According to Down Detector, Social Security started experiencing significant problems with its My Social Security portal sometime over the weekend and apparently the problem is continuing into today. It may not be connected but Social Security just announced on Friday that claimants can now request access to documents that the Social Security Administration has concerning their cases through the My Social Security portal.
We're finally getting more up to date numbers from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing the headcount of employees at each agency. Here they are as of last September with some earlier headcount numbers for comparison:
From Social Security's Update Newsletter:
Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries with a my Social Security account can now access case documents through the Message Center of their my Social Security account.
Please let your clients know they must contact the local Social Security office, hearings office, or Appeals Council branch where their case is pending to request that a copy of their case documents be sent to their my Social Security Message Center. Also, remind them to turn on my Social Security Message Center notifications at www.ssa.gov/myaccount so they can receive an email or text when the documents are available. You can learn more about this new feature at www.ssa.gov/appeals/electronic_case_document.html.
From Federal News Network:
The Social Security Administration used the project to modernize its Disability Case Processing System as a proof of concept.
The question then became could SSA replicate the success of DCPS with other legacy, traditional waterfall programs.
Sean Brune, the CIO of SSA, said the answer is a resounding “yes.” The agency is taking the success of the DCPS2 and expanding it through its new IT modernization strategy as a way to guide SSA’s transformation. ...
SSA revamped DCPS2 starting in 2015, and over a 14-month period using DevSecOps to move from a COBOL based, green-screen system that had been in use for more than 25 years. SSA and states use DCPS to determine if claimants are qualified from a medical perspective for a benefit. State and territories process the claims on behalf of SSA using DCPS as a case management and disability determination system.
Brune said the DCPS2 success helped SSA expand their focus on overall IT modernization by further identifying core mission functions, building expertise in modern application development around those core mission functions. ...
“We trained more agile Scrum Masters. ...
Is DCPS such a big success that it's time to take a victory lap? I don't know because I don't use it. I know that DCPS has been controversial, at least in the past.
More and more questions are being asked about Andrew Saul's status. What is this "Acting Commissioner" business? If he's only Acting, why hasn't he been fired? Biden would surely prefer someone else as Commissioner. This cute business of trying to have it both ways -- Seila Law has nothing to do with the Social Security Administration yet its confirmed Commissioner is now only its "Acting Commissioner" so you can't apply Seila Law to us isn't going to last forever. This isn't clever. It just underlines the extent of the agency's Seila Law problem. The only solution is for Saul to leave voluntarily or be forced out.
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.
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. ...
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.
