ACUS Draft Report

     From a draft report of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) (emphasis added):

In order to promote greater decisional consistency and streamline the adjudication process at the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] hearing stage, SSA [Social Security Administration] should consider: 

(a) requiring claimants or their representatives to submit pre-hearing briefs in a standardized format that, among other things , summarizes the medical evidence and justification for claimants’ eligibility for benefits; 
(b) expanding the use of video hearings, in a manner consistent with sound technological practices, that balances improved efficiency (i.e., timeliness and costs of adjudication) and fairness of the proceedings and participants’ satisfaction with them. SSA may wish to offer incentives to claimants who opt for video hearings, such as faster scheduling of hearings (as compared to in - person hearings) or more convenient hearing locations; and 
(c) exploring the assignment of decisionwriters and case technicians to specific ALJs in a hearing office (with Hearing Office Directors continuing to supervise such support staff ), while maintaining flexibility for changes in technological and operational needs....

Expanding “Own Motion” Review. In order to focus attention on the decisions that are most likely to warrant review, thereby enhancing both efficiency and programmatic consistency, SSA should expand the Appeals Council’s use of own motion review in a manner consistent with ALJ decisional independence. If necessary to achieve this goal, SSA should consider revising its existing regulations through notice - and - comment rulemaking. The Appeals Council should use published neutral and objective criteria, including focused statistical sampling , to identify those ALJs whose decision rates for allowances or denials place them significantly outside the rates of the majority of their peers. SSA must also ensure that selection of review criteria is do ne without referenc ing, or targeting, particular ALJs or other decisionmakers, and that inclusion of cases in such review does not serve as the basis for evaluation or discipline. ...

SSA should consider revising its regulations to eliminate the controlling weight aspect of the treating source rule. Instead, SSA should consider giving ALJs greater discretion and flexibility when determining the appropriate weight to afford opinions from treating sources, in line with the factors enumerated in the current regulatory scheme for evaluation of opinions from medical professionals who are not deemed “treating sources.”

      I wonder if the ACUS Chair will be testifying at the House Social Security Subcommittee hearing this week.

The Attack Begins

     From an Op Ed piece by Robert Ehrlich in the Baltimore Sun:

Those of you paying attention have noticed that the Obama administration is actually doing what it promised: transforming America into a gigantic welfare state. And there are plenty of takers willing to cash in on it and "get mine." Numbers don't lie. Forty percent of the population was on some form of public assistance when the president took office; today, that number stands at 55 percent. And fraud is rampant.

"Exhibit A" is the Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI), a classic Washington entitlement that chews up tax dollars while (often) negligently providing for unqualified beneficiaries, an increasing number of whom are wont to remain on the public dole for … well, forever if they don't get caught.

Make no mistake — rapid growth, lax standards and an increased cultural acceptance of long-term nanny state benefits has gotten SSDI into big fiscal trouble.

The 2012 Social Security trustees report shows that SSDI is on schedule to be exhausted as early as 2015, making it one of the first federal entitlement trust funds to go bust. Rapid expansion of the program has coincided with the tenure of the Obama administration.

     There will be a concerted attack on the Social Security disability programs this week. I hope it continues in this over the top partisan manner.

A Thought

     Is it possible that President Obama is delaying nominating anyone to be Social Security Commissioner because he fears that any nomination could become embroiled in a dispute over the Chained CPI, which may be part of a settlement of the endless budget disputes? If it it ever comel up in Congress, the Chained CPI debate could be quite contentious.

Social Security Subcommittee Schedules Hearing

     The House Social Security Subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for March 7 at 9:00 on the Social Security disability benefits. This is a day after the House Appropriations Committee hearing on Social Security's operating budget and a day before the Social Security Advisory Board "Forum" on the disability program. I doubt that this clustering is accidental.

House Appropriations Committee Hearing Scheduled

     The House Committee on Appropriations has scheduled a hearing for 10:00 on March 6 on Social Security's appropriation for Fiscal Year 2014, which begins on October 1, 2013. Acting Commissioner Colvin will testify.

More Info On Sequestration From AFGE

     A message to members of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) working for Social Security:

AFGE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SSA FIELD OPERATIONS LOCALS, AFL–CIO 

SSA Budget Cuts Furlough Update 

Yesterday, Acting SSA Commissioner, Carolyn Colvin met with SSA’s [Social Security Administration's] AFGE General Committee Officers to brief the Union on sequestration.  [After one initial meeting, former Commissioner Astrue had refused to meet with AFGE leaders. This meeting is one sign that things have changed at least a little since Astrue left.]

AC [Acting Commissioner] Colvin informed AFGE that under the current budget continuing resolution (CR), she believes SSA will not have to furlough employees if sequestration is implemented. However, she is clear that if the budget changes, furlough may have to be revisited. 

There are two current situations that may change SSA’s current budget: 

1. The CR expires at the end of March. Congress is working on a new CR for the remainder of the year. Some Members of Congress want to see cuts to the CR in place of sequestration, as stated in the Budget Control Act of 2012. 
2. Legislation to override sequestration. Current discussions in the House and Senate may lead to fewer cuts in the Department of Defense cuts and shift to additional discretionary spending cuts. SSA’s budget is included in the discretionary spending. 

AC Colvin also informed AFGE that to avoid furloughs, there will be cuts to SSA’s budget in other areas. Some of those areas are expected to include a freeze on all overtime, hiring and travel; and release of all temporary hires and reemployed annuitants. As employees leave the agency for retirement or other reasons, their positions will not be replaced. 

All of this will lead to fewer employees to do the work. Backlogs will grow; waiting times will rise; reception areas will become and/or remain full; calendars will back up; more calls will be in cue; and busy rates will increase. AFGE is very concerned that the adverse impact on public service will result in more complaints and hostility from the public. 

AFGE will be providing you with information during this difficult, confusing period of budget discussions. 

If SSA dodges the bullet of furloughs, many of our fellow Federal employees who work in our communities and cities, may not. AFGE will be planning a number of events in the next month to address the impact of budget cuts for all federal agencies, including SSA.

Acting Commissioner Hopes To Avoid Furloughs

A Message To All SSA Employees

Subject: Budget Update

     I want to share with you the latest information we have regarding our operating budget. I know sequestration is on all of our minds.
     Clearly, this is a challenging time for us all. I want you to know that, here at SSA, we will work to minimize the risk of furloughs that would further harm services and program integrity efforts in the event of a sequester. This includes making some very difficult decisions and taking necessary steps to mitigate our budget risks this fiscal year—including steps such as restricting hiring, limiting overtime availability, delaying purchases, and limiting agency travel. We will also be restricting our spending to mission critical activities. By taking these actions, we are hopeful the funds available to us will allow us to operate without furloughs.
     On March 1, we will continue to serve the American public. I recognize and appreciate all you do to keep service to the American public our number one priority. Thank you for your continued commitment. I will keep you informed of developments.

Carolyn W. Colvin
Acting Commissioner

SSAB Forum

     The Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) has scheduled a "Forum" for March 8 on "Social Security Disability: Time For Reform." There is some diversity of viewpoint among those scheduled to speak but there's a definite tilt to the program. Here are some of the points of view represented with the names of the speakers representing these points of view in parentheses:

• Something must be done because a lot more people are drawing Social Security disability benefits now. This is because it's less difficult to get on these disability benefits than when Ronald Reagan was President. (Duggan, Daly, Autor)
• Too many people draw Social Security disability benefits because the benefits are too generous.(Duggan, Autor)
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) makes it easier for disabled people to work and that should make it less difficult for people to get off Social Security disability benefits. (Claypool, Imparato, Blanck)
• Social Security is the reason why more disabled people aren't working. (Maestas, Smith, McDonald, Autor, Stapleton)
• If Social Security gave disabled people more encouragement and assistment, they'd go back to work. (Smith, Davey, McDonald, Mazerski, Autor, Stapleton, Smalligan)

     I'm sure that I'm oversimplifying the views of these people. I'm also sure that each of them in their own way wants to help disabled people. (I will say that David Autor is really full of it and has no business speaking publicly about these issues. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about.) 

     I think it's appropriate to give a shorthand response to each of these expressed views, the sort of responses that are unlikely to be expressed at the SSAB "Forum."

• It certainly is less difficult for people to get on Social Security disability benefits than when Ronald Reagan was President. However, you have to understand that Social Security disability during the Reagan Administration was an aberration. It was less difficult to get on those benefits before the Reagan Administration and it quickly became less difficult to obtain those benefits as the Reagan Administration wore on and the return to prior practices was even more pronounced after Reagan left office. This was because the changes made during the early part of the Reagan Administration evoked a vigorous political response. The Reagan changes were quickly rolled back. Even though there have been plenty of changes since Reagan left office, it has remained less difficult to get the benefits. Anyone who advocates a return to Reagan era policies is naive. Those policies would evoke the same reaction in 2013 as they did in 1983. The Reagan days were as far from a golden age for Social Security disability policy as you can get.
• Disability benefits too high? Really? Generally, Social Security disability benefits are less than half what recipients were earning. They're far less in most cases than disability benefits under employer based long term disability plans. 
• The ADA makes it easier for disabled people to work? The evidence is that the ADA had little effect on the number of disabled people who are employed. In fact, some scholars have argued that the ADA reduced the employment of the disabled!
• I don't see how one can argue that the availability of Social Security disability benefits discourages people from working when we have clear evidence that only 27% of those who apply for and are denied Social Security disability benefits are working four years later. Being denied benefits isn't enough to get these people back to work even though those who are denied are, on the whole, less disabled than those drawing disability benefits. The evidence is unambiguous that very few of those drawing Social Security disability benefits will return to work even if they are removed from benefits.
• The illusion that with a little more encouragement disabled people will fly off the disability rolls and back to work has been persistent for decades. This illusion has led to the following work incentives: Trial Work Period, Extended Period of Eligibility, Expedited Reinstatement, Ticket to Work and the Vocational Rehabilitation exception, just to mention the Title II provisions. There's another complicated mess of Title XVI work incentives. None of this is working to any significant extent. If none of this works, why would anyone expect a new work incentive to work? I can think of one good reason why some of the speakers would promote work incentives. Some of them work for Ticket to Work contractors. Not only do they want to keep the contracts their employers have, even though they're a waste of money; they want to get more contracts. Ticket to Work is an unjustifiable waste of money. Any attempt to go further down the rehabilitation road will just waste more money.