Union Wants Astrue Out

From Joe Davidson's Federal Diary at the Washington Post:

John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, was among those who successfully pushed to give the Social Security commissioner a six-year term. The thinking, when Congress approved the tenure in 1994, was that it would keep the position beyond the reach of bureaucratic politics.

But now, with a president in office he likes and a commissioner he doesn't, Gage is suffering from a case of Be Careful What You Wish For.

He and other union leaders are leading an effort to push Commissioner Michael J. Astrue out of office.

The union planned to run an advertisement in today's Baltimore Sun saying that under Astrue's watch "budget cuts and critical personnel shortages have made it impossible for your staff to service the public."

Leaders of union committees, councils and locals representing Social Security employees recently voted unanimously for a 23-point resolution expressing no confidence in Astrue, a Bush administration appointee. And Gage's office is asking executive committee members of the AFL-CIO to sign a letter urging President Obama to seek Astrue's resignation.

"If Mr. Astrue refuses to resign, we request that you use your authority . . . and remove Mr. Astrue from office for malfeasance and neglect," the letter says.

Such a finding would be the only way Obama could give Astrue the boot. His term doesn't expire until 2013. Astrue has no plans to quit before then, according to spokesman Mark Lassiter, who also said the commissioner was traveling and unavailable for comment.

The White House also had no comment on the effort to oust Astrue. But with all the problems the president has had with appointees lately, he probably isn't eager to look for more trouble.

The 23 points charge Astrue with shortchanging public service by closing SSA offices, allowing the disability claims backlog to grow and wasting resources by "substantially increasing non-productive managerial staff."

One of the main complaints the union has with Astrue concerns the decision to move Employee Activity Association functions, such as day-care and fitness centers, to other vendors. That was "the straw that broke our backs," reads the advertisement.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) urged Astrue to stop all "plans to undermine" the activity association. "I am troubled by allegations that your administration has made unsupported claims of financial impropriety," her Jan. 9 letter to him said.

Clearly no fan of Astrue, Mikulski expressed concern "that an audit authorized by your office was undertaken for the sole purpose of trying to find a reason to shut down the EAA." She asked for assurances that any future actions would "not serve an ideological agenda."

Astrue responded by saying the activity association had become "a large and complex commercial enterprise that abuses its exclusive access to our employees for the benefit of for-profit subsidiaries." He acknowledged, however, that an investigation "could not prove or disprove most of the serious allegations." Nonetheless, he added, "it was clear that significant deficiencies existed and that employees were being denied the affordable, professional care that their children deserve."

Here is more from the union about the EAA controversy.

Social Security Hastens To Approve Disability Claim For Man Needing Heart Transplant

I posted about the article in the Spartanburg (SC) Herald Journal about a man who needs a heart transplant who had been denied Social Security disability benefits. The newspaper is now reporting that the man has now been approved by Social Security.

There have always been media stories about Social Security claimants who have been denied. I never saw any systemic effort by Social Security to speed up adjudication in those cases until the last year or so. Now, it happens virtually every time that a newspaper or television station runs a story about a person who has been denied Social Security disability benefits. This is not happening by accident. This has to be coming down from the Commissioner's office.

Doing this gives readers or viewers the mistaken impression that the report that they saw or heard was an isolated example, but this is wrong. There are terrible systemic problems.

Hastening to solve the problems of individual claimants who are featured in the media is terrible public policy. Instead of trying to mislead the public about its problems, the agency should be telling the newspapers and television stations the truth, that it is doing the best it can, but that it is badly understaffed and underfunded.

Barack Obama has talked about using another controversy as a "teachable moment." Commissioner Astrue needs to consider the concept and consider what his obligations are as a public servant.

Progress On VOIP

From a press release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation:

Nortel Government Solutions ... completed the core network for the massive new U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA) VoIP [Voice Over Internet Protocol] system within 180 days of initial purchase orders, an aggressive requirement of the 10-year, US $300 million Telephone Systems Replacement Project (TSRP) award. ...

The new system, expected to become one of the largest enterprise VoIP deployments in the world, is already supporting more than 125 offices and more than 33,500 calls daily. To date, the new system has handled over 1.6 million calls. With 12-16 offices added each week, approximately 500 offices will be added per year until all 1,526 offices are online. Nortel Government Solutions has engineered the system to support over 100,000 phones. Installation and maintenance teams are positioned across the country for rapid deployment, training, and support.

NASI Proposals

The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) has produced a set of Social Security proposals that are worth considering. The NASI booklet is difficult to read online. I have pulled out their summary and posted it on the Social Security Perspectives blog for easier reading.

Certainly, the proposal to update Supplemental Security Income will get attention and will probably be adopted. The others, who knows. I just wish that someone would have addressed the two parts of the Social Security Act that I would most like to see changed -- the actuarial penalty for disabled widows benefits and the marriage penalty for disabled adult children. They both sound very technical, but they are both indefensible and hurt innocent people.

Press Release On State DDS Furloughs And Hiring Restrictions

A press release from Social Security:

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, in a letter today to Governor Edward G. Rendell, Chair of the National Governors Association, urged states to exempt their Disability Determination Services (DDSs) from hiring restrictions and furloughs. The DDSs are state agencies that make medical determinations for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability claims.

“I am compelled to write to you to express my grave concern over the hiring restrictions and furloughs that some states are employing,” Commissioner Astrue said. “Each month, SSA provides over $11 billion in Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits to more than 12.1 million citizens across the nation. We could not provide these vital benefits to some of the most vulnerable people in our society without the DDSs’ work.”

Social Security funds 100 percent of DDS employees’ salaries as well as overhead -- about $2 billion nationwide this year. These funds cannot be used by the states for any other purpose, so states do not save money by cutting employees in DDSs – they only slow getting benefits to the disabled. Nevertheless, many governors are imposing across-the-board hiring freezes or furloughs that also affect DDS employees.

States receive significant benefits from the operation of the DDSs. The faster SSA approves claims for benefits, the sooner many disability applicants move from state to federal support. In addition, the salaries for DDS employees funded by SSA reduce unemployment levels in the states.

Can't Get Heart Transplant Because Of Social Security -- Medicare Spokesperson Calls Two Year Medicare Waiting Period "Insane"

From the Spartanburg (SC) Herald Journal:

Brandon Palmer, a 24-year-old from Gaffney, needs a heart transplant. He was diagnosed about two years ago with a condition known as severe cardiomyopathy, which means - in his case - the muscles on the left side of his heart aren't strong enough to pump blood the way they should. His doctor said that side of his heart is likely operating at less than 30 percent of capacity.

But Brandon hasn't been able to get on a transplant list.

He was denied at the Medical University of South Carolina, the family says, because he didn't have insurance. He's been denied access to Medicaid because he has not been classified as "disabled" by the Social Security Administration. And he's been denied disability coverage - and status - by Social Security because twice he's been deemed able to "perform some ... type of work." ...

Brandon's family recounted the story recently as they stood around his hospital bed. He lay there, writhing at times, hooked up to various machines, breathing labored, often able to talk for only a few minutes. ...

If the Social Security Administration classifies someone as disabled, then that person is eligible for two different types of benefits. One is a cash payment that's often just enough to price someone out of being eligible for Medicaid. That benefit, however, does allow a person to qualify for Medicare - after a two-year waiting period."

Congress designed it as a way to save money," said Mary Kahn, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "It's insane."

A spokeswoman for Medicare says the two year waiting period for Medicare after going on Social Security disability benefits is insane! Now that is change!

Update: The newspaper has a hard-hitting editorial about this case.

Fee Cap To $6,000 -- Effective June 22

This notice will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow (update: here's the link to the notice as actually published in the Federal Register):

SUMMARY: We are increasing the maximum dollar amount limit for fee agreements approved under sections 206(a)(2)(A) and 1631(d)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act to $6,000. Effective June 22, 2009, decision-makers may approve fee agreements up to the new limit provided that the fee agreement otherwise meets the statutory conditions of the agreement process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marg Handel, Office of Income Security Programs, phone (410) 965-4639, e-mail: marg.handel@ssa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Social Security Act (Act) provides a streamlined process for a representative to obtain approval of the fee he or she wishes to charge for representing a claimant before the agency. See, §§ 206(a)(2)(A) and 1631(d)(2)(A) of the Act, as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990, Public Law No. 101–508, § 5106. To use that process, the representative and the claimant must agree, in writing, to a fee that does not exceed the lesser of 25% of past due benefits or a prescribed dollar amount. OBRA of 1990 set the initial fee amount at $4,000 and gave the Commissioner the authority to increase it periodically, provided that the cumulative rate of increase did not at any time exceed the rate of increase in primary insurance amounts since January 1, 1991. The law further provided that notice of any increased amount shall be published in the Federal Register. On January 17, 2002, we published a notice raising the maximum fee to $5,300. With this notice, we announce that the maximum dollar amount for fee agreements will increase to $6,000. This increase does not exceed the rate of increase provided in OBRA of 1990. We believe this increase will adequately compensate representatives for their services while ensuring that claimants are protected from excessive fees. A decisionmaker may approve fees up to the new amount effective June 22, 2009. This effective date will ensure adequate time to provide training and guidance to our employees and to make necessary changes in our information technology infrastructure.

Status Of Appropriations -- Are You Wonk Enough To Try To Understand It?

Congress is tied up now with the President's vast and vastly important economic stimulus package, but this is slowing action on two other vital budget matters.

Almost all federal agencies are operating under a continuing funding resolution which allows them to spend money only at the same rate they were spending it in the last fiscal year, which ended September 30, 2008, more than four months ago. This CR (Continuing Resolution), as it is called, expires on March 6. Neither the White House, nor either of the Appropriations Committee chairmen, has released any plan for the omnibus (one big bill for everything, rather than several separate bills for various parts of the government) appropriations bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 -- although much work is going on behind the scenes. Congress Daily reports that there may be action next week on the FY 2009 omnibus, but that the March 6 deadline may not be met and a new CR may be needed. This is not good news for Social Security which will certainly be getting a good deal more money once the FY 2009 appropriation is passed.

The FY 2010 appropriations are also being held up. The new administration needs to get a budget ready to submit to Congress. This is always a challenge but it is especially a challenge with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) already working overtime on the economic stimulus and the FY 2009 budget. OMB is not promising a full budget proposal for FY 2010 until March, which makes it hard for Congress to finish its appropriations work in time to accomplish what everyone desires -- passage of appropriations bills before the beginning of FY 2010, October 1, 2009.

Complicating everything for Social Security is the fact that Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue is a Republican trying to work with a Democratic OMB and a Democratic Congress. Astrue's willingness to even ask for the sort of budget his agency needs is open to question. To what extent OMB and Congress will listen to what he has to say about his agency's appropriation is also open to question. Outside groups are lobbying on Social Security's appropriation and they are being heard, but there is no sign of any coordination between these groups and Commissioner Astrue.

What happens on these bills will have a dramatic effect upon the quality of service that the Social Security Administration offers the public and the working environment for Social Security employees. As wonkish and confusing as this may be, if you are reading this blog this is very important to you.