Service Sucks At Social Security -- Part One Million

      From AARP:

When Jim Sauer read the letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) in October 2021, he was puzzled. Because he was claiming benefits a year after his full retirement age, he was expecting bigger payments than what the SSA said he would receive. So Sauer called the Social Security office near his home in Fairfield Township, Ohio, to address the problem. But after 12 conversations with local SSA customer service representatives and two calls to the agency’s national call center, Sauer remained not only puzzled but also frustrated.​

“It’s not just the issues themselves,” says Sauer, a former career employee at a Fortune 500 company who worked in international finance. “It’s when you call, you wait on hold forever. And then when you finally get ahold of someone, they seemingly just don’t care about helping you and are highly unqualified to answer your questions or to lead you to where you could get answers.” ​ ...

As with most things, customer service issues are tied in large part to money. Since 2010, the SSA’s operating budget — set each year by Congress — has declined by 13 percent and its staff by 12 percent, while the number of Social Security beneficiaries has increased 22 percent, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. ​ ...

Field Office Managers Have Complaints

     From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General: 

... During our interviews with management and our office visits, we learned office managers—who are not members of a bargaining unit— were the main staff reporting to the offices throughout the pandemic. Approximately half of the office management we interviewed believed they were treated fairly; while the remaining office managers indicated SSA leadership could have provided them more support during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Sixteen members of management stated they felt overworked, dispensable, and unappreciated, and 45 said the Agency did not realize the large volume of non-portable work for which they were responsible. Management noted it was a challenge to juggle their normal managerial duties and the non-portable workload. ...

Harder To Win In Rural States Which Are Mostly Red States

      From Blue Virginia:

Recent data from the Social Security Administration (SSA) shows that rural states are more likely to have low disability claim approval rates as compared to more urban states.

Of the top 15 states with the lowest disability claim approval rates, Oklahoma (30 percent), Hawaii (30.2 percent), and West Virginia (31.9 percent) have the lowest overall approval rates.

Seven of the remaining 15 states have approval rates that fall at or below 35 percent: Alabama (32.3 percent), Kentucky (32.9 percent), North Carolina (33.5 percent), New Mexico (34.4 percent), Florida (35 percent), Indiana (35.2 percent), and Maryland (35.9 percent).

The other six states have marginally higher approval rates. Still, they fall below the national approval rate average of 41.7 percent: Montana (36.2 percent), Utah (36.2 percent), Arizona (36.4 percent), Mississippi (36.6 percent), Georgia (36.7 percent), and Tennessee (37.9 percent). ...

If They Haven't Gotten Better, Why Are We Ending Their Benefits?

      From Does Welfare Prevent Crime? The Criminal Justice Outcomes of Youth Removed From SSI by Manasi Deshpande & Michael G. Mueller-Smith (emphasis added):

We estimate the effect of losing Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits at age 18 on criminal justice and employment outcomes over the next two decades. ... We find that SSI removal increases the number of criminal charges by a statistically significant 20% over the next two decades. The increase in charges is concentrated in offenses for which income generation is a primary motivation (60% increase), especially theft, burglary, fraud/forgery, and prostitution. The effect of SSI removal on criminal justice involvement persists more than two decades later, even as the effect of removal on contemporaneous SSI receipt diminishes. In response to SSI removal, youth are twice as likely to be charged with an illicit income-generating offense than they are to maintain steady employment at $15,000/year in the labor market. As a result of these charges, the annual likelihood of incarceration increases by a statistically significant 60% in the two decades following SSI removal. The costs to taxpayers of enforcement and incarceration from SSI removal are so high that they nearly eliminate the savings to taxpayers from reduced SSI benefits.

     You've been granted SSI disability benefits as a child. It wasn't easy. You had to have been pretty sick. However, at age 18, even though you haven't gotten a bit better, you're made to prove all over again that you're disabled and in many, many cases cut off your SSI, leaving you with no income. Why? Does turning 18 make people healthier? How can we realistically expect anything other than bad results from such a brutal policy? This study is looking at just the dollar costs to the government. What about all the misery caused to disabled people and their families? That has value too.

Going Online To Schedule Appointments To File Claims

      Under the Paperwork Reduction Act Social Security must post notices when it develops new forms requiring information from the public. This is from such a notice posted today in the Federal Register:

... SSA developed an online tool to allow internet users to request an appointment to file an application for benefits and to establish a protective filing date with SSA. The electronic protective filing tool will allow individuals to submit information for the appointment request using a computing device, such as a personal computer or handheld (mobile) device instead of calling SSA by phone or visiting an FO [Field Office]. The tool will be available to potential claimants, as well as those individuals assisting them ...

[T]he system will ask the individual to tell us whether they are answering these questions about themselves, or about another person. To do so, the system will present several options for individual to select from the categories of individuals who, under current regulations, can establish a protective filing date. The next screens ask for basic information about the individual who will be claiming benefits, or requesting SSI payments. Additionally, the tool will collect the name, phone number, and email address (optional) of the person submitting the information, if that person is different than the person who will be claiming benefits or SSI payments. Once the system collects the data, it gives the individual the opportunity to review the information provided and electronically sign and submit the form. The system then transmits the information into eLAS [?] and establishes a protective filing date. ...

     The notice does not say when this might come into effect. The agency estimates that only 21,250 of these forms will be completed annually, which sounds awfully low.

Fighting To Survive

 

The Least Partisan Issue

 

EMs Allowing Benefits For Those Who Had Been Unable To Marry Due To Unconstitutional State Laws

      Social Security had earlier announced that it was settling two class actions concerning those who had been denied benefits due to the nine month duration of marriage requirement for widows/widowers benefits in the setting of couples who had been unable to marry due to state laws, later found unconstitutional, prohibiting same sex marriages. Now, the agency has issued two Emergency Messages (EMs) showing how it will implement the new policies.

     The Thornton v. Commissioner EM and the Ely v. Saul EM tell agency adjudicators to consider these questions in determining whether there was an intent to marry that was thwarted by unconstitutional state laws:

· Would the claimant have married their partner if not for a State law that prohibited same-sex marriage? 

· What date would the couple have married if they were not prohibited from doing so? 

· Did the law of the State where the couple lived permit same-sex marriages before the NH died? For information about when States and U.S. territories permitted same-sex marriages, refer to GN 00210.003. 

· Did the couple have a commitment ceremony or attempt to have the relationship formally recognized in any other way prior to the NH’s death? 

· Did the couple exchange commitment rings? 

· Was the claimant in a committed relationship with the NH? If so, for how long?

· Did the couple live together? If yes, how long did they live together?  

· Did they own property together?

· Did the claimant inherit from the NH based on a will?

· Did the NH name the claimant as a beneficiary for life insurance or retirement benefits?

· Did the couple have children together or did they raise any children together from prior relationships?

· Did the claimant and the NH share joint responsibility to care for one another?· Would the claimant and the NH have been otherwise eligible to marry if the law had not barred same-sex couples from marriage? Consider the following questions when determining whether the parties were eligible to marry:

· Were the claimant and NH related to each other in a way that would prevent them from marrying?
· Were the claimant and NH both over the age of 18 during their relationship (or, if not, over the relevant age of majority to marry)?
· Were the claimant and NH prevented from marrying each other because one of them was married to someone else?

· Did the couple choose not to marry prior to the NH’s death for reasons other than a State law prohibition on same-sex marriages?

· Is there any other available evidence regarding whether the couple would have married, and what date they would have married, if State law did not prohibit same-sex marriages?