Black Nomination Advances

     The Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously yesterday to report out favorably the nomination of David Black to become the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security. I have no idea what the schedule will be for consideration by the entire Senate of this nomination or that of Andrew Saul to become Commissioner of Social Security. That's up to the Senate Majority Leader.

Black Nomination Advances

     The Senate Finance Committee has scheduled a meeting today to consider reporting out the nomination of David Black to become Deputy Commissioner of Social Security.

Resumption Of No Match Letters

     From the New York Times:

The Trump administration is notifying tens of thousands of employers that the names of some of their employees do not match their Social Security numbers, a move that is forcing businesses across the country to brace for the loss of thousands of workers who lack legal status.

The Social Security Administration has mailed “no-match letters” to more than 570,000 employers since March, sending shock waves through the hospitality, construction and agriculture industries, which rely heavily on undocumented workers. The letters have left many employers conflicted, uncertain whether to take action that could result in losing workers or to risk fines down the road. ...

“There is a high level of anxiety over these no-match letters,’’ said Angelo Amador, regulatory counsel at the National Restaurant Association, which represents about one million food-service establishments. He said the association has been barraged with emails and phone calls from concerned companies. ...

The government officially suspended the use of no-match letters in 2012, although the practice had actually been discontinued years earlier, after the government faced litigation. The resumption appears to be a response to the “Buy American, Hire American” executive order signed by President Trump to protect American workers and reduce illegal immigration. ...

Mark Hinkle, the Social Security Administration’s acting press secretary, did not respond to a question about whether the administration was sharing its data with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. ...

That New Obesity Ruling

     It's hard to evaluate the new Social Security Ruling on the evaluation of obesity on its face. It's only precise when it sets forth what Social Security won't do -- find any particular level of obesity to even be a severe impairment much less an impairment that significantly affects function or exacerbates the effects of other impairments such as osteoarthritis. This is the sort of thing that's standard in these Rulings. The agency wants to say something on a subject but also wants to be very sure that no one can say that the agency has established a standard that it can be accused of not having followed.

     To find the real intent of this Ruling, you have to contrast it to its predecessor, Social Security Ruling 02-01p. When you do, you notice a couple of things that were in 02-01p that didn't make it into 19-2p. The old Ruling specifically said that failure to follow prescribed treatment would rarely, if ever, be grounds for denying a claim based upon disability. That language didn't make it into the new Ruling. Also, the old Ruling said that "... if the obesity is of such a level that it results in an inability to ambulate effectively, as defined in sections 1.00B2b or 101.00B2b of the Listings, it may substitute for the major dysfunction of a joint(s) ... and we will then make a finding of medical equivalence." Again, that language didn't make it into the new Ruling. 
     The problem with the old Ruling is that it established standards that the agency could be accused of not having followed. They couldn't have that so the Ruling was changed.

New Ruling On Obesity

     A new Social Security Ruling, SSR 19-2p, is out on "Evaluating Cases Involving Obesity." My initial reading is that the Ruling will have limited practical effect. What do you think?

Annual Statistical Supplement Out

     The Social Security Administration has issued its annual grand compendium of statistical information, the Annual Statistical Supplement For 2018. 

     By the way, did you know that 60,293 people are receiving benefits under the U.S.-Japan Social Security totalization agreement? That's more than even the U.S.-Canada agreement, the most of any country.

The South Likes Ava But The West Likes Emma; Liam Is Big In A Lot Of States

Click on images to view full size

You Might Want To Do Something About This

     From Work-Related Overpayments to Social Security Disability Insurance Beneficiaries: Prevalence and Descriptive Statistics by Denise Hoffman, Benjamin Fischer, John T. Jones, Andrew McGuirk, and Miriam Loewenberg, published in the Social Security Bulletin (emphasis added):

For decades, Social Security Administration (SSA) efforts to increase employment among Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries have been a focus of considerable interest among both policymakers and researchers. However, beneficiary work activity sometimes results in benefit overpayments, and research on the extent of those overpayments—and the characteristics of affected beneficiaries—has been relatively limited. ...

DI overpayments account for a substantial sum of money and create administrative and fiscal management challenges for SSA. Work-related overpayment amounts ranged from $831 million in fiscal year 2010 to $980 million in fiscal year 2012. ...

Anecdotal evidence suggests that overpayments and their aftermaths can be traumatic experiences for beneficiaries and may function as disincentives to work. ...

[W]e find that overpayments are probable among at-risk beneficiaries (of whom 71 percent were overpaid). The median duration of work-related overpayments was 9 months and the median amount they accrued was $9,282. Overpayments were most prevalent among traditionally disadvantaged or vulnerable populations, including beneficiaries who are black or Hispanic, those with low monthly DI benefit amounts, those for whom medical improvement is not expected, and those with less than a high school education, holding other characteristics equal. ...

     I don't know all of what should be done about this but, I guess, the first step would be to acknowledge that, in the main, this is a systemic problem rather than the fault of claimants trying to cheat. I think the second step would be to acknowledge that collection of these overpayments should not be the priority. The system is too complicated. We can't keep blaming the claimants for these overpayments. Most of these overpayments should be quickly waived if we want to avoid discouraging attempts to return to work. 

     Social Security's Inspector General, in particular, needs to give some serious thought to the pressure it puts on the agency to aggressively find and collect any and all overpayments.