Problem With E-Mail Subscriptions

Readers can subscribe to this blog by e-mail. Over the years, the e-mail subscriptions have worked quite well. Unfortunately, there is some problem at the moment. None of the posts yesterday or today has gone out by e-mail. I am trying to solve the problem but for now, do not rely upon e-mail to read this blog.

The problem is that most of the e-mail subscribers will not read this post. They will think the blog has been inactive because of the impending holiday.

Regs On Scheduling Hearings Clear OMB

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must approve any regulation before it is published in the Federal Register. It has been quite some time since Social Security submitted proposed final regulations to OMB "to clarify that the agency is responsible for setting the time and place for a hearing before an administrative law judge." OMB has finally cleared the final regulations. The OMB website indicates that the completed action was "consistent with change." Social Security should publish these final regulations in the Federal Register in the near future. We will have to wait until then to find out what they say.

Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have been concerned about the proposed regulations since they believe they will take away any control they have over their dockets. Social Security wants the regulations in order to force low producing ALJs to hold more hearings and generally to force ALJs to hold more hearings.

I sympathize with Social Security's desire to do something about extreme low producing ALJs. Many of the extreme low producers ought to find other employment or retire. However, I do not favor an effort to speed up ALJs generally. In fact, I think they are already trying to hear and decide too many cases. In my opinion, the process has already deteriorated significantly.

I am concerned that Social Security management has unrealistic expectations about the number of cases that an ALJ can hear and decide each month. Social Security disability cases, if reduced to current value, are worth about $400,000 each -- without considering the value of Medicare. If an ALJ is hearing 50 cases a month, he or she is ruling on $20 million of benefits a month or almost a quarter of a billion dollars a year. How much do we really want to speed up people who bear such a heavy responsibility?

I am also concerned that low producing ALJs will find it easy to circumvent Social Security's plans to schedule hearings for them by continuing hearings at the last minute. That will not be good for anyone.

Maybe I Should Have Kept My Mouth Shut

I reported earlier that Social Security planned to have a general signup this month in Raleigh for its "Representative Suite of Services," which allows attorneys and others who represent Social Security claimants online access to their clients' files. At this point, there are something like 200-300 attorneys and others being allowed to use this system but no general signup. I am now told that Social Security has decided against a general signup in Raleigh at this time. I do not know the reason. There are things in the system that I wish were designed differently but I have not noticed or heard of any significant glitches in the system. I think I would have heard if others were experiencing significant glitches.

Does OIDAP Regard Public Comments As A Meaningless Formality?

It must be a tense time for those who are heavily invested in Social Security developing its own occupational information system for disability determination.

Social Security has its own Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) working on developing a new occupational information system just for Social Security. However, a National Academy of Science report recommended that Social Security attempt to work with the Department of Labor (DOL) on adapting the O*NET occupational information system to its needs instead of striking off on its own.

Recently, OIDAP gave the public an opportunity to comment on its plans for an occupational information system. That period expired yesterday. However, on June 28, two days before the public comment period ended, OIDAP completed its own review of the National Academy report. No surprise in OIDAP's conclusion: Social Security should press ahead in developing its own occupational information system. David Traver has obtained the review and posted it on SSA CONNECT.

I am pretty sure that OIDAP is not an official Federal Advisory Committee. Even if it were, I do not think that it would be required to give the public an official comment period. As far as I know, there is no legal remedy for OIDAP acting on its own review of the National Academy report -- which is the absolutely critical issue for OIDAP -- before the end of the comment period.

I am tempted to speculate on what is behind OIDAP's odd timing but will not. What I will say is that if it will take many years, lots of money and the support of more than one Commissioner of Social Security for OIDAP to create its own occupational information system. Opponents will have many opportunities to derail the OIDAP train. Treating public comments as a meaningless formality just stiffens the opposition to OIDAP.

OIDAP And The Department Of Labor

I received an e-mail today from the Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) with an attached copy of the transcript of the Panel's March 25, 2010 meeting. I have no idea how many other people were sent this transcript. There was no explanation of why it was sent to me.

At this meeting, the Panel received the report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that recommended that Social Security work with the Department of Labor on adapting O*NET for Social Security's occupational information purposes instead of Social Security creating its own occupational information system from scratch. I would speculate that this transcript was sent to me to demonstrate that OIDAP considered the NAS report and found good reason to reject it.

I have uploaded the transcript via Yousendit. The first 100 people who wish to do so can download the transcript.

I have not been able to study the transcript in depth but it is clear that the Panel's chair, Mary Barros-Bailey, was unreceptive to the NAS report. I expect she believes that she and others asked questions that demolished the NAS report. I would not agree. Judge for yourself. Take a look especially at pages 68-73 and 99-106.

I was not there but I do notice from the transcript that Barros-Bailey and others seemed quite eager to interrupt Nancy Shor's questions. Nancy Shor is the Executive Director of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives (NOSSCR). She may have had a different perspective from Barros-Bailey. I did not notice any other panel member being interrupted in the same fashion as Ms. Shor. I do know that transcripts do not always reflect the tenor of what has happened at a hearing or meeting. Perhaps, Ms. Shor had as much opportunity to ask questions and have them answered as she wished but it does not quite seem that way in the transcript.

Below is one small excerpt from the transcript. This is only one small detail but it is interesting. Margaret Hilton of the National Academy of Sciences is speaking:

We do know that the data collection costs [for O*NET] right now are about $6 million a year, and that updates 100 occupations a year. So that gives you some idea. ...

... [W]henever O*NET adds more occupations, whenever it becomes less aggregated, more disaggregated, as it has done, that is always going to increase your data collection costs, because you have more occupations to go after ...

At least one OIDAP member made the point that this means that the Department of Labor is very inefficient. Possibly. It may also mean that creating and maintaining an occupational information system is incredibly expensive. There are different ways of looking at things.

Interesting

On May 18 Social Security requested that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve new regulations "to prohibit probation or parole violators from serving as representative payees under ... the Social Security Act" which seems innocuous enough. Social Security has now withdrawn the proposal. Why?

The Watchdog Gets It Done

From the St. Paul Pioneer Press:

For Diane Grooms, doing everyday things hurts all the time.

For 25 years, the St. Paul woman has suffered pain in her joints from rheumatoid arthritis; more recently, the pain has been complicated by fibromyalgia. Last summer, the combination got to be too much.

"I feel like somebody took a baseball bat and just beat me," she said.

Unable to continue working, Grooms applied to the Social Security Administration for disability insurance payments. Her application was denied. She asked to have her application reconsidered, and it was denied again. Then she asked for a hearing in front of an administrative law judge....

As a single person, she had no other source of income, such as a working spouse. Before long, she couldn't pay her rent.

She was running out of time and money. Ordinarily, she wouldn't get an appearance before the administrative law judge for another 18 months because of the huge number of Social Security disability cases....

Grooms was broke and behind on her rent, but she said a Social Security official told her she'd have to be homeless before her case would be sped up....

She asked U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum's office to help expedite her case, but the Social Security Administration told the congresswoman's office in early March that Grooms didn't qualify....

As she faced a court eviction hearing in early April, Grooms cast her net wide, asking the Watchdog for help as well as notifying her members of Congress of her increasingly fragile situation. The Watchdog immediately contacted the Social Security Administration, asking the agency to take a fresh look at Grooms' case.

Within days, the Minneapolis Office of Disability and Adjudication Review flagged Grooms' appeal for expedition. Her hearing date was set for June 11.

Deadline Day For OIDAP Comments

Today is the deadline for submitting comments on the proposal by Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Panel (OIDAP) for a new occupational information system. Comments may be submitted online or by fax to (410) 597-0825 or by mail to the Office of Program Development and Research, Occupational Information Development Project, Social Security Administration, 3-E-26 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401.

As tedious as this may seem, the OIDAP proposal is vitally important. This is the most important policy matter addressed by Social Security in more than 30 years.

The OIDAP proposal is drawing several lines of criticisms. Maybe the most important line of criticism concerns Social Security's strong desire to develop its very own occupational information system rather than working with the Department of Labor which has vastly more experience with this sort of thing than Social Security. Why is it so important to Social Security to do this on its own unless it does want to control the outcome of disability determinations? I cannot think of a reason. OIDAP has not given us no reason other than to suggest that the Department of Labor will not work with Social Security which is clearly false. Department of Labor seems mystified by Social Security's go it alone attitude.

I do not think that OIDAP staff or Social Security management gets it. We do not trust you. There is no reason why we should trust you. The way you are acting makes us very nervous.