Let the Disabled Wait

One sharp contrast between the budgets proposed by President Obama and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is the allocation for administering the Social Security program. Zeroing in on that seemingly mundane line item is instructive because it illustrates how stark the differences are between the conservative and progressive visions for the federal government’s role.

President Obama’s budget calls for a $1 billion increase for the Social Security Administration, to $12.5 billion in fiscal 2011. The House-passed H.R. 1 actually reduces the SSA spending level -- to $11.3 billion in 2011. What difference does substantially increasing versus cutting spending on administering Social Security mean to average citizens?

One of the most-labor intensive tasks of the SSA is determining whether individuals applying for the program’s disability benefits are actually eligible. The agency’s personnel  closely review medical and employment records to determine if each applicant’s condition is severe and would interfere with work-related activities, usually holding hearings to make those assessments. During periods of high unemployment, such as the one that continues to persist, applications for disability benefits invariably surge. In 2010, just under 3 million disability applications were submitted, compared to 2.2 million in 2007. Even though the agency has become more efficient in recent years as its funding has increased – average wait times for a hearing declined  from an all-time high of nearly 18 months in 2008 to one year -- the backlog of pending claims has risen to 774,000 due to the increased applications.

But cutting funding for the SSA now would inevitably escalate those backlogs and wait times. In Congressional testimony, Marty Ford, the Co-Chair of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task Force on Social Security, described particular examples of how prolonged waits for decisions on disability claims can devastate families:

• A 46-year-old woman with fibromyalgia and depression from Omaha, Nebraska filed her request for hearing on August 2, 2010. Her utilities were shut off on December 30, 2010, and she received an eviction notice on January 4, 2011. Although her husband works, his checks are being garnished for her medical bills. She cannot afford her medications and does not qualify for Medicaid because her husband works. Her representative requested critical case status for expedited processing on December 30, 2010 and her hearing was held on February 18, 2011, but she has not yet received a decision. 

• A 19-year-old man in Plano, Texas with a full scale IQ of 65 lives with his foster mother, who is his sole source of support. All of his schooling has been in special education classes, he has been diagnosed with mental health problems, and he has been in several inpatient psychiatric facilities. He was born prematurely with a positive drug screening, put into foster care at 13 months of age, and has chronic encephalopathy 5 with psychomotor delays. He applied for SSI disability benefits in February 2010 and is still waiting for a hearing and hearing decision.

• A 52-year-old man who formerly worked as a security guard living in a homeless shelter in eastern North Carolina is constantly in and out of the hospital. He has bipolar disorder and is an insulin-dependent diabetic with associated neuropathy, which causes burning pain in his feet and legs. He has had two heart attacks for which he has had stents. He needs a pacemaker for his heart but cannot get one until he is determined eligible for Medicaid, which he cannot get until he is found eligible for SSI. He asked for a hearing on his SSI claim in September 2010, but he will probably wait until mid to late summer 2011 to get a hearing – if he lives that long. 

• A homeless woman in Manchester, NH requested her hearing in January 2010. After her representative submitted a “dire need” request for expedited processing, her hearing was held one year later (January 6, 2011). She has had no access to medical care for her severe mental impairments (bipolar disorder, paranoia, and anxiety) and has not yet received a decision.

It is worth noting that the share of share of disability applications that result in awards has declined substantially over the past decade, from about 47 percent in 2000 to 36 percent last year, so anyone concerned about payments being made to “un-deserving” individuals need not worry. But for the more than 800,000 Americans each year who ultimately qualify for benefits,  the prolonged wait for a decision from the Social Security Administration imposes genuine hardships.

The SSA has demonstrated that its service improves when it is adequately funded. Even the Bush administration increased the agency’s budget significantly. But compassion isn’t in the vocabulary of today’s Republican leadership.         

Comments

[Doug]

To your point to those worried about disability fraud and those who receive benefits un-deservedly, cutting funding for Social Security Disability will only increase the difficulty of the SSA's constant struggle to get disability benefits to those who really deserve it.

Lack of funding leads to mistakes, and insufficient staffing levels etc. will only make it harder to execute due diligence necessary to prevent disability benefits fraud, as well as make the correct awards to truly deserving disabled individuals early on in the process.

Thanks for the article.

Doug
SocialSecurity-Disability.org/blog