New Policy For Reopening Due To New Five Year Past Relevant Work Standard

     From Emergency Message EM-24023: 

Beginning June 22, 2024, adjudicators will reopen a prior final agency determination or decision based on the PRW CoP [Past Relevant Work Change Of Policy] if the application of the PRW rule at the time of the prior determination or decision would have resulted in a more favorable determination or decision. 

All of the following conditions must be met to reopen based on the PRW CoP: 

• The claimant or SSA/Disability Determination Services (DDS) (or both) questioned the determination or decision in writing within one year of the date of the notice of the initial level determination on the prior claim. 
• The questioning occurred after, or was pending as of, June 22, 2024. 
• The prior claim was denied at step four or five. 
• The denial depended on a finding that the person had PRW that was last done more than 5 years earlier, transferrable skills from PRW that was last done more than 5 years earlier (without continuity of skills to PRW within 5 years of the prior determination, see DI 25005.015C), or PRW that started and stopped in fewer than 30 calendar days. 
• A revised determination or decision applying the current rules (PRW rule) would be more favorable to the claimant than the prior final determination or decision that would be reopened. ... 

What do we mean by questioning the prior final agency determination or decision in writing?

We consider the claimant or SSA/DDS to have questioned the prior final determination or decision in writing if one or more of the following conditions exist: 

•  The claimant files a written request to reopen the prior final determination or decision. 
• The claimant files a new claim alleging disability began in the period adjudicated in the prior final determination or decision (implied request for reopening). 
• The claimant files a new claim and the adjudicator, on the adjudicator’s own initiative, finds the reopening conditions above are met.
• SSA or the DDS questions the prior final determination or decision meeting the reopening conditions above. ...

    I don't see anything in Social Security's statutes or regulations requiring that reopening must be requested within one year of a prior determination. The standard is four years for Title II and two years for SSI. This dramatically limits the effect.

Bill To Cut Social Security Funding Advances

     From Government Executive:

The House Appropriations Committee voted along party lines Wednesday to advance appropriations legislation that would cut the Social Security Administration’s administrative budget by $450 million next fiscal year. ...

During Wednesday’s committee markup, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., who will retire at the end of this year, filed an amendment restoring the $450 million in cuts, which would bring SSA’s funding flat with its current annual appropriation of $14.2 billion. He warned that, if enacted, the GOP’s proposed cuts would further exacerbate the agency’s customer service crisis. ...

Rep. Robert Aderlholt, R-Ala., who chairs the subcommittee responsible for the bill, defended the cuts, claiming that they would only affect headquarters staff and not any field offices.

“Despite what you may have heard, no field offices will be closed because of this bill,” Aderholt said. “The 4% cut to SSA would come from the $3 billion that Social Security has budgeted for its Baltimore and Washington, D.C., offices, where 61% of the workforce is fully remote. SSA’s mission is customer-facing and it serves America’s most vulnerable population and this egregious use of telework is insulting to them.”

But Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Aderholt’s assurances ring hollow.

“Now, the chairman says that no field offices will close,” he said. “Why does he say that? Because he directs, in the bill, that ‘no field offices will be closed.’ Poof, magic! He didn’t ask SSA whether that would be, he just directed it in the bill . . . The population keeps going up, and the senior population certainly keeps going up, and your assertion that somehow the expenditures to service those rising numbers is static is incorrect. Your math doesn’t work.”

Ruppersberger’s amendment failed by a 31-23 vote.

Legionella Found At Social Security Headquarters

       From Federal Times:

Elevated levels of Legionella bacteria were recently detected in water fixtures during routine testing at the Social Security Administration’s headquarters building in Woodlawn, Maryland, officials said. 

A spokesperson for Social Security said in a statement to Federal Times on Tuesday that after a broad sweep of water fixtures, some came back with elevated levels, which is not unusual given testing experts have told the General Services Administration that roughly half of the water samples they take come back positive. 

Upon retesting, only “a small subset” of water sources in the main campus building indicated elevated levels, according to the official. Impacted fixtures have been removed, and the spokesman said employees have been notified. Officials also said they’ve flushed the system, which helps disrupt any film that have developed over water sources and stops the growth of any naturally present Legionella. …

A Poll

 

online polls

OHO Operating Stats

    A statistical report from Social Security on performance at its Office of Hearings Operations:

Click on image to view full size

 

Report On Ennis Raises Questions

     From  the the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (IC):This investigation began in May 2022. Why did it take them more than two years to finish this simple investigation?

The IC finds by a preponderance of the evidence that IG [Inspector General] Ennis abused her authority and engaged in conduct that undermined the integrity reasonably expected of an Inspector General. In pertinent part, the IC finds that IG Ennis made incomplete, misleading, and inaccurate representations about another OIG [Office of Inspector General] to various government entities; failed to retract, withdraw, or otherwise modify those representations when informed they were untrue; and then wrongfully obstructed the IC’s investigation of her and other SSA OIG executives. Rather than recusing herself from an investigation that concerned her own alleged misconduct due to the inherent conflict of interest, she participated personally and substantially in her official capacity in the SSA OIG’s decision-making regarding the IC’s investigation into her conduct, in clear violation of federal ethics requirements and despite being reminded by the IC in March 2024 of her obligation to recuse herself because the matter being investigated affected her personal interests.(footnotes omitted)

    This investigation began in May 2022. Why did it take them more than two years to finish this simple investigation? Why do they have no criticism or any real discussion of Ennis concerning the substantive allegations made against her? Why did they release this on Friday, July 5 in apparent hopes of burying the story? Why did they tip off Ennis in advance so she could quit her job just before this came out? Is no criminal referral warranted? Why was such a spectacularly unfit person allowed to stay in her job this long?

I Thought That Job One At The Payment Centers Was To Pay People

     From Reducing Processing Centers’ Pending Actions, a report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

...  SSA met its annual PC [Payment Center] pending actions performance measure goal in 4 of the 6 FYs [Fiscal Years] between FY 2018 through 2023. SSA reported it did not meet its goals in the remaining 2 FYs because of unexpected staff reductions, increased workloads, and less than expected overtime funding it would have used to pay employees to process more PC pending actions.

Although SSA achieved its PC pending actions performance goals in 4 of the last 6 FYs, there was no overall reduction in PC pending actions over those 6 years. In fact, the PC pending actions backlog increased from 3.2 million in FY 2018 to 4.6 million in FY 2023. As the backlog grows, many PC pending actions remain unresolved for long periods of time. From a sample of 139 pending actions, 102 (73 percent) were pending for 300 days or more, with 60 of the 102 pending for 500 days or more.

Delays in processing PC pending actions can lead to higher improper payments, which increased some beneficiaries’ financial burden as they waited longer for underpayments or were charged with increased overpayment amounts. If SSA resolved the PC pending actions we reviewed at the earliest possible instance, we estimate it would have determined approximately 528,000 beneficiaries were improperly paid approximately $534 million. After the pending actions were not processed for 12 months, the improper payment amount for those same beneficiaries rose to approximately $756 million. By the time of our review, many of the PC pending actions had been pending for longer than 12 months, and the improper payment amount had increased to approximately $1.1 billion.

    Notice that it didn't seem to bother OIG that the payment centers were frequently failing to pay benefits for long periods of time. The only thing they seemed to have been concerned about was an increase in overpayments. This in a nutshell is the OIG outlook on the Social Security world -- It doesn't matter when or if you pay claimants what they're due; the only thing that counts is that you not overpay them. That outlook is a prescription for disaster for claimants.

Little Support For Cutting Social Security

     Poll results from the Pew Research Center: