and lows that comprise their lives. Simply because disabled people are seen exercising, dancing or shooting hoops does not mean that they have the ability to sustain that level of energy all day. ...

New HALLEX Provision Makes Me Wonder

     From material newly added to Social Security's HALLEX manual, which contains policy and procedure material for Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and the Appeals Council:

When an ALJ approved a final draft decision but is unavailable to sign the decision, the HOCALJ has the authority to sign the final decision and any associated orders if the ALJ gave the HOCALJ written authorization to sign the decision on the ALJ's behalf. Any such written authorization must be associated with the claim(s) file and must include the following affirmative statements:

• The ALJ has read the decision and any associated order;
  
• The ALJ concurs with the decision (and any associated order) as written or concurs with the decision (and any associated order) with specified changes previously reviewed and approved by the ALJ before authorization; and
  
• “HOCALJ [NAME]” is authorized to sign the decision and any associated order on the ALJ's behalf.
  

The ALJ may give written authorization via email, fax, or any other writing. However, unless the authorization is provided through an official agency email, the ALJ must sign the written authorization with his or her “wet” signature (facsimile transmission is accepted). The ALJ may not use a rubber stamp or other mechanical signature. A HOCALJ may not use this procedure on his or her own initiative without specific written authorization from the ALJ.

If all of the requirements are met, the HOCALJ may sign the decision and any accompanying order.

     Previously, the rule had been that another ALJ subbing for a departed ALJ could sign only a fully favorable decision. A denial decision could not be sent out without a new hearing. I think this new provision is legally dubious. It treats the hearing as if it's a meaningless formality.
     Oddly, in North Carolina in recent months we've had several ALJs suddenly retire with no advance warning when they had hearings scheduled and decisions to be written. There were in the office on Friday and gone on Monday. The reports we've received indicate no dramatic health development in any of the cases. Each of the ALJs involved was an outlier, in one cases approving claimants at a low rate and in the rest of the cases approving claimants at a high rate. In one case there were signs of pressure from the agency but in that case I think there was universal agreement that pressure was merited because the ALJ, who approved only a low percentage of claimants, had a huge and growing backlog of decisions to be issued. In the other cases, there has been no sign of pressure. However, this cluster of cases seems very odd. I haven't heard of other examples from other parts of the country but this new provision in HALLEX makes me wonder.