Let Me Circle Back To This

     Let me circle back to the article I posted about yesterday concerning a man being asked to repay money allegedly overpaid in 1978. Here's a part of the article I didn't quote yesterday (emphasis added):

Byrd's father died when he was 4 years old. So his mother received social security for him while he was a minor. 

"This is not money I ever saw. I was not even living at home at the time," he said.

    This suggests how the overpayment occurred.  His mother wasn't entitled to the child's benefits she received on him because he wasn't living with her. So how is this an overpayment to him? His mother took money from him. He was the one injured back in 1978 and you're now compounding the injury by trying to force him to repay money that was taken from him?

Nobody Mentioned Waiver But The Bigger Issue Is The Lack Of A Statute Of Limitations On Overpayments

     From KDFW:

...  [A]n Arlington [TX] man is being told he owes back money that was paid to his mother — in 1978.  ...

The SSA is asking Jimmy Byrd to pay them more than $1,400 that was paid 45 years ago to his mother who died back in 2011. He could not believe his eyes when he opened a letter from the SSA last month. 

"I read the paperwork, and it was from January to June of 1978," he said. "Back in 1978, I was only 17 years old." ...

Byrd filed an appeal.

"Two weeks ago, I received a second letter stating I'm going to have to pay it, and I thought that's not right," he said. "I got in my car, went back down to the social security board."

Bryd told his story again.

‘The gentleman looked at me from behind the counter and said, 'You know, that is just the way it is,’" he said.

Byrd signed an agreement to have $100 a month deducted from his $1,800 social security check for the next 14 months.  ...

    Why, oh why, is there no statute of limitations on overpayments? These cases happen all the time. Of course, this overpayment would have been wiped out with a waiver request but it's easier to tell someone "that is just the way it is" than it is to help with a waiver request.

Proposed Regs On Consideration Of Past Work Advance

     The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) -- the most important government agency you've never heard of -- has approved proposed Social Security regulation changes with the title, Intermediate Improvement to the Disability Adjudication Process: Including how we Consider Past Work. There's no way to know for sure at this point since we have no more than vague descriptions of what's included but the proposed regulations will likely reduce the number of years of past work considered in determining disability.

    The proposal will now be published in the Federal Register and the public will be able to comment. Social Security must consider the comments before publishing the regulations in final form so they go into effect. This process will take months at the least.

    When I posted about this proposal going to OIRA there were several comments posted here by those who felt this proposal would hurt Social Security disability claimants. If you think this is the case, don't make comments here on Social Security disability issues. You don't have enough knowledge to offer meaningful comments. If this proposal reduces the time frame considered from 15 years to, let's say, 5 years, that's a modest improvement from the point of view of disability claimants. And, no, this isn't some controversial loosening of standards.  I don't think that 15 years ever made sense. It certainly doesn't make sense now. With a nomination for Social Security Commissioner pending, the agency and OIRA are being extremely careful to avoid doing anything the least bit controversial. That's probably an important reason why I've had so little Social Security news to post lately. This proposal wouldn't be going forward now if it were controversial.

Yet Another Golden Oldie

     A post on this blog on June 9, 2020:

    The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has issued a brief report recommending that the Social Security Administration "use evidence-based measures to evaluate access to agency services" which isn't the most exciting recommendation you'll find even in the context of government advisory board reports. There's another more complete report which adds detail. However, the brief report includes this chart which I think is far more interesting than the text in either report. (Click on the image to view full size.)

  

    What I get from this is that the dramatic increase in internet services provided by the Social Security Administration has had almost no effect upon the demand for services provided in person or over the telephone. 

     The idea that Social Security can wean the public off personal service so that in the future the public will just deal with the agency through its online services is bunk. There's no reason to expect that's ever going to work. By all means, provide online services but don't expect that online services will ever replace field offices and telephone service.

By Far The Most Read Post Ever On This Blog

     From this blog on May 22, 2022:

“Serious Concerns” About IG

      From the Washington Post:

… 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. …

     An extreme reduction in productivity has been signaling for months that something is wrong at OIG.

 

 

    And, of course, that Inspector General is still on the job.

He Didn't See It Coming

     From this blog on July 9, 2021:

President Fires Saul And Black

      With no fanfare, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice issued an opinion yesterday that the President may remove the Commissioner of Social Security from office notwithstanding the statutory provisions limiting removal from office. An opinion had been requested by the Deputy Counsel for the President.

     Update: Senator Grassley has tweeted that he's hearing that the President may oust Andrew Saul from his position as Commissioner. Senator McConnell has retweeted this saying "httI agree with @ChuckGrassley. This removal would be an unprecedented and dangerous politicization of the Social Security Administration."

     Further update: I've received several reports that there was a blast e-mail to Social Security employees at 4:30 today from an Acting Commissioner of Social Security indicating that Saul and Black are gone.

     And another update: The Washington Post reports that Saul still believes he’s Commissioner and plans to report for work on Monday — remotely from his home in New York City. Who’s going to break it to him?

How Field Offices Waste Their Time

     From a "Dear Colleague" letter from Dawn Bystry, Deputy Associate Commissioner, Office of Strategic and Digital Communications, Social Security Administration:

Recently, we notified you that we are no longer accepting faxed applications. We appreciate the feedback we received on the notification and want to provide clarifying information. ...

As you know, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted our services and the public’s ability to apply for benefits in person. In response, we implemented various temporary flexibilities – temporary changes to our policies and business processes. These flexibilities included accepting faxed applications as validly signed applications if they contained a legible, handwritten signature.  ...

With the end of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency as of May 11, 2023, we evaluated our temporary flexibilities and decided to discontinue accepting faxed applications. Since we have reopened our offices to walk-in traffic and expanded in-person services, we determined that continuing to accept signatures on faxed applications was no longer justified given the risk that bad actors could use faxed applications to commit fraud. However, you can still use a fax to help your clients. Although we will no longer accept faxed, signed applications as valid applications, a claimant can still submit a faxed application to establish a protective filing date. Upon receiving the faxed application, we will contact the claimant or a proper applicant, go over the information provided, and obtain a signature to validate the application. ...

    I've got a few questions:

• What degree of problem has there ever been with faxed claims?
• Why is a faxed claim more subject to fraud than a mailed claim or any other type of claim?
• How does a fraudulent filed disability claim actually get approved? They don't just look at the form and put someone on benefits. (I know there's presumptive disability but that really wouldn't get you very far with a fraudulent scheme.) Disability claims have to proceed through disability determination. That usually involves phone calls with the claimant. Medical evidence is gathered. There is at least one internal level of review after a determination that someone is disabled. Don't you think there would be problems getting a phony claim through all this without anyone noticing that something looks fishy? I'm no expert on fraud but I'm pretty sure that there are easier ways to commit fraud than submitting a fraudulent disability claim by fax.
  
• Does Ms. Bystry have any clue about the degree of stress that the field offices are under? Maybe she should work in one for a month or two.
  
• Why does Ms. Bystry think it important to waste field office time with such obsessive concerns?
• If she's so concerned about security, maybe she should just force claimants to show up in the office with three types of identification? (I hope I'm not giving her ideas.)
• Is there anyone over Ms. Bystry who can ask whether this emphasis on security is a bit too much?

Sanctioned Representatives

     The Social Security Administration has posted an updated list of "Registered and Unregistered Sanctioned Representatives."

    The list has never seemed that interesting to me but it always draws a good deal of attention whenever I post about an update which isn't often, even though they release an update almost every month.