Jul 3, 2010
Tip Of The Hat To The Oregonian
Trudy Lieberman of the Columbia Journalism Review gives The Oregonian a "tip of the hat" for its article on the plight of those who have been approved for Social Security disability benefits but who face a two and a half year wait for Medicare benefits. Well deserved.
Jul 2, 2010
Hiring Freeze
An e-mail message to Social Security employees:
From: ^Commissioner Broadcast
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 11:57 AM
To: Undisclosed recipients
Subject: COMMISSIONER'S BROADCAST--07/02/10
A Message To All SSA And DDS Employees
Subject: FY 2011 Budget Update
I want to update you on the status of our fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget request. It is likely that Congress will not pass our FY 2011 budget by October 1, and we will begin FY 2011 operating under a continuing resolution (CR). The CR will severely limit our spending to a prorated share of our FY 2010 appropriation.
A CR is always disruptive, but will be particularly difficult in FY 2011. For the last two years, we have had an extra $500 million in Recovery Act funding available in addition to our regular annual appropriations. The combination of these two funding sources has allowed us to hire aggressively and work overtime to reduce our disability backlogs, handle increasing claims, and better serve the American public. Under a CR in FY 2011, we will have less funding than under recent CRs to support our higher staffing level because we are not permitted to include the Recovery Act funding as part of our previous year baseline.
Due to this anticipated drop in funding, we must begin preparing for a CR now. Effective immediately, all headquarters and regional office staff components will be in a full hiring freeze. Beginning on October 1 and continuing through the first quarter of FY 2011, our operational components, including the State Disability Determination Services, will only be allowed to replace staffing losses. We will not reduce overtime during the first quarter. However, to fund overtime and this minimal staffing replacement, we must defer any additional hiring and all other costs that are not critically essential to keeping our doors open.
The additional funding we’ve received in the past three years has allowed us to make great strides, and I am proud of our many accomplishments. For 18 straight months, we have reduced the hearings backlog by over 74,000 cases, despite increased applications. At the same time, we have eliminated nearly four months of waiting time for hundreds of thousands of Americans awaiting hearings. In addition, we have improved service across the agency. DDS accuracy and productivity remain high, despite the destructive and unnecessary furloughs and staffing restrictions imposed by some states. We have increased our CDRs and redeterminations, which have resulted in a significant increase in SSI payment accuracy. We have reduced our waiting times in field offices and on the 800 number. In fact, we are answering our 800 number calls faster than any time in nearly a decade. I know the American people appreciate your hard work and dedication.
While we must make steep cuts in our spending, I will do what I can to minimize the disruption to our positive momentum. This plan is a temporary measure that we cannot sustain beyond December; I am hopeful that the CR will end before we have to take more drastic measures. Our services are vital to the financial stability of millions of Americans, and you can be sure I will be doing everything possible to persuade Congress to approve the critical funding that the President has requested for us.
Michael J. Astrue
Commissioner
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.
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.
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.
Jul 1, 2010
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.
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.
Jun 30, 2010
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)