Post Mortem Apology

From the Charlotte Observer:

In the final months of his life, Darrin Nelson struggled to pay for his Charlotte apartment and groceries as he battled the effects of AIDS.

He had applied for Social Security disability benefits after he became too sick to work, but government assistance never arrived.

Officials ruled him eligible for cash assistance in February, nearly a month after he died.

Now the Social Security Administration is apologizing for not acting sooner and has promised to give the money Nelson deserved to his mother. ...

Federal officials began looking into Nelson's case last month after they were contacted by the newspaper. Three days later, they awarded Nelson benefits, a Social Security spokeswoman said this week.

Fee Payment Stats

Below are updated statistics on payments of fees to attorneys and others for representing claimants before the Social Security Administration:

Fee Payments
Month/Year	Volume	Amount
Jan-09	28,423	$101,128,880.69
Feb-09	31,352	$112,791,207.17

AFGE Details Complaints Against Astrue

The head of the union local that represents most Social Security employees has released a statement concerning the union's ongoing dispute with Michael Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. The statement was prepared on February 7, but is just now being released to the public by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). I have posted the entire statement on the Social Security Perspectives blog.

Here are some excerpts:

AFGE Local 1923 called for a rally on January 22, 2008 at Headquarters to protest the Commissioner’s actions to shut down the EAA [Employee Activities Association, which is at the heart of the angriest dispute between the union and Astrue] ...

On the day of the rally over 300 SSA employees were greeted by an overwhelming police presence. Commissioner Astrue had summoned police from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Protective Service (FPS) and contract guards. In addition, demonstrating SSA employees were greeted by police dogs. ...

Not only did SSA order scores of police to the rally but unidentified photographers, who apparently worked for either SSA or the police agencies, took pictures of the entire rally.

AFL-CIO Calls On Astrue To Resign

The AFL-CIO, of which the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is a member, is calling upon Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, to resign. The AFGE represents most Social Security employees. Here are a couple of excerpt from the AFL-CIO Executive Council statement:

Current Commissioner Michael J. Astrue was appointed in 2006 for a six-year term that began in February 2007. Out of respect for the country’s decisive vote last fall against the Bush policies and for restoring government to its rightful focus on the people’s interests instead of the monied interests, Commissioner Astrue should resign.

Any sense of decency should have led him to submit his resignation by this time. If he continues to try to hold onto his job, the Obama Administration should seek his ouster.

... [D]espite assurances at his congressional confirmation hearing that he would improve labor relations at SSA, Commissioner Astrue has cut off all communication with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the Association of Administrative Law Judges/ International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (AALJ/IFPTE), and refuses to recognize AFGE and the AALJ/IFPTE as the exclusive representatives of many bargaining unit employees at SSA. He refuses to meet and discuss important work-related issues with AFGE and the AALJ/IFPTE, adversely affecting sound labor relations and employee morale.

Simplifying SSI

It is nearly certain that change is coming for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program administered by Social Security. Income and resource requirements have not been adjusted for inflation in decades. There is widespread agreement that things have to change. The change may go well beyond an inflation adjustment. I have been hearing for some time that the Social Security Administration wants simplification of SSI, but I have heard little about exactly what Social Security wants. The latest issue of the Social Security Bulletin is out. The Bulletin is mostly a tedious statistical journal, but this issue has an article about what may be at the top of Social Security's list of desired SSI changes, a change in the in kind support and maintenance rules. Here is an excerpt from the article:

... [S]implifying policy on food or shelter support to recipients from family and friends is especially compelling. Current policy on such in-kind support requires that recipients answer detailed questions about household composition, household expenses, and any contributions from the recipient and members of the household toward household expenses. This detailed household information is collected not only for initial applications, but also when there are changes in address, household composition, or household expenses. Moreover, although this information is collected for most recipients, much of it is unverifiable. ... [T]here is a consensus among policymakers and program administrators that current SSI policies on in-kind support and maintenance (ISM) are complex, intrusive, and sometimes inequitable. In addition, these policies create a disincentive for families and friends who might otherwise increase food or shelter support to recipients. Finally, year-after-year ISM is shown to be a major source of payment error ...

Over the years, policymakers have evaluated several alternatives to ISM ... Of these alternatives, benefit restructuring has emerged as an interesting option because it simply eliminates all ISM-related benefit reductions, assuring program simplification. The benefit restructuring options considered here incorporate a cost neutrality constraint; that is, the cost of increasing benefits to recipients with ISM is fully offset by other benefit reductions. ...

Under benefit restructuring, benefit reductions for ISM recipients would be eliminated and, to offset the program cost increases, a smaller benefit reduction would be implemented for the large number of adult recipients who live with other adults.

A D'Oh Moment For Some Readers

Social Security is increasing the cap on representation fees charged to Social Security claimants under the fee agreement process from $5,300 to $6,000, effective in June. However, if an attorney or representative already has an agreement with their client that flatly limits the fee to $5,300, the fee will remain limited to $5,300, no matter when the case is finally resolved.

The last time the fee cap was raised almost eight years ago some attorneys and representatives asked their existing clients to sign a new fee agreement with the higher cap. A lot of people, including me, criticized those who did this, on the grounds that it was unethical. But there is something that could have been done to prevent this problem from ever arising. Here is an excerpt from Social Security's Program Operations Manual Series (POMS) that points the way:

• SSA will accept language in a fee agreement that would apply if the Commissioner increases the limit after the date of the agreement. In the examples below, if the decision maker approves the fee agreement on or after the date the Commissioner increases the limit, and the agreement meets all conditions of the fee agreement process and no exceptions apply, SSA will authorize a fee of the lesser of 25 percent of past-due benefits or the increased cap limit:

EXAMPLE 3-1: If SSA favorably decides the claim, I will pay my representative a fee equal to the lesser of 25 percent of my past-due benefits or the dollar amount established pursuant to section 206(a)(2)(A) , which is currently $5,300, but may be increased from time to time by the Commissioner of Social Security.

EXAMPLE 3-2: If SSA favorably decides the claim, I will pay my representative a fee equal to the lesser of 25 percent of my past-due benefits or $5,300 (or such higher amount as the Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe pursuant to section 206(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act).

EXAMPLE 3-3 I will pay my representative a fee equal to 25 percent of any past-due benefits from my claim or, if less, the maximum dollar amount allowed pursuant to section 206(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act, based on the date SSA approves my fee agreement.

Man Charged With Threatening SSA Employee After Being Put On Hold For 30 Minutes

From the Associated Press:

KEENE, N.H. (AP) — A 69-year-old man angry about being put on hold has been charged with threatening to kill a Social Security Administration worker. Police said the man called a Social Security answering service in New York because he was upset about not receiving his check.

He told police he was on hold for more than 30 minutes, and when a supervisor finally told him she couldn't help, he said he was going to kill the first person he met at the Social Security office in Keene.

COBRA Assistance For The Disabled?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) includes assistance for individuals who elect to continue their health care insurance under COBRA after "involuntary termination" from employment. Section 3001, page 396. The unemployed individual need only pay 35% of the health care insurance premium. This applies only to individuals who become unemployed between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009.

Query: Does the term "involuntary termination" include people who cease work due to illness?

I am unable to find anything on the Department of Labor website that answers the question.

Before you say that "involuntary termination" cannot possible cover the situation of an individual who has to stop work due to illness, consider that unemployment benefits are denied to those who voluntarily leave employment without good cause attributable to their employer, but in many states, perhaps most, leaving employment due to illness is considered an involuntary leaving which does not disqualify one from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. (If that were not so, why would we keep having cases with the issue of whether receiving unemployment insurance benefits should disqualify one from receiving Social Security disability benefits?) Remember that the Department of Labor will probably be the agency most involved in interpreting the COBRA part of the ARRA. Unemployment insurance is partially federal and the Department of Labor administers the federal part. This "involuntary termination" language comes closer to the unemployment insurance laws than anything else I can think of. A New York Times article mentions issues concerned with the interpretation of "involuntary termination" although not this one.

The Act provides for expedited review by the Department of Labor or the Department of Health and Human Services for anyone appealing from a denial of coverage -- and they do mean expedited -- since the review is supposed to be completed within 15 business days.