publicdata/ssa-gov
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
ssa-gov/www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_111913.html

483 lines
No EOL
45 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Blame History

<!doctype html>
<html class="no-js" lang="en">
<head>
<!-- REQUIRED META INFORMATION -->
<meta charset="UTF-8" />
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge,chrome=1" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
<!-- DOCUMENT TITLE -->
<title>Statements for the Record of Glenn Sklar, Deputy Commissioner for Disability Adjudication and Review and Judge Jasper J. Bede </title>
<!-- OCOMM META INFORMATION -->
<meta name="dc.creator" content="OLCA" />
<meta name="lead_content_manager" content="Sallie Whitney" />
<meta name="coder" content="Gary Davis" />
<!-- OCOMM STYLES & SCRIPTS -->
<link href="/framework/css/phoenix.css" rel="stylesheet" media="all" />
<!-- SSA INTERNET HEAD SCRIPTS -->
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.head.js"></script>
<!-- LEGISLATION STYLES -->
<link href="css/legislation.css" rel="stylesheet" media="all" />
<script>(window.BOOMR_mq=window.BOOMR_mq||[]).push(["addVar",{"rua.upush":"false","rua.cpush":"false","rua.upre":"false","rua.cpre":"false","rua.uprl":"false","rua.cprl":"false","rua.cprf":"false","rua.trans":"","rua.cook":"false","rua.ims":"false","rua.ufprl":"false","rua.cfprl":"false","rua.isuxp":"false","rua.texp":"norulematch","rua.ceh":"false","rua.ueh":"false","rua.ieh.st":"0"}]);</script>
<script>!function(e){var n="https://s.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if("False"=="True")e.BOOMR_config=e.BOOMR_config||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams=e.BOOMR_config.PageParams||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams.pci=!0,n="https://s2.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if(window.BOOMR_API_key="LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB",function(){function e(){if(!o){var e=document.createElement("script");e.id="boomr-scr-as",e.src=window.BOOMR.url,e.async=!0,i.parentNode.appendChild(e),o=!0}}function t(e){o=!0;var n,t,a,r,d=document,O=window;if(window.BOOMR.snippetMethod=e?"if":"i",t=function(e,n){var t=d.createElement("script");t.id=n||"boomr-if-as",t.src=window.BOOMR.url,BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),e=e||d.body,e.appendChild(t)},!window.addEventListener&&window.attachEvent&&navigator.userAgent.match(/MSIE [67]\./))return window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="s",void t(i.parentNode,"boomr-async");a=document.createElement("IFRAME"),a.src="about:blank",a.title="",a.role="presentation",a.loading="eager",r=(a.frameElement||a).style,r.width=0,r.height=0,r.border=0,r.display="none",i.parentNode.appendChild(a);try{O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}catch(_){n=document.domain,a.src="javascript:var d=document.open();d.domain='"+n+"';void(0);",O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}if(n)d._boomrl=function(){this.domain=n,t()},d.write("<bo"+"dy onload='document._boomrl();'>");else if(O._boomrl=function(){t()},O.addEventListener)O.addEventListener("load",O._boomrl,!1);else if(O.attachEvent)O.attachEvent("onload",O._boomrl);d.close()}function a(e){window.BOOMR_onload=e&&e.timeStamp||(new Date).getTime()}if(!window.BOOMR||!window.BOOMR.version&&!window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted){window.BOOMR=window.BOOMR||{},window.BOOMR.snippetStart=(new Date).getTime(),window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted=!0,window.BOOMR.snippetVersion=12,window.BOOMR.url=n+"LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB";var i=document.currentScript||document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o=!1,r=document.createElement("link");if(r.relList&&"function"==typeof r.relList.supports&&r.relList.supports("preload")&&"as"in r)window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="p",r.href=window.BOOMR.url,r.rel="preload",r.as="script",r.addEventListener("load",e),r.addEventListener("error",function(){t(!0)}),setTimeout(function(){if(!o)t(!0)},3e3),BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),i.parentNode.appendChild(r);else t(!1);if(window.addEventListener)window.addEventListener("load",a,!1);else if(window.attachEvent)window.attachEvent("onload",a)}}(),"".length>0)if(e&&"performance"in e&&e.performance&&"function"==typeof e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize)e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize();!function(){if(BOOMR=e.BOOMR||{},BOOMR.plugins=BOOMR.plugins||{},!BOOMR.plugins.AK){var n=""=="true"?1:0,t="",a="vht6pfix22vgcz6v436a-f-e092004bc-clientnsv4-s.akamaihd.net",i="false"=="true"?2:1,o={"ak.v":"39","ak.cp":"1204614","ak.ai":parseInt("728289",10),"ak.ol":"0","ak.cr":3,"ak.ipv":4,"ak.proto":"http/1.1","ak.rid":"4652d","ak.r":35636,"ak.a2":n,"ak.m":"dsca","ak.n":"essl","ak.bpcip":"169.231.231.0","ak.cport":42588,"ak.gh":"23.214.170.79","ak.quicv":"","ak.tlsv":"tls1.3","ak.0rtt":"","ak.0rtt.ed":"","ak.csrc":"-","ak.acc":"bbr","ak.t":"1742071548","ak.ak":"hOBiQwZUYzCg5VSAfCLimQ==/gAQN+FV5tAQml3q0Pq6qGTTpz6z+1RKGtewa61n/mIEwfsQ7J/I0mebPFeKssPLE8nhwcbngfGevr/uS+Ldk9RUFgqAah2KMQi2ImRmVo9hxH+iHAdsRVDo415RxcyuMJ8tSedj9gh+FecsgBc4WAhZufRm+X7Pm6kLKVbY5PH0VZsVKHHmsCynnxi0BzVGbgCytzyMNCEtxHy5xfx/YU7KNEeXwVSvnTQsvQ2iB9ZaJyzZ8R+4fN6THkyotqso2Htal3IS4Au8chNWrjwkGn+MbvEdB9nA2JXnsJmotmvRmZsmAuw4lJNCFOadsCWzC5PvPN3NXRyP9WJxrUIwZv4DGBRyJ4azd9tTuN2GPbmi9FLhaZ78rtGoN7cSgr6VzFO5AZJVils6xHlA9XDjr5CWUtDUzZRgL/FR28oUDcs=","ak.pv":"98","ak.dpoabenc":"","ak.tf":i};if(""!==t)o["ak.ruds"]=t;var r={i:!1,av:function(n){var t="http.initiator";if(n&&(!n[t]||"spa_hard"===n[t]))o["ak.feo"]=void 0!==e.aFeoApplied?1:0,BOOMR.addVar(o)},rv:function(){var e=["ak.bpcip","ak.cport","ak.cr","ak.csrc","ak.gh","ak.ipv","ak.m","ak.n","ak.ol","ak.proto","ak.quicv","ak.tlsv","ak.0rtt","ak.0rtt.ed","ak.r","ak.acc","ak.t","ak.tf"];BOOMR.removeVar(e)}};BOOMR.plugins.AK={akVars:o,akDNSPreFetchDomain:a,init:function(){if(!r.i){var e=BOOMR.subscribe;e("before_beacon",r.av,null,null),e("onbeacon",r.rv,null,null),r.i=!0}return this},is_complete:function(){return!0}}}}()}(window);</script></head>
<body>
<!-- PAGE CONTAINER -->
<div id="page">
<!-- PAGE HEADER -->
<div class="bg-dark-gray accessibility" id="accessibility"><a id="skip-navigation" href="#content">Skip to main content</a></div><ssa-header class="print-hide"><noscript><header class="banner-neo" id="banner" role="banner" style="background-color: #0b4778;"><div class="banner-wrapper"><h1 class="banner-logo"><a class="banner-logo__link" href="/">Social Security</a></h1><nav class="banner-nav" id="banner-nav"><a class="banner-nav__link banner-search" href="https://search.ssa.gov/search?affiliate=ssa" title="Search" target="_blank"><svg class="banner-nav__icon" focusable="false" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 24 24"><path d="M 10 23 C 11.219 23 12.384 22.762 13.496 22.285 C 14.608 21.808 15.565 21.169 16.367 20.367 C 17.169 19.565 17.808 18.608 18.285 17.496 C 18.762 16.384 19 15.219 19 14 C 19 12.953 18.829 11.951 18.488 10.992 C 18.147 10.033 17.661 9.164 17.031 8.383 L 22.711 2.711 C 22.904 2.518 23 2.281 23 2 C 23 1.713 22.905 1.475 22.715 1.285 C 22.525 1.095 22.287 1 22 1 C 21.719 1 21.482 1.096 21.289 1.289 L 15.617 6.969 C 14.836 6.339 13.966 5.853 13.008 5.512 C 12.05 5.171 11.047 5 10 5 C 8.781 5 7.616 5.238 6.504 5.715 C 5.392 6.192 4.435 6.831 3.633 7.633 C 2.831 8.435 2.192 9.392 1.715 10.504 C 1.238 11.616 1 12.781 1 14 C 1 15.219 1.238 16.384 1.715 17.496 C 2.192 18.608 2.831 19.565 3.633 20.367 C 4.435 21.169 5.392 21.808 6.504 22.285 C 7.616 22.762 8.781 23 10 23 Z M 10 21 C 9.052 21 8.146 20.815 7.281 20.445 C 6.416 20.075 5.672 19.578 5.047 18.953 C 4.422 18.328 3.925 17.584 3.555 16.719 C 3.185 15.854 3 14.948 3 14 C 3 13.052 3.185 12.146 3.555 11.281 C 3.925 10.416 4.422 9.672 5.047 9.047 C 5.672 8.422 6.416 7.925 7.281 7.555 C 8.146 7.185 9.052 7 10 7 C 10.948 7 11.854 7.185 12.719 7.555 C 13.584 7.925 14.328 8.422 14.953 9.047 C 15.578 9.672 16.075 10.416 16.445 11.281 C 16.815 12.146 17 13.052 17 14 C 17 14.948 16.815 15.854 16.445 16.719 C 16.075 17.584 15.578 18.328 14.953 18.953 C 14.328 19.578 13.584 20.075 12.719 20.445 C 11.854 20.815 10.948 21 10 21 Z" transform="matrix(-1, 0, 0, -1, 24.000001, 24.000001)" vector-effect="non-scaling-stroke"></path></svg> <span>Search</span> </a><a class="banner-nav__link banner-menu" href="/menu" id="ssa-menu" title="Menu"><svg class="banner-nav__icon" focusable="false" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 24 24"><path d="M3 5h18q.414 0 .707.293T22 6t-.293.707T21 7H3q-.414 0-.707-.293T2 6t.293-.707T3 5zm0 12h18q.414 0 .707.293T22 18t-.293.707T21 19H3q-.414 0-.707-.293T2 18t.293-.707T3 17zm0-6h18q.414 0 .707.293T22 12t-.293.707T21 13H3q-.414 0-.707-.293T2 12t.293-.707T3 11z" vector-effect="non-scaling-stroke"></path></svg> <span>Menu</span> </a><a class="banner-nav__link banner-languages" href="/es" id="ssa-languages" title="Español" hreflang="es"><svg class="banner-nav__icon" focusable="false" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 24 24"><path d="M12 0C5.373 0 0 5.373 0 12s5.373 12 12 12c.812 0 1.604-.08 2.37-.235-.31-.147-.343-1.255-.037-1.887.34-.703 1.406-2.485.35-3.08-1.053-.6-.76-.868-1.405-1.56-.644-.692-.38-.796-.422-.974-.14-.61.62-1.523.656-1.616.035-.094.035-.446.023-.55-.012-.107-.48-.387-.597-.4-.117-.01-.176.188-.34.2-.164.012-.88-.433-1.03-.55-.154-.117-.224-.398-.435-.61-.21-.212-.235-.047-.562-.175-.327-.13-1.382-.516-2.19-.844-.81-.33-.88-.79-.892-1.114-.012-.325-.492-.797-.718-1.137-.225-.342-.267-.81-.348-.705-.082.106.422 1.336.34 1.37-.083.037-.26-.338-.493-.643-.235-.304.245-.14-.505-1.617-.75-1.476.235-2.23.282-3 .048-.77.633.28.328-.21-.304-.493.023-1.524-.21-1.9-.235-.374-1.57.423-1.57.423.034-.363 1.17-.985 1.99-1.56.82-.573 1.322-.128 1.982.083.66.21.703.142.48-.07-.222-.21.094-.316.61-.235.516.082.656.704 1.442.645.784-.06.08.152.186.35.105.2-.117.177-.633.53-.516.35.012.35.926 1.02.913.667.632-.447.538-.94-.094-.49.668-.105.668-.105.563.375.46.02.87.15.408.13 1.52 1.07 1.52 1.07-1.395.762-.516.844-.282 1.02.235.175-.48.515-.48.515-.294-.293-.34.012-.528.117-.187.105-.012.375-.012.375-.97.153-.75 1.173-.738 1.418.012.247-.62.622-.786.973-.164.35.423 1.113.117 1.16-.305.048-.61-1.148-2.25-.703-.495.134-1.593.703-1.008 1.863.585 1.16 1.558-.328 1.886-.164.33.163-.093.902-.023.913.07.012.927.033.974 1.032.048 1 1.3.914 1.57.938.27.023 1.173-.74 1.3-.774.13-.035.646-.47 1.77.175 1.126.644 1.7.55 2.086.82.387.27.117.81.48.985.365.176 1.818-.058 2.18.54.364.597-1.5 3.597-2.085 3.925-.586.328-.856 1.078-1.442 1.558-.69.563-1.418 1.076-2.18 1.535-.684.407-.807 1.137-1.112 1.367C19.984 22.52 24 17.73 24 12c0-6.627-5.373-12-12-12zm2.813 11.262c-.165.047-.504.352-1.336-.14-.832-.494-1.406-.4-1.477-.48 0 0-.07-.2.293-.236.747-.072 1.688.692 1.9.704.21.012.315-.21.69-.09.375.12.094.195-.07.242zM10.887 1.196c-.082-.06.068-.128.157-.246.05-.07.013-.182.078-.246.175-.177 1.043-.423.874.058-.17.48-.98.527-1.11.434zm2.098 1.523c-.293-.013-.983-.086-.856-.212.494-.492-.188-.633-.61-.668-.423-.036-.598-.27-.388-.294.21-.024 1.055.013 1.196.13.14.117.902.422.95.644.047.223 0 .41-.293.4zm2.542-.083c-.234.188-1.413-.673-1.64-.867-.985-.844-1.513-.563-1.72-.703-.206-.142-.132-.33.184-.61.318-.282 1.21.094 1.724.152.516.058 1.113.457 1.125.93.01.474.562.91.327 1.097z" vector-effect="non-scaling-stroke"></path></svg> <span>Español</span> </a><a class="banner-nav__link banner-signin" href="https://secure.ssa.gov/RIL/SiView.action" id="ssa-signin" title="Sign in" target="_blank"><svg class="banner-nav__icon" focusable="false" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 24 24"><path d="M12 17.016q-.797 0-1.406-.61t-.61-1.405.61-1.405 1.406-.61 1.406.61.61 1.406-.61 1.407-1.406.61zm6 3V9.986H6v10.03h12zm-6-17.11q-1.266 0-2.18.914T8.906 6H9v2.016h6.094V6q0-1.266-.914-2.18T12 2.906zm6 5.11q.797 0 1.406.586t.61 1.383v10.03q0 .798-.61 1.384T18 21.984H6q-.797 0-1.406-.586t-.61-1.384V9.986q0-.798.61-1.384T6 8.016h.984V6q0-2.063 1.477-3.54T12 .985t3.54 1.477T17.015 6v2.016H18z" vector-effect="non-scaling-stroke"></path></svg> <span>Sign in</span></a></nav></div></header></noscript></ssa-header><script src="https://www.ssa.gov/legacy/components/dist/ssa-header.js"></script>
<!-- PAGE NAVIGATION -->
<a class="btn-top-menu show-phone" id="btn-top-menu" href="#nav-top-menu">OLCA MENU</a>
<nav class="nav-top-menu hide-print" id="nav-top-menu" role="navigation">
<ul>
<li><a href="/legislation/index.html">OLCA Home</a></li>
<li><a href="/legislation/118th.html">118th Congress</a></li>
<li><a href="/legislation/priorcongress.html">Prior Sessions of Congress</a></li>
<li><a href="/legislation/resources.html">Program Resources</a></li>
<li><a href="/legislation/other.html">Other Materials for Congress</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<!-- PAGE TITLE -->
<div id="title-bar">
<h2>Social Security Testimony Before Congress</h2></div>
<!-- PAGE CONTENT -->
<div id="content" role="main">
<!-- GRID SYSTEM -->
<div class="grid">
<div class="row-12">
<!-- NEWS - PAGE 1 -->
<div class="column-12 topic">
<div align="center"><strong>Statement of Glenn Sklar,<br>
Deputy Commissioner<br>
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review<br>
Social Security Administration <br>
before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform<br>
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements<br>
<br>
November 19, 2013</strong></div>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Chairman Lankford, Ranking Member Speier, and Members of the Subcommittee:</p>
<p>I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our management of the disability appeals process.
Today, I will share with you our important progress in modernizing the process and
improving the quality of our hearing decisions and how we are addressing some of our
challenges. Before doing so, I will briefly discuss the vital programs that the Social
Security Administration (SSA) administers. </p>
<p><strong><u>Introduction</u></strong></p>
<p>We administer the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, commonly
referred to as &quot;Social Security,&quot; which protects against loss of earnings due to retirement,
death, and disability. Social Security provides a financial safety net for millions of
Americans-few programs touch as many Americans. We also administer the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, funded by general revenues, which
provides cash assistance to persons who are aged, blind, and disabled, as defined in the
Social Security context, with very limited means. </p>
<p>We also handle lesser-known but critical services that bring millions of people to our
field offices or prompt them to call us each year. For example, we issue replacement
Medicare cards and help administer the Medicare low-income subsidy program. </p>
<p>Accordingly, the responsibilities with which we have been entrusted are immense in
scope. To illustrate, in fiscal year (FY) 2012 we:</p>
<ul>
<li> Paid over $800 billion to almost 65 million beneficiaries;</li>
<li> Handled over 56 million transactions on our Nation al 800 Number Network;</li>
<li>Received over 65 million calls to field offices nationwide; </li>
<li> Served about 45 million visitors in over 1,200 field offices nationwide; </li>
<li> Completed over 8 million claims for benefits and 820,000 hearing dispositions; </li>
<li> Handled almost 25 million changes to beneficiary records; </li>
<li> Issued about 17 million new and replacement Social Security cards; </li>
<li> Posted over 245 million wage reports;</li>
<li> Handled over 15,000 disability cases in Federal District Courts; </li>
<li> Completed over 443,000 full medical continuing disabili ty reviews (CDR); and </li>
<li> Completed over 2.6 million non-medical redeterminations ofSSI eligibility. </li>
</ul>
<p>When the American people turn to us for any ofthese vital services, they expect us to
deliver a quality product. Our employees take pride in delivering caring, effective
service. The aging of the baby boomers, the economic downturns, additional workloads
like the growing demand for verifications for other programs, and tight budgets increase
our challenges to deliver.</p>
<p><u>Program Integrity Work</u></p>
<p> Further, while outside my direct seope in the Office of Disability Adjudication and
Review, as Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin has explained, budgets have also
affected our ability to conduct vital program integrity work, which helps ensure that only
those persons eligible for benefits continue to receive them. There is a long-standing
adage in our agency-the right check to the right person at the right time. Delivering on
this statement is our goal because we know that when we accomplish it we are
demonstrating our stewardship and preserving the public's trust in our programs.
Although we estimate that we save the Federal government $9 per dollar spent on
continuing disability reviews (CDRs), we have a backlog of 1.3 million CDRs because
we have not received annual appropriations that would allow us to conduct all of our
scheduled CDRs. </p>
<p>The FY 2014 President's Budget includes a legislative proposal that would provide a
dependable source of mandatory funding to significantly ramp up our program integrity
work.<strong>1</strong> In FY 2014, the proposal would provide $1.227 billion, allowing us to process
hundreds of thousands more CDRs.<strong>2</strong> </p>
<p><u>The Disability Insurance (DI) program </u></p>
<p>Before discussing the improvements we have made to the disability appeals process, I
would like to highlight a few aspects of the Disability Insurance (DI) program. </p>
<ul>
<li> First, Congress established a strict standard of disability for our disability
programs. For example, the DI program does not provide short-term or partial
disability benefits. Instead, an insured claimant is eligible only if he or she cannot
engage in any substantial work because of a medically determinable physical or
mental impairment that has lasted or is expected to last at least one year or to
result in death.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p> A claimant cannot receive disability benefits simply by alleging the existence of
pain or a severe impairment. We require objective medical evidence and
laboratory findings that show the claimant has a medical impairment that:
1) could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged,
and 2) meets our disability requirements when considered with all other evidence.</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li> In December 2012, a worker who was found to be disabled in the Social Security
context received, on average, a little over $1,100 in SSDI benefits per month,
barely above the current poverty income level of $13,000 per year.</li><br>
<li> Recently, there has been some growth in the DI program. Our Chief Actuary has
explained that long-term DI program growth was predicted many years ago and is
driven, for example, by the aging of the baby boom generation and the fact that
more women have joined the labor force and have become eligible for benefits. </li>
</ul>
<p><strong><u>Improving Public Service: Quality, Timeliness, and Oversight </u></strong></p>
<p>Had we had this conversation about the hearings operation in 2007, the topic would likely
have been, as it was at the time, the unconscionable service we were delivering to your
constituents. The average wait for a person to receive a hearing decision was over 500
days. Over 63,000 people waited over 1,000 days for a hearing. Some people waited as
long as 1,400 days. Congress made it clear that addressing untimely hearing decisions
must be our top priority. </p>
<p>In developing efficient and effective solutions to the hearing delays, we implemented a
comprehensive operational plan to better manage our unprecedented workload. This plan
addressed the many issues we must balance in the hearing process - quality,
accountability, and timeliness. We made dozens of significant changes, including
increasing the number of ALJs and support staff, increasing the number of hearing
offices, establishing national hearing centers, expanding video conferenc ing to conduct
hearings, improving information technology, and standardizing business processes, to
name just a few. Congress provided additional resources, which were critical to
supporting our improvements.</p>
<p> Today, the results are clear that our plan has worked. We have significantly improved
the quality and timeliness of our hearing decisions. We steadily reduced the wait for a
hearing decision from a high of 512 days in fiscal year (FY) 2007, to 375 days in FY
2013. While this number is still too high and is increasing under budget cuts, it is still a
dramatic improvement from 2007. </p>
<p>We have made tremendous improvement in our service to the public by focusing on our
most aged cases. We have decided nearly a million aged cases since FY 2007, and today
we have virtually no hearing requests over 700 days old, with the vast majority of our
cases falling between 100 to 400 days old.</p>
<p> Our improvements include modernizing our information technology infrastructure in the
hearing operation. Not that long ago, we were an entirely paper-based organization. We
lost precious time and flexibility mailing huge paper cases through each step of our
disability process. Now, we are nearly entirely electronic, allowing us to more efficiently
help Americans. We conduct over 150,000 video hearings annually, and the
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) has cited SSA's video hearings
process as a best practice for all Federal agencies. Going electronic means that we have
data available that we have never had before and we are using these data to inform our
policies and improve quality. Not only do we work in a fully electronic processing
environment, but many claimants and third parties interact with us electronically as well.</p>
<p>We have improved the training we provide to our ALJs to help ensure that our hearings
and decisions are consistent with the law, regulations, rulings, and agency policy. Since
FY 2007, our new ALJs have undergone rigorous selection and have participated in a
two-week orientation, four-week in-person training, formal mentoring, and supplemental
in-person training. We provide ALJs with easy access to information on the reasons for
their Appeals Council remands and other data through an electronic tool. Because we
can now gather and analyze common adjudication errors, we provide quarterly continuing
education training to all adjudicators that targets these common errors. In addition, we
have continued our training program that provides in-person technical training for 350 of
our ALJs each year. </p>
<p>As a result, quality is improving. This improvement is not happenstance but the result of
these deliberate changes we have made in the way we hire, to the way we train, to the
way we give feedback. For denial decisions, we have seen ever-increasing concordance
between ALJ decisions and the Appeals Council. We now have increasing amounts of
data to detect areas of policy non-compliance on allowances, and we are using that data
to provide better feedback to adjudicators to improve policy compliance. </p>
<p>This improved quality means that the Appeals Council is remanding fewer cases to our
ALJs for possible corrective action. The percentage of cases appealed to Federal court is
also decreasing. While management is providing the support for adjudicators that leads
to these results, it is the adjudicators themselves who have responded positively to the
feedback. Perhaps for the first time, we have a feedback loop that allows adjudicators to
actively participate in improving their work and in telling us about disagreements or
problematic areas. </p>
<p>We could not have realized these improvements without the dedication of our ALJ corps
and all of our employees. I thank them for their hard work. </p>
<p>Despite the tremendous advancement we have made, I am concerned that our
improvements will erode. The number of hearing requests we receive each year remains
high, and we are losing many ALJs and support staff due to attrition, whom we are
unable to replace. We are doing what we can to hold steady on our progress despite the
loss of employees. However, our progress has slowed in the last year, and we were
unable to open eight new hear ing offices planned for Alabama, California, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, and Texas. </p>
<p><strong><u>Ensuring High Quality, Policy Compliant, and Legally Sufficient Decisions </u></strong></p>
<p>Over the past several decades, we have been accused of sacrificing quality by reflexively
denying too many disability claims or by granting them too readily. These reports ignore the reality that we are making quicker, higher quality disability decisions. Over the past
six years, the allowance and denial rates have become more consistent throughout the
ALJ corps, reflecting an emphasis on quality decision making. There are now
significantly fewer ALJs who allow more than 85 percent of their cases than there were
in FY 2007. Meanwhile, there is less than one percent of the ALJ corps that pays fewer
than 20 percent of their cases. </p>
<p>Let me categorically state that we have no targets or goals regarding these rates. We are
focused on delivering policy compliant decisions. In that regard, an ALJ with a very high
or a very low allowance rate may raise a quality red flag. However, we have to look
behind the data to see the cause. With our automation efforts, we now have a process and
the data to do so. </p>
<p>Figure 1: ALJ Allowance Rate Groups</p>
<p><img src="testimony_111913a.jpg" width="717" height="355" alt="ALJ Allowance Rate Groups Chart"></p>
<p>The quality of our benefit decisions is a paramount concern for the agency. We took
aggressive steps to institute a more balanced quality review in the hearings process. Our
first effort in this area was to develop serious data collection and management
information for the Office of Disabil ity Adjudication and Review (ODAR). We then
revived development of an electronic policy-compliance system for the Appeals Council
(AC). Because the Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) handles the final level of
administrative review, it has a unique vantage point to give feedback to decision and
policy makers. OAO developed a technological approach to harness the wealth of
information the AC collects, turning it into actionable data. These new tools permitted
the OAO to capture a significant amount of structured data concerning the application of
agency policy in hearing decisions.</p>
<p>Using these data sets, we provide feedback on decisional quality, giving adjudicators
real-time access to their remand data. We are creating better tools to provide individual
feedback for our adjudicators. One such feedback tool is &quot;How MI Doing?&quot; This
resource not only gives ALJs information about their AC remands, including the reasons
for remand, but also information on their performance in relation to other ALJs in their
office, their region, and the nation. Currently, we are developing training modules
related to each of the 170 identified reasons for remand that we will link to the &quot;How MI
Doing?&quot; tool. ALJs will be able to receive immediate training at their desks that is
targeted to the specific reasons for the remand. We develop and deliver specific training
that focuses on the most error-prone issues that our judges must address in their
decisions. Data driven feedback informs business process changes that reduce
inconsistencies and inefficiencies, and simplify rules. </p>
<p>In FY 2010, OAO created the Division of Quality (DQ) to focus specifically on
improving the quality of our disability process. While AC remands provide a quality
measure on ALJ denials, prior to the creation of DQ, we did not have the resources to
look at ALI allowances. Since FY 20II, DQ has been conducting pre-effectuation
reviews on a random sample of ALJ allowances. Federal regulations require that preeffectuation
reviews of ALJ decisions must be selected at random or, if selective
sampling is used, may not be based on the identity of any specific adjudicator or hearing
office. Currently, DQ reviews a statistically valid sample of un-appealed favorable ALJ
hearing decisions. </p>
<p>DQ also performs post-effectuation focused reviews looking at specific issues. Subjects
of a focused review may be hearing offices, ALJs, representatives, doctors, and other
participants in the hearing process. The same regulatory requirements regarding random
and selective sampling do not apply to post-effectuation focused reviews. Because these
reviews occur after the 60-day period a claimant has to appeal the ALJ decision , they do
not result in a change to the decision. </p>
<p>The data collected from these quality initiat ives identify for us the most error-prone
provisions of law and regulation, and we use this information to design and implement
our AU training efforts. To ensure that all of our ALJs comply with law, regulations,
and policies, we provide considerable training including both new and supplemental ALJ
training. We train our ALJs on the agency's rules and policies, and that training is vetted
thoroughly by various components, including the component that is responsible for
disability policy. For the past several years, our new AU training also has included a
session that explains the scope and limits ofan ALJ's authority in the hearing process,
including the ALJ's obligation to follow the agency's rules and policies. We also have
implemented the ALJ Mentor Program, which pairs a new ALJ with an experienced ALJ,
who provides advice, coaching, and expertise. Additionally, we provide regular guidance
to ALJs through Chief Judge Memoranda and bulletins, Interactive Video Teletraining
sessions, and in responses to specific queries from the field.</p>
<p> Additional efforts to promote policy compliance include a pilot of the Electronic Bench
Book (eBB) for our adjudicators. The eBB is a policy-compliant web-based tool that aids in
documenting, analyzing, and adjudicating a disability case in accordance with our
regulations. We designed this electronic tool to improve accuracy and consistency in the
disability evaluation process. </p>
<p>These efforts are testing some longstanding traditions within ODAR. We are moving
from training based primarily on anecdotal information as to our most significant
problems to a data-driven identification of training, guidance, and policy gaps. We now
develop training materials and automated tools designed to improve both the
adjudicator's efficiency and accuracy in case adjudication. We are transparent with the
information that we are collecting so that the ALJs can more readily make use of the
information. </p>
<p>In addition, the data collected by DQ provide us with a tremendous tool to identify
trends. We review our electronic records for anomalies; when we find them, we look to
identify whether such anomalies can be explained or whether administrative action is
appropriate. When we suspect fraud or other suspicious behavior, we refer the matter to
our Office of Inspector General.</p>
<p>These new quality initiatives have given us a new opportunity to improve our policy
guidance. We are using these data to help us identify and pursue regulatory and policy
changes to improve our disability process. However, there are many stakeholders on
both sides of any policy that affects our disability programs. To objectively address
concerns about changes to various aspects of our disability programs, we have contracted
with the ACUS to review several issues for us. ACUS has looked at challenging and
potentially controversial issues that affect the hearings process , including the submission
of evidence and duty of candor, the treating source rule, closing the record, and video
hearings. We are moving forward on many of these issues, but gathering objective
evidence and considering input from all stakeholders takes time. </p>
<p><strong><u>Ensuring Timely Decisions</u></strong></p>
<p>Timeliness is one aspect of quality from a claimant's perspective. No elaimant would say
that waiting 1,400 days or 1,000 days or even 400 days to know the outcome of their
claim is quality service. </p>
<p>As part of our efforts to ensure hearing decisions are legally sufficient and time ly, we
have given ALJs a range of 500-700 decisions a year as a reasonable expectation based
on what many ALJs were already doing. We have never required an ALJ to do 500-700
cases per year. These judges receive lifetime appointments. They know when accepting
the job that we will expect them to be able to deliver a policy compliant decision in a
production environment. The public has every right to expect them to work hard, and
most judges meet that expectation. We are responsible for providing them with the
framework for success. For example, each ALJ has between four and five staff members
who directly contribute to a disposition. </p>
<p>Our previous Chief ALJ established this expectation after consulting with a number of managers and ALJs about the reasonableness of the expectation . The range of 500 to 700
dispositions was consistent with a prior goal set in 1981. At that time, the agency asked
ALJs to complete 45 dispositions a month or 540 a year. With significant advances in
technology over the last 26 years and increasing the number of support staff for ALJs, it
was not surprising that when the agency articulated the 500-700 expectation, almost 50
percent of ALJs were issuing at least 500 dispositions a year. From the start, the 500 to
700 expectation was not a quota and was not a mandate. In FY 2012, approximately 78
percent of our ALJs met the expectation.</p>
<p> I want to be very clear that I expect all dispositions to be not just timely but legally
sufficient, and we are demonstrating that we are serious about quality with our
investments. </p>
<p>Moreover, in a survey conducted Iast year by the Association of Administrative Law
Judges, nearly three out of four respondents found it &quot;not difficult at all&quot; or only
&quot;somewhat difficult&quot; to meet the expectation. When given an opportunity to explain why
they had not met the agency's expectation, many respondents cited their status as new
ALJs. In fact, we account for the learning curve for new ALJs. We reiterate the
importance of making the right decision and we do not ask our newly-hired ALJs to meet
the full workload expectation during their first year learning the job. </p>
<p>When an ALJ has workflow issues, we work with the ALJ on an informal basis to resolve
those issues and to assist the ALJ.
</p>
<p>If issues cannot be remedied informally, then we take affirmative, and typically
progressive, steps to address problems, including counseling, training, mentoring and, as
a last resort, adverse action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7521. With the promulgation of our
&quot;time and place&quot; regulation, we have eliminated ambiguities regarding our authority to
manage scheduling, and we have taken steps to ensure that ALJs are deciding neither too
few nor too many cases. By management instruction, we are limiting assignment of new
cases to no more than 840 cases annually. </p>
<p><u>ALJ Management Oversight </u></p>
<p>ALJs have qualified decisional independence. That qualified decisional independence
allows ALJs to issue decisions consistent with the law and agency policy, rather than
decisions influenced by pressure to reach a particular result. The primary purpose of an
ALJ's qualified decisional independence is to enhance public confidence in the essential
fairness of an agency's adjudicatory process. We fully support Congress' intent to ensure
the integrity ofthe hearings process, and we note that the Supreme Court has recognized
that Congress modeled the Administrative Procedure Act after our hearings process. </p>
<p>The mission of our hearing operation is to provide timely and legally sufficient hearings
and decisions. For our hearing process to operate efficiently and effectively, we need
ALJs to treat members of the public and staff with dignity and respect, to be proficient at
working electronically, and to be able to handle a high-volume workload in order to makeswift and sound decisions in a non-advcrsarial adjudication setting. Let me emphasize
that the vast majority of the ALJs hearing Social Security appeals do an admirable job.
They handle the complex cases in a timely manner, while conforming to the highest
standards of conduct and quality. </p>
<p>The law has guided our path to holding our judges accountable. In 2006, the agency
began to seriously examine the scope ofdecisional independence and test our
management authority. Since FY 2007, we have been working diligently to improve
management oversight of our ALJs to ensure that they adhere to policies, regulations, and
laws, while maintaining the ALJs' qualified decisional independence. We expect our
ALJs to adhere to the high standards expected ofthem, recognizing at the same time that
we cannot and would not influence their decision in any particular case. Through the
actions the agency brought to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), we
confirmed, among other issues, that when management addresses case processing,
including discipline for purposeful failure to follow policy, it does not interfere with an
ALJ's qualified decisional independence. We also confirmed that ALJs must adhere to
the same standards of conduct as other federal employees. Over 20 ALJs have separated
from the agency through tinal MSPB decisions or resolution agreements. Nearly all of
these cases have involved serious conduct issues. </p>
<p><strong><u>Disciplinary Action </u></strong></p>
<p>Again, I must emphasize that the vast majority of our ALJs arc conscientious and hardworking
employees who take thei r responsibility to the public very seriously. For these
ALJs, we can rely on current agency measures including training to address any problems
they may have. Generally, the informal process works, but when it does not,
management has the authority to order an AU to take a certain case processing action or
explain why he or she cannot take such case processing actions. ALJs rarely fail to
comply with these orders. In those rare cases where the ALJ does not comply and where
appropriate, we pursue disciplinary action. </p>
<p>However, when ALJ performance or conduct issues arise, agencies such as SSA are more
limited in the manner in which they can attempt to correct the issues. For example,
agency managers may take certain corrective measures, such as informal counseling or
issuing a disciplinary reprimand. However, the agency cannot take stronger disciplinary
measures against an ALJ, such as removal or suspension, reduction in grade or pay, or
furlough for 30 days or less, unless the MSPB finds that good cause exists. </p>
<p>The current system makes it challenging to address the tiny fraction of ALJs who hear or
decide only a handful of cases, fail to decide cases in a legally sufficient manner, allow
cases under their control to languish, or otherwise engage in misconduct. A few years
ago, we had an ALJ who failed to inform us, as required, that he was also working fulltime
for the Department of Defense. Another ALJ was arrested for committing a serious
domestic assault. More recently, an ALJ failed to follow his managers' orders to process
his cases. We removed these ALJs, but only after completing the lengthy MSPB
disciplinary process that lasts several years and can consume over a million
dollars of taxpayer resources. In each of these cases, unlike disciplinary action against all other
civil servants, the law required that ALJs receive their full salary and benefits until the
case was finally decided by the full MSPB---even though the agency could not allow
them in good conscience to continue deciding and hearing cases. We remain open to
exploring different options to address this matter, while ensuring the qualified decisional
independence of ALJs.</p>
<p> <u><strong>Conclusion </strong></u><strong></strong></p>
<p>Over fifty years ago, Congress created the disability program to help some of our most
vulnerable citizens. The vast majority of our adjudicators care very much about making
the right decision and being good stewards of the tru st funds, and we are committed to
helping them do their jobs effectively. </p>
<p>We thank you for your interest in helping us improve our service and ensure ongoing
confidence in our programs. We also ask for your support for the President's budget
request, which will provide us with funding to continue to improve our hearings process,
to improve the integrity of our disability programs, and to reduce improper payments.
With past support from Congress, we have made progress in both the administrative and
program integrity arenas and we all benefit if that progress is not lost. </p>
<p>Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will do my best to answer any
questions you may have.</p>
<p>______________________________________________</p>
<p><strong>1</strong> These mandatory funds would replace the discretionary cap adjustments authorized by the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the Budget Control Act. These funds
would be reflected in a new account, the Program Integrity Administrative Expenses account, which would
be separate, and in addition to, our Limitation on Administrative Expenses (LAE) account. Under the
proposal, the funds would be available for two years, providing us with the flexibility to aggressively hire
and train staff to support the processing of more program integrity work. </p>
<p><strong>2</strong> With this increased level of funding, the associated volume of medical CDRs is 1.047 million, although it
may take us some time to reach that level. For comparison, we conducted about 430,000 CDRs in FY
2013.</p>
<p>________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<div align="center">
<p><strong>Statement of Judge Jasper J. Bede,<br>
Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge<br>
Social Security Administration <br>
before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform<br>
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements<br><br>
November 19, 2013</strong></p>
</div>
<p>Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Speier, and Members of the Subconunittee: </p>
<p>My name is Jasper J. Bede, and I serve as the Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for Region
III (Philadelphia). I have held this position with the Social Security Administration (SSA) since
April 2006. I was the Hearing Office Chief ALJ (HOCALJ) in the Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
Hearing Office from 2002 to 2006. I was appointed to the position of ALJ in 1991, after
working at SSA as an Appeals Officer, Supervisory Attorney Advisor and Attorney Advisor.
Prior to my employment with SSA, I was an Officer in the United States Army. </p>
<p>Region III includes Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
West Virginia. The population we serve is a reflection of the wider population of the United
States from farm laborers and coalminers to medical researchers and software designers. Many
of the claimants who appear before our judges have unskilled work backgrounds and less than a
high school education, but we also see claimants who have achieved the highest levels of
education and worked in the most skilled professions. </p>
<p>Region III has 18 Hearing Offices, 150 ALJs, and approximately 742 support staff. Currently,
Region III has 98,213 cases pending, and in fiscal year 2013, we closed 80,753 cases with an
average processing time of 407 days. Region III ranks first in the nation in quality measures
with an 87.7 percent Appeals Council agree rate. We also have the first and second ranked
Hearing Offices in the nation (Johnstown and Seven Fields). </p>
<p>As the Chief ALJ in Region III, my job is to make sure our offices best serve our claimants and
contribute to ODAR's mission of providing timely and quality service to the public. I frequently
visit the hearing offices in my region and emphasize our goals of providing timely, policy-compliant
decisions. I set up one-on-one meetings with all of the new ALJs in my region, and I
make myself available to all staff. With regard to ALJs, if I learn of an issue, I work with the
Hearing Office Chief ALJ to discuss the issue and to assist the ALJ. If informal discussions with
the ALJ do not correct the problem, I may counsel the ALJ or issue a formal reprimand. For
more serious issues, I can request that the Chief ALJ initiate proceedings with the Merit Systems
Protection Board. </p>
<p>Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I would be happy to answer any questions that
you may have.</p>
</div>
</div><!-- end .row-12 -->
</div><!-- end grid -->
</div><!-- end #content -->
<!-- PAGE FOOTER -->
<ssa-footer class="print-hide"><noscript><footer class="footer" id="footer" role="contentinfo"><a href="/menu#footer">Footer menu</a></footer></noscript></ssa-footer><script src="https://www.ssa.gov/legacy/components/dist/ssa-footer.js"></script>
</div><!-- end #page -->
<!-- OCOMM BODY CONTENT -->
<!-- SSA INTERNET BODY SCRIPTS -->
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.body.js"></script>
</body>
</html>
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink