Numbers Please

      The common wisdom is that claimants receive the same decision whether their hearing is in person, over the telephone and by video but do we really know? We think we know that the rate at which claimants were approved did not decline, at least to a significant extent, when the pandemic began and the switch was made to telephone hearings but do we know this for sure? I don't recall ever seeing any numbers from the Social Security Administration. A 2% difference probably wouldn't be enough to be noticeable without numbers from a database but a 2% change is not insignificant for a claimant. For that matter, numbers from the beginning of the pandemic are not the same as numbers from the current environment in which claimants can choose the method, although maybe "choose" should be in quotes since many law firms and other representing claimants -- and not just national firms -- always advise phone or video, mainly because it's more convenient for them. I doubt that the differences between phone, video and in person are great but we ought to get the numbers. 

    I have to say, though, that there will be confounding elements to the numbers, if we ever see them. In person is now the default mode. That's where a claimant ends up if he or she doesn't make a choice but unresponsive claimants certainly get denied at a higher rate than claimants who choose a method for their hearing. Also, the selection of video is one generally made by better educated claimants. Their chances of success may be different than for less well educated claimants who can only do telephone hearings. Yes, many, perhaps most, Social Security disability claimants lack the technical skills to download an app, register with the app and then access the app when the time comes for their hearing. There's also the problem that those who live in small towns and rural areas are more likely to select telephone or video since they have to travel farther for an person hearing than those who live in urban areas. Rural and urban claimants don't necessarily get approved at the same rate. Rural claimants, on average, have lower educational levels and less access to health care than their urban cousins.

These Numbers Are Alarming

     From CBS News:

... There are approximately 10.1 million Black children nationwide, and Census data reveals an alarming 9.6% of them, or about 975,000, had lost at least one parent as of 2021. That figure has doubled in the past decade, with a sharp increase due to the COVID-19 pandemic. One study found that Black children lost caregivers at twice the rate of White children from April 2020 until the end of 2022.

Recent Social Security data shows that only about 26% of Black children who have lost a parent — 257,533 — are receiving survivor benefits, according to the analysis by David Weaver, a former Social Security Administration executive and researcher. The comparable percentage for non-Black children is 46%. Roughly 30,000 fewer Black children are receiving survivor benefits than in 2009, the last time the data was broken down by race. ...

For those who are eligible, a lack of awareness that Social Security offers payments for family survivors — and not only retirees — is often cited as the primary impediment to connecting children with the benefits they're owed. The surviving parent or caregiver is responsible for claiming the benefits on the child's behalf, and many are unaware that the benefit exists. ...

    Social Security generally knows when someone dies. Couldn't they send out a notice addressed to the survivors of the decedent at the decedent's old address notifying them that survivor benefits may be available? How difficult is that?

    By the way, the numbers for white kids is itself alarming. The numbers for African-American kids is way beyond alarming.

    Also, this is further proof that when it comes to Social Security, most people know almost nothing and half of what they think they know is wrong.

Nothing Has Happened?

     This appeared in the Washington Post a year ago yesterday:

… The acting commissioner [of Social Security] “has very serious concerns about the issues raised by The Washington Post about the inspector general’s oversight of this program,” Scott Frey, chief of staff to Kilolo Kijakazi, said in an interview. Kijakazi has scheduled a meeting with her senior staff on Monday “to discuss how to proceed,” Frey said. …

A spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee, which also has jurisdiction over Social Security, said the committee is “evaluating a number of steps” in response to the article. …

    Update: This post has received multiple confused comments blaming the Acting Commissioner for not firing the Inspector General. I have mostly deleted those misleading comments. The Inspector General doesn't work for the Acting Commissioner. The Inspector General was confirmed by the Senate for a five year term. She can only be fired by the President, for cause. Blame the President but assign even more blame to the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency which has been investigating Social Security's Inspector General.

FRA For Biden

      From the Motley Fool:

… According to line 20a of the Bidens' 2008 Form 1040, $6,534 in Social Security benefits were recognized. The reason 2008 is so important is because it marked the year Joe Biden turned 66 (the president's birthday is Nov. 20, 1942). In other words, it was the year Joe Biden reached his full retirement age [FRA], which entitled him to 100% of his retired worker benefit. …

     He would have gotten a higher monthly amount if he had waited to age 70. 

I Guess The Name Is OK But It’s All Really Weird

      From what I think is a press release:

Charlie, a neobank for the 62-plus demographic, is looking to solve pain points facing retirees and soon-to-be-retirees.

The fintech, which launched last week, allows account holders to withdraw their Social Security benefits up to four weeks early. The free service is available to account holders who link their Social Security direct deposit to their Charlie deposit account, said Kevin Nazemi, the fintech’s co-founder and CEO. …

     I don’t understand any of this. What’s a “neobank”? What’s a “fintech”? A financial institution named “Charlie”? How can they afford to give people money weeks prior to its actual arrival? What’s the catch?

Making It Official

     The Social Security Administration has posted a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM) in the Federal Register to make official the availability of telephone and video hearings in Social Security cases.

Watch Out!

    Watch out. I've just received a scam phishing e-mail directed squarely at Social Security attorneys. It includes this: "You have a new document from Direct Fee Payment for Title 2 Claimant Representation" 

 

    Don't open the attached document!

What Effect Would A Federal Bond Default Have On The Social Security Trust Fund?

    If there's a default on the federal debt it would affect the market value of previously federal bonds. If the prevailing interest rate jumps, to let's say 8%, investors will pay a good deal less for previously issued bonds paying only 2.5%. Would that affect the value of the federal bonds held by the Social Security trust funds? I know that they can't sell the bonds on the open market but wouldn't a default affect the value of the bonds held in the trust fund? How do they value them on their books?

    Also, I  can imagine that if there is a delay in paying interest or principal on bonds that this could affect regular payment of benefits. The agency might not be able to get the money needed to pay benefits if they can't get money from their T-bills in time.

    On the other hand, a big increase in interest rates would help the trust funds gain more interest payments on newly issued bonds but, then, the major recession produced by a default on U.S. bonds certainly wouldn't help receipts and much higher inflation would definitely hurt the trust funds -- as well as beneficiaries.

    I hope and expect that all of this will remain theoretical. The consequences of a federal default are hard to even contemplate.