Report On AI At Social Security

     Here's a piece by four researchers touting Social Security's progress in Artificial Intelligence. It's somewhat odd. Apparently, it hasn't been published unless you consider releasing it online as publication. It has no date on it. I don't see any source cited from after 2021 so this may be a few years old. I may not the one who should say this but I'm not sure if what they're calling "Artificial Intelligence" would generally be called "Artificial Intelligence" today.

A Tale Of Two Trust Funds

     Social Security has released information showing how its trust funds have done through the end of 2023. Here are summaries for the Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust fund for the last five years. You'll notice that they're heading in opposite directions. I expect that money will eventually be diverted from the Disability Insurance Trust Fund to the Old Age and Survivor's Trust Fund, not that it will be enough to make much difference.

Old-Age and Survivors Insurance
(Amounts in millions)

Calendar year	Total income	Total outgo	Net increase in asset reserves	Asset reserves at end of calendar year
2019	$917,873	$911,423	$6,450	$2,804,322
2020	968,348	960,954	7,394	2,811,716
2021	942,856	1,001,936	-59,080	2,752,636
2022	1,056,718	1,097,455	-40,737	2,711,899
2023	1,166,885	1,237,294	-70,409	2,641,490

Disability Insurance
(Amounts in millions)

Calendar year	Total income	Total outgo	Net increase in asset reserves	Asset reserves at end of calendar year
2019	$143,901	$147,876	$-3,974	$93,083
2020	149,748	146,260	3,488	96,570
2021	145,470	142,646	2,824	99,394
2022	165,063	146,470	18,594	117,988
2023	183,801	154,815	28,985	146,973

What About Occupational Information? Does Scientific Integrity Apply To That?

     From today's Federal Register:

The SSA is soliciting comments and suggestions from the public on the DRAFT Scientific Integrity Policy of the Social Security Administration (DRAFT SSA Scientific Integrity Policy). The DRAFT SSA Scientific Integrity Policy codifies expectations to preserve scientific integrity throughout SSA scientific activities, establishes key roles and responsibilities for those who will lead the agency’s scientific integrity program, and, as appropriate, establishes relevant reporting and evaluation mechanisms.

    Social Security uses occupational information in determining which disability claims to approve. The source it's using now mostly dates back to 1979! Everyone concedes that it's hopelessly out of date but they're still using it. They've been working on a replacement now for well over a decade but almost nothing has been released and the agency is extremely vague on what's going on and when they'll be finished. I'm not the only one who's convinced that they keep delaying releasing anything because the data doesn't jibe with what the agency wants it to say. I think they want to keep massaging the data until it says that they don't have to change who they're approving and who they're denying even a little bit. Am I being unfair to Social Security? They can always make a full release of the data collected to date and give a good explanation for the delay. Does anyone still believe that this remains a good faith effort to collect data?

A Poll

online polls

Social Security Disability Recipients Hit Hard By Covid

     From Health Affairs Scholar:

New data from the Social Security Administration suggest there were 260 000 excess deaths in the United States among current or former disability beneficiaries during the first 22 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. These beneficiaries accounted for 26% of all excess deaths in the United States during this period. ...

Social Security Needs More Offices In Rural Areas, Not Fewer

Bryan County, OK

     From Barriers and Communications Preferences of Rural Populations: A Scoping Review by Megan Henly, Shreya Paul, Debra Brucker, Andrew J. Houtenville, Kelly Nye-Lengerman and Stacia Bach

Key Findings:


Rural areas of the United States warrant separate attention when considering how to communicate information about federal programs in part because their geography affects how information can be shared effectively (remoteness results in greater distance between field offices and lower level of broadband internet access) and in part because rural communities have a higher representation of many program-eligible groups (e.g., those older than 65, those who have a disability, and those who are low-income).

Mode of program communication affects the likelihood of the information reaching the public. Traditionally, the Social Security Administration mailed statements to all workers. In addition, private-sector employers often trained new hires about funding their retirements during orientation. As both these forms of communication have been substantially reduced since 2011, the public’s knowledge of OASDI benefits has been low.

When considering the general shift toward online information dissemination, this is a particular concern for those in rural areas, people with disabilities, and groups with low digital literacy. Broadband access is not as ubiquitous in rural areas as it is in nonrural ones. Perhaps as a result, many who reside in rural places are digitally illiterate and would have difficulty navigate online. In addition, most federal websites do not meet federal accessibility guidelines, creating a barrier for those with disabilities.

Community context is important, particularly when considering program enrollment that may carry a stigma, such as SSI or food and energy assistance. Identifying local community partners who can provide technical assistance may help. For communities of particularly marginalized groups (e.g., the unhoused, those recently released from prison, low English proficiency individuals, and those with serious mental health disabilities), having dedicated staff trained in dealing with populations facing vulnerabilities may be particularly useful. ...

It's An Idea

    From The Case For Using Subsidies For Retirement Plans To Fix Social Security by Andrew Biggs and Alicia Munnell:

The U.S. Treasury estimates that the tax preference for employer-sponsored retirement plans and IRAs reduced federal income taxes by about $185-$189 billion in 2020, equal to about 0.9 percent of gross domestic product.1 However, the best evidence suggests that the federal tax preferences do little to increase retirement saving.  ...

The [report] concludes that it makes little sense to throw more and more taxpayer money at employer plans and IRAs. In fact, the case is strong for eliminating the current tax expenditures on retirement plans, and using the increase in tax revenues to address Social Security’s long-term financing shortfall. ...

    This doesn't appeal to me. It's very unlikely to pass. There aren't specific tax revenues involved, just a reduction in tax preferences. I'd be more in favor of dedicating revenues from the estate tax, excise taxes and tariffs to Social Security but I doubt that would be enough to matter much. It's becoming more and more obvious to me that the only solution to the long term funding shortfall is an infusion of general tax revenues. The things that people discuss, raising full retirement age and lifting the cap on wages covered by the FICA tax, even together, aren't nearly enough to solve the long term funding problem.

This Is What's Going On At Ground Level

    Here's a note made recently by an employee at my firm about a pending disability claim that may give you some idea of the state of service at Social Security :

TC [telephone call to] ____ DO [District Office] and she said there is an initial claim that has been sitting there since 7/14/2023. She is sending it to the CR [claims representative] Mr. ____ but he is off.

    In case you don't understand the context, the DO only takes the claims. They don't make medical determinations. Those are made at Disability Determination Services (DDS). Under normal circumstances -- which don't currently exist -- new claims are forwarded from the DO to DDS in a week or two. Even if there is some technical problem, the claim isn't supposed to be sitting at a DO for six months! 

    For this to happen there has to be no effective tickler system at the DO. I'm sure there's supposed to be one but it's broken down entirely under the enormous pressure of overwhelming workloads.

    I'm not even mad at the personnel involved because I have an idea of just how overwhelmed they are.  If a case happens to fall by the wayside now, we're just about at what I've described before as the "Not now. Not later. Not ever" stage of service. Problems aren't being straightened out.

    And please don't blame my firm. We've been trying for three months to find out what happened to the case. It's almost impossible to get anyone on the phone. There's no smart trick that solves cases like this. There's far too many of them. We're not supposed to be Social Security's tickler system anyway.