SSA Thinks This OIG Report Is Out Of Bounds -- I Agree

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

Beneficiaries may elect to receive reduced retirement benefits as young as age 62. When beneficiaries begin receiving retirement benefits before full retirement age (FRA), the Social Security Administration (SSA) generally permanently reduces the payment amount based on the number of months before FRA they begin receiving payments.  

When disability beneficiaries elect to receive reduced retirement benefits, the reduction is not permanent, as it is for non-disability beneficiaries. Specifically, for beneficiaries who (1) were entitled to both disability and retirement benefits and (2) elected to receive reduced retirement benefits, section 202(q)(7)(F) requires that SSA pay a higher benefit amount when the beneficiary reaches FRA. 

From the Master Beneficiary Record, we identified 32,474 beneficiaries who, as of September 5, 2019, (1) had reached FRA, (2) had been entitled to disability benefits and elected to receive reduced retirement benefits, (3) were in current payment status, and (4) were entitled to a higher benefit amount at FRA. We reviewed a random sample of 100 beneficiaries from this population. 

Section 202(q)(7)(F) of the Act gave a financial advantage to 89 of 100 beneficiaries in our sample. By electing reduced retirement benefits, they received higher payments than they would have had they continued receiving disability benefits. Of the 89 beneficiaries,

70 avoided a reduction because they were receiving workers’ compensation or public disability payments;

11 increased total payments for their families; and

8 avoided a reduction because they returned to work.  

When they reached FRA, the Act provided them a financial advantage because it required that SSA remove the age-based reduction for any months the individual was entitled to both disability and reduced retirement benefits and begin paying higher retirement benefits.Because section 202(q)(7)(F) of the Act gave them an advantage, these 89 beneficiaries have already received approximately $1.8 million more in benefits since FRA. Further, 86 of the 89 beneficiaries will receive an estimated $2.4 million more in benefits because this advantage continues through the rest of their lives. We estimate this provision will result in approximately 29,000 beneficiaries receiving almost $1.4 billion in additional lifetime benefits.

We recommend SSA determine whether it should propose a change to section 202(q)(7)(F) of the Act to eliminate the financial advantage it gives to certain disability beneficiaries. SSA disagreed with our recommendation and deferred to Congress to determine whether a legislative change is necessary. ...

     OIG didn't even bother to give a justification for asking for a legislative change. The fact that the provision in question helps some beneficiaries was enough for OIG. 

     In my opinion there is nothing about the provision that OIG objects to that is abusive or that results in unreasonable results or results that Congress didn't intend.

     This OIG report apparently seemed out of bounds to Social Security. I agree with them. I don't think it's the job of OIG to second guess Congress.

No Comment

      From the Washington Post:

... Andrew Saul, a Trump appointee whose six-year term as Social Security commissioner officially ends in 2025, had a curious new “acting” title on a list of temporary government leaders distributed by the new White House last week. Saul announced Thursday that several high-ranking deputies on his team, who had pushed for stricter eligibility for benefits, had been replaced — with labor-friendly Democrats. The Security Administration did not respond to a request for comment about the acting title. ...

Elections Have Consequences

      In accordance with a White House directive, all proposed Social Security regulations that were awaiting approval at the Office of Management and Budget have been withdrawn. These include proposed regulations on the timing and frequency of continuing disability reviews and proposed regulations that would have modified the age categories used in determining disability.

Back Again

      Do you remember Orly Taitz? She’s a lawyer and dentist who was promoting the goofy theory that Barack Obama couldn’t really be an American because he had a phony Social Security number. She’s back, now with a new goofy theory that a court can enjoin the Senate from proceeding with Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. 

     We’ve got to stop codling these nut job attorneys. They have no business with law licenses. There are rules in place which can remove their licenses. Enforce them.

Doing SSI Outreach Again

     From Social Security's Covid19 page:

I received a letter claiming to be from the Social Security Administration (SSA) with an 800# I do not recognize. Is it really from SSA?

We routinely release outreach notices in an effort to identify people eligible for Social Security benefits. From December 2020 through March 2021, we are mailing outreach notices to people who may be eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments. SSI makes payments to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources.

We established a dedicated phone line with a team of specialized employees to help people who receive this notice. These employees are SSI experts who will help callers explore eligibility and assist with SSI applications, if appropriate at the time of the call. We also established a separate phone number for people to call who need help in Spanish.

Could Musculoskeletal Listing Changes Be Reconsidered?

      The harsh new musculoskeletal Listings are scheduled to go into effect on April 2. However, the change of Administration could delay implementation or even kill these changes altogether. Soon after taking office, Biden's Chief of Staff sent a memorandum to agency heads giving them this directive:

... With respect to rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or rules that have been issued in any manner, but have not taken effect, consider postponing the rules’ effective dates for 60 days from the date of this memorandum ... for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy the rules may raise.  For rules postponed in this manner, during the 60-day period, where appropriate and consistent with applicable law, consider opening a 30-day comment period to allow interested parties to provide comments about issues of fact, law, and policy raised by those rules, and consider pending petitions for reconsideration involving such rules.  As appropriate and consistent with applicable law, and where necessary to continue to review these questions of fact, law, and policy, consider further delaying, or publishing for notice and comment proposed rules further delaying, such rules beyond the 60-day period.  Following the 60-day delay in effective date:

a. for those rules that raise no substantial questions of fact, law, or policy, no further action needs to be taken; and 

b. for those rules that raise substantial questions of fact, law, or policy, agencies should notify the OMB Director and take further appropriate action in consultation with the OMB Director. ...

     The musculoskeletal Listings certainly raise substantial questions of policy, if not fact. Even though their effective date is more than 60 days after this memo, it would certainly seem that they should be subject to additional review and that there should be a new comment period. I would expect that there will be "requests for reconsideration" of the Listings. These new musculoskeletal Listings are not mere housekeeping. They were and remain a highly controversial attack on disability claimants.

     By the way, those proposed regulations that would have increased the number of continuing disability review and that would have modified the grid regulations may not have been officially withdrawn yet but they're dead.

What Just Happened?

      Below is the memo that came out yesterday about personnel changes at Social Security. Click on it to view it at full size.

 

     Andrew Saul, whose term as Social Security Commissioner has been marked by strident anti-union activity, bringing in a union official as his Chief of Staff? Mark Warshawsky ,who has apparently been a consistent advocate for right wing policies, replaced by a fellow at the left leaning Urban Institute?

     But that's not all. Yesterday afternoon, the White House released a list of acting heads of federal agencies and Andrew Saul was listed as the acting head of the Social Security Administration. I thought that Saul believed himself to be the confirmed Commissioner of Social Security, legally entitled to serve out his term of office which runs until January 2025. Unless Saul resigned and was then appointed Acting Commissioner, something which hasn't been announced, the White House announcement can't be technically accurate, although it may reflect the essential nature of the situation. By the way, the memo shown above indicates that it was signed by the Commissioner rather than the Acting Commissioner.

     I'm sure that many readers of this blog have tuned out what I've written about the Supreme Court opinion in Seila Law v. CFPB but it's key to understanding what's going on. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the position of the head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was unconstitutional because the incumbent served a fixed term of years and could only be fired by the President for cause. That sounds exactly like the Commissioner of Social Security. The position of Commissioner of Social Security wasn't before the Court. The attorney for Seila Law argued that there was a distinction between the head of the CFPB and the Commissioner of Social Security but it seems doubtful that the Court will buy that argument once a case squarely presents the issue. 

     I think we may surmise that there was a negotiation between Andrew Saul and President Biden's transition team and yesterday's announcements were the result. I don't understand why Saul wants to hang around to do the bidding of an Administration whose policies he must disagree with but he does.

     So where does that leave the Seila Law litigation that the Social Security Administration is facing? What's Social Security's position? Seila Law totally doesn't apply to cases in the pipeline because Social Security is so much different than CFPB but it can't apply to any future cases because the White House now considers Andrew Saul the Acting Commissioner of Social Security even though Saul himself hasn't announced that he regards himself as serving at the pleasure of the President? That seems like an incoherent position.

     By the way, I've heard an anecdotal report from one attorney that Social Security has recently asked for voluntary remands in all the cases he had in federal court where he was arguing Seila Law. Has anyone else seen this?

Didn’t See This Coming

      More on this tomorrow but take a look at what has to be the weirdest personnel memorandum in Social Security history.