Availability Of Representation At Social Security Needs Some Attention

     The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is a federal advisory body that makes recommendations for federal agencies, generally dealing with process issues in administrative rule-making and adjudication. ACUS is currently studying how agencies can improve representation in cases pending for administrative adjudication.

    Let me suggest that access to representation at Social Security could stand some attention. You say, "How can that be? I've seen TV ads for Social Security attorneys." First, you probably haven't seen nearly as many ads now as there used to be. The number of attorneys handling the cases is down dramatically. Profit margins are down. Television advertising is no longer cost effective for most firms. Second, and more important, while it's easy for SOME Social Security disability claimants to obtain representation, it's hard for MANY others to obtain representation. If you're 55 and older, you'll probably find an attorney without difficulty. If you're under 50, it may be difficult. Some firms explicitly refuse to take on cases of any claimants who are under 50 or 55. Almost all others are careful about taking on clients who are under 50. This makes sense as a business matter since profit margins are low. The chances of success are significantly lower for younger claimants. You can make money on clients who have, let's say, a 60% chance of success but you can't make money on clients with a 40% chance of success. Does that mean that younger people don't deserve representation? No, most of them deserve a fair chance at proving disability. A 40% chance of success doesn't equal a frivolous case. It's still a case that the claimant should have representation on, especially since that claimant needs more help, but, for the most part, he or she can't get it.

    I hear ALJs decry the number of no-shows for hearings. Do they notice how many of those cases are claimants under age 50 who are unrepresented? There's a reason those claimants don't show up. They got discouraged because they couldn't find attorneys even though they would have some reasonable chance of success if they were represented.. That's not good for those claimants and it's not good for the system.

    How do you make me as an attorney who represents Social Security disability claimants more interested in the cases of younger claimants? The only solutions that I know of are to make the cases less difficult to win or to let me charge a higher fee when we do win. 

    Don't dismiss consideration of whether it's too hard for younger disability claimants to get approved. My perception is that over the years that age has assumed a greater and greater weight in determining disability. I get the feeling that attorneys screening calls from prospective clients aren't the only ones applying quick and ready rules of thumb. Would anyone deny that problem exists at the initial and reconsideration levels? Has it crept into ALJ behavior? Age certainly should be important. People naturally become less adaptable as they age. (If you don't understand this, just wait. You'll get older and you'll understand eventually.) However, my impression is that age is too big a factor now. Younger claimants don't get a fair shake. If you're in severe pain, it doesn't matter whether you're 25 or 65, you're not going to be able to work. We're not giving enough consideration to the effects of cognitive limitations and mental illness, which make adaptation difficult even for younger people. We're expecting more of people than is realistic.

    Please, if you're a Social Security employee who thinks Social Security attorneys are foolish or mean or unprofessional for not taking on more cases of younger individuals, leave the agency and start representing claimants yourself. You'll find plenty of younger clients. We'll see how long you last.

A New Argument For Using General Revenues To Augment The Trust Funds

     From the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

... The fact that in 2033 Social Security would be able to pay only 77 percent of scheduled benefits should focus our collective minds.  ... [I]f the cost of currently scheduled benefits simply exceeds what today’s workers are paying into the system, the traditional proposals to reduce benefits or raise payroll taxes would be most relevant.  

However, the cause of the shortfall lies elsewhere.  Specifically, the program’s “pay-as-you-go” financing – with the exception of the recent build-up and spend-down of the current modest trust fund – makes the program look expensive.  This financing approach is the result of a policy decision in the late 1930s to pay benefits far in excess of contributions for the early cohorts of workers.  The decision essentially gave away the trust fund that would have accumulated and, importantly, gave away the interest on those contributions.  The “Missing Trust Fund” provides a strong justification for an infusion of general revenues into the program.  ...

No Statute Of Limitations On Recoupment Of Social Security Overpayments Is Crazy

     From Laurance Kotlikoff writing for Forbes :

... Roy Farmer of Grand Rapids Michigan has Cerebral Palsy. He’s 32. In 2019, out of the blue, he received a clawback letter from Social Security demanding he repay $4902 that his mother received back when he was 11. Roy has spent what is now over three years appealing this judgement. He’s been denied twice? Why? Because they need/want/can’t wait to clawback someone and his mother is deceased. ...

     The ironic part to me, at least, is that the overpayment would have been automatically waived if waiver had been requested when Farmer was a child. Almost certainly, he had no resources of his own then and children are presumed to be without fault.

Over 1 Million Waiting

     The Deseret News in Utah reports that over one million people are waiting for Social Security to act on their disability claims. 

    They include state rankings showing the percentage change from 2019 to 2022. Here are the top ten worst states:

1. Florida = 156%.
2. South Carolina = 147%.
3. Texas = 142%.
4. North Dakota = 132%.
5. Wisconsin = 130%.
6. Kansas = 128%.
7. Arizona = 120%.
8. New Hampshire = 114%.
9. Mississippi = 111%.
10. Georgia = 98%

    Now here are the top ten best states. Note the actual improvement in six of them:

1. Connecticut = 7%.
2. Minnesota = 5%.
3. Washington, D.C. = 2%.
4. Missouri = <1%.
5. Nevada = <-1%.
6. South Dakota = -4%.
7. Rhode Island = -11%.
8. Oklahoma = -11%.
9. Washington = -11%.
10. Vermont = -21%.
11. Alaska = -51%.

Social Security Subcommittee Hearing

     The House Social Security Subcommittee held a hearing yesterday on Social Security Fundamentals: A Fact-Based Foundation. From the written testimony, it appears that the hearing was definitely at the fundamental level, as befits a Subcommittee now under the control of Republicans who generally don't like to get down in the weeds of Social Security issues. They just know that Social Security is "doomed." They've been saying that since 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed. Alas, the voters keep expressing a strong preference that Social Security stay in business.

Every Bad Idea For Social Security That The GOP Has Ever Had, In One Document

    Republicans in the House of Representatives have put forth their plan for what that they hope to extort from the President by threatening to put the U.S. government into default on its debts. Here's what their plan would do to Social Security retirement benefits (begins at page 80):

• Implement a new minimum benefit of 15% of the average wage index;
• "Modernize" the Social Security benefit formula, which is a euphemism for reducing future benefits for those now 54 and younger;
• Increase Full Retirement Age to 70 between now and 2040;
• Eliminate the retirement earnings test for those who are under Full Retirement Age;
• Eliminate auxiliary benefits for high wage earners.
  

    The plan also includes changes in disability benefits (begins at page 74):

• Enact a benefits offset experiment that would reduce disability benefits by $1 for every $2 earned (they must not know that this experiment is underway already);
• Allow FICA reductions for employers with high rates of employee retention, which is supposed to help handicapped people stay employed (which would disadvantage manufacturers);
• Require employment in six of the last ten years, instead of five;
• Time limited disability benefits for some recipients; 
• "Update" the grid regulations;
• Make disability benefits contingent on medical improvement (I don't think they meant to say that but that's what they said);
• Prevent those drawing unemployment benefits from drawing disability benefits;
• Eliminate withholding of attorney fees for representing claimants (at least I think that's what they're saying but they only thing clear about it is that they bear a lot of ill will towards attorneys);
• Close the record "after a reasonable period of time";
• Require Social Security to conduct periodic reviews of ALJ decisions, particularly those of "outlier" judges;
• Prohibit reapplications within 12 months of a denial;
• Increase the waiting period for Medicare from 24 months to 60 months;
• Eliminate the ability to apply for both early retirement and disability benefits at the same time;
• Allow employers and employees a reduced FICA rate if the employer provides long term disability benefits.

I’m Torn; Was There Any Point In Sending This?

      An e-mail to Social Security employees:

From: ^Human Resources

Sent: Monday, April 24, 2023 8:10 AM

Subject: 2022 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government

 

A Message to All SSA Employees

Subject:  2022 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government

 

The Partnership for Public Service recently released its 2022 Best Places to Work (BPTW) in the Federal Government Rankings, which is based on results from the 2022 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS).  SSA now ranks 17 amongst 17 large federal agencies.  Our 2022 BPTW and FEVS results reflect your experiences from last summer – one of our most challenging periods in recent years.  Over the past year, we used that feedback to make workplace improvements to support you in providing trusted service to our customers.

While faced with our lowest staffing levels in more than 25 years, resuming in-person service amidst the ongoing pandemic, and juggling increasing workloads, you worked tirelessly to serve the public.  Because of your commitment to service, the public rated us as the 2nd most trusted agency in the federal government, second only to the National Park Service.  You are the reason for that rating – your service to the public makes a difference.

Your commitment to public service is unwavering, but changes are needed.  For over a decade, we received insufficient and inconsistent funding to administer our programs.  This led to hiring freezes and staff losses, resulting in workload and workplace challenges that directly impact your experiences.  Thankfully this fiscal year, we received a higher funding level, which allows us to start rebuilding our workforce.  Hiring is a priority; and so far, we have onboarded over 3,200 new team members across the agency.  Also, our latest data shows attrition rates are starting to slow down.

Senior leaders value the feedback you provide.  We reviewed last year’s FEVS results, as well as surveys of new hires and those leaving our agency.  Based on that input, we instituted several workplace improvements to accompany our hiring strategy.  For example, you told us transparency is important, so we increased our communications to keep you informed of our priorities and challenges.  We learned how we can better support your work-life balance and help you navigate the hybrid work environment through workplace flexibilities and wellness resources.  We are also improving access to career and professional development offerings to help you take charge of your career.

We know these changes are just a start.  Sufficient funding for future years will allow us to maintain the progress we’ve made, and we will continue to advocate for the support we need.  Additionally, your continued feedback is always welcomed.  The next FEVS – scheduled to occur later this spring – presents another opportunity for you to weigh in on future workplace improvements.

Thank you for your resilience and dedication to the public and our agency!  The public’s high level of trust in our agency is a direct reflection of the service that you provide.  As we pursue our mission, we will strive to make the agency a truly great place to work.

Seems Almost Quaint

     For most of the history of Social Security, all monthly payments of benefits came out on the third of each month. That changed in 1997 so that the Title II payments come out on three dates each month. The date you receive your payment depends upon the day of the month upon which you were born. 

    The Social Security Administration's statement at the time this change was made gives an insight into the level of service that was then prevalent at the agency. This is from a notice published by Social Security in the Federal Register on February 11, 1997 (emphasis added):

SSA’s current practice of paying 47 million beneficiaries within the first 3 days of each month results in a large surge of work during the first week of each month. This surge includes a large number of visitors to field offices and calls to our toll-free 800 number to report nonreceipt of a check, question the amount paid, or ask about other payment-related issues. Approximately 9 percent of all calls during check week concern nonreceipt, compared to 3 percent during the rest of the month. As an example of the surge that occurs around the current payment days, on April 3, 1995, 1,091,282 calls were placed to SSA’s 800 number. On April 14, 1995, the number of calls placed to our 800 number decreased to 229,022. It is important to beneficiaries and customers to be able to reach SSA with fewer busy signals, and we have pledged to enable callers to get through to the 800 number within 5 minutes of their original attempt. However, in fiscal year (FY) 1994, during peak periods, customers encountered busy signals on SSA’s 800 number 40–63 percent of the time and had to wait more than 5 minutes to get through about 30 percent of the time. ...

 Our goal is for our customers to have minimal waits for service when visiting a Social Security field office. Today, SSA does not always meet this goal. In FY 1994 there were 24 million visitors to our field offices. While the average wait during check week for individuals with an appointment was 8 minutes, some individuals with appointments had to wait over 2 hours. Thirty-two percent of the visitors to our offices without appointments in FY 1994 (typically people who have questions related to their payments or who want to report payment delivery problems) had to wait more than 30 minutes after arriving to be served. The average wait during check week for individuals without appointments was 16 minutes, although some individuals without appointments had to wait over 3 hours. ...

    The agency already felt it was under customer service stress way back in 1997 but the level of stress was vastly less than it is now. Adequate service has been defined downward dramatically since then.