Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Social Security disability - why not conferencing and collaboration at the reconsideration level?
Decision makers at SSA’s first level of appellate review (“reconsideration” in most states) find it hard to assess claimants’ credibility and subjective symptoms because they do not see the claimant. Therefore cases which turn on these questions tend to get passed upstairs to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) instead of being awarded by reconsideration level decision makers. These cases typically are ones that don’t satisfy a Listing and require assessment of residual functional capacity (RFC).
Being passed up to an ALJ can add between 9 and 28 months to the process of getting a decision, according to SSA figures dated May 25, 2007 obtained by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR).
Put another way, claimants whose cases require assessment of credibility or subjective symptoms potentially wait up to 28 months for decisions that might take only 3 months if rendered at the reconsideration level. This is avoided in only the best documented cases.
Here is evidence of a fundamental flaw in SSA’s disability decision process: SSA seems ill-equipped to render a favorable decision at the reconsideration level in that class of cases that do not satisfy a Listing and require assessment of credibility or subjective symptoms.
Is it equal or fair treatment when one class of disabled claimants can get awards in 3 to 6 months, while another class can only get awards in 9 to 28 months.
SSA can remedy this flaw. If claimants and their representatives meet with SSA reconsideration decision makers in person or by video-conference, the reconsideration decision maker can see and speak with claimants and determine their credibility and authenticity of subjective symptoms. We understand that most Social Security district offices have video conferencing capability. Moreover, SSA and claimants when conferencing can freely discuss the need for additional evidence and collaborate in obtaining it quickly. This would not only mean quicker awards for disabled people, but also fewer cases being added unnecessarily to the caseloads of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).
If only 10 percent of appeals had been removed from the ALJ caseload in 2006, this would have meant 50,080 fewer requests for a hearing. The 2006 ALJ caseload would have been 450,726 instead of 500,806. Most important, many disabled individuals would have received desperately needed cash and medical benefits much sooner.
Being passed up to an ALJ can add between 9 and 28 months to the process of getting a decision, according to SSA figures dated May 25, 2007 obtained by the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR).
Put another way, claimants whose cases require assessment of credibility or subjective symptoms potentially wait up to 28 months for decisions that might take only 3 months if rendered at the reconsideration level. This is avoided in only the best documented cases.
Here is evidence of a fundamental flaw in SSA’s disability decision process: SSA seems ill-equipped to render a favorable decision at the reconsideration level in that class of cases that do not satisfy a Listing and require assessment of credibility or subjective symptoms.
Is it equal or fair treatment when one class of disabled claimants can get awards in 3 to 6 months, while another class can only get awards in 9 to 28 months.
SSA can remedy this flaw. If claimants and their representatives meet with SSA reconsideration decision makers in person or by video-conference, the reconsideration decision maker can see and speak with claimants and determine their credibility and authenticity of subjective symptoms. We understand that most Social Security district offices have video conferencing capability. Moreover, SSA and claimants when conferencing can freely discuss the need for additional evidence and collaborate in obtaining it quickly. This would not only mean quicker awards for disabled people, but also fewer cases being added unnecessarily to the caseloads of Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).
If only 10 percent of appeals had been removed from the ALJ caseload in 2006, this would have meant 50,080 fewer requests for a hearing. The 2006 ALJ caseload would have been 450,726 instead of 500,806. Most important, many disabled individuals would have received desperately needed cash and medical benefits much sooner.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Social Security field office staff shrinking
Social Security field offices lost 873 staff members between October 2005 and September 2006. Field office managers see the agency moving away from community-based services, and toward Internet and telephone services. This was discussed at a meeting of Social Security managers on September 12. Fewer staff members means less help for people struggling with Social Security disability forms.
Individuals with concerns about shrinkage in Social Security field office staffs can express their views to Senators and Members of Congress. The U.S. Capitol telephone number is: (202) 224-3121. Give your ZIP code, and operators will direct your call to the appropriate Senate or House office. When the office answers, ask for the staff member who handles Social Security.
With elections coming up, callers probably will find many listening ears on Capitol Hill.
(Information from minutes of a National Council of Social Security Management Associations executive committee meeting dated September 12, 2006, online at the NCSSMA website. )
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Should Social Security close offices to the public one day a week, to see if employees work better?
Should Social Security close its offices to the public one day a week, to test whether or not employees process their work better? The Commissioner of Social Security floated the idea of testing this in thirty offices, in remarks made at a ceremony August 9, 2006, at the SSA Teleservice Center in Auburn, Washington.
Also discussed was the possibility of closing SSA offices one day a month if Congress fails to provide the funding SSA believes necessary to support all its programs in the current mode.
Sources: Minutes of a conference call among leaders of the NCSSMA (National Council of Social Security Management Associations) dated August 16, 2006 posted on the Internet; and an August 2006 posting by the General Services Administration (GSA) on the region 10 web page.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Also discussed was the possibility of closing SSA offices one day a month if Congress fails to provide the funding SSA believes necessary to support all its programs in the current mode.
Sources: Minutes of a conference call among leaders of the NCSSMA (National Council of Social Security Management Associations) dated August 16, 2006 posted on the Internet; and an August 2006 posting by the General Services Administration (GSA) on the region 10 web page.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Another reason DSI implementation may slow down . . .
The President on September 14, 2006, announced his intention to appoint a new Commissioner of Social Security to a term beginning January 20, 2007. Changes in Commissioners often bring a slow-down or halt to innovative programs of their predecessors. Click here.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Friday, September 15, 2006
How fast is DSI becoming effective in the first six states?
The Social Security Administration’s new "Disability Service Improvement (DSI)" initiative was set to start August 1, 2006 in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It may have been significantly delayed. Here’s why we say this:
o SSA seems to not to canceled the Disability Redesign Prototype procedure in one of the DSI states - New Hampshire - until August 10, 2006, ten days after the scheduled date of DSI roll out. Until that time there was uncertainty whether New Hampshire would use DSI procedures exclusively, or some hybrid composed of DSI and the Prototype. (Federal Register, August 10, 2006, page 45890)
o SSA took its time advertising the job of Chief Federal Reviewing Official (a key DSI boss). The federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) began advertising on July 26, 2006, and accepted applications through August 23 - three weeks after the published roll out date for DSI.
Ultimately, SSA intends that DSI will become the exclusive disability decision and appeal process. They plan to test it for at least a year in the six Northeastern states, and then extend it across the nation.
For details of the DSI intiative, see the Federal Register, March 31, 2006, p. 16424.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
o SSA seems to not to canceled the Disability Redesign Prototype procedure in one of the DSI states - New Hampshire - until August 10, 2006, ten days after the scheduled date of DSI roll out. Until that time there was uncertainty whether New Hampshire would use DSI procedures exclusively, or some hybrid composed of DSI and the Prototype. (Federal Register, August 10, 2006, page 45890)
o SSA took its time advertising the job of Chief Federal Reviewing Official (a key DSI boss). The federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) began advertising on July 26, 2006, and accepted applications through August 23 - three weeks after the published roll out date for DSI.
Ultimately, SSA intends that DSI will become the exclusive disability decision and appeal process. They plan to test it for at least a year in the six Northeastern states, and then extend it across the nation.
For details of the DSI intiative, see the Federal Register, March 31, 2006, p. 16424.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Monday, November 21, 2005
Can You Work While Claiming SSDI Benefits?
The Social Security definition of “disability” is strict, but you needn’t be totally incapacitated to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits.
Of course benefits aren’t payable to people who work and earn more than a certain amount. The Social Security Administration (SSA) calls this maximum “substantial gainful activity” or “SGA”.
But if a disabled person earns less than the SGA figure, he or she may qualify for SSDI benefits though working. This means he or she may work while applying, or keep receiving benefits if already qualified.
Earnings averaging over $830 monthly in 2005 are SGA. (The figure is $860 a month in 2006.)
Don’t stop reading if you earn more than this amount. Receiving a monthly paycheck of more than $830 may not mean SSA will count all your income as “earnings.”
“Countable” earnings don’t include things like:
o sick leave,
o profit sharing,
o private disability insurance benefits,
o a spouse’s earnings, or
o wages paid you that exceed the actual value of services you perform.
Extra in-kind support you receive (like ongoing help from other workers) may also reduce your countable earnings. SSA calls this extra pay and support, "subsidy."
SSA also deducts “impairment related work expenses” or "IRWE" when figuring countable earnings. IRWE includes impairment-related items and services you must have in order to work.
In short, although your paycheck may be more than $830 a month, your countable earnings may be less and not disqualify you from SSDI benefits. To learn more about the effect of income and expenses on SSDI benefits, see SSA’s 2005 Red Book.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Of course benefits aren’t payable to people who work and earn more than a certain amount. The Social Security Administration (SSA) calls this maximum “substantial gainful activity” or “SGA”.
But if a disabled person earns less than the SGA figure, he or she may qualify for SSDI benefits though working. This means he or she may work while applying, or keep receiving benefits if already qualified.
Earnings averaging over $830 monthly in 2005 are SGA. (The figure is $860 a month in 2006.)
Don’t stop reading if you earn more than this amount. Receiving a monthly paycheck of more than $830 may not mean SSA will count all your income as “earnings.”
“Countable” earnings don’t include things like:
o sick leave,
o profit sharing,
o private disability insurance benefits,
o a spouse’s earnings, or
o wages paid you that exceed the actual value of services you perform.
Extra in-kind support you receive (like ongoing help from other workers) may also reduce your countable earnings. SSA calls this extra pay and support, "subsidy."
SSA also deducts “impairment related work expenses” or "IRWE" when figuring countable earnings. IRWE includes impairment-related items and services you must have in order to work.
In short, although your paycheck may be more than $830 a month, your countable earnings may be less and not disqualify you from SSDI benefits. To learn more about the effect of income and expenses on SSDI benefits, see SSA’s 2005 Red Book.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Friday, November 18, 2005
Social Security Disability Claim Approval Rates, Initial & Appeal Levels 2004
Social Security has issued figures that show percentages of disability claims approved and denied at the initial and appeal levels in fiscal year 2004. The rates for the first three levels were:
Administrative Law Judge 62% approved, and 38% denied or dismissed
Source: SSA Office of Disability Programs, January 2005.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
Initial claim decision 37% approved, and 63% denied
Reconsideration 14% approved, and 86% deniedAdministrative Law Judge 62% approved, and 38% denied or dismissed
Source: SSA Office of Disability Programs, January 2005.
To follow developments in Social Security disability, visit: www.disabilityfacts.com
CLICK BELOW TO ADD COMMENTS TO THIS BLOG
