Aug 18, 2021

Candidates For Commissioner Position

     From HuffPost:

An aide to President Joe Biden on labor issues is among the top contenders to lead the Social Security Administration, though he faces competition from a longtime expert on the agency and a high-profile former member of Congress. 

Seth Harris, a former deputy labor secretary who is now a member of the National Economic Council, is one of the leading contenders for the post, according to multiple sources, alongside former Rep. Donna Shalala (D-Fla.), who was secretary of health and human services in the Clinton administration; and Social Security Works President Nancy Altman. All three have engaged in a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to win support from members of Congress and unions.  ... 

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who chairs a key subcommittee overseeing Social Security in the House, has also quietly weighed in with a letter to Biden backing Altman.  ...


Andrew Saul Sounds Bitter


      From a piece by former Social Security Commissioner Andrew Saul for Townhall.com, a right wing website:

Even though my time as the Social Security Administration (SSA) commissioner has ended, the partisan attacks on the agency and my record have not. Just this week, U.S. Reps. John Larson (D-CT) and Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) continued to repeat false claims about my tenure as SSA commissioner. ...

On April 21, 2021, I sent a letter to Rep. Larson outlining the need for additional  funding to make up for the budgetary and workforce challenges SSA was facing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rep. Larson and the House of Representatives ignored this request and as a result, SSA was forced to operate on a budget that was $900 million less than I requested.  ...

The only solution to addressing the backlogs of unprocessed mail and other SSA services was to bring SSA workers back to the office. SSA informed Larson and his staff in August of 2020 we needed to start bringing union employees back to the offices involuntarily, but safely, to address workloads that couldn’t be done virtually, such as mail. Despite our warnings, on February 11, 2021, Rep. Larson and his staff objected to our putting a handful of employees in an office in Houston, Texas, to address problems similar to those noted in the recent SSA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report. Rep. Larson insisted I call him, despite the fact he refused to take my calls when I was seeking assistance in funding. ...

It is hypocritical that Rep. Larson now faults me for backlogged workloads when he and his union bosses at SSA stymied my efforts to address these challenges.  ...

My office briefed Larson’s staff multiple times a week throughout the pandemic. If he had concerns with our response to the pandemic, he should have raised these issues to my attention or even offered to work with me to solve problems. His response then, as it is now, was to engage in political grandstanding and take his direction from the unions. Rep. Larson was the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Social Security the entire time I served as SSA commissioner. If he was so concerned about my management, why didn’t he hold an oversight hearing to address his concerns? He failed to hold a single hearing on the service challenges facing SSA. One might think he was negligent in his duties as Chairman and should resign, but I know he was afraid to allow real facts to come forward. For instance, he avoided my calls when I sought his support for funding and to get cooperation from unions. Rather than conduct meaningful oversight, Rep. Larson prefers to hide behind union talking points and issue uncontested press releases full of lies.

     Blaming Larson for Social Security's operating budget is mostly ridiculous. Larson isn't even a member of the Appropriations Committee that has jurisdiction over the agency's operating budget. The real problem was primarily in the Senate which was then controlled by Republicans. However, it is possible that if Larson had held hearings about Social Security's service delivery problems that the agency's appropriation might have been increased.

     By the way, why is Saul only now admitting that his agency was unable to provide adequate service and that the agency's operating budget was the main reason? I know that insulting people you need to work with isn't a good plan but being completely quiet in public about a severely inadequate agency budget isn't such a good plan either.

     Also, by the way, I'm glad that Saul is no longer making any effort to obscure the obvious -- he's a highly partisan Republican. That's how he ran the agency. That's why he had to be fired. He never should have tried to hang on after Inauguration Day.

Aug 17, 2021

My Take On Encouraging Representation

     I had posted a link earlier to Social Security's request for opinions about how to increase equity in Social Security's programs and services. One question they asked specifically is "Are there incentives or other changes you suggest for encouraging attorney and non-attorney representation for claimants of color and other underserved communities?" I addressed myself primarily to this issue since it's the one I know best. Below is a somewhat edited version of what I posted. Post your own opinions on Social Security's website.

I represent Social Security claimants so I have some knowledge of this subject as well as a self-interest which I acknowledge.

I suggest that the agency admit it lacks manpower to provide effective assistance to claimants. Since that is the case, it should enable third parties to make money providing those services. This may be a bitter pill for the agency to swallow but it is time to be honest about the situation.

The Social Security Act says that fees for representing claimants must be approved by the agency. 42 U.S.C. §406(a)(1). The agency has interpreted this provision broadly. Its position is that charging a fee just to help a claimant file a claim or an appeal must be approved by the agency. As a result no one is providing these services for a fee apart from those seeking contingent fees for much broader representation. This leaves a large number of people to seek services that the Social Security Administration is unable to supply. Social Security should announce that that merely helping a claimant file a claim or an appeal is not the sort of representation for which fee approval is required. This would allow attorneys and H.&R. Block and whoever else to provide these services for modest fees. As an alternative, if the agency still wants to control these fees, the Social Security Act provides authority for the Commissioner to simply approve a maximum fee. ("The Commissioner of Social Security may, by rule and regulation, prescribe the maximum fees which may be charged for services performed in connection with any claim ...) The Commissioner could announce that the maximum fee to help file a claim is, let's say, $250 and the maximum fee for helping to file an appeal is $100. Those providing these services would not have to submit a fee petition. I will concede that this suggestion helps those with some money more than it helps the destitute but one would hope that even the poor could come up with the modest fees I'm talking about. It would also free up agency personnel to provide more help for poor claimants. If Social Security cannot itself provide these services to all who need them, why stand in the way of others providing these services for modest fees?

We also need to have more disability claimants represented throughout the process.

When it's hard to make a living as a Social Security attorney, as it is now, the first thing you do is to be more careful about the cases you take on. This leaves more claimants with marginal cases without representation. This has the effect of discouraging them from pursuing claims. I'm sure that hearing offices notice that a significant percent of claimants never appear for their hearings. Do they notice that almost all of the no shows are unrepresented? Probably the biggest reason for the no shows is that the claimants have tried to find an attorney but became discouraged when they were turned down several times. Less obviously, potential claimants never file a claim to begin with because they couldn't find an attorney. However, cases that may appear weak when an attorney makes a quick decision on whether to take on a client may actually be much stronger than they appear.

How do we encourage attorneys to take on more cases? The incentives must be economic so, yes, my recommendations will be self-serving. Raising the fee cap and indexing it for inflation is the obvious start but that only gets us so far. Notice that SSI claimants are represented at a lower rate than Title II claimants. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that SSI claimants have less access to medical care, but the lower benefit rate for SSI claimants is a major factor, since that means a lower average fee. It would take legislation but the attorney fee in SSI cases could be changed to 1/3 of back benefits or there could be a minimum fee for SSI cases. 

 If you really want to encourage representation, extend the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) to Social Security. EAJA shifts the fee burden to the agency when it loses. EAJA covers most adjudication at other agencies. Why except Social Security?

It would also be great if Legal Services had much higher funding so that its affiliates could once again represent claimants in a big way. That hasn't happened since the 1980s!

Aug 16, 2021

SSA Wants Input On Hidden Barriers

Input on Equity in SSA Programs: Hidden Barriers

Our next National Disability Forum (NDF) is scheduled for September 15, 2021, and is titled Equity in SSA Programs: Hidden Barriers. To prepare for the NDF, we are seeking feedback on questions related to the forum’s topics, Advancing Equity and Equity in Claimant Representation. We are using an online tool called Engage SSA to collect suggestions from claimants, advocates, the public, civil rights organizations, community-based organizations, representatives, and other governmental agencies about enhancing equity in SSA’s programs and services.

Below are some sample questions.

  • Are you aware of any unique needs for people of color and other underserved communities that we should consider when evaluating our programs? If so, how can we meet these needs?
  • How can we help underserved communities and their members overcome barriers they may encounter when enrolling in and accessing benefits?
  • Are there incentives or other changes you suggest for encouraging attorney and non-attorney representation for claimants of color and other underserved communities?

You can provide input on the Engage SSA from now until Friday, August 20, 2021. Please see the Engage SSA guide for details on using the site.



Aug 15, 2021

Pandemic Has Had Quite An Effect On Disability Claims

      From The Impact of Covid-19 on Older Workers’ Employment and Social Security Spillovers by Gopi Shah Goda, Emilie Jackson, Lauren Hersch Nicholas and Sarah See Stith, a presentation given at a conference presented by the Retirement and Disability Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:

Click on image to view full size

     

     So, what happens when the pandemic is over?

Aug 13, 2021

Maximus Loses Ticket To Work Contract

      From Washington Technology:

Maximus has lost an incumbent contract at the Social Security Administration after the company saw its protest denied by the Government Accountability Office.

The company has held the Ticket Program Manager contract since at least 2015. But this time around, Cognosante won the contract and Maximus took its challenge to GAO. Maximus argued that the evaluation of proposals was not conducted properly.

According to the GAO protest docket, the Maximus protest was denied Aug. 6. ...

The Ticket Program Manager contract is worth $79.6 million and runs for five years. Cognosante and Maximus were the only two bidders on the contract, according to the Federal Procurement Data System. ...


Aug 12, 2021

Senior Staffers Added At Social Security


      From Politico(emphasis added):

The Biden administration is racing to rebuild senior agency roles depleted by the previous president, hiring at the fastest rate in decades, a POLITICO analysis found.

In the first three months of 2021, the Biden administration hired more than twice as many senior government executives than Donald Trump did in the same timeframe, a staffing spree aimed at rebuilding agencies rocked by turmoil during Trump’s war on the so-called “deep state.”

All told, Biden hired at least 319 senior executives in his first three months. The biggest beneficiaries? The Department of Housing and Urban Development tops the list, with Biden increasing senior staffing by 6 percent from Trump’s September 2020 levels. That’s followed by the Social Security Administration and the Treasury Department, with 4 percent and 3 percent bumps respectively. ...