You have probably heard that the Social Security disability trust fund will run out of money in 2016 and that all beneficiaries will face an across the board cut if Congress does not act. There are a number of relatively painless accounting moves Congress can make to shore up the system and the inability of our elected representatives to take action arises more from political grandstanding than concern about the numbers or concern about the truly interested parties – disabled people who have worked and paid money into the system but who are now unable to work.
One thing that everyone can agree upon is that the system needs help.
- Social Security recently announced that the $300 million computer system they purchased to run its massive bureaucracy does not work so that will have to be redone.
- The disability system uses a labor market analysis resource called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles to help judges understand if you have the capacity to function in the working world. Unfortunately the D.O.T. was last updated in 1991 and includes such occupations as typewriter repairperson, telegram messenger and horse-and-wagon driver.
- The approval rate among judges within the same hearing office can vary wildly. For example in the Atlanta downtown hearing office, there is one judge who approves 3% of cases assigned to him while another judge two doors over approves 66% of his cases. How would you like to see Judge 3% on your hearing notice?
Unfortunately with all the political grandstanding, the academics are coming out of the woodwork with their observations and solutions. This past week Professor Mark Warshawsky and economics grad student Ross Marchand published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal basically asserting that disability claimants can easily game a fraud riddled system.
While The Warshawsky/Marchand piece fits a certain narrative it is so riddle with factual errors that one questions what research standards now apply in academia.
For example, Warshawsky/Marchand note that “in 2008 judges on average approved about 70% of claims before them.” Why use 2008? Because that data fits the narrative. In 2014, the approval rate was 45%, a rather significant drop.
The authors highlight a statistic (from what year we don’t know) that 9% of judges approved more than 90% of claims and that this high level of approvals is statistically impossible. No argument that these outliers should be purged from the system. But what about judges who approve 3%, 10%, 20% when the national average is 45%. Not discussed. Look at the inconsistencies yourself at DisabilityJudges.com.
The authors make a convoluted assertion about something they call “adjudication roulette” in which claimants file then withdraw appeals “in hopes of drawing a more generous judge.” This claim is factually incorrect. Once a judge is assigned, that assignment remains if you refile, if your case is remanded on appeal or if you start over completely. Not sure where they get their information but it is just plain wrong.
Further, the time frame involved with filing a claim and withdrawing it and starting over would be problematic – the processing time for multiple claims would take years. This adjudication roulette claim is simply nonsense.
I could go on but you get the idea. While I am sure that Mr. Warshawsky and Mr. Marchand are intelligent men, they obviously did not step down from the ivory tower of academia to spend time in the field talking to judges, lawyers or claimants.
I am afraid that we are going to see this type of shoddy research going forward – probably from both sides in the debate. The adjudication process is clunky and uses outdated resources. The system does not include enough follow up to insure that claimants whose conditions have improved will be weaned off the system and the delays (often up to two years, not one as the authors suggest) are unconscionable.
But if we are going to have a debate, let’s show a little integrity in choosing data points and making claims. If I was grading Mr. Warshawsky and Mr. Marchand, I’d give them a C-.
I still think that “the system” needs to hear more from the actual claimants about all of the inconsistencies in this process. Disability lawyers know the legal side of this mess, the claimants know the emotional, physical, and psychological side of this mess. I have yet to read and considerable articles from the mouths of claimants. I feel that I would have a lot of input into just how bad this system is from the side of a claimant. My claim took over 4.5 years to get approved solely, and I mean solely because of a clerical error over an alleged onset date. It took 3 representatives, 2 ALJ’s, 3 ALJ hearings, and my constant nagging before this simple clerical error was “corrected”. Once it was properly corrected, my claim was approved within 3 months AND with an established onset date 11 years prior to the date my claim was finally approved, yes 11 years! Yes, over a simple clerical error of an onset date. This kind of nonsense could only happen when every single piece of the process was broken; every single participant in processing my claim compounded the previous error.
I just wish that stories like mine could be given the actual voice that it deserves because for as much medical evidence as I had throughout my claim, and considering what “I” had to go through to get approved, I feel so sad for those behind me. As you said in other articles, the evaluation process is sometimes less about medical records and more about “who” you ALJ is and possibly even the mood of your judge. There are too many non-legal deciders in this process. Maybe I will just write a book about my experience and hope that others can learn from my story.
Jonathan, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. My father was recently disabled and so we have been trying to walk through this process. It has been very tedious. Just last week we finally hired a disability lawyer and it is already helping tremendously. I was unaware of your initial statement referring to funding running out in 2016. Forgive my ignorance, but is there a back up plan if this happens?
Congress made the necessary changes so SSD will not run out of money in 2016.