Ticket To Work Doesn't Work

      From a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO):

Disability beneficiaries participate in the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency program (Ticket to Work) by assigning a "ticket" to service providers who, in turn, provide help with employment. SSA compensates the service providers when Ticket to Work participants achieve designated levels of work and earnings. Using SSA data from 2002, when the program began, through 2018, the most recent year available, GAO estimated that 5 years after starting Ticket to Work, participants’ average earnings were $2,451 more per year than that of similar nonparticipants. However, the majority of participants remained unemployed 5 years after starting Ticket to Work. 

Based on GAO’s analysis, the costs of Ticket to Work exceeded the savings in disability benefits to SSA by an estimated $806 million from 2002 through 2015, the most recent year with reliable savings data. Savings accrue when Ticket to Work participants receive lower benefits or leave the disability rolls due to earnings from work. GAO estimates that participants were slightly more likely to leave the rolls (9.7 percent) than nonparticipants who are similar across a range of characteristics such as age, gender, disability type, and education level (8.6 percent). A greater percentage of participants left the disability rolls due to work rather than for other reasons, such as medical improvement ...

GAO estimates that SSA incurred an additional $133 million to $169 million in costs (above the $806 million) from disability benefit overpayments to Ticket to Work participants. Overpayments can occur when beneficiaries who work do not report earnings to SSA or SSA delays in adjusting their benefit amounts. ...

     This report ignores an important reality.  No one makes claimants participate in the Ticket to Work program. Those who do participate are saying they believe they may have some capacity for work, meaning that they have better prospects for returning to work than claimants generally. Comparing the results in this group to claimants generally makes the Ticket to Work results look better than they are. Some of those who volunteered for Ticket to Work would have returned to work with or without Ticket to Work. We can't tell how many were only able to return to work due to Ticket to Work. If there were a control group, it would be some who volunteered for Ticket to Work but were arbitrarily denied Ticket to Work help but there is no such control group because none were turned away.

     Note the ridiculous level of overpayments associated with Ticket to Work even among a group of beneficiaries who told Social Security they planned to return to work. Don't blame claimants for this. Social Security's system for handling reports of return to work just doesn't work. 

     I'll make a modest suggestion. Social Security should almost completely stop relying upon wage reports from claimants because they do a poor job of reporting and Social Security does a worse job of recording what they report. We should define Substantial Gainful Activity on a quarterly basis and base work deductions on quarterly wages reported by employers. This can mostly be done by the computers. Yes, there will be problems with "wages" that are reported for work done earlier (such as sick pay, vacation pay and residual commissions) and yes, there will be problems with self-employment income but we'd be in a much better place than we're in now if those are the only problems we have to deal with.

Delays In Filing Retirement Claims

      The Washington Post has an article out displaying a couple of charts that they say show that during the pandemic people have been retiring but deliberately delaying claiming Social Security retirement benefits. Here's one of the charts:

     The thing about it is that there's been a similar decline in the number of SSI claims filed and there's no benefit whatsoever in delaying filing an SSI claim. One possibility is that office closures and the increased difficulty in reaching Social Security by telephone have caused people to delay filing claims out of frustration. People don't have to be deterred entirely or even for long to produce something like this graph. Just deter a certain percentage of claims for a month to three months and you end up with fewer claims filed for a time period. My experience is that few people are crafty about the date they file their retirement claim. That sort of behavior exists mostly in the minds of newspaper writers who are overly invested in the idea that simplistic economic theories explain human behavior. They don't factor in the service environment at Social Security.

What Passes For Justice In Northern Alabama

      From the Huntsville Item:

Getting approved for disability payments from the Social Security Administration isn't easy, but depending on where you live, it could be even harder.

In North Alabama, for example, three of the judges who hear disability claims have the lowest approval record of any administrative law judge in the state; two of them also have among the lowest approval rate of any of the 12,000 judges nationwide.  ...

Judge Cynthia Weaver approves only 12% of claims, giving her the lowest claims approval rate of any judge hearing disability cases in Alabama. Among nearly 50 judges in the country with similar disposition caseloads, between 250-260 dispositions, Weaver had the lowest approval rating for claims based on data reported in recent months. 

An applicant's odds are only slightly better if they go before Judge Patrick Digsby, who approves about 13.6% of the claims that come before him. Judge Mallette Richey has the third-lowest claims approval rate at 26%. ...

If applicants choose to appeal, their odds aren't good. The Appeals Council denies 82% of claims and remands another 14% back to the judge who heard the case. There is no data on the final outcome of cases sent back to judges. Only 1% of claims are approved by the Appeals Council. ...

Problem Avoided

 

     From the Detroit Free Press:

The pandemic-related economic shutdown in 2020 triggered all sorts of anxiety, including oddly enough a fear that those who turn 62 next year would be stuck with drastic cuts to their Social Security benefits. ...

The reason? A key wage index that Social Security uses as part of the calculation of benefits looked like it was set to plummet during the 2020 economic slowdown. 

In Congressional testimony in July 2020, Social Security Administration Chief Actuary Stephen Goss suggested that benefits could be 9.1% lower for this specific group, for life. ...

Now, amazingly, there is good news for those baby boomers born in 1960. Things didn't turn out as horrible as the original headlines suggested.

The average wage index — which is calculated by Social Security to track wage growth in the overall economy — didn't fall as once projected. Instead, the Social Security Administration recently posted that the national average wage index was up 2.83% in 2020 from 2019 — not down.  ...

Delayed SSI Report

      From a press release:

U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Senator Todd Young (R-Indiana), Ranking Member of the Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy, pressed the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on when Congress can expect to receive the annual report on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

The delay in reporting to Congress on the program relative to the statutory deadline of May 30 is the longest in the history of the report, and comes on the heels of the longest delay ever in the Social Security and Medicare trustees report.  ...

     I can't even imagine a political motivation for delaying this mundane report. Just accept the reality that I have to accept every day. Social Security isn't hitting on all cylinders. Work isn't getting done in a timely manner. This has to do with general understaffing and reduced efficiency because almost everyone is working from home. It sucks but there it is.

Long Covid And Social Security Disability

      From the New York Times:

Since she tested positive for the coronavirus in April 2020, Josie Cabrera Taveras has found herself sleeping for up to 15 hours a day, stopping in grocery store aisles to catch her breath, lapsing in and out of consciousness and unable to return to her job as a nanny.

She believes that she is one of thousands, possibly millions, of Americans who may have a condition known as “long Covid.” The Biden administration has said people with the condition could qualify for federal disability protections and benefits, which can include health care, housing and unemployment benefits.

But like many others who may have long Covid, Ms. Taveras, 31, has had a hard time proving it. ...

With no direct medical evidence of her condition, she has been turned down for disability coverage twice. Even a note from a prestigious post-Covid clinic in the Mount Sinai hospital system, attesting that Ms. Taveras “continues to experience daily symptoms and is currently unable to work,” was not enough. ...

Since December 2020, the Social Security Administration has determined that about 16,000 applicants were able to provide medical evidence supporting Covid-19 as one of their impairments, according to Nicole Tiggemann, a spokeswoman for the agency, which was not flagging Covid cases before that.

But she would not say how many of those 16,000 applicants had been approved for benefits, or how many people claiming long Covid as a condition had been denied. Many cases are probably still pending; wait times for a determination can stretch for five months or more. ...

Steven Trompeter, 49, was unable to perform his job as an industrial mechanic after getting sick with Covid symptoms, including cough, fever, muscle aches and loss of taste and smell, in February 2020. He applied for disability in December 2020 and was approved six months later. ...

     I'm glad Mr. Trompter got approved but surprised that he would have been approved based solely on long Covid. Maybe there are other health problems involved in his case.

     I'm not seeing any groundswell of long Covid cases. So far, I've got one such case and it could easily be described as a post-ICU syndrome case, an entity that was well known before Covid. I'm not hearing about many long Covid cases from other attorneys.

Reason For Concern?

     I had posted yesterday that extending SSI to U.S. territories is part of the budget reconciliation bill pending in the Senate. Apart from the general threat of last minute snags on the bill as a whole, there is some reason for concern about the SSI part. The problem is arcane Congressional rules. Generally, any bill can be filibustered in the Senate. Budget reconciliation bills are a major exception. Those can't be filibustered. However, you can't put just anything in a budget reconciliation bill. One major rule is that no provision can be part of reconciliation if it would increase the deficit more than 10 years out. Generally, drafters of budget reconciliation bills get around this by including sunset provisions for budget reconciliation items that cost money. Extending SSI to the territories definitely costs money. However, the provision extending SSI to the territories contains no sunset provision (page 1682).

     I think this means that any Senator or Representative can object to the SSI provision. However, there may be some budget reconciliation exception that might cover this. I don't know. I'm no expert in Congressional rules. However, I'm not the only one asking the question.

    Would someone object? I'm not so sure. My guess is that this legislative provision is part of a settlement of litigation on the subject. I'd say that it's a reasonable settlement looked at from either a Democratic or Republican stance. I think the government's posture in the case pending at the Supreme Court is weak. Settling the issue in this way allows for a much better implementation of SSI for the territories. Doing it immediately as a result of a Supreme Court opinion would be a real mess.

     If someone objects, what happens then? Do they pull the provision altogether? Add a 10 year sunset? What is the deal, if there is one, with those litigating with the government on this issue. I don't know.

Republicans Want Field Office Reopened

      Sixty-one members of Congress, all or almost all of them Republicans, have written a letter demanding that Social Security field offices be reopened.