The report shown below was obtained from Social Security by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR) and published in its newsletter, which is not available online to non-members. It contains basic operating statistics for Social Security's Office of Hearings Operations (OHO).
 |
| Click on image to view full size |
From the Michigan Retirement and Disability Research Center:
Disparities in Social Security claim ages have risen since the early 1990s. With high earners increasingly likely to delay claiming, and also living longer on average than lower earners, late claimants may differ in critical ways from early claimants. Using Social Security Administration data and focusing on men, we find that late claimants have lower mortality than those who claim at age 62, so late claimants are adversely selected. As a result of selective claiming combined with improvements in actuarial adjustments, the return to delaying claiming has become systematically positive for those who actually delay, but not for those who claim early. We further find that selective claiming increases benefits by more for those with higher lifetime earnings because their return to delay exceeds actuarially fair amounts by larger margins. Lastly, we find that selective claiming has a modest effect on total payouts, but a more consequential effect on inequality in lifetime benefit payouts. In the aggregate, the increase in Trust Fund payouts as a result of adverse selection in claiming was 0.5% for the most recent retiring cohorts. Yet, lifetime benefit payouts are 1.9% higher for those in the highest quartile of lifetime earnings as a result of claim-age differences, compared to what payouts would be if they had the same claim ages as those in the lowest quartile, and this contributes 2.8% to the difference in expected lifetime benefits between the highest and lowest quartiles.
Clevelanders question why Social Security field office is still closed.
From Actions Needed by SSA to Ensure Disability Medical Consultants Are Properly Screened and Trained, a report by the Government Accountability Office:
SSA cannot be sure that the state agencies’ consultants are qualified and trained to appropriately inform decisions on disability claims. SSA policy requires state agencies to screen their consultants by checking them against a database of individuals barred from participating in federal programs. Also, SSA policy sets requirements for state agencies to provide initial and follow-up training. However, state agencies told us they do not always do so.
Of the 52 agencies:
• 14 said they did not consistently perform required checks on consultants either when hiring or annually, and
• Nine said they did not give consultants some element of required initial or refresher training.
The only requirement is that they not have a history of involvement in defrauding the federal government and they don't always enforce even that minimal standard? Is that how you run a quality program? Are opinions from such consultants entitled to deference?
After yesterday's oral argument before the Supreme Court I had expressed optimism that the Court would find it unconstitutional to deny SSI benefits to U.S. citizens who live in Puerto Rico. Others, including a writer for the highly-regarded SCOTUSblog, felt otherwise.
Let me explain. There were a number of questions asked by the justices about whether finding this exclusion unconstitutional would trigger litigation claiming denial of equal protection because certain laws favor one state or one region over another. Although the attorney representing Mr. Vaello-Madero could have done a better job of expressing it, the answer seemed simple to me. This sort of lawsuit can already be brought but seldom is because all that is required to withstand an equal protection challenge is a "rational basis" for a law. That's a minimal requirement that would normally be met. It's just that in this case, the exclusion of SSI is so obnoxious that it cannot even meet a minimal requirement. If a statute is found that is as obnoxious as this one, then by all means the Court should find it unconstitutional but such a statute should be almost nonexistent. The states have representation in Congress. Puerto Rico doesn't. My interpretation of the questioning was that the Justices want to make sure they write a narrow decision finding it unconstitutional to deny SSI in Puerto Rico and were inquiring about how they should do it. Another interpretation would be that the justices were expressing reasons why it would be too dangerous to give relief to Mr. Vaello-Madero.
Anyway, listen to the oral argument yourself and tell us what you think.
The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College has issued a report titled How to Increase Usage of SSA's Online Tools. I don't know that the report presents any new ideas but it does include this interesting chart which shows what groups are and aren't filing online:
 |
| Click on image to view full size |
From KTLA:
Mamie Walker is sick and tired of the government abruptly cutting off her social security benefits, leaving her unable to pay her rent and buy food. She said it’s all because of a mistake no one can explain, KTLA sister station WFLA reported.
Walker hasn’t received benefits for the past two months. She received a letter from the U.S. Social Security Administration saying she owes over $237,000 in “overpayments” and won’t receive benefits again until September, 2034. She would be 100 years old. ...
This is the second time Walker asked for help after her social security benefits were cut. In 2019, the government claimed Walker owed over $200,000 in old student loan debt. Walker, who never went to college, had no idea what that was about. ...
A Social Security Administration representative said this would be investigated again and they’ll try to assist Walker in getting her benefits back.
