U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–764 2009

ELIMINATING THE 

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BACKLOG 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 24, 2009 

Serial No. 111–9 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

ii 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee, Chairman 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas, Ranking Member 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia, Ranking Member 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

JANICE MAYS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

JON TRAUB, Minority Staff Director 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration ........................................................................................................................ 12

The Honorable Patrick O’Carroll, Inspector General, Social Security Administration ................................................................................................................... 74 

Dan Bertoni, Director of Disability Issues for the Education, Workforce & 

Income Security Team, U.S. government Accountability Office ....................... 80 

Peggy Hathaway, Vice President, United Spinal Association, Silver Spring, 

Maryland; on behalf of Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social 

Security Task Force ............................................................................................. 104 

The Honorable Ron Bernoski, administrative law judge, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and President, Association of administrative law judges .................... 131 

James Fell, Hearing Office Director, Social Security Administration Office 

of Disability Adjudication and Review, Cincinnati, Ohio; and Immediate 

Past President of the Federal Managers Association Chapter 275 ................. 122 

Rick Warsinskey, District Office Manager, Cleveland, Ohio; and Immediate 

Past President, National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc. .............................................................................................................. 139 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Cary L. Bartlow, Ph.D., Statement ........................................................................ 174 

Dorothea Bawks, Statement ................................................................................... 175 

Earl Tucker, Statement ........................................................................................... 176 

Georgina Huskey, Statement .................................................................................. 180 

James F. Allsup, Statement .................................................................................... 185 

John Yent, Statement .............................................................................................. 187 

Joyce R. Shoop, Statement ...................................................................................... 190 

Linda Fullerton, Statement .................................................................................... 191 

National Association of Disability Representatives, Statement .......................... 202 

National Council on Disability, Statement ............................................................ 205 

Rene ́e B. Jubrey, Statement ................................................................................... 211 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

(1) 

ELIMINATING THE 

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BACKLOG 

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m., in room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable John S. 

Tanner [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INCOME SECURITY 

AND FAMILY SUPPORT 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–9263 

March 17, 2009 

SS–1 

Congressmen Tanner and McDermott 

Announce a Joint Hearing on Eliminating 

the Social Security Disability Backlog 

Congressman John S. Tanner (D–TN), Chairman, Subcommittee on Social Security, and Congressman Jim McDermott (D–WA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, today announced a joint hearing on the Social 

Security Administration’s (SSA’s) large backlog in disability claims and other service 

delivery declines, including backlogs in program integrity activities. The hearing 

will take place on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 in the main Committee hearing 

room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:30 a.m. 

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this 

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

In recent years, SSA’s backlog of claims for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits has reached unprecedented levels, with more 

than 1.3 million Americans currently awaiting a decision on their case. The problem 

is particularly severe at the hearings level, where the backlog has more than doubled since 2000—from about 310,000 to more than 765,000—and the average waiting time is now almost 500 days. 

These backlogs have resulted from years of underfunding as SSA’s workload increased due to the aging of the population and additional responsibilities given to 

the agency. Resource shortages have also led to service delivery declines in other 

areas. SSA has significantly cut back on program integrity activities such as continuing disability reviews and SSI redeterminations, even though these activities 

have been demonstrated to generate considerable savings, as much as $10 in program costs for every $1 in administrative expenditures. In addition, service to the 

public has declined in SSA’s field offices, as noted in a January 2009 report from 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the backlog problem is of such severity that GAO included it in its biennial ‘‘high risk’’ list of federal programs. 

In the past two years, Congress has provided additional funding to begin to address these problems, and SSA has begun to implement a plan to eliminate the 

hearings level backlog by 2013. However, the agency continues to face new challenges. Disability and retirement claims are increasing due to the economic downturn in combination with demographic changes. From FY 2008 to FY 2009, initial 

disability claims are projected to increase by more than 12 percent and retirement 

claims by more than 8 percent, and both are expected to increase even further in 

FY 2010 and FY 2011. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

3 

Finally, two provisions designed to increase access to professional representation 

for disability claimants are scheduled to expire during the 111th Congress; and legislative proposals have been offered relating to the disability determination process, 

such as changing how claimants give consent to release medical records. 

In announcing the hearing, Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Tanner said, 

‘‘Today thousands of Americans with severe disabilities must wait 

months—and sometimes years—to receive benefits. We are committed to 

ensuring that the Social Security Administration is on top of this problem 

and receives the resources it needs to eliminate the huge backlog in disability claims. We must also ensure the agency has the necessary resources 

to handle increased workloads associated with the economic recession, perform program integrity reviews, and provide the highest-quality service to 

the American people.’’ 

Income Security and Family Support Chairman Jim McDermott said, ‘‘Far too 

many of our most vulnerable elderly and disabled citizens are waiting too 

long to get the benefits that they deserve and are entitled to under the law. 

Congress has responded to this crisis by providing the Social Security Administration with increased funds in order to begin to actively address this 

problem, but it is time for the agency to take more action to significantly 

reduce the waiting period before an individual gets the benefits and services they need, while also ensuring the integrity of the process. I look forward to hearing about the initiatives that the agency is taking to address 

this problem and what additional steps Congress can take to help.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

This hearing will focus on SSA’s large backlog in disability claims. The Subcommittees will examine the impact of the backlog on applicants with severe disabilities and SSA’s plans for eliminating the backlog, including how the agency intends 

to use the additional funding that Congress has provided for the current fiscal year. 

The hearing will also examine the impact of resource shortages on other agency responsibilities, including SSA’s substantial backlog in program integrity activities, 

and SSA’s plans for addressing these challenges. The hearing also provides an opportunity for comment on legislative proposals or expiring provisions relating to disability determination. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Committee Hearings’’. Select the hearing for 

which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide 

a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, complete all informational forms and click ‘‘submit’’ on the final page. ATTACH your 

submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with the formatting 

requirements listed below, by close of business Tuesday, April 7, 2009. Finally, 

please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will 

refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. For questions, or if 

you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As 

always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and subcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

4 

mitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov 

f 

Chairman TANNER. If we could, please, come to order. 

This is a joint Subcommittee—the Subcommittee on Social Security and the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support—hearing this morning to talk about the backlog that all 

Americans know about with regard to Social Security disability 

claims, as well as looking at the ability from the resource standpoint to reevaluate people who have been on disability and who 

may have improved to the point where their case needs to be reevaluated. 

Mr. Johnson, who is the Ranking Member on the Social Security 

Committee, is going to be arriving soon. He has been in Texas, I 

understand. He is coming back. 

So we welcome Mr. Linder. 

I will try to keep my opening statement short, and I would hope 

that the other Members could see their way clear to do as well. 

We will be talking about a lot of numbers today. But, you know, 

behind the numbers are real people with real problems out there 

across the country who are waiting sometimes over a year. 

In my case, in Tennessee, it is an average waiting time—in Memphis, it is 16 months; in Nashville, it is a little more than that, 18 

months; and all of us have anecdotal experiences with constituents 

who have been waiting to the point that many of them have died 

actually while waiting on an evaluation of their claim. So as we go 

through these numbers, I think it would be wise for us to keep in 

mind that there are real people out there that are in need, and so 

we will look at all of those questions that I have outlined. 

The prepared statement of Mr. Tanner follows: 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

5 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.001
6 

f 

Chairman TANNER. So, at this time, I would ask Mr. Linder if 

he has any opening comments. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is really about two things. The first is the large 

backlog in Social Security and SSI disability claims and efforts to 

reduce it. That is a big problem, which we should work to fix. 

The second and the long-run, more important thing this hearing 

is about is the plummeting credibility of our ability to propose solutions for this country. There seems to have been adopted the axiom 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.002
7 

that anything that is wrong can be fixed by a big government program. We are here to talk about one that is failing, and we expect 

to vote this year on a government-run healthcare system that will 

also fail. 

I have a suggestion for our guests and viewers. Take the press 

release announcing today’s hearing and substitute the words 

‘‘healthcare service’’ for Social Security disability wherever they appear. The title of the hearing would be Eliminating the Health 

Care Service Backlog; the background would discuss how the backlog of claims for healthcare services has reached unprecedented levels and focus on the hearing would be on the large backlog in 

healthcare services. 

The reality is that the backlogs and ultimately rationing of services plaguing Social Security’s disability claims system will be repeated or worse in a government-run healthcare system. To deny 

that is to deny the existence of problems that we will hear about 

today. Only the backlogs of the future won’t just mean people don’t 

get disability checks on time. It will mean people will die waiting 

for treatment or after receiving inadequate treatment. 

I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record an article published last week about one hospital in England where between 400 

and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected in a 3- 

year period at the National Health Service hospital. This led Prime 

Minister Gordon Brown to apologize to all of those who have suffered from the mistakes that have been made. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. LINDER. Some mistakes the article notes is how visitors 

saw patients drinking out of flower vases. They were thirsty. 

I would like to remind you that about 30 years ago, the British 

National Health Service approved the use of administrative failure 

as an acceptable cause of death for a death certificate. 

Today’s hearing is a cautionary tale for those who think a government-run healthcare system will efficiently deliver medical services in a timely fashion. It won’t. If the government cannot adequately serve the 2.6 million Americans who annually apply for 

disability benefits today, what makes us think it will provide adequate healthcare services to 300 million Americans tomorrow? 

Those who trust in this Congress to allocate just the right amount 

of social policy medicine to cure what ails us deserve the poor service they will surely get. 

Last, let me point out that the two largest budget problems that 

we face as a Nation are Social Security and Medicare. Need we create more? Will the same Congress that has, in the unanimous opinion of today’s testimony, underfunded Social Security’s disability 

process be generous with the government healthcare bureaucracy 

or its doctors, nurses, and specialist employees? What is the evidence of that? There is none. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Linder. 

Mr. Johnson has arrived. So, Mr. Johnson, you are recognized, 

sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations. 

I look forward to the good work we can accomplish together. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

8 

I also want to welcome our new Members, our colleagues from 

the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee. We all 

share a real concern about the delays our constituents face when 

they visit or contact a local Social Security office, call the 800 number or wait over 16 months for a decision in their disability appeal 

before an administrative judge. 

Mr. Astrue, I know you have done good work to try to fix that. 

At the same time, efforts to address program waste, fraud, and 

abuse have been curtailed, costing billions in improper payments, 

while reducing taxpayer confidence that their hard-earned tax dollars will provide the services they pay for and deserve. 

This Committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to obtain needed funding for the Social Security Administration. In the last 2 

years, Congress sent an additional $275 million to the agency, 

above the President’s request. In the economic stimulus plan, Social Security received an additional $1 billion for a new computer 

center and to help process a growing number of applications for retirement and disability benefits. 

Now it is time for you guys to step up and account for how the 

money is going to translate into real results. In the short term, Social Security must answer their phones, reduce the wait times for 

people in local Social Security offices, and tell people sooner whether their application for Social Security benefits has been granted or 

denied at all levels in the process. 

Whether Social Security can get the job done depends in large 

part on our having state-of-the-art computers driven by the latest 

proven software. Far from state-of-the-art, Social Security’s main 

computer systems are stuck in the past. Social Security’s main 

database still operates using 1950’s technology, including COBOL 

programming language. Social Security is working to replace this 

language, but that project is not estimated to be completed until 

2014. 

Last year, we learned the agency’s 30-year-old computer center 

will be unable to carry its load after 2012. We are not so far from 

there. In the meantime, a second data center has been built in 

Durham, North Carolina, to run some of the agency’s daily work 

and temporarily step in to keep basic operations running if needed. 

However, Durham is not going to be fully operational until 2012. 

They may not be able to cover all the agency’s computing needs, 

at the same time now facing the difficult task of purchasing a new 

computer center using the $500 million they just received. 

Going forward, Social Security cannot get this wrong. So I would 

like the Commissioner to tell us his plan for maintaining agency 

computer operations while finishing the Durham data center and 

building a new computer center. 

I hope we can solve this problem, because we are worried to 

death about some disaster befalling that building and the only site 

that contains information goes defunct. 

I thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward to 

hearing their testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

9 

I would like to now ask Dr. McDermott, who is the chairman of 

the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, for his 

statement and then—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Tanner, for including us in 

this hearing. 

There are nearly six million disabled individuals who wait for 

SSI to provide them with a helping hand. This program really 

serves as a safety net to provide very modest cash assistance and 

medical coverage through Medicaid programs to those who have little or no income or assets. 

Disability benefits, either through Supplemental Security Income 

or Social Security programs, serve as a lifeline really for a number 

of people. The cash assistance and the healthcare coverage provided to these individuals gives them the help that makes it possible for them to make ends meet. 

Now, many are not in a position to wait months to receive a decision on their eligibility for assistance, particularly those with very 

limited resources who are seeking assistance through the SSI Program. You can imagine the clamor we would have if we had this 

kind of wait in our unemployment insurance. Yet, today, the average waiting time to secure a hearing for a disability claim at SSA 

is roughly 500 days, 161⁄2 months. That is simply unacceptable. 

There must be a better way to serve the American public. 

To be fair, the Social Security Administration has operated in an 

insufficient funding level, as you heard, for a number of years. The 

agency did not have the resources it needed to keep pace with the 

normal volume of applications for assistance in Social Security and 

SSI, much less respond to rising claims that are associated with 

the aging of the baby boomers. 

The agency has received new responsibilities as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and the Medicare Improvements for 

Patients and Providers Act of 2008. As a result, SSA has experienced severe staffing shortages, which led to a decline, actually, in 

service delivery. 

In response, the Committee has worked with our colleagues on 

the Appropriations Committee over the last 2 years to provide SSA 

with additional funding to allow them to begin to reduce the disability backlog; and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

provided the agency with additional funds to address the recent increase in workload. 

We will continue to work with our colleagues and the Administration to assure the agency has the resources it needs to respond 

to individuals who need care. But it is now time for the agency to 

take bold steps to expeditiously reduce the length of time that a 

disability claimant must wait for a hearing, and it is imperative 

that this is done in a manner that firmly upholds the program’s integrity so that benefits are only given to those who are eligible to 

receive them. 

It is also critically important that, while SSA adheres to all the 

necessary program integrity measures, it remains mindful of the 

precarious circumstances facing a disabled applicant who is awaiting a decision on its application. Many go hungry or lose their 

homes as they wait for a hearing and subsequent decision. Others 

go without desperately needed medical assistance and prescription 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

10 

drugs as they wait. And others see their health and medical conditions deteriorate. All of us in our district offices see these cases on 

a human basis. 

Meanwhile, a significant number of these applicants will eventually be determined to be rightfully eligible for benefits under the 

supplemental security act of Social Security. Most are judged to be 

eligible. 

Clearly, more need to be done to get these benefits out to the severely disabled Americans in a more efficient manner. The 1.3 million people who are waiting for a decision to be made on their application deserve better. 

I am pleased to see you here, Mr. Astrue; and we are eager to 

hear your testimony. Thank you. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Dr. McDermott. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDermott follows:] 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

11 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.003
12 

f 

Chairman TANNER. The Chair would ask that unanimous consent for anyone, any Member who wishes to submit a statement, 

an opening statement to the record, that be allowed without objection; and also the witnesses’ testimony will be in the record in their 

entirety. 

We would ask, Commissioner, if you could hold your testimony 

to 5 minutes. We would appreciate it, and I will try to ask the 

Members to do the same. 

You are recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ASTRUE. Chairman Tanner and Chairman McDermott, 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

talk about the Social Security Administration’s most important 

mission, service to the American people. 

Just over 2 years ago, on my second day as Commissioner, I testified here before you. Your frustration with mounting backlogs and 

service delivery issues was palpable; and, to your credit, you recognized not only that the agency needed to be more efficient, but that 

Congress needed to provide more resources. I pledged to work with 

you toward that goal; and together we have made progress even in 

these difficult economic times, although not as fast or as far as any 

of us would like. 

Here are some examples of service improvement: 

AT the DDS level, we have reduced processing time by about 4 

percent in each of the last 2 years. New electronic triaging systems 

accelerate payment to those who clearly meet the medical listings. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.004
13 

This year, for about 4 percent of all claimants, 100,000 to 

125,000 Americans, the DDSs will approve their claims in about 10 

days. 

New support tools for examiners, such as the e-Cat System that 

is being tested in Michigan, Virginia, and Connecticut, are improving consistency and accuracy. 

We are expanding a highly successful pilot to access electronic 

medical records. An enormous amount of time, cost, error, and 

delay comes from chasing down scattered paper medical records. A 

new paradigm for receiving medical records will allow us to make 

exponential improvements in the speed and quality of our decisions. 

We are working hard to update regulations on our medical listings, and we are on schedule to update all of them every 5 years. 

We are also expanding the listings to include rare diseases and 

conditions that clearly represent permanently disabling conditions. 

We hired and trained 190 new ALJs last year, and we expect to 

hire 157 more in the coming months. We plan to maintain a national average ratio of about 4.5 support staff per ALJ. 

At the hearing level 2 years ago, we were facing stubborn increases of about 70,000 more cases each year with no relief in 

sight. Due to a misguided effort to hold that number down, ODAR 

had been giving priority to the newest, easiest cases. So the predictable happened and the number of what the agency calls ‘‘aged’’ 

cases skyrocketed. 

At the start of fiscal year 2007, we had about 65,000 ‘‘aged’’ cases 

which were then defined as 1,000 days or older, and some were as 

old as 1,400 days, which is simply obscene. We cleared out all but 

a handful of them that year. 

For fiscal year 2008, we redefined the ‘‘aged’’ as 900 days; and 

we resolved about 135,000 of those cases. We lowered the ‘‘aged’’ 

definition again this year to 850 days, and we are ahead of schedule to process those 165,000 cases. As difficult a challenge as this 

is, it is the right thing to do. So next year we will raise the bar 

on ourselves again. 

This decision is paying off. Two years ago, the Atlanta hearing 

office had the worst average processing time in the country of 

about 900 days. Today, nobody is waiting that long; and the time 

in Atlanta is 550 days. In fact, the worst average processing time 

in the country is now 726 days; and we have improvement plans 

in place for the 30 most backlogged offices. For example, we are 

providing relief to hearing offices with the most pending cases by 

transferring cases to the National Hearing Center; and we are expanding the number of National Hearing Centers dramatically in 

the next few months. 

We are also adding 10 new hearing offices. We are adding additional satellite offices, and those new hearing offices are already 

well into the GSA site selection process. 

In some of our field offices, as the GAO reports, service has deteriorated because funding has not kept up with workloads. The key 

source of relief has been the public’s use of our much-improved 

electronic services. We have the three most user-friendly electronic 

services in the Federal Government, as measured by objective surveys; and the public has embraced them enthusiastically. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

14 

For instance, so far this year, about 33 percent of our retirement 

applications are filed online, up from only 10 percent 2 years ago. 

Without this choice, wait times in many offices would have been 

longer. 

Other efficiencies such as replacement of our antiquated telephones are under way, but the GAO is right that, ultimately, there 

is no substitute for adequate staff. Fortunately, passage of the Recovery Act and our annual fiscal year 2009 appropriation will allow 

us to hire over 5,000 people by the end of the year. Please keep in 

mind, though, that productivity suffers while we hire and train this 

many new people, and, for the most part, these new employees will 

not fully contribute until next year. 

Your recent legislative action will make a huge difference going 

forward, and timely passage of President Obama’s recommended 

appropriation for fiscal year 2010 will make an even bigger difference. 

Lastly, I am pleased to report that we will send more than $13 

billion in one-time recovery payments to eligible beneficiaries beginning in early May and continuing throughout the month, 3 to 

6 weeks ahead of the statutory deadline. 

Again, thank you for your support. It has meant a lot to the 

agency. I look forward to continuing to build on our strong and productive working relationship. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you very much, Commissioner, for 

that timely presentation; and your statement will be submitted to 

the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Astrue follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the current state 

of the Social Security Administration and our plans for the future. We are grateful 

for your long-standing support of our programs and for providing us with additional 

funding for fiscal years (FYs) 2008 and 2009. Social Security is indispensable to the 

disabled, seniors, and survivors and is one of the most important and most successful Federal programs that our country has ever established. 

The programs we administer pay nearly $60 billion in benefits each month—they 

are an integral part of the American economy. We have a proud history of excellent 

service to the public, and I reiterate my promise to do everything in my power to 

continue that tradition. 

I would also like to thank you for providing us with additional funding in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 so that we can process 

our increasing workloads, replace our aging National Computer Center (NCC), and 

issue economic recovery payments. We are working with the Department of the 

Treasury to enable Treasury to issue the $250 one-time economic recovery payments 

as soon as possible. As required by law, a total of about $13.25 billion in economic 

recovery payments will be issued to nearly 55 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries. Although implementing the legislation 

requires extensive coordination with other Federal agencies, we are on track to ensure that these payments to our beneficiaries are issued in May—about 3 to 6 weeks 

earlier than the statute requires. 

Since I last testified, we published the first Agency Strategic Plan during my tenure. It outlines our strategies to meet the challenges we face and to deliver the level 

of service the public expects and deserves. Over the past 2 years, we have made 

significant progress in implementing initiatives to better serve the public and to reduce the hearings backlog. We could not have done so without your help. As a result 

of the funding that you provided in FY 2008, we were able to hire and train 190 

administrative law judges (ALJs) and staff to support them. We are on track to hire 

an additional 157 ALJs and over 700 support staff this year. This additional staff 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

15 

will allow us to hear more cases and render more decisions. We have already seen 

a slight reduction in the number of cases awaiting hearings, a reduction which 

would have been even greater if we had not received more requests for hearing than 

we had anticipated. 

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, we are not yet where we need to be. Despite 

our progress, we have significant challenges ahead. The economic downturn, combined with the retirement of the baby boomers, and the fraying of our physical and 

technological infrastructure have diminished our ability to address our rising workloads and backlogs. The uncertainty of our annual appropriations, which often 

leaves the agency without full-year funding at the start of the fiscal year, adds further complexities. Adequate and sustained funding is essential for providing high 

level service to the American public. Nevertheless, with your continued support, we 

will eliminate the hearings backlog by 2013. 

The Services We Deliver 

We administer the Nation’s social insurance programs and one of the Nation’s 

largest means-tested income maintenance programs. Each year we send benefits totaling about $700 billion to approximately 60 million persons. Social Security and 

SSI benefits play a significant role in the Nation’s economic security. 

The Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance beneficiaries programs benefit 

workers, their dependents, and survivors at critical junctures in their lives: when 

they retire, when they become disabled, and when a family’s wage-earner dies. 

Through the SSI program, we assist the most vulnerable persons in our society. 

These payments provide a safety net for aged, blind, and disabled adults and children who have little or no income or resources. 

In addition to administering our own programs, we also assist the public in applying for food stamps and Medicare, including low-income subsidies under the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. These programs also play a significant role in the economic security of the Nation’s elderly and disabled. 

How We Serve the American Public 

We administer our programs and services through a network of over 1,400 offices 

that directly serve the public in communities throughout the country. About twothirds of our over 60,000 employees deliver direct service to the public or support 

the services provided by these front-line workers. Field offices are our front door and 

the primary points for face-to-face contact with the public. Our employees also work 

in teleservice centers, card centers, processing centers, hearings offices, the Appeals 

Council, regional offices, and our headquarters in Baltimore. 

I am particularly proud of our dedicated workforce, and I am pleased that Equal 

Opportunity Magazine recently named Social Security the top government employer. 

We also received high marks from our employees in the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey, with especially high marks for Job Satisfaction and Leadership and 

Knowledge Management, ranking among the top 10 Federal agencies in both categories. 

Recently, a leader in the customer service industry contacted one of our field offices for service. He praised the claims representative who helped him as one of the 

most personable, customer-oriented employees whom he had ever met, either inside 

or outside government. I am never surprised when I hear stories like this one; I 

know our employees are dedicated to our mission and to serving the public to the 

best of their abilities each and every day. 

Field Offices 

I would like to take a few minutes to describe the demands our employees face 

during a typical day in one of our field offices. Our field offices are extremely busy, 

and our employees are pulled in a variety of directions every day. 

Employees have only about an hour each day before the office opens to prepare 

the daily schedule of appointments, attend training, read policy updates, and process pending claims and post-entitlement actions. Once the office opens to the public, 

employees have little time to process pending work because much of their day is 

spent serving visitors and processing time-sensitive actions, such as issuing immediate payments for lost checks. 

The two most common reasons for visiting our field offices are to file a claim for 

benefits or to obtain or replace a Social Security card. 

• About 9 percent of field office visitors file claims for benefits, including retirement, disability, survivors, spouses, and children. Field office employees give 

this work their highest priority. Disability claims, much more complex than retirement claims, are particularly time intensive because our employees help 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

16 

claimants complete detailed forms about medications, treatment, medical testing, work history, and daily activities. 

• About 30 percent of field office visitors seek new or replacement Social Security 

cards for employment or tax purposes, to replace lost or damaged cards, or to 

obtain State and local government benefits. This work is critical to preventing 

identity fraud and has become more complex and labor-intensive because of legislative changes and heightened national security. 

Once the office closes to the public, employees may have only a few minutes to 

take care of all remaining business. For example, employees often must gather additional data to verify allegations of resources and income, such as child support, unemployment benefits, or workers’ compensation, in connection with the claims they 

had taken during the day. 

Our field office employees work extremely hard and handle a wide variety of services. To give you a sense of the volume and variety of work the field offices routinely 

handle, in FY 2008, we: 

• processed over 18 million applications for Social Security cards; 

• verified Social Security numbers (SSN) about 1 billion times; 

• provided about 19 million benefit verifications; 

• processed 3.7 million retirement and survivor claims, nearly 500,000 Medicare 

applications, over 1 million Medicare subsidy applications, and 62,000 food 

stamp applications; and 

• processed over 22 million status changes for our beneficiaries, such as changes 

of address and requests for direct deposit. 

Teleservice Centers 

Our other major point of contact with the public is through our 35 Teleservice 

Centers (TSC). The TSCs provide agent assistance to the public from 7 a.m. to 7 

p.m. Eastern Time on normal business days, as well as automated telephone services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. TSC employees handle a variety of inquiries, 

such as changes of address and telephone number, and requests for direct deposit 

and replacement Medicare cards. They schedule appointments and answer inquiries 

about payments and claim status and allow field offices to concentrate on workloads 

which require face-to-face interviews, additional development, or resolution of complex issues. 

Social Security Card Centers 

We currently have seven Social Security Card Centers located throughout the 

country. The card centers streamline and improve the integrity and stewardship of 

the Social Security number assignment process. Because of their specialized expertise, card center employees process applications for original Social Security numbers 

and replacement cards with a high degree of integrity, efficiency, and expertise. Applicants for a new or replacement card have shorter wait times in the card centers 

than in the field offices. Moreover, because the card centers handle much of the 

card-issuing workload, nearby field offices can focus on other critical activities, 

which results in quicker, more efficient service in field offices located in proximity 

to card centers. 

Our card centers are located in Brooklyn and Queens, New York; in Las Vegas, 

Nevada; in Downtown and North Phoenix, Arizona; in Orlando, Florida; and in Sacramento, California. 

DDSs, Hearings Offices, and the Appeals Council 

Each month, we pay about $12 billion in disability benefits to more than 13 million disabled beneficiaries across the Nation. The State disability determination 

services (DDS), our hearings offices, and the Appeals Council are integral to processing disability claims. These components, like our field offices, struggle with workload increases while they try to drive down backlogs created by years of understaffing and inadequate resources. 

The disability claims process begins when a disability claimant completes an 

interview with a field office employee. We then forward the claim to 1 of 54 DDSs. 

These State agencies develop the medical evidence and make the initial determination of whether the claimant is disabled. We could not perform our disability adjudication process without the State DDS employees. 

A claimant who is not satisfied with the DDS’s initial determination may request 

that the DDS reconsider it. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the reconsidered determination, he or she may request a non-adversarial hearing before an ALJ. At the 

hearing, the claimant may appoint a representative, testify, and call and question 

witnesses. (In the ten States in which the reconsideration stage has been elimicprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

17 

nated, the claimant may request that an ALJ review the initial determination.) A 

claimant who is not satisfied with the ALJ’s decision may request review by the Appeals Council. If the Appeals Council agrees to review a case and issues a new decision, a disabled claimant may appeal that decision to Federal district court. If the 

Appeals Council declines to review the decision, the ALJ’s decision becomes the final 

administrative action, and it may then be appealed to the Federal district court. 

Our Service Delivery Challenges 

We are an agency comprised of specialized staffs, but our common goal is to provide high-quality service. We face many challenges in meeting this goal, and we 

plan for those we can anticipate. For example, we knew that the demographics of 

the baby boomer generation would affect workload volumes across the agency. We 

also knew that our most experienced staff could soon retire because many of them 

are baby boomers themselves. In fact, according to our most recent estimate, we 

may lose 44 percent of our current employees by 2016. 

We also work carefully to forecast, to the best of our ability, the effect of other 

workloads on the agency. For example, we could not have predicted the new noncore workloads required by legislation, such as the Medicare Modernization Act, EVerify, or the new Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) verification requirements. We use the additional targeted funding provided by Congress or reimbursement from other agencies for these specific workloads. We know from recent experience that more employers are using E-Verify voluntarily, and we will update 

through our established process with DHS reimbursement for these activities. In addition, we are now working to accommodate States that may choose to follow new 

CHIP rules for benefit eligibility determinations. 

Certainly, we could not have predicted the current weakened state of the American economy or the high unemployment rate, factors that contribute to an increase 

in the number of applications for benefits. These unexpected events hit at the same 

time our workloads were significantly increasing due to the baby boomer retirement 

wave. 

These additional and unexpected workloads are not our only challenges. Although 

we fully fund the State DDSs, they operate under a myriad of State personnel and 

budget rules. For example, due to budget constraints this fiscal year, some States 

have instituted statewide staffing freezes and furloughs. Some States have excluded 

DDS staff from these restrictions because they recognized the negative impact such 

restrictions would have on their disabled residents. Other States, though, have, over 

our vehement objections, chosen to treat DDS employees like other State employees 

and subject them to State restrictions, including furloughs. 

Our information technology infrastructure is outmoded and inefficient, but improving dramatically. For example, we are converting the agency’s master files from 

an in-house developed data base management system, created over 25 years ago, to 

a modern industry standard data base management system. We have already migrated our enumeration master file, which is our largest in terms of number of 

records. This year we plan to do the same with our next largest file, which houses 

earnings information. 

During the 2 years I have been Commissioner, we have also started each year 

without a full-year appropriation. We spent all of FY 2007, almost one-third of FY 

2008, and nearly one-half of FY 2009 operating under a continuing resolution. As 

you well know, during continuing resolutions, we must restrict our spending levels 

to that of the prior year’s appropriated funding. This year it meant we operated 

through the beginning of March with nearly $300 million less than the President’s 

budget. Even if our workloads remained level from year to year, the annual inflation 

in our fixed costs, such as building maintenance, security, and salary increases, 

while necessary to maintain our operations, would reduce the amount we have 

available for taking retirement and disability claims and providing the other services the American public requires. 

Workloads, though, have not remained level. In the past few years we have experienced a steady increase in the number of visitors to our field offices. Field offices 

averaged 800,000 visitors per week in FY 2006; 826,000 in FY 2007; and 854,000 

in FY 2008. So far, in FY 2009, we have helped, on average, over 852,000 visitors 

each week, but that number appears to be rising. In February 2009 alone, we helped 

an average of over 940,000 visitors per week; we expect this upward trend to continue throughout FY 2009. (See Appendix A for average daily visitors per month.) 

Even with all available field office employees and managers devoted to serving 

visitors, waits are long—31 percent of visitors without an appointment, about 5.8 

million visitors, wait more than 30 minutes to be seen by staff; and 6 percent of 

visitors with appointments, about 1.1 million visitors, wait more than 30 minutes. 

Not only is this unacceptable to you, to the public, and to us, it is also demoralizing 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

18 

to our employees, who have dedicated their careers to providing outstanding service 

to the public. 

There is also a clear connection between our inability to hire staff and the deterioration in service at our TSCs. Nearly 15 percent of callers who call our 800 number 

receive a busy signal. As a result, many of our customers who were unable to conduct their business over our 800 number chose to go to their local field office. This 

increase in visitors to field offices contributed to the higher field office waiting time 

I have described. 

Moreover, we now project a dramatic increase in workloads due to the economic 

downturn. This increase is a cause for concern. Recent projections indicate that we 

will receive over 300,000 more retirement claims in FY 2009 compared to FY 2008, 

an increase of nearly 9 percent. 

The current recession has also affected our disability workloads. Studies suggest 

a correlation between increases in unemployment and increases in disability filings, 

and we have seen a sizable increase in filings so far this year. We currently anticipate more than 2.9 million disability filings in FY 2009, an increase of over 300,000 

cases over FY 2008. This number represents more than a 12 percent increase in new 

applications and is 13 percent higher than the amount assumed in the 2009 President’s budget. 

In addition, although it is difficult to project with precision, we believe we may 

receive approximately 50,000 more hearing requests in FY 2009 than in FY 2008. 

We also expect to receive nearly 40,000 additional requests for reconsideration and 

more than 20,000 requests for Appeals Council reviews in FY 2009 compared to FY 

2008. 

We have paid the price for the growth in workloads and tight budgets in recent 

years. We have been forced to defer performing full medical continuing disability reviews (CDR) and other critical stewardship workloads, such as adjusting payments, 

correcting earnings, and processing wage reports and overpayments. We do not want 

to defer this work; these are critical workloads that ensure we are paying the right 

beneficiary the right amount at the right time. In addition, we know that for each 

dollar we spend performing CDRs, we recoup over $10 in program funds. However, 

we have had to focus our limited resources on processing our initial claims workloads and getting eligible claimants paid, at the expense of performing this important work. 

As a result of this workload deferral, we estimate that we had a backlog of 1.4 

million full medical CDRs at the end of FY 2008, and we expect the backlog to grow 

by another 100,000 to 150,000 in FY 2009. However, we expect to process significantly more CDRs in FY 2009 than in FY 2008 in large part because of the additional dedicated funding provided by Congress for FY 2009. 

In analyzing our challenges, our mission, and the public we serve, we have come 

to understand that simply working harder is not enough to overcome the workload 

challenges we face. Last fall, I outlined four key goals for the agency in our Strategic Plan: (1) eliminate our hearings backlog and prevent its recurrence, (2) improve the speed and quality of our disability process, (3) improve our retiree and 

other core services, and (4) preserve the public’s trust in our programs. To move forward amidst our rising workloads, we must focus our attention on these key areas 

while modernizing the way we deliver service. We realize that achieving these goals 

will require sustained commitment and timely resources. If we are required to take 

on additional work, we will need sufficient funding to cover our full costs, as well 

as adequate time to implement any necessary regulatory, policy, process, training, 

or system requirements. 

Investing in Our Agency Produces Results 

Despite our growing challenges, we have made real progress within the past few 

years. We have begun the hiring and work that—if not for the economic downturn— 

would have produced more visible results for the American public, not just in terms 

of reduced backlogs and processing times, but also in terms of shortened field office 

wait times and fewer busy signals. Although it may not be readily apparent in these 

challenging times, we have achieved measurable successes. 

Service Delivery at the DDS Levels 

We are committed to a disability process that is fair, accurate, and as prompt as 

possible. Currently, though, our pending levels are too high, and claimants wait too 

long for a determination. Every day spent waiting for a determination creates additional burdens for many claimants who are already among the most vulnerable 

members of our society. This is simply unacceptable. 

The initiatives outlined below will modernize the disability process and improve 

our timeliness, accuracy, and efficiency. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

19 

We must improve the beginning of the administrative process, even before a hearing is requested. Using new rules and technology, we can allow claims earlier in the 

process and improve service for disability claimants. I am pleased to report today 

that at the DDS level, we have reduced processing times by about 4 percent in 2007 

and in 2008. 

Policy Initiatives 

We are currently using two processes—the Quick Disability Determination (QDD) 

process and Compassionate Allowances—to fast-track about 4 percent of all disability cases, a significant increase from the 2.6 percent of cases fast-tracked last 

year. This year we will find 100,000 to 125,000 Americans with the most severe disabilities eligible for benefits in about 10 days, instead of the 3 to 4 months it typically takes for an initial determination. 

Under QDD, a predictive computer model analyzes specific data within the electronic file. This model identifies cases with a high potential that a claimant is disabled and medical evidence is readily available. Through Compassionate Allowances, the model identifies claims for applicants with medical conditions so severe 

that their conditions by definition meet the required standard. These fast-track systems increase the efficiency of the disability process and free up resources. 

We have expanded our efforts to revise and update the medical listings. These 

listings allow us to make a favorable determination or decision for certain claimants 

without the need to consider that person’s age, education, or work experience. When 

I became Commissioner, the medical listings had not been updated for decades. 

Some listings had last been updated in the 1970s, others in the 1980s. That is far 

too long. So, in the last 2 years, we have published final regulations for 3 of the 

14 adult body systems, so they now reflect the updated advancements in medicine 

and technology. We are on schedule to update all of our medical listings every 5 

years, and, in the future, we plan to update these listings as often as every 3 years. 

We are also in the process of expanding the listings to include rare diseases and 

conditions that clearly represent permanently disabling conditions. 

To improve consistency and accuracy on complex policy issues, we have instituted 

a process for resolving disagreements between DDS disability examiners and Federal quality reviewers. In cases where the two components disagree on substantive 

issues, staff experts review the case and reach consensus. We anticipate we will resolve our most complex cases through this Request for Program Consultation (RPC) 

process. In addition, the RPC enables us to quickly pinpoint training needs and clarify or modify policies where necessary 

Systems Initiatives 

We are always looking for ways to use technology to improve our disability process. For example, we are on the forefront of the move to electronic health records 

and are primed to take advantage of the new and exciting possibilities related to 

health information technology (HIT). 

We began working with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston 

last spring to determine how we could use HIT to make our disability decision-making more efficient and timely. Currently, when a claimant treated at BIDMC files 

a disability application, the Medical Evidence Gathering and Analysis through 

Health Information Technology (MEGAHIT) system automatically sends an electronic request for his or her patient’s medical records. Almost immediately, the hospital electronically transmits back to us the individual’s medical record through 

MEGAHIT. We receive these records in seconds and minutes, rather than the usual 

weeks and months. 

As part of our HIT initiatives, we are a leader in the development of the Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN), the nation’s electronic network of health 

information. On February 28, we took part in the first exchange of data across the 

NHIN as the healthcare provider MedVirginia forwarded records to us in connection 

with a disability claim. We will be tracking the flow of data from MedVirginia providers to us by way of the new system. This initiative will revolutionize the way 

we process disability claims by allowing us to automatically request and receive the 

medical records needed to make disability determinations. Yet we realize that this 

is a time of the great change in the HIT area and thus we remain committed to 

participation in the standards and certification process, as well as to the protection 

of the privacy of these records. 

We also continue to develop and improve our Electronic Case Analysis Tool 

(eCAT). This tool helps disability adjudicators work through the policy aspects of 

claims adjudication to yield consistent, policy-compliant outcomes and better service 

to claimants. We expect the use of eCat will produce well-reasoned determinations 

with easy-to-understand explanations of how we reached our decision. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

20 

We plan to develop and implement a common case processing system for the 

DDSs. Currently, each of the 54 DDSs has its own unique processing system. A common system will help us take advantage of rapidly changing healthcare industry 

technology and provide the foundation for a seamless electronic disability case processing system. Our DDS partners agree that we need a common system, and we are 

working closely with them to develop requirements. This essential improvement will 

modernize and streamline our disability process, and we can only make important 

improvements on a timely basis, such as eCat, if we have a common system. 

Service Delivery at the Hearing Level 

As I have said many times, eliminating the hearings backlog is a moral imperative. Despite the additional workloads caused by the economic downturn, we have 

adjusted to changed circumstances and are still on track to eliminate the hearings 

backlog by 2013. Although it is difficult to project with precision, we believe we may 

receive approximately 50,000 more hearing requests in FY 2009 than in FY 2008. 

We have already taken preparatory actions in anticipation of this surge in hearing 

requests. We have moved to improve our processes, add new staff, and utilize new 

technologies. 

Through the hard work of our employees and with the support of Congress, we 

are making positive strides toward driving down the hearing backlog and providing 

Americans with disabilities the prompt service they deserve. In fact, we have already seen a slight reduction in pending hearing cases. These cases have dropped 

in the past two months. Furthermore, in the spirit of the President’s directive for 

transparent government, we will post the backlog numbers on the internet quarterly 

along with a clear explanation about the hearing backlog. 

In May 2007, I announced my plan to eliminate the backlog of hearing requests 

and prevent its recurrence. This backlog reduction plan centers on: 

• fast-tracked initial determinations; • improving hearing office (HO) procedures; • increasing adjudicatory capacity; and, • increasing efficiency with automation and improved business processes. 

Earlier, I discussed our initiative to fast-track initial cases. I will now highlight 

some of the key components of the plan’s other three elements. 

Improving Hearing Office Procedures 

We remain committed to improving our hearing office procedures. We have significantly reduced the inventory of the most aged cases, those that have been pending 

the longest. Clearing these cases normalizes our hearing work flow and more importantly, claimants who have waited far too long for a hearing decision finally receive 

one. We defined aged cases in FY 2008 as those cases that would be at least 900 

days old by the end of that fiscal year and cleared all but 281 of the more than 

135,000 we identified. For FY 2009, we raised the bar and redefined aged cases as 

those cases which will be at least 850 days old by the end of this fiscal year. There 

were 166,838 aged cases at the beginning of FY 2009, and we are ahead of our target and are more than halfway toward clearing all of them. We are looking to continue to attack the aged cases, and our probable goal for FY 2010 is to work the 

825-day-old cases, approximately 179,000 cases. 

We are also finding ways to expedite favorable decisions. We reinstituted the Attorney Adjudicator program to allow our most experienced attorneys in appropriate 

cases to make on-the-record, favorable decisions without a hearing. This program 

brings eligible applicants onto the disability rolls more quickly than if they had to 

wait for a hearing. Through the first five months of FY 2009, Attorney Adjudicators 

had issued 13,462 favorable decisions and are on target to meet our year end goal. 

We have also instituted a DDS remand process, special Federal Quality Reviewer 

screening units, and a Medical Expert Screening process to help identify cases that 

may be allowed without the need for a hearing. 

Increasing Adjudicatory Capacity 

We are working to maximize our ability to issue decisions at any given point in 

the disability process. In collaboration with State DDSs, we are using the informal 

remand process to send pending cases, which have been profiled as likely to be allowed, back to the DDS for review and possible favorable determination. As a result 

of this initiative, we were able to dismiss 16,838 requests for hearing due to favorable DDS decisions in FY 2008. We are on target to meet our year-end goal for DDS 

remands. All States are now able to process electronic informal remands, which will 

enable us to more easily transfer these cases to the DDSs. 

Our first National Hearing Center (NHC) is performing well. Located in Falls 

Church, Virginia, the NHC plays a crucial role in increasing our adjudicatory capaccprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

21 

ity and giving us the flexibility to address the areas of highest pending without 

waiting years to build or expand hearing offices. For example, transferring cases to 

the NHC from some of the offices with the highest number of pending cases has 

contributed to an improved average processing time in the hearing offices in Atlanta, Georgia; Cleveland, Ohio; and Flint, Michigan. The ALJs in the NHC hold 

hearings remotely using video conferencing and provides us the flexibility to better 

balance pending workloads across the country. In FY 2008, the NHC issued 2,151 

decisions. We will open another NHC site in Albuquerque, New Mexico this month 

and plan to open one in Chicago in the upcoming months. We also plan to open a 

site in Baltimore early next fiscal year. 

We are also working with the General Services Administration (GSA) to expedite 

opening 10 new hearing offices. (See Appendix B for a map of the planned hearings 

offices.) We are adding centralized centers for case pulling and decision writing in 

the regional offices to more quickly accommodate our needs. 

We are also hiring new employees. In FY 2008, we hired and trained 190 ALJs 

We have received a new certificate of eligible ALJ candidates, and we expect to hire 

157 new ALJs this year. We have already hired 140 new support staff in our hearing offices so far this year, and expect to hire over 700 additional support staff. This 

hiring will allow us to achieve a national average ratio of about 4.5 support staff 

to every ALJ. 

We are on target to eliminate the hearings backlog by 2013. We expect to 

reduce the number of pending hearings to 466,000 by FY 2013, which is the 

number of cases we will have when we reach our goal of an average processing time of 270 days. We are focused on hiring enough ALJs and support 

staff to achieve these goals given our current receipt and productivity projections. Our current estimate is that we will need 1,400 to 1,450 ALJs to 

achieve our goals, and we are expanding our physical infrastructure, to the 

extent we can, so that we can reach that level. We expect to hire 208 ALJs 

in FY 2010, while maintaining a national average ratio of about 4.5 support staff 

per ALJ. We will continue to work with GSA Headquarters and the Regional GSA 

offices to ensure we have adequate space to handle this significant increase. 

Finally, we are seeking to increase our adjudicatory capacity by ensuring that our 

ALJs are providing the service the public deserves. At the beginning of FY 2008, 

our Chief ALJ issued a letter asking all ALJs to strive to issue 500 to 700 legally 

sufficient decisions a year. About 50 percent of full-time experienced ALJs are meeting this expectation. Productivity in our Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

(ODAR) increased substantially for two consecutive years, in FY 2007 and FY 2008. 

In FY 2008, ODAR conducted nearly 15,000 more hearings than in FY 2007; average dispositions per ALJ also increased. But we were not able to sustain that level 

in the first few months of FY 2009 due, in part, to the hiring and training of a large 

number of new ALJs late in FY 2008. It takes about 2 years to fully train and mentor newly hired ALJs and support staff. Thus, we expect these new judges to become 

increasingly productive throughout the year, and we have already seen a significant 

improvement in productivity in both January and February. 

The increase in adjudicatory capacity at the hearing level will generate increased 

workloads at the Appeals Council. To address this rising workload, we will hire additional administrative appeals judges and support staff for the Appeals Council, 

and make additional overtime available. In FY 2009, we expect to add a total of 135 

new staff at the Appeals Council, while replacing losses due to attrition. 

Automated/Improved Business Processes 

We have also taken steps to ‘‘work smarter.’’ In FY 2008, we made significant 

progress in eliminating the remaining backlog of paper folders and transitioning to 

an electronic environment. 

We are preparing more cases for hearing (‘‘pulling cases’’) this year. This increase 

in cases ready for hearing will give the ALJs more cases to hear and decide. 

We are expanding the use of video equipment and have initiated the Representative Video Project. Under this project, representatives of disability claimants may 

use their personal equipment to participate in hearings from their own offices. We 

are using desktop video units in claimant-only hearing sites in addition to the traditional video equipment used in hearing offices. 

We will be implementing an in-line quality review of the claim file, scheduling 

process, and decision writing to ensure timely and legally sufficient hearings and 

decisions. 

To balance pending workloads nationally, last fiscal year we realigned service 

areas and moved workloads from regions with heavy workloads to regions that had 

the capacity to process additional work. We continue to monitor our workload numbers and make additional adjustments as needed. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

22 

Our plan is working—we have improved our hearing level performance. In FY 

2008, we had an impressive 5 percent increase in our hearing dispositions and made 

important gains in reducing aged cases and average processing times in the most 

backlogged offices. But for the increase in filings due to the economic downturn, the 

number of pending cases would have dropped for the first time this decade. However, because of the increased workloads, we ended up with a 14,000 case increase 

in pending cases. Yet, this is well below the annual increase of 70,000 cases we have 

seen in the years preceding the hearing backlog reduction plan. 

So far in 2009, our pending level rose in first 3 months, but dropped by 1,294 

cases in January and by another 1,719 cases in February. Our pending level is currently up 4,700 cases over the level at the end of FY 2008. If we continue our 

present concerted effort, combined with the increased productivity of our recently 

hired judges, I am hopeful we can drive the hearings backlog downward this fiscal 

year. 

We have a unique opportunity to significantly improve our service to our disability claimants. Taken together, our initiatives address every aspect of the hearings backlog problem. If all of these initiatives are successful, there is light at the 

end of the tunnel. 

Improving Retirement and Other Core Services 

We simplified our policies, improved our technology, and automated business processes to deal with our other significant workloads. As the Government Accountability Office recently indicated in its January 2009 report on service delivery and 

the baby boomer retirement wave, our agency’s service delivery has suffered because 

funding has not kept up with increasing workloads. The only way we have managed 

to hold our own is by offering the public the option of secure, user-friendly, electronic services. 

Perhaps the most dynamic and successful model illustrating how we plan to improve service in the future is our Ready Retirement project. In FY 2008, we began 

putting the key features of this transformational initiative into place by simplifying 

and further automating the processing of online retirement applications. We will 

continue to implement this initiative over the next few years using a multi-faceted 

approach: simplified enrollment, streamlined adjudication, and public education. 

The first key feature of Ready Retirement focuses on simplified enrollment. In December 2008, we introduced a new Internet application (iClaim) for retirement, disability, and aged spouses benefits. The new online claims application asks claimants 

questions that are pertinent to their own personal situation, relies on information 

already housed within our records, and contains navigational tools that make the 

application easy to use. As a result, iClaim not only simplifies the current process, 

but also shortens the time it takes to file online and eliminates the need for most 

online filers to visit their local field office. We have had incredible success with our 

launch of the iClaim media campaign featuring our spokesperson Patty Duke. 

The simplified enrollment process also hinges on efforts to update our policy. After 

thorough study, analysis, and vetting with agency components, we have simplified 

a number of policies that support Ready Retirement and other online initiatives. Future releases of iClaim will include authentication protocols to provide two-way online communication with online applicants while safeguarding personally identifiable information. We also are exploring new data exchanges and matching agreements to verify claims information online. 

Our efforts to streamline policy apply to both online claims and claims filed in 

person. For example, we know there have been concerns about our policy on advising claimants about their options for electing when to start receiving benefits. Our 

policy instructs employees to discuss all benefit types for which a claimant may be 

eligible, including options for when to start receiving benefits and does not prohibit 

employees from advising claimants about their benefit election options. The same 

policy holds true for Internet claims: claimants who file online have access to agency 

publications that explain all factors that they should consider when deciding when 

to retire; these publications also explain what other types of benefits are available 

to the claimants. Employees processing these online applications screen for other potential entitlements and contact claimants to discuss these and month of election 

options if there are questions. 

Our current version of iClaim, which is similar to our prior Internet application, 

currently requires manual review and adjudication because it does not take into account certain factors, such as non-service months, protective filing, and retroactivity 

when presenting month of election options to claimants. I am excited to announce 

that in May 2009, we are introducing a new version of iClaim that will offer election 

options to claimants filing online based on all of these factors. This new version of 

iClaim will give online filers additional support and will reduce the need for employcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

23 

ees to contact them. Our employees will continue to contact claimants as necessary 

to ensure that their benefit elections are clear and that accurate determinations are 

made. 

The second key feature of Ready Retirement is streamlined adjudication. The 

claims adjudication process includes many determinations, and the streamlined adjudication model is the next step in automating some of these manual decisions. All 

retirement applications require some manual processing, but streamlined adjudication will automate parts of the process. This automation will provide valuable efficiencies and administrative savings, while increasing our ability to provide a fully 

electronic claims process to the public. Improvement in adjudication will be implemented only after there are safeguards in place to protect applicants’ rights to all 

the benefits to which they may be entitled. 

Finally, the last key feature, and really the foundation, of Ready Retirement is 

public education. Through our financial literacy campaign, we are educating the 

public about making an informed decision as to when to begin receiving retirement 

benefits. 

In the past year, we implemented several educational tools. We introduced an online Retirement Estimator to enable the public to get immediate and personalized 

benefit estimates, and we created a new fact sheet and accompanying podcast titled, 

‘‘When to Start Receiving Retirement Benefits.’’ We also revised the Social Security 

Statement to provide more information to younger workers. For every Statement 

sent to a worker aged 25–35, we now include an insert called ‘‘What young workers 

should know about Social Security and saving.’’ This new supplement provides additional information about retirement planning and includes a chart showing how 

much difference just a little bit of saving can make. 

Our Internet services took top honors on the American Customer Satisfaction 

Index (ACSI) scorecard for the fourth quarter of FY 2008. The ACSI tracks trends 

in customer satisfaction and allows Federal agencies to benchmark their performance against comparable best-in-class entities. Our Retirement Estimator and 

iClaim applications were the highest scoring applications in the ACSI’s ‘‘top performers’’ category. 

The public has responded enthusiastically to the new iClaim process. So far this 

year about 33 percent of our retirement applications have been filed online, up from 

only 10 percent just 2 years ago. Taken at face value, this increase alone is impressive. But to truly understand the importance of Ready Retirement for our field operations, let me explain to you what just one aspect of service in the field would look 

like today if Ready Retirement did not exist. 

In the first quarter of FY 2009, 161,000 applicants started their retirement applications online. Without Ready Retirement, those claimants would have visited their 

local field offices or filed by telephone. If all of these claimants had filed in their 

local field office, we estimate wait times would have increased by 5 percent and 

busy signals by 6 percent. 

We will continue to analyze customer satisfaction and the performance and 

usability of iClaim. It is more critical now than ever that we are able to continue 

to fund this important project. As I mentioned earlier, recent projections show that 

we now expect to receive over 300,000 more retirement claims in FY 2009 compared 

to FY 2008. We must, to the greatest extent possible, push forward with our efforts 

to automate these applications. If our Ready Retirement initiatives are successful, 

we will not only be able to more efficiently and effectively handle the increase in 

applications from both baby boomers and the economic downturn, but also we will 

be able to expand these new processes to automate and streamline other high volume workloads. 

Protecting America’s Investment 

We are proud of all of our recent accomplishments, and I expect our momentum 

will continue. The additional funding in the ARRA together with our FY 2009 appropriation puts us in a much better position to deal with our fraying infrastructure 

and the current service challenges created by the economic downturn. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Funds 

Our NCC houses data critical to providing outstanding service and to paying benefits promptly and accurately. Because the NCC is over 30 years old, it will soon 

no longer be capable of supporting the growing demands of our computer systems 

and computer-based services. Replacing the NCC will allow us to provide service 24/ 

7 and avoid outages and slowdowns that disrupt service delivery. 

Now that we have the ARRA funding, we are continuing to work closely with the 

GSA—which manages federal construction projects—on all aspects of the pre-planning for the new NCC. The formal planning process with GSA will include formucprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

24 

lating criteria for the new data center, selecting a site, and developing a detailed 

construction timeline. In consultation with us, GSA will be responsible for completing most of these steps. The ARRA also calls for a one-time payment of $250 to certain Federal beneficiaries, including Social Security and SSI beneficiaries and provides the administrative funding necessary to ensure that these critically needed payments are infused into the economy as quickly as possible. We are on track to make these payments in May, ahead of the statutory deadline. The ARRA also provides an additional $500 million to process our rising retirement and disability workloads, as well as the backlogs resulting from the economic 

downturn, and to invest in related information technology projects. Unlike annual 

appropriations, which must be used within a fiscal year, we will be able to use this 

$500 million over the next 18 months. 

Use of FY 2009 Appropriation 

We are handling workloads far above what we anticipated just 6 months ago. Our full year appropriation, which supplies $126.5 million more than was included in 

President’s FY 2009 budget, as well as the additional funding in the ARRA, will 

allow us to invest in information technology, to hire 5,000 to 6,000 new employees 

before the end of the year, and to allot additional overtime to process critical workloads. In addition to replacing all of our losses in FY 2009, we will assign new employees to our front-line operations where they will have the greatest impact—approximately 1,200 employees to our field offices, 900 employees to our hearings offices, and 600 employees to State DDSs. 

Hiring new employees is critical to us, but operating under a continuing resolution, as we have this year, has impeded our ability to bring on new hires and have 

them fully productive before the end of the year. (See Appendix C for the effect of 

continuing resolutions on staffing trends.) 

Unfortunately, our new employees will not have an immediate impact on our current or backlogged workloads as hiring and fully training new employees is a 

lengthy and resource-intensive process. Hiring requires posting vacancies, reviewing 

applications and resumes, conducting interviews, conducting background checks, 

and offering positions. Often, new employees must relocate to their duty stations or 

give their employers sufficient notice so that they can seek a replacement. 

Once they report to work, training lasts from 13 to 17 weeks because of the complexity of our programs. After this initial training, new employees are assigned a 

mentor to act as a resource and to assist in learning the intricacies of processing 

our work. This ‘‘on-the-job’’ training for new employees typically lasts a full year. 

At the end of the year, though not fully proficient in all parts of the job, these employees would be making a significant contribution to workload processing. The time 

spent mentoring, however, reduces the time our more experienced employees have 

to process their own work. When we have significant increases in staffing levels, the 

time put into training and mentoring result in reductions in productivity in the 

short run. 

Our Commitment for the Upcoming Year 

We made a commitment to the American public to work down the hearings backlog. We continue to improve productivity each year and to process more work. In 

FY 2009, we plan to process over 300,000 more retirement claims, 30,000 more initial disability claims, and approximately 70,000 more hearings than in FY 2008. The 

additional funding will also help us handle increasing visits to our field offices and 

calls to our 800-number. 

The FY 2010 President’s budget proposes an increase of 10 percent above the FY 

2009 level. This amount includes resources to increase our staffing levels in FY 

2010, which will enable us to further increase our productivity. 

Stewardship & Program Integrity Work 

Preserving the public’s trust in our programs is one of the key aspects of our 

Agency Strategic Plan. We take pride in our ability to protect and carefully manage 

the resources, assets, and programs entrusted to us. We must ensure that we pay 

beneficiaries the correct amount of benefits and that they continue to be entitled to 

those benefits. Due to the budget constraints and increasing workloads, however, we 

have been forced in recent years to scale back these program integrity efforts. Our 

primary program integrity tools are CDRs and redeterminations of income and resources in the means-tested SSI program. The FY 2010 President’s Budget includes 

$759 million for our program integrity efforts, an increase of $255 million from FY 

2009. This will allow us to complete a total of 794,000 CDRs, of which 329,000 will 

be full medical CDRs, and 2,322,000 SSI redeterminations. This funding will ensure 

that taxpayer dollars are being spent properly in the major entitlement programs. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

25 

Continuing Disability Reviews 

We conduct work and medical CDRs to determine whether or not beneficiaries 

continue to meet the definition of disability. We initiate CDRs based on work activity when a beneficiary voluntarily reports that he or she is working, when wages 

are posted to a beneficiary’s earnings record, or when a beneficiary has completed 

a trial work period. In FY 2008, we conducted about 170,000 work CDRs, which resulted in cessation determinations in 850 cases. 

Generally, the law requires us to conduct medical CDRs on a periodic basis to ensure that only those who continue to be disabled receive benefits. We conduct medical CDRs using one of two methods. We periodically review cases when we expect 

that a beneficiary’s condition will improve, and we have a DDS perform a full medical review. We also conduct medical reviews when we receive voluntary or thirdparty reports of medical improvement. In some cases, we send questionnaires to 

beneficiaries, whom we have identified using a statistical model, and evaluate their 

responses to determine if they remain disabled. 

In FY 2007, we began using a new statistical model to select cases with a higher 

likelihood of medical improvement. That year, we processed 747,170 periodic medical CDRs of which 189,955 required full medical reviews. We spent $281 million 

to process these CDRs. Of the CDRs processed, we notified 52,490 beneficiaries that 

we would be ceasing their benefits because they no longer met our definition of disability. We estimate that, after all appeals are exhausted, we will stop paying benefits to about 36,000 beneficiaries, along with their eligible dependents. We estimate 

that the present value of future benefits saved from this activity is $3.3 billion. Historically, the ratio of program savings to administrative costs for these cases is 

about $10 to $1. Fluctuations in the year-to-year savings-to-cost ratio may occur, 

however, due to changes in the distribution of CDRs processed under the disability 

or SSI programs and the percentage of cases where there is a high likelihood of 

medical improvement. 

Since FY 2002, however, we have processed fewer CDRs than come due in each 

year because of limited funding and the need to balance our service and stewardship 

efforts; we continue to face a significant backlog of initial claims and hearing requests. (See Appendix E for CDRs processed over the last several years.) 

In FY 2008, we processed 240,000 full medical CDRs, an increase of about 50,000 

over FY 2007. The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act provides an upward adjustment to the discretionary caps to fund program integrity activities such as 

CDRs. At this level, we will be able to process 329,000 full medical CDRs this year, 

an increase of 89,000 compared to FY 2008. Despite these increases, at the end of 

FY 2008, we had a backlog of 1.4 million full medical CDRs, and we project the 

backlog to grow by another 100,000 to 150,000 in FY 2009. 

SSI Redeterminations 

We must also ensure that we pay SSI in the correct amounts. Due to the complexity of the SSI program and the large number of factors that can affect a recipient’s eligibility and payment amount, these redeterminations can be particularly 

challenging. One of the ways we ensure accurate payments is by periodically completing redeterminations to review all the non-medical factors including income, resources, and living arrangements of SSI eligibility, such as resource and income levels and living arrangements. Based on this review, we determine whether a recipient is still eligible and still receiving the correct payment amount. 

There are two types of redeterminations: scheduled and unscheduled. Except for 

certain institutionalized recipients, we periodically schedule all recipients for a redetermination at least once every 6 years. Moreover, using a statistical model to estimate the likelihood of overpaying SSI recipients, we target the most error-prone 

cases each year. We conduct unscheduled redeterminations on an as needed basis 

when recipients report, or we discover, certain changes in circumstances that may 

affect the SSI payment amount. 

In FY 2008, we conducted 1.221 million SSI redeterminations. We estimate that 

these redeterminations will produce $2.1 billion in retroactive payment recoveries 

and ongoing payment reductions. If we had the resources to conduct SSI redeterminations on all SSI recipients, approximately $5.7 billion in recoveries and ongoing 

payment reductions would accrue. In FY 2009, we expect to conduct 1.7 million SSI 

redeterminations, an increase of nearly 500,000 compared to last year. 

Future Program Integrity Work 

In short, we know our program integrity workloads are critical to ensuring wellrun programs and accurate payments, but our ability to carryout such workloads depends upon resources including the availability of trained staff to do this work. With 

the additional funding we are receiving in FY 2009, we will perform more CDRs and 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

26 

SSI redeterminations. For FY 2009, we plan to process 329,000 medical CDRs and 

1.711 million SSI redeterminations, an increase of 89,000 and 490,000, respectively, 

from FY 2008 levels. Even with these increases, we still processed fewer program 

integrity reviews than we did earlier in this decade. Due to the tight budgets of the 

recent past, we had to make tough choices between service to the public and stewardship efforts. We believe that we are beginning to reverse the overall decline in 

program integrity reviews, and we expect further increases in FY 2010 because of 

the funding included in the President’s FY 2010 budget proposal. 

Highlights of our Plan to Improve Service Delivery 

To keep pace, we know we have to modernize the way we do business, and we 

are making great strides to do so. We are searching for additional policies we can 

streamline, technologies that we can introduce or improve, and business processes 

that we can restructure or automate. Below are some of the innovations that we 

plan for the future. Without sufficient and timely funding, some of these innovations 

may be difficult to implement. 

Service Oriented Architecture 

Historically, our systems were developed at different times to meet a specific need 

that arose. This reactive process resulted in a collection of technologies rather than 

a cohesive, fully integrated system. Our current strategy introduces seamless Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) to replace our aging online and in-office benefit applications. We will build our information services so that the core data and components can be shared rather than duplicated in many different systems. Without the 

need to consider multiple stove-piped systems, systems development of new business 

processes under SOA will be more efficient. 

Disability Direct 

Although still in the planning stages, the Disability Direct initiative will automate 

the processing of online disability claims resulting in a much more efficient route 

from application to payment. It will improve the online disability claim and appeals 

process by collecting information once and re-using it rather than requiring applicants to complete the same information repeatedly, which will help offset our laborintensive disability workload. This streamlined process will provide more time for 

employees to handle other workloads and help with field office and telephone traffic. 

It will also fulfill the public’s expectation of convenient, effective, and secure electronic service delivery options. 

Quick, Simple, and Safe SSN 

We are developing strategies and an implementation plan for reducing Social Security number related workloads so that we can improve service to the public while 

maintaining the integrity of the SSN. The goal of the Quick, Simple, and Safe SSN 

initiative is to find new ways to assign SSNs, update SSN information, and issue 

replacement Social Security cards using efficient and secure methods. 

Additional Social Security Card Centers 

In addition to the seven current Social Security Card Centers, we plan to open 

four additional centers: two in Houston, Texas, one in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, and one in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Telephone Infrastructure and Automation Improvements 

We handle over 57 million calls on our national 800 number each year. The underlying telephone system structure is antiquated so we must make infrastructure 

improvements to ensure that our telephone service is convenient, accessible, and efficient. 

Over the next several years, we are replacing nearly all of our phone systems with 

Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. A project of this scope is initially 

costly, and we have moved cautiously so that we can address concerns that inherently arise with any new system. We believe the end result will improve customer 

service and lower long-term costs. 

VoIP gives us flexibility to route calls from busy sites to less busy sites when necessary. We also will be able to collect management information that will allow us 

to identify and make adjustments to improve service including some customization 

like language preference that may be prevalent in certain geographic locations. 

We plan to continue to add automated applications that are responsive to the 

public’s needs. Callers who use our automated services can conduct a variety of 

transactions as well as listen to a variety of informational messages addressing frequently asked questions. Improving our telephone operations will allow callers the 

convenience they want while freeing us to work more complex workloads. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

27 

SMART Service 

After visiting several field offices, in January 2008, I asked my staff to examine 

our field office layouts and develop ways to improve field office reception areas so 

they are more efficient for conducting business. The ultimate goal of this initiative, 

known as Space Modernization and Reception Transformation Service (SMART 

Service), is to lay the groundwork for the ‘‘SSA Office of the Future.’’ In our field 

offices, we are currently piloting new technology that allows us to deliver service 

to rural areas through video, the public people about interacting with our agency 

by watching a Social Security satellite broadcast, and providing self-help computers 

to visitors who want to do business over the Internet with us but many not have 

access to a computer at home. 

Conclusion 

Next year, our agency will celebrate its 75th anniversary of providing critical 

services to nearly every American. Over the last three-quarters of a century, our 

programs and responsibilities have continued to expand. Unfortunately, for too 

many years, we have not received sufficient and timely funding to allow us to keep 

pace with our increased workloads. 

You have started to change that pattern. Therefore, once again I want to acknowledge our appreciation for the funding you provided for FY 2008 and 2009 and in 

the ARRA. We will continue to use this money to reduce our backlogs by hiring and 

training new employees and expanding our use of technology. We will also protect 

the information we house and maintain the services we provide by building a muchneeded new National Computer Center. Of course, we will work with Treasury to 

issue the $250 one-time economic recovery payments sooner than required. I am 

acutely aware that our Nation is in economic crisis, and we take the responsibility 

associated with the Administration’s and your investment in our agency seriously. 

With your support, I am confident that we can successfully address our challenges, but it will take several years. I am compelled to stress that we will continue 

to need timely, adequate, and sustained funding beyond FY 2009. Last year, I testified that we were facing an avalanche of retirement and disability claims at the 

same time we were addressing large backlogs due to years of increasing workloads 

and limited resources. That situation has been exacerbated by the economic downturn and we are experiencing an increase of applications over what we projected. 

We did as much as we could to be ready to act when we received our budget. We 

are currently hiring thousands of new employees who we will need to train. Many 

of them will not become proficient this fiscal year delaying the positive effect they 

will have on our workloads. Our greatest opportunity for success is directly tied to 

timely and sustained funding. 

We are committed to working with Congress and the American people to address 

our challenges and improve service for the years ahead. We are confident that with 

your support, the support of our stakeholders, and the necessary resources, we can 

achieve our goals. 

Appendix A 

Average Daily Visitors Per Month 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.062
28 

Appendix B 

Office of Disability Adjudication and Review: Regional and Hearing Offices 

and Remote Sites 

Appendix C 

Continuing Resolutions (CRs) Cause Erratic Staffing Trends 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.063 50764A.064
29 

Appendix D 

CDRs Processed by Fiscal Year 

f 

Chairman TANNER. I just have one question, and then I am 

sure that members will elaborate. 

You mentioned the electronic filing about 33 percent. I generally 

applaud efficiencies that can be achieved through electronic means 

otherwise. Do you have any data with regard to the error rate? Because, as we know, when an application is not in order, then not 

only is it delayed, but it causes even more work. And so as we try 

to go and streamline the system with electronic online, et cetera, 

I think we have to be sure that the error rate is not unacceptable? 

Do you have any data on that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We do, And I appreciate that question, because it 

is an important one. 

Our quality office has looked very carefully at the online applications versus the applications taken in the field office, and there is 

no statistical difference between the quality of the ones done in the 

office and the ones that are taken online. To the extent that there 

is a difference, the error rate is actually slightly higher for the ones 

that are taken in the office. So we are confident about that. 

And one should also keep in mind that this is not a fully automated process, that in every case, even on something taken online, 

there is an individual in the office who is looking at that application and who does call people back if there is anything on the face 

of the application that would trigger any additional interaction 

with that person. 

Chairman TANNER. One other question then. When do you expect your plan to begin to take effect? You said 2 years ago that 

you had a plan to reduce it, and now it is as bad or maybe, in parts 

of the country, worse. With the additional revenue, can you give us 

a timeframe as to what we can expect? 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.065
30 

Mr. ASTRUE. We have adjusted the planning. Clearly, with the 

sudden deterioration in the economy, we needed to go back and revisit the assumptions of the original plan. And there are some 

small differences, but the big one is we need an increase in capacity. 

So when we first developed this plan and when I first testified 

before this committee, we had embraced the figure of 1,250 administrative law judges as what we needed to drive the backlog down; 

and we were down at one point to just barely over 1,000. In order 

to meet the targets for driving the backlog down over the next 4 

years, we are going to need more capacity. So we are targeting 

1,400 to 1,450 judges. 

Right now, the budget assumption is that when we finish the fiscal year 2010 hiring—assuming we get the appropriation that we 

hope from the Congress consistent with the President’s budget and 

that we expand our space quickly enough—we will have enough 

space for the hiring of the new judges. Now it is a close call that 

we will be getting as much as we need for fiscal year 2010, but we 

are working hard on that. But if we hit the mark on the appropriation, we hit the mark with the GSA work, we should have, I believe, 1,452 judges at the end of that hiring. 

We lose about 60 judges a year to attrition, and the losses are 

not even over the course of the year. The departures tend to be toward the end of the year. So we will actually be momentarily over 

that target at the end of the hiring if everything goes according to 

the projection, and we need that additional capacity to hit the original goals. Otherwise, we are not going to make it. 

Chairman TANNER. The judges are fine. What about the staff 

assistants that prepare the cases? The judges—that is a problem, 

too, I am told. 

Mr. ASTRUE. It is indeed. And we will have a higher support 

staff ratio than we have had during most of this decade. We are 

targeting not only a national average of 4.5 per ALJ, but we are 

trying to keep to a floor of 4. There has been, in my judgment, too 

much variation in hearing office support from hearing office to 

hearing office. So, in addition to taking it up a tick to the 4.5, we 

are going to try to keep a floor of 4. 

Again, a couple of people will leave. The numbers will vary from 

time to time in offices for brief periods of time. But the goal is a 

floor of 4 and an average of 4.5, which should be adequate. 

Chairman TANNER. I may have some other questions to submit 

in writing to you. I don’t want to take too much of my time. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, along that line, how many judges are hearing less 

than five cases a year? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Less than five cases a year? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I don’t think any now. We had one judge that 

hadn’t heard a case in 61⁄2 years, and we have been working on 

counseling him. He is hearing about 50 a year now. I believe he 

is just largely allowing all those cases. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

31 

Mr. JOHNSON. So we don’t have anybody that is not pulling 

their weight right now? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We have certain judges pulled off for administrative work, and the president of the union by the contract is allowed 

to work full time on union business. Although, to his credit, he does 

hear some cases. 

Mr. JOHNSON. When you say ‘‘some’’. how many? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I don’t know. I would have to check. We are now 

making that kind of information public which we haven’t in the 

past. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Different subject. Why did we learn just last 

year that the NCC had to be replaced? The center is apparently 30 

years old, and surely somebody told you the problems that were existing there or were coming. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Certainly coming in I was not aware that this was 

a problem, and I was not aware that this was a problem until a 

bit into 2007. And I actually picked it up through our strategic 

planning process, where we said we have got to look at what we 

need to plan for the future, and it was clear that this was a major 

issue for us. 

It took a little while to get a handle on it. There had been a part 

of the organization that had started to look at this, and there was 

a study pending that came in in January of 2008, and it took a little time to push back and look at the options. Because, you know, 

the first time someone comes in and says, ‘‘I would like to spend 

three-quarters of a billion dollars for a new facility’’. you don’t say, 

‘‘Oh, fine’’. So we spent several months going back and forth, seeing 

whether we could in any way extend the life of the existing facility, 

look at other options; and, finally, we came to the conclusion that 

we really did need to replace it. It took a little while. 

We communicated that to the Congress after the May—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me interrupt you, because we understand 

what the problems are. I mean, I have seen pictures of some of the 

facilities over there, and it seems to me it is a big fire hazard. If 

that building burnt down today, if the NCC failed, what are the 

chances of you recovering the information that would be destroyed? 

Mr. ASTRUE. The chances of recovering the information that is 

destroyed are extremely high. We run backup tapes daily and take 

them to an offsite location every day except Sunday. So restoring 

the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I was told you didn’t have any backup. Where 

do you take them? 

Mr. ASTRUE. There are two types of backup here. And there has 

been confusion, even when I was talking to computer people recently, they got confused about it. And it is probably my fault in 

terms of communication. 

So there are two types of backup. There is the computer power 

that actually runs the system, and then there is the storage for the 

data. So we take the data—— 

Again, if I am making a technical error, we will correct this for 

the record. 

But, basically, we take the data on a daily basis, except Sunday, 

from the National Computer Center to a separate offsite location. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

32 

So if there is a data storage type of problem, we can restore the 

data. The data doesn’t disappear. We always have recent data. 

The issue is if there were a problem with running the National 

Computer Center. Right now, we do not have an adequate backup 

facitlity. We rely on a commercial facility in New Jersey that would 

only allow us to run most of our critical workloads at 30 percent 

capacity, so the agency would have to ration availability among the 

regions. It would be catastrophic until we came back online. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, if you copied those to discs and your computer system is so old, are there any computers that will run those 

discs after you copy them? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We can run on the commercial facility in New Jersey. The problem is our system is so huge there just isn’t a commercially available facility that has the capacity to run all the 

transactions of the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What you are saying is we would have a failure. 

Would people fail to get their checks? 

Mr. ASTRUE. All of our current beneficiearies would continue to 

receive their checks. However, there would be a delay in new beneficiaries getting their checks. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are you confident that we have a plan in place 

to rectify that problem? And it seems to me that 2012 for Durham 

is an awful long way off, and I don’t know how long it is going to 

take us to build a new facility. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Let me give you some good news on Durham. 

I was just down at the facility about 2 weeks ago. The shell is 

up and completed. The first group of equipment is on the site and 

is being installed. It will take us about 6 months in all likelihood 

before we will get Durham up to where it will be the equivalent 

of the New Jersey facility, and then we will be adding additional 

capacity month by month after that. 

In about 6 months, month by month, it will get better than the 

status quo. It won’t be perfect. IWe are moving a little faster than 

before. I would say probably about another 18 months before we 

have Durham up to full recovery capacity. 

So with the additional resources, I have approved some amendments, some additional changes to Durham that will add capacity 

at Durham, too. So we have that coming, too. So it is getting better. We have to hold on for approximately 6 months, and at least 

it will be better than the status quo every month after that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Dr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Astrue, I assume you are on the side of 

the clients in this issue. So the question I ask really, or to try to 

understand what is going on, have you spent all the money that 

we gave you last year for additional people and space? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Absolutely. We went out and we had $148 million 

over the President’s request and most of that went into backlog reduction. The most expensive part of that is hiring new judges. We 

hired 190 new judges. The Inspector General at our request did a 

study of the fully loaded cost of an administrative law judge. An 

administrative law judge fully loaded is about three-quarters of a 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

33 

million dollars a year. So you can see that for that $148 million, 

most of that went into the additional judicial capacity. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Have they been working full time for the 

last—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. They have. 

Again, I know this isn’t easy, so I have to plead for patience. The 

system is so complicated that it takes people a long time to become 

fully productive. 

We are thrilled by this class of judges. I think we did a better 

job in selection. We did more careful background checks. These people are working very hard. They are getting very high grades on 

how they are treating people. 

But in terms of productivity—I looked at the numbers just a couple of weeks ago. After about 9 months on the job for most of them, 

they are at about three-quarters of what a more experienced administrative law judge does. The good news is the trend line is up. 

They are going to get there. But it is probably going to take them 

12 to 15 months before—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Isn’t the trend line about the numbers of 

days waiting is exactly the same for the last 2 years? It is over 500. 

Mr. ASTRUE. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we are down 

to 488, I think, right now. Again, it is not dramatically down, but 

the average processing times are down. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. The source of this data is from you guys, Social Security Administration. Those two columns over here are the 

same, basically; and I am not sure—I don’t want to argue hours or 

days or whatever, what I want to understand is what is it that 

holds up—why somebody is 75 percent productive; why not 100 

percent? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Because I think that—— 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. You have had a year. 

Mr. ASTRUE. The complexity of the system is mind-blowing. 

They have to learn our rules about every possible medical disease 

or condition known to man, and our systems, which take time to 

learn too, because we are increasingly automated, but the systems 

aren’t perfect yet. 

We have got terrific people. I have no qualms about the effort 

that they have put in. I think a lot of these new judges are working 

extremely hard. And almost all of them are on a satisfactory track 

of productivity. There are a couple who are having some issues, but 

it just takes time. 

And it is the same thing with claims representatives, tele-service 

representatives. They are not productive immediately. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Anybody can see the trend of the line for the 

last 8 years. You don’t have to be even close or have a reading test 

to see that trend. And the fact is that you are going to have 44 percent of your people retire by 2016. What is the planning for the future? Are we going to go into another climb in—because we lose all 

the people who have been there a long time and take this knowledge out the door with them, and we get these new people in that 

have to learn the system from the ground up. 

Mr. ASTRUE. And in the good news, bad news category, with the 

economy changing, the retirement rates have slowed down a little 

bit. So it does buy us a little time. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

34 

Again, I wouldn’t wish that on anybody who doesn’t want to stay. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. You are not wishing against Mr. Geithner 

and the President, are you? 

Mr. ASTRUE. No, no. But we are trying to hire as many people 

as fast as we can. We have broadened and moved faster our SES 

development candidate pool. We have brought 14s in for the first 

time so that we have a little bit broader pool. We will have a 

slightly younger age distribution than what we had before to try 

to maintain some continuity. 

We are doing what we can. But, at the end of the day, I can only 

hire as many people as we have the money to hire. We have moved 

extremely quickly. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. How about space? Do you have problems 

with space? Somebody says it takes 24 months to get space out of 

GSA? 

Mr. ASTRUE. It does. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. What is the reason for that? The military 

can put 500,000 people in Iraq inside of 3 months. Why can’t GSA 

move a few people and get some offices open? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I hear this with some regularity. I actually think 

the people who are working for us have made this a top priority; 

and they are trying. But we have several issues. 

First of all, we have to negotiate sometimes with as many as four 

different unions before we can go to GSA, because we have to have 

a plan that is going to work under the collective bargaining agreements. That takes some time. And then GSA has a process to try 

to make sure the bidding is fair and objective. 

The kind of space that they choose—which I don’t get to decide, 

they get to decide—makes a big difference. If they get space that 

is already existing, that fits our needs, that doesn’t have to be 

redone, then we can often beat that 24 months. But sometimes 

they build space from scratch. Sometimes they will renovate. Sometimes they find space that is in move-in condition. 

We try to expedite this as much as we can. They have an inventory of excess space, and we have been all over that list. And we 

will sometimes change where we want to be if it doesn’t make that 

much difference, if we actually think we can get into the space faster. 

So we have moved from having too much physical space, because 

we lost so many employees that we were awash in space. When we 

all of a sudden are trying to hire 5,000, I think we are going to be 

okay for this fiscal year, but it is a potential limitation, particularly 

getting the space in the right places. Because, for 20 years—and 

I don’t know why this was true—the agency underallocated in the 

Midwest and the Southeast. And if you look at where the most 

backlogged hearing offices are, almost all of them, with all due respect to some members to whom this generalization won’t apply, 

they are mostly in those parts of the country, and that is where 

the new hearing offices are going. We are pushing to get them open 

as quickly as we can, and we hope there will not be a limitation 

next year. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. I apologize for taking more than 

my fair share of time. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

35 

Chairman TANNER. We will go, with the permission of the Committee, to two over here, since we have a great attendance this 

morning and a very highly interesting subject here. 

So may I call on Mr. Stark. 

Mr. STARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Astrue, thank you. 

If I could just switch to a topic that has been a concern of mine 

for some time, and that is the issue of 30,000 children who receive 

SSA benefits and are in foster care. I don’t want you to go auditing 

this, but, as someone who receives this form for his own children 

each year, I am aware of how closely you keep track of what my 

children receive and what I do with that. But I am afraid that you 

don’t keep as close track of the money that these children receive. 

For the benefit of my colleagues, children who for one reason or 

another, SSI or because of disability or because of a parent who is 

disabled or dead, often receive Social Security benefits, a couple 

hundred bucks a month. And if they happen to be in foster care, 

I think it is fair to say that almost automatically this money goes 

to the State. 

And States vary in how they use that money. I suspect there are 

a few States which just dump it into the general revenue and could 

not account for the fact that it is used for these children. And there 

are arguments. Some say, why should foster children, who are entitled to a Social Security benefit because of a disability or lack of 

parenthood, have to pay out of basically their funds for foster care 

when other children don’t? And I was going to see if I could ask 

Mr. Astrue if they are doing anything to review this. 

There is a system by which the representative, I guess it is 

called, is selected. But I doubt very much if you audit the States 

to see that each kid is entitled to some of this money. And the end 

result is that these are foster children who in many cases have 

mental disabilities, other—wherein a few thousand dollars when 

they mature out of foster care could be a great advantage, either 

a way to get to college or a way to get their first apartment for 

independent living. 

And I guess my question is, are you doing anything now to study 

or consider how the States apply this money—I know California 

does a good job and other States, too. But, as I say, I think some 

States take the money and pop it into general revenue. Is there 

any program going on now in Social Security that is reviewing either how a representative is selected or what they do with the 

money? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We know your interest, and I think it is a fair 

point, and it is on our list to talk to OMB. They are only up for 

business recently for anything but emergency issues, and we have 

a fairly long list of things that we would like to talk to them about. 

But we are prepared to look at that. 

I think, as with all questions with rep payers, we do have to go 

carefully, because we want to make sure that we don’t discourage 

people from being rep payees or state agents. We do have difficulty 

in a lot of the country getting qualified rep payees. 

Mr. STARK. It is a very small amount for most States, but these 

are, it seems to me—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Again, I give you credit for your leadership in this 

area, because you did encourage us also to talk to California about 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

36 

the issue of seamless continuation. There were foster care children 

getting lost in the cracks when they were re-reviewed under the 

adult standards. 

Mr. STARK. When they age out. 

Mr. ASTRUE. We actually worked with Secretary Wagner in 

California on that. We have an improvement. It is a little awkward, but I think they are pretty happy with it. And we are now 

using that in other States. 

But part of what we want to do when we talk about foster care 

more broadly with OMB is to identify ways to make that a little 

bit more elegant and a little bit more efficient, too. So we are looking at that as well. 

Mr. STARK. Thank you very much. And I want to particularly 

thank your employees in both the Oakland and San Jose office for 

the wonderful service they give our—thank them for me. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. I will do. Thank you, Mr. Stark. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Stark. 

Mr. LINDER. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Astrue, you mentioned an administrative law 

judge who in his contract doesn’t hear any cases because he is a 

labor union leader and he is full time on the labor union. How 

many are there such as that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I believe the contract is a little complicated, but 

my understanding is that there is one who clearly does not have 

to hear cases, and that is the president of the union. 

There are, if I remember correctly—and I apologize if I don’t do 

this correctly from memory—I believe there are 125 other union officers who at least under some circumstances do reduced time and 

how much reduced time gets a little complicated. So what I would 

prefer to do, rather than make a mistake on this, is double check 

that number and give you the full details of the collective bargaining agreement in that regard. 

Mr. LINDER. All right. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

37 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.005
38 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.006
39 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.007
40 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.008
41 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.009
42 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.010
43 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.011
44 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.012
45 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.013
46 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.014
47 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.015
48 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.016
49 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.017
50 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.018
51 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.019
52 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.020
53 

f 

Mr. LINDER. Why do you need for labor unions to approve space 

with the GSA? 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.021
54 

Mr. ASTRUE. The working conditions are covered under collective bargaining agreements. So we have to, as a general matter, as 

I understand it, go through and make sure that everything in the 

proposed space is compliant with the various collective bargaining 

agreements. And, again, ODAR, where we are doing the hearing office expansion, has all four unions that are representing ODAR. So 

it is probably more complicated at ODAR than it is at most of the 

rest of the agencies. 

Mr. LINDER. Why isn’t that just administerial duty? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Because that is the way the Federal Labor Relations Act is written, is my understanding. We are just complying 

with the statute. 

Mr. LINDER. The Federal Labor—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is my understanding. I don’t purport to be 

an expert on it, and it does get highly technical. We have an office 

that deals with those issues. But it is my understanding that those 

are the types of issues that we are required to bargain. 

Mr. LINDER. I share Sam Johnson’s concern about your computer capabilities and the age of the technology. Have you done any 

studies as to whether it would be less expensive to outsource it? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We did. And, actually, this study was, I believe, 

commissioned under Commissioner Barnhart’s watch. There was a 

Lockheed Martin study that took a look at the options and concluded that we really needed to have our own facility. 

I think part of the issue is we have enormous constraints in 

terms of the sensitivity of the private information of the public that 

is in there. It makes it awkward to share with other facilities. We 

need a huge facility because of the scope. There just aren’t data 

centers like that sitting around. 

Mr. LINDER. You don’t think Google and Microsoft have that 

kind of capacity? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Actually, not for what we need. No, I don’t think 

so. Even the great Microsoft I don’t think has what we need on the 

shelf. 

And you know, we live in an age where it is not just the physical 

attacks of terrorists, but there is an enormous—and I don’t think 

the public really appreciates the—concerted and constant effort 

there is to commit cyber-terrorism. I don’t know whether the Committee has had a recent confidential briefing on that issue, but it 

may be a good idea. And that also makes it very difficult to go the 

private-sector route with everything that I think we need to do in 

order to meet those kinds of defenses. I think we did make the 

right choice. 

Again, I didn’t like the answer in the beginning either; and we 

spent several months going back and forth looking at alternatives 

and seeing whether there was another way to do it. But I think we 

reluctantly concluded this was the best path forward. I know we 

got a lot of those same questions from Congress and tried to be as 

transparent as possible. We are very grateful that the Congress 

came to the same conclusion and so quickly, and it is going to make 

a huge difference for us going forward. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Linder. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

55 

The Chair will be pleased to recognize Mr. Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you, Mr. Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. It is tempting for me to spend time talking about 

the problems in the district I represent, and these are immense 

problems, and we have talked about them. But I want to go beyond 

the vital local issues and get to the nub of this issue, and some of 

the discussion from the minority I think illustrates that. We have 

in recent times acted to raise the amounts of money that are available to you, right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. In the last 2 weeks we have a real break from 

past practice, and I think it is going to make a big difference going 

forward. 

Mr. LEVIN. So let me ask you this. You have been involved in 

this work for how long? 

Mr. ASTRUE. It depends a little bit on how you look at it. Off 

and on for 30 years, probably 10 to some extent. 

Mr. LEVIN. And involved with just this government entity, 

right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I was with HHS for 6 plus years, some of it entirely at Social Security but all that time at least partially doing 

Social Security work before I came back as Commissioner. 

Mr. LEVIN. I want to ask you this. If the organization has adequate resources, do you believe that it is able to carry out the function of handling disability cases in an effective way? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I do. 

And let me add a couple of caveats to that. We have, I am persuaded, some of the very best people in government, and I include 

the people that do the work for us in the State Disability Determination Services. I don’t think it is a question of the people. I 

think it has been a question of the resources. 

We are facing all kinds of challenges now, particularly—you 

know, one of the things I am working very hard on—and I got bad 

news from New Jersey this morning on the way to the hearing— 

is that more and more of the Governors are furloughing DDS employees or putting hiring restrictions on, which is crazy. Because 

we pay the fully loaded cost. We pay their salaries. We pay for the 

overhead. 

They are not saving any money by doing this to DDS employees. 

What they are doing is slowing up the processing of disability cases 

and keeping money out of their own States. And it is a real frustration to me. Again, we have persuaded a number of Governors not 

to do this. But we had another one in New Jersey who apparently 

decided to go ahead. 

Mr. LEVIN. So you said, if the resources are there, you have no 

question about the capability of this governmental entity to do the 

job well? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is right, sir. 

Mr. LEVIN. So what we heard earlier—and I want to look ahead, 

but this has to be very clear cut—that this institution under its 

leadership for a number of years that provided inadequate resources are essentially attacking the entity because it failed to provide the adequate resources. What you are essentially saying—and 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

56 

somehow it wants to hopscotch into healthcare—that SSA, you are 

not capable of doing this because you are a governmental agency. 

Who appointed you? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I was nominated by President Bush, and it was 

confirmed in the Senate in February of 2007. 

Mr. LEVIN. And we welcome your efforts. And I really think that 

those who fail to provide adequate resources should not be the ones 

who are throwing the dagger at this agency. We in the last months 

have provided more resources instead of underfunding requests 

from the Administration. At times, we have gone beyond. 

And I just say this because there is a real crisis in almost every 

place in this country. It is utterly disgraceful that people have to 

wait years—most of them clearly disabled, as it turns out—they 

have to wait years in order for a response. And the problem has 

not been because it is SSA running the show, the problem in good 

measure has been because of the failure of this institution under 

previous leadership to provide you the resources, as you say, that 

are necessary to carry out your work. 

We are going to step up to the plate, and I hope we do that on 

a bipartisan basis, and we have done that. 

Mr. Johnson has been strong. He hasn’t thrown arrows at SSA. 

He has been working with us to provide the moneys that you need. 

And the sad thing is, even though—and I finish with this—we 

provide more resources, it is going to take you years to begin to 

catch up. We have to step up to the plate here, not to try to use 

this problem as an argument over something totally unrelated. We 

will argue healthcare some other forum. We have got to give you 

the equipment, the resources, et cetera, that you need to end this 

disgrace. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Levin. 

The Chair will go to Ms. Berkley, and then we are going on the 

rule of who was here when the gavel went down and then to Mr. 

Brady after Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

on me; and it is very nice to see you again. 

Last year, I shared with you the problems that I was having in 

my district, which encompasses Las Vegas; and you were very responsive to my concerns and my problems. As you are aware, with 

your help, Las Vegas ranked about seventh out of 143 offices nationwide last year with a wait time of about 325 days. It wasn’t 

anything to write home about, but it is far better than what has 

happened this year when we have—where we have slipped to 60th 

with a wait time of 458 days. 

I am asking you on behalf of the people I represent, and you 

know I have a very large senior population and growing population. 

And with the latest economic downturn, Las Vegas has suffered 

disproportionately; and it shows in the number of claims that continue to rise on a daily basis. What can you do and what can I do 

to help you ensure that Las Vegas doesn’t slip any further? And 

what can we do to improve not only the quality of service but the 

number of people we have hearing these claims? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Las Vegas, as you pointed out has been one of our 

better offices. But you are also correct that there has been some 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

57 

slippage this year. That is not uncommon. This is why it is so hard 

to keep up on space, because the demographics change so quickly. 

For the three judges who are there, you have one of the higher 

support staff ratios in the country. So I don’t think it is that. But 

I am looking at your pending—your judges are staying productive, 

but the pending is going up. It is just a function of caseload. 

So what we try to do if it gets really much worse than this, what 

we are trying to do is to take that pressure off of offices by moving 

cases electronically; and we will have substantial additional capacity in the coming months. 

The Albuquerque National Hearing Center, which is actually designed to help offices in the western part of the country, if I remember correctly, should start to be operational next week. We 

have a much larger one in Chicago that will open up over the summer, and then we will have another one in Baltimore. 

Right now, we don’t have enough capacity in that way to help out 

those offices such as yours when there is a surge in cases. We will 

have that infrastructure in place to do an awful lot better in about 

6 months. So I would say hang on. We will do the best we can. 

We will look at it as well. We are looking at a potential expansion of additional hearing offices. It may be that if these numbers 

hold up that you need at least a fourth judge and we need to look 

at the space situation in Las Vegas. I suspect that somebody has 

already done that, and I am not aware of it. So let me do this. Let 

me supply for the record a little bit more detail, but we will be on 

it. We will get back to you with more information. 

[The information follows:] 

Ms. BERKLEY. I appreciate that. 

Let me ask you something. You just stated, ‘‘if it gets much 

worse,’’ how much worse does it have to get to be red-flagged? Because it is going to get worse in Vegas. It is very bad. 

Mr. ASTRUE. So I have to be candid here. Even at 364 days, 

which is the most recent month, that is still significantly better 

than our National average. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Well, I have 458 days. It was 325 days last year 

when we were seventh. We are in 60th place now with a wait time 

of 458 days. 

Mr. ASTRUE. If you just have the October numbers, those numbers, for reasons I could take up the whole hearing explaining, are 

atypical. But what I have in front of me is FY09 through February, 

and what my staff is telling me is 364 days. I will check and verify 

that. 

I will be honest with you, normally 364 is not a place where we 

intervene. We still have offices with this rate that are helping out 

others around the country. But as you get close to the median, we 

start looking—and the median right now is about 488, and we start 

looking at the possibility of additional help. 

But I will be honest with you, it is not a science. It is an art. 

We are trying to do the best we can with what we have. We will 

have more ability to help offices. We should have about 30 additional National Hearing Center judges shortly. 

Ms. BERKLEY. My time is up. Thank you very much. 

Chairman TANNER. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

58 

And before I begin my questioning, I would point out that I think 

this is a bipartisan problem. Pending cases and the backlogs have 

not materially improved over the last 2 years under Democrat control of the House and the Senate. I think looking at Mr. Tanner 

and Mr. Johnson, we have bipartisan support for significant actions 

to reduce those backlogs and are committed to working with you 

to do that. 

I want to turn to the issue of fraud in the disability system. By 

some estimates, it may be as much as $11 billion in fraud. It is 

hard to quantify that, but that is one of the estimates. I think we 

all have a responsibility to taxpayers and the truly disabled to 

make sure these precious dollars aren’t lost to fraud and those who 

are gaming the system. Recently I had the opportunity to meet 

with the Inspector General O’Carroll down in Houston with our Cooperative Disability Investigative Program. I got to look at, first 

hand, the teamwork. 

On the front end of disability fraud, those who are applying for 

benefits and maybe feigning impairments, concealing medical improvement, and other fraudulent activities, it seems to me, at least 

in the Houston region in Texas, there seems to be a good job—we 

do a good job of catching fraud at the front end of the disability 

system. 

On the back end, though, it appears to be just the opposite; that 

the backlog of continuing disability review, especially medical review cases, continues to grow. It is about 1.4 million today. It is 

anticipated it will grow another 100,000 to 150,000 cases next year. 

Those investigations on the back end take more time, more resources, and they are both the medical issues as well as those concealing work. At the end of the day, though, fraud occurs. 

When we do launch these investigations, as Congress did, funded 

the 7-year program from 1996 to 2002, we made progress on that, 

dedicated funding to do that. Since then, Congress has not dedicated funding to those investigations and the backlog has grown 

and the funding recoupments have decreased or leveled off. It 

seems to me that studies show that we are saving between $10 and 

$14 for every dollar we invest in those fraudulent—investigations 

of fraud. 

So the question is, Commissioner, what is the game plan for attacking that growing backlog of continuing medical reviews, disability reviews? And what are the resources you need to successfully investigate and prosecute those fraud cases? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. Two questions. Let me deal with the 

CDI cases first. The Inspector General’s office has done some great 

work with these units. It is a very high return to the taxpayer. The 

problem that we have with those units is the dollars compete 

against everything else that everybody wants us to do, and it is directly competing against service dollars. I think, until there is some 

sort of funding mechanism so that it refreshes itself, that it probably is going to be the case that, in the grand scheme, those efforts 

are going to be underfunded. 

Mr. BRADY. Would a dedicated stream of funding help provide 

continuity and certainty when building those teams, because it is 

a team effort, in actually pursuing them? 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

59 

Mr. ASTRUE. Absolutely. We have discussed this type of thing 

with OMB. I think they are interested in this and for program integrity work, generally looking for other ways so that this work 

doesn’t diminish over time. You know, for most of this decade, not 

only did the backlogs get worse, the amount of program integrity 

work plummeted. So we have not only made a first dent in the 

backlogs, but we have also started increasing the program integrity 

work. 

But we have some real issues in gearing up in that a lot of our 

capacity has been lost and it will take time to get up to where we 

need to be. So I think you will see in the more detailed President’s 

budget that is coming next month, the proposal for fiscal year 2010. 

My sense is that they see that as a transition and they want to do 

more and better the year after, but they realize that we need to 

buildup some capacity to get there. So my sense is that this new 

team at OMB is very concerned on the program integrity side. 

Mr. BRADY. Would you present to at least to the Social Security 

Subcommittee and perhaps to the Income Support Subcommittee a 

plan for tackling that backlog and estimates of resources to do 

that? Because I think the subcommittee ought to take a look at 

what it is going to take in real terms as we weigh recommendations on budget issues and resources. 

Mr. ASTRUE. What I would propose is, I think this will be a better conversation in about a month, after the President’s budget is 

fully released, and we can see what the full assumptions are for 

next year and then we would be delighted to come up and have 

that conversation. 

Mr. BRADY. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could state for the record, I 

have got a national ranking report average processing time, month 

ending 2–27–2009, which shows that the Las Vegas processing 

time is 458. So if you have something different, I would appreciate 

seeing it. Thank you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Mr. Chairman, if you give me just a moment; let 

me just talk here for a moment. 

Chairman TANNER. Sure. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay I think we have sorted it out. What I have 

in front of me are the statistics for this fiscal year, and I have been 

reassured that 364 is correct for the fiscal year. What you have is 

for the most recent month, which is February, and there are some 

reasons why, particularly when they are tackling older cases, there 

tends to be bizarre fluctuations from month to month. Month-tomonth comparisons can be fraught with danger. 

But you are correct that for the month of February, the average 

processing time was 458. What that may reflect is that they moved 

from run-of-the-mill cases to going back to hit some of the aged 

cases. I don’t know, but we will give you a more detailed analysis. 

So I would like to say, I think we are both right. 

Chairman TANNER. Commissioner, you told me something I 

was unaware of. I thought that the IG and the antifraud sector had 

its own budget. You said it was in competition with service dollars. 

Mr. ASTRUE. They do, but—— 

Chairman TANNER. Am I incorrect in that? 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

60 

Mr. ASTRUE. They have their own separate budget, but we also 

have the capacity with our administrative budget to spend more on 

antifraud if we choose to do so, and we could if we had the resources to do it. And I think a lot of us would like to do that. But 

right now, you know, you have to take that away from telephone 

service or CDRs or backlog reduction, and we just don’t have the 

option of doing that. 

In fact, there has been some concern as to some of the IG recommendations over the years. We have accepted about 2,500 of his 

recommendations in recent years of the 2,700 that he has made. 

And a lot of the ones we have not accepted, we just don’t have the 

resources to do what they are recommending, usually from an antifraud point of view. 

Chairman TANNER. On the CDR evaluations, I am told that 

that runs around 90, 95 percent, and 5 percent are found to be improved to the point where they are no longer eligible. Is that—am 

I in the ballpark? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Let me double check. I think it is a little smaller 

than that. 

No, you are correct, Mr. Chairman, that is about right. 

Chairman TANNER. But CDR is different from fraud; is that 

correct? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is right. 

Chairman TANNER. Basically which means you are doing a 

pretty good job on the front end of determining who is permanently 

disabled and who is not. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is right. And there are a fairly small 

number of cases where there is a possibility of medical improvement or it was borderline in the beginning. Probably about half the 

applicants, you don’t realistically expect that there is any real 

chance that they will come off the rolls. 

Chairman TANNER. All right. 

Ms. Schwartz, you are recognized. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

this hearing. 

And I actually recall a similar hearing, I guess was it last year 

or 2 years ago—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Last year. 

Ms. Schwartz [continuing]. Where we had some of the same conversation, I have to say, about backlog, and I realize you are making some progress. 

But certainly all of us in our districts hear from constituents who 

are very frustrated by the number of days and obviously that they 

have to wait, and they are all in some dire straits and feel that 

way. 

I specifically wanted to ask you about something you mentioned 

in your opening comments which should help this process, and that 

is the use of technology and information technology, particularly 

transmission of the medical records and helping to expedite that 

situation. A couple of questions, if I may, on this because I have 

great optimism, if I want to put it that way, in the fact that technology in the healthcare field can make a very big difference in 

streamlining time and savings for all of us within healthcare delivcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

61 

ery and personal healthcare, but in this situation as well, the ability to get that information and to review it quickly. 

Now, there are some stumbling blocks on this, and one of them 

is your own system and the degree to which you can receive this 

information. But the other, of course, is the providers and whether 

they actually have the capacity at this point to provide you with 

that information and adequate information. So I want you to speak 

to that and the timing on, again, not only your preparation but 

those who are submitting that information. 

The second question is the issue of consent and the role the applicant has in providing that consent. I assume they do it now in 

releasing the information, but making sure that that is secure. You 

again pointed out the degree to which there are opportunities for 

concern about privacy, but I would suggest that it is dealt with in 

healthcare situations, but maybe you want to speak specifically to 

how you handle very sensitive information that is now sent electronically and might be more readily available to others or not. 

And the third question, if you would, is to speak to, you are not 

over-anticipating the good use of technology by reducing the number of people you need, the personnel you need, because in fact, we 

are not quite ready to do all of this and whether in fact you still 

have the adequate personnel to handle the applications in a timely 

fashion. And while I will say that Philadelphia is not worst on the 

list by any means, in fact, I think we actually do, I understand, a 

pretty good job with the offices in Philadelphia and the surrounding areas; we still are looking at almost 400 days, 377. Now 

you are reducing those number of days. That is a lot of days for 

people to wait. 

So if you kept track of those questions, if you would speak to 

them. And if not, I will—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. If I miss one, remind me—— 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I am very supportive of the use of technology 

and health IT. I think this is all to the benefit of my constituents 

and to those who are applying and can really help streamline the 

process for you and for your staff, but I do want to make sure you 

are prepared, that doctors’ offices can get you that information, 

that you haven’t reduced personnel too quickly in handling that, 

and that you have dealt with the issues of privacy. 

Mr. ASTRUE. First of all, let me reassure you, there is no substitution of technology for people. I think a lot of the staff here will 

back me up. I have been up here regularly and often complaining 

about the fact that I don’t have enough people and that the continuing resolutions have forced us to do some very damaging reductions in staff. And that is why we added, for the first time in the 

back of the written testimony, I know it is long and it is dull, but 

look at the end at staffing patterns and the effect of the continuing 

resolutions. They really have been devastating for us. So we need 

as many people as we can reasonably get. I don’t think there is any 

likelihood Congress is going to give me more than we can productively use anytime soon, but we also need to use the best technology because we need to do both. We need to simplify our procedures when we can, too. We need all three in order to provide the 

best service that we can at any point in time. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

62 

Now, you are absolutely right that the health information technology could be incredibly important for us, and I want to give 

Deputy Commissioner Gray, who runs systems for us, credit because, of course, he takes heat every time a computer blows somewhere in the 60,000-employee agency. But he was very forwardthinking in realizing how important this could be for us. We expend an enormous amount of effort chasing down medical records 

from multiple sources, and often we make decisions on the basis of 

incomplete medical records, which is a source of error. People do 

the best they can as fast as they can, but there is a misunderstanding of HIPAA, too, and they don’t want to, or they just simply 

don’t, turn over records to us easily. So this is a big deal for us. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. That may be an issue that maybe we could be 

helpful if you are not getting the kind of response you need from 

a different department, a Federal agency. Maybe that is something, 

particularly as there is new administration, a new health IT, a 

head of that office who may be more responsive on this and be able 

to work with you on that. 

Mr. ASTRUE. The key is, and maybe we should come up and 

brief you in more detail, that systems did a pilot with Beth Israel 

Deaconess Hospital in Boston, which because of John Halamka, 

who is now on our new Systems Advisory Board, is right in the 

forefront of health IT, and they have got more done there. We have 

had a pilot where we were working out the technical issues, privacy, security over the Internet, all those types of things that are 

raised by our using health IT and getting to a point where if there 

is a Beth Israel patient who authorizes us to get the records, we 

can push a button, and we have got it, and we have got a complete 

record. And it is a thing of beauty. It increases accuracy. It cuts 

down on administrative time. It cuts down on costs. And we are 

going to try to get as much of the country moving in this direction 

as quickly as we can, and it is still a work in progress. We are talking to 10 healthcare systems around the country to try to take the 

Beth Israel Deaconess model and use it as quickly as we can. And 

we have made some progress, I know, in Virginia. We have got 

other States as well. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I am running out of time here, but I just want 

to say, there are a number of healthcare systems across this country. Obviously we have made a major commitment financially in 

the recovery package to scale that up to 70 percent of hospitals and 

90 percent of physicians in this country within 10 years, but I realize that takes a while. But there are major health systems that do 

have electronic medical records that probably would be ready, willing, and able to help if they—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Most of them are not quite there yet, but we think 

they are getting there very quickly. And you know, if we could, for 

instance, duplicate Beth Israel Deaconess with one of the ones that 

are further ahead, like Kaiser Permanente, which is a huge operation, it would be huge for us. We have worked out a lot of the 

technical issues. Again, there is still some fine-tuning of what 

needs to be done. I don’t want to oversimplify the tasks that we 

have ahead of us. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. But you did get $40 million in the recovery 

package. I am assuming that is going to help you move ahead—— 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

63 

Mr. ASTRUE. We can spend up to $40 million of our $500 million on health IT. We would—— 

Chairman TANNER. I hate to interrupt, but we have got many 

Members here, and we have got some time constraints. 

Mr. Reichert, you are recognized. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In my previous life, I was in law enforcement for 33 years, so I 

dealt with a lot of people that were attempting to get their Social 

Security checks and their Social Security benefits. And this was a 

long time ago, as you can tell by the color of my hair, unfortunately. 

Mr. ASTRUE. At least you have hair. 

Mr. REICHERT. Good point, sir. 

I just want to give a little bit of a historical perspective. It seems 

to me, and not being very experienced in this whole—this is my 

first visit here to this Committee, and I am very fortunate to be 

here. But I think most American people look at IRS and Social Security, and it is a long history of problem after problem after problem. I don’t think the backlog issue is something that has just occurred within the last 2 years or the last 4 years or 6 years or 8 

years, as we might be led to believe by some Members here, but 

this is an issue that has been going on almost since Social Security 

began. Don’t you agree? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. We had hearings on this issue, if I remember 

correctly, in the 1980s, when I was with the agency, and it is a 

tough one. I think part of what is going to be important for us to 

communicate more clearly is what we think a proper baseline is. 

It does take claimants some time to get legal representation and 

to accumulate their medical records, and then to give them time to 

do their job. 

And we have had a good discussion with the advocacy groups 

about how much time that is, and they said, you know, the preparation time you give us is too short. So we are looking at 270 days 

as the baseline for delivering a hearing, and part of what is 

factored in is probably 60 to 75 days for the claimants’ representatives to get ready and a little time on the front end for them to get 

organized. So it is giving us less than 6 months to do what we need 

to do. 

Mr. REICHERT. When it comes to the hearing, and I am from 

Washington State, and I think our wait time is about a year and 

a half, 507-plus days or so. One of my constituents who is a Social 

Security lawyer from my district who helps people navigate 

through the disability claims process said that there is kind of a 

perception that there is a bias against deciding claims favorably at 

the early stages of the process. His view is that a majority of the 

claims will be denied at the early stages, and then the ALJ will 

later give a favorable decision. He says, there is a sense in the community that this is purposeful because it prolongs the system, and 

it encourages people to drop out, and it saves money have. Have 

you heard this before? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Oh, yes. This was a charge made in a CBS 

evening news piece a couple years ago. Interestingly, the woman 

that coined the phrase ‘‘culture of denial’’ in that interview corcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

64 

nered me last weekend in a meeting to commend us on how much 

better we were doing in the Atlanta area where she works. 

But I understand what it looks like on the other side. You know, 

you have a lot of people who, even if they don’t qualify, are very 

sympathetic people, and the system is slow, and people get frustrated. A lot of times it gets very toxic in terms of how they feel 

toward the agency. So I understand that on a human level, but if 

anything, I think if you talk to the people in the DDSs there is a 

presumption toward allowance, not the other way, in these cases. 

Mr. REICHERT. Do you keep track of the dropout rate? Do you 

know—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. I am not sure what you mean by the dropout rate. 

Mr. REICHERT. If there are people who are actually just giving 

up, falling out of the system, and saying, I just can’t go through 

this any longer. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, we do. 

Mr. REICHERT. Do you know what that rate is? 

Mr. ASTRUE. It depends on the period of time, and it changes 

very rapidly; so why don’t we supply you with some information for 

the record—— 

Mr. REICHERT. Please. And then do you attempt to extend a 

hand to these people who are dropping out, to search them out and 

bring them back into the fold? You don’t have time to do that probably—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. No, we don’t do that. What we are trying to do is 

look at some places the people who don’t qualify can go to get help. 

We can’t have that conversation efficiently one by one, but we are 

looking through our notices and electronically to see whether we 

can provide more information to help people in those situations. 

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Higgins, we are glad to have you here. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner, can you help us, you have touched on it a little 

bit, but for the sake of context, just kind of walk us through, generally and briefly, the process of making an application for Social 

Security disability and what follows that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. There has been an uptick recently. About 22 

percent of the people now file online as opposed to about 5 percent 

a few years ago, and we have not improved that form yet. We have 

an improvement that is coming. It is a few months away. We also 

want to have a Title XVI application form. Now if you are filing 

for Title XVI, you have to actually come to the office and go there 

through the process. 

Typically, though, people still come into the office. They have an 

interview. Intake is done in a field office, and then that information 

is transmitted to the State DDS. We have about 15,000 employees 

who are State employees but work full time for us deciding these 

cases. 

And most of those States have two levels of review: an initial decision and what we call reconsideration. There are parts of about 

10 States, some States in total, some States in part, that from an 

initiative of 10 years ago, don’t have reconsideration, called prototype States. So sometimes there is recon, sometimes there is not. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

65 

When a State has made a final decision, it goes up for a full 

hearing before an administrative law judge. We get about 650,000 

of those a year. We get about 3 million disability applications. 

And then there is a relatively small number of cases that are appealed to an agency appellate board, and then they go up to the 

Federal court from there. 

Mr. HIGGINS. It sounds very bureaucratic. Is it necessary? 

Could the process be streamlined? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, it is a bit of a Holy Grail in the agency. And 

one of the problems with a lot of the efforts to make it better is 

that the law of unintended consequences kicks in, and it has made 

it worse. So we are constantly looking at efforts to streamline. 

Some of the most dramatic streamlining probably would have to 

come from this room. Right now, I try to work within consensus 

and try to make the system within the consensus work as compassionately and quickly as possible. A lot of the things that you would 

need to do in order to cut out a lot of that would require legislative 

change. 

Mr. HIGGINS. You indicated you went from 5 to 22 percent for 

those applying online? 

Mr. ASTRUE. For disability, that is right. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Ideally what is the goal there relative to online? 

Mr. ASTRUE. There is no goal. My feeling is it is a choice for 

individuals, and that we should provide the best service in the office and the best service we can online. We are not where we want 

to be online with the disability yet, but we will be fully at some 

point next year. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Assuming you were fully funded, what would be 

the likely time from one’s making an application to a final disposition on said application? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, I think that the biggest opportunity for collapsing the time up front for the biggest number of people is exactly what Congresswoman Schwartz mentioned. An enormous 

amount of time, effort, and money is spent chasing down scattered 

amounts of medical records on paper in lots of different locations, 

a lot of the time the claimant doesn’t know where the medical 

records are, and our people do fairly heroic work trying to chase 

those down for the claimants. If we can eliminate that and go to 

a centralized single record for most Americans it would be huge. 

We have been cutting down the time in the DDSes, but ballpark 

a little under 100 days first go round; probably a little under 100 

days for recon. We might be able to cut that by two-thirds if we 

can really integrate with electronic medical records in the way we 

think we can in the next 2 or 3 years. 

Mr. HIGGINS. And the shame is, I mean, this is obviously, this 

is a systemic problem, but it hits probably the most vulnerable population of folks. And we have a situation in Buffalo that is unacceptable on its face, and while some good progress has been made, 

it is only within the context of a horrible situation that we started 

with. Progress is being made, which I think is good, but obviously, 

this is not a problem unique to Buffalo but obviously hits a place 

like Buffalo particularly hard as well. 

Mr. ASTRUE. The other thing that is important, I think the 

agency historically had a fairly high threshold for defining in its 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

66 

rules whether someone was disabled or not. We had to see a lot of 

cases of that, and my view is that that is wrong, that cumulatively 

there are an awful lot of cases that we weren’t giving guidance on, 

and that is where an awful lot of the error and an awful lot of the 

delay was. 

So we are not just making the medical listings more current; we 

are trying to drive them down into a lot more rare diseases and 

conditions. We know a lot of those are automatically disabling. We 

are trying, with electronic screening to just pick those out and 

allow those. And as I said in my testimony, we are about at 4 percent now. We have gone from 2.7 to 4 percent in the last year. We 

were at zero the year before. We think we can get 6 to 9 percent 

of the cases decided in that way. Right now, it is an average of 

about 10 days. We are hoping we can do that a little quicker. We 

have got some old rules that are process rules that we are looking 

at getting rid of, and so we might even be able to take that 10 days 

and make it 5 days, and if we can do that, we will. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Commissioner. 

I yield back. 

Chairman TANNER. Mr. Lewis, you are recognized. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. 

Mr. Commissioner, how long have you been commissioner? 

Mr. ASTRUE. A little over 2 years. 

Mr. LEWIS. Over 2 years. 

Mr. Commissioner, as you know, I represent metro Atlanta. The 

Atlanta and Atlanta North hearing offices have some of the worst 

backlogs in the Nation. Although there has been some improvement, not much since the last time that you were here. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Actually, Mr. Lewis, I think I would disagree with 

you. When I had my first hearing here just over 2 years ago, Atlanta and Atlanta North were the two worst in the entire country. 

Atlanta was at 900 days, and Atlanta North was a little bit south 

of that. Today we have cut almost a full year, in 2 years, off the 

Atlanta times, and we are at about 667, if I remember correctly, 

for Atlanta North. 

I agree with you that that is not acceptable, but we have a new 

office coming that we are calling Atlanta South, and it is centered 

in the Covington area. When that office opens, we ought to have 

all the offices in the Atlanta area, I would think, better than the 

national average. So we are making a lot of effort in Atlanta, a big 

effort with the National Hearing Center. We put four electronic 

hearing rooms into the Marietta field office to try to accommodate 

that. We have put an extraordinary effort into trying to improve 

what was 2 years ago the worst situation in the country, and it is 

not now. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Commissioner, in Atlanta, I believe people are 

waiting 561 days. In Atlanta North, they wait 668 days for a hearing. People shouldn’t be waiting that long. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I agree with that, but it is significantly better 

than 2 years ago and—— 

Mr. LEWIS. I am not going to argue with you. It is better. But 

it is not much better. Waiting that long is too long. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

67 

What has been done in Atlanta to address the issue? I am frustrated. I keep hearing talk about the union, GAO, OMB. Have you 

asked for more money during the past 2 years, more resources? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Absolutely. 

Mr. LEWIS. Do you get it? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Not very promptly. I mean, you have to remember, 

for the first 6 months of this year, we have been on a continuing 

resolution. Last year we got $148 million over the President’s budget. I went back to OMB to ask for authority. That budget was not 

mine; that was Commissioner Barnhart’s budget. But to argue for 

$100 million over the President’s budget, it is very unusual to get 

that permission, and we got it. 

So I have been fighting for this agency’s resources, and we have 

been trying to put them where they should have been for decades. 

And Atlanta has always been number one on my list. And, you 

know, in the first group of new hearing offices we approved was Atlanta South to take the pressure off of the Atlanta downtown and 

Atlanta North offices. 

So it is going to take time for the permanent solution. But in the 

meantime, we are using Office of Quality people to prep cases. We 

have had the National Hearing Center, the first test of the National Hearing Center with Atlanta downtown cases. We have put 

in an extraordinary effort in the short run to bringing those horrendous numbers down. We have made progress. I agree with you; 

it is not good enough. But there is more coming, and we are doing 

the best we can as fast as we can. 

Mr. LEWIS. As you take a long hard look, what are you doing 

about planning for the future in terms of resources, dollars, people, 

space? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We try to have, I think, a much more disciplined 

strategic planning process than we have had before. I think, in the 

past, the agency’s strategic plan, which was required by OMB, was 

not much more than a revision of the budget document. We didn’t 

do that. We went through a very serious process to say, what are 

our long-term needs? What are we not looking at that we need to 

plan for? And there are a number of things that we are doing now 

over the long run that are only going to make my life harder in 

the short run because I am not going to be here to get the benefit: 

replacement of the National Computer Center, and replacement of 

the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, which the Department of 

Labor stopped updating in 1991. 

So we are tackling a number of things where the agency had not 

been focused on what we needed to do over the long run to deliver 

service to the American people, and we have tried to identify those 

through our planning process and suck it up to make the investment even though there is a lot of pressure to put money in a lot 

of other places in the agency right now. We are trying not to forfeit 

the long-run future of the agency. 

Mr. LEWIS. Is there anything that can be done to make the decision in the front end rather than at the back end? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. We are doing that as best we can. And, again, 

we have new systems in place to try to define those cases that 

ought to be automatic up front. That has gone from a small pilot 

with a handful of cases in 2 years to, now, 4 percent of the country 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

68 

is benefiting from that, and our goal is to get that from 6 to 9 percent in the next few years. So that is a matter of updating and 

being much more specific and much more detailed about the medical listings, and we have been doing that, and we have been doing 

that extremely quickly. So that is one example of what we are trying to do. 

We also have some new computer systems in place that are 

promising in terms of queuing and reminding examiners on the 

front end what they need to do and what they need to document 

to lift the quality of the cases. Not quite ready for prime time, and 

we have a problem right now in that we have 54 separate IT systems for the States. And it means, every time we have something 

that can improve processing, it is long, slow and expensive to roll 

it out. So what we are trying to do, and we have got the States behind us now-—this failed once before 10 years ago—is to develop 

a common IT system to get away from the COBOL, to get away 

from the legacy systems, and to get to a Web-based system for all 

the States that, when we have things that will improve things for 

claimants, we can roll it out very quickly. 

Right now, I can’t. The money and the technology won’t let me 

do it. So that is why it is really important that for these IT improvements, we get as much support as possible and the States 

stay behind this. Otherwise, the improvements that the smart technical people can make aren’t going to get out there very quickly to 

help people, and that is what I want to do. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Meek, then Mr. Davis, and Mr. Becerra. 

Mr. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am glad we have 

the witness back once again. 

I was here 2 years ago when you testified before us. And as you 

know, I am from Florida, and actually, your office is right across 

the parking lot from my office, so I do get a firsthand dose of individuals that are very concerned with the lack of movement. 

I was handed a national ranking report here, average processing 

time, and I am looking at this, and I can’t help but notice, and I 

will start with Orlando, it says, in region 4, we have 476 days to 

process, and I would even go beyond that, because if you look at 

it from days, you really can’t get a full appreciation for the time 

that people have to wait. So that is 111 days over a calendar year. 

You look at Jacksonville, region 4 again, it is 492 days. That is 120 

days over a 12-month calendar year. You look at Tampa, 532, 

which is 167 days over a calendar year. And the offices right across 

the street from mine, right across the parking lot from my office, 

has 674 calendar days, which is almost 2 years, just short of 2 

years, 309 days over a 365-day calendar year. 

When you are dealing with individuals, and as you all know and 

everyone over at the department knows, you are dealing with folks 

that 9 times out of 10 are dealing with the muddiness of life, and 

they are trying to make a claim, and guess what? A super majority 

of those individuals that come to my office end up winning their 

appeal. And I can’t help but think that this has to be a major concern of yours and the department. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

69 

Now, I know you are here asking us to do things, and I believe 

we have and we will continue to do things as we make life better 

for the agency. But I can tell you it is just truly hard for Members, 

for them to repeat what you have already said, that we understand, we understand we have a problem; we understand, we are 

trying to work through it, but there has to be a way that we can 

look at these appeals at a faster rate, especially now in this bad 

economy. 

So I wanted to ask you, as it relates to our financial situation, 

our present footprint right now in this economy and the individuals 

that are filing that are being denied, that are being placed in the 

appeal process, has there been any change whatsoever, any consideration taken by Social Security as it relates to these claims that 

have been made of understanding the financial strain that these 

applicants are under right now? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We do understand the strain that people are 

under, and that is why we have more and more mechanisms for the 

people who are truly entitled to try to identify them on the front 

end and pay them their benefits as close to immediately as possible. It is still a very difficult statutory standard. There are a lot 

of very sympathetic people who don’t qualify for benefits, and that 

is your choice. It is a very expensive one. What we try to do is implement the statute as fair and square as possible. It has been difficult with the resource levels. 

Now, Florida is one of the States, as with Georgia, Michigan, and 

Ohio, that has been systematically under-resourced over the years, 

and we are moving to address that. So in the first round of new 

hearing offices there was Tallahassee, and in the second round we 

sent to GSA was the Tampa-St. Petersburg area. So there is help 

coming, approximately 15 additional administrative law judges for 

the State of Florida. 

I think it is a credit to the people in this agency that, with this 

economy, they are still making service improvements and that we 

haven’t had a significant deterioration in service—we have been 

making small progress. And that has also been in a time of very 

tight dollars. Until 2 weeks ago, I was well into my 3rd year as a 

Commissioner with one appropriations bill. I have spent the majority of my time managing this agency under a continuing resolution 

and that forces hiring freezes. That chokes off the very people who 

can help the people that you want to help. 

Now, again, I am not criticizing this Committee. This Committee 

and the Finance Committee have been extraordinarily useful in 

making the case to your colleagues, but I think a lot of your colleagues in the Congress still don’t understand what they have been 

doing to this agency, and we need you and the others on this Committee to continue to be our advocates. We can’t do it without your 

help. If we are back on continuing resolutions, you are just going 

to see the quality of the service go down. 

Mr. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to make sure that the witness was able to share 

with us what we may need to know, maybe not necessarily what 

we all want to hear. But I think, at the same time, we are properly 

motivated; I know I am, because many of our cases outside of immigration cases in Florida that come from my district offices are 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

70 

dealing with the very claims that we are talking about here today, 

and I just wanted to make sure that there was maybe more license 

to be extra sensitive in these very hard times. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Meek. 

Mr. Davis, I am pleased to recognize you, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me just agree, Commissioner, that continuing resolutions 

do hamper movement into projected budget activity for the coming 

year or even the year that we might be in. 

When I look back, though, it seems to me that decreased funding 

back during what I would call the Bush Senate kind of started us 

to escalate in relationship to a backlog. I was also thinking that we 

have had a lot of conversation in relationship to increased applications due to the recession. Let me ask, what specifics do you plan 

to put in place or do you have in place to make use of the stimulus 

money that is going to come to the agency? And how do you view 

that helping to reduce the backlog? 

Mr. ASTRUE. So here is the good news and the bad news. We 

need more people. As of a couple weeks ago, we had the money to 

do it. We are working as hard as we can to go out and try to hire 

about 5,000 people before the end of the fiscal year, and we will 

probably fall a little bit short. That is huge for us. We have had 

to move people around just to put the infrastructure back in to hire 

at that level. So we are trying to do that. We are also assuming, 

and you know I may hang on to regret this, that Congress will accept that we need more of this infrastructure in the baseline in the 

hearings office. And if we end up being told we have overbuilt and 

we are back, you know, on level funding again, then there will be 

consequences for having built up that infrastructure. But we have 

decided to take the leap of faith that Congress is sufficiently concerned about the backlog, that when you say we need 15 percent 

more capacity than we had a couple years ago, that Congress will 

continue to support that, and that is pretty critical for us. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I couldn’t help but perk up a little bit 

when I heard my friend from Atlanta, Mr. Lewis, indicate that he 

was frustrated. And I said to myself, if he is frustrated, then I 

must be devastated because when I look at the Chicago experience 

and I look at the fact that we have actually gotten worse by 95 additional days, then when I hear that there are plans to open some 

new offices in the Midwest region or in the Chicago land area, but 

those offices are not scheduled for Chicago. As a matter of fact, 

they are scheduled for other locations, and it is my understanding 

that the decision is based upon under-allocations or the fact that 

they may have not been adequately staffed earlier. But it seems to 

me that if we have gotten 95 days worse in terms of a waiting period in Chicago, something must already exist or something must 

be going on that caused this discrepancy. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sir, the way we are doing this is the way that, if 

we could all get in a room, we would agree is the right way to do 

it. We are trying to work down from the places where the wait is 

the worst and come down. So we still have a placeholder for two 

more, possibly three more hearing offices. The staff came up with 

the four recommendations. I took a quick look at that, and I looked 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

71 

at the national numbers, and I am concerned. This next round, the 

Chicago area is one of the ones that we need to have a discussion 

about. There is a placeholder for discussion. The straw man right 

now is for Gary, Indiana, because ODAR doesn’t respect State 

lines. Chicago is supporting Indiana across the state line, and we 

are trying to have a conversation about, if we do do it in the Chicago area, what makes the most sense? How does that line up 

against the other four? 

So I can’t tell you that we have made the decision to do that, but 

I don’t disagree with you that you are in the next tier of offices 

where we need to think about additional support, and we may 

make that decision within the next few weeks. So we are close, but 

we are not there yet. 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Well, let me thank you very much. 

And let me thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me say, I certainly empathize with Gary a great deal, but 

I always, my mother, who told us that charity begins at home and 

spreads abroad, so I have got to be concerned about Chicago. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Chairman TANNER. Mr. Becerra. 

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Commissioner, thanks for being with us again. Let me just repeat a few things. One million three hundred Americans waiting 

for a decision on their application for disability benefits; taxpayers, 

seniors, people who have contributed to the system that makes it 

possible for you and I to be here to talk about a disability system 

for Americans who have worked and now have become disabled. 

One million three hundred thousand of them waiting for a decision 

on whether they can finally receive benefits for which they paid 

when they were working. Total wait time on an appeal of a decision, as long as 2 to 4 years. Since 2000, the number of people 

waiting for a hearing on their disability claim has more than doubled from 310,000 to more than 765,000, as of February 2009. 

For far too many years, Commissioner, this government had 

disrespected taxpaying Americans, American seniors, who have 

earned the right to have a disability claim adjudicated. And I am 

not here to blame you or anyone within Social Security. What I am 

here to say is this: We can’t do this anymore. You cannot come and 

testify and not ring the bells if you are not getting the resources 

you need. We are now trying to play catchup. We have a new President, a new Congress, and we are now trying to play catchup after 

years of underfunding the work you need to do to give Americans 

who pay taxes their right to a decision, yea or nay, on whether they 

qualify for disability benefits which they helped make possible 

through their taxpayer dollars. 

You need to speak up. You can’t allow the administration, and 

I know you are constrained because the White House in years 

prior, the Office of Management and Budget, which handles the 

budget that the President submits, in years prior has made it difficult for you to speak. I hope with this new administration it will 

be different and you will be able to speak a lot louder because you 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

72 

can’t catch up in 1 year for years of neglect of this agency for services people are entitled to. You need to speak up. 

Secondly, never again should we allow a White House and the 

administration or any Congress to tell seniors they have got to wait 

2 to 4 years to have a disability claim adjudicated. Last year, actually 2 years ago, we finally got you more money than the President 

had requested in his budget for the Social Security Administration, 

but that was after several years of the President’s not even seeking 

the money that you needed and you had told him you needed. So 

it is ridiculous for us to believe that this new President with a new 

Congress can undo years of neglect, but we have got to start. 

So when we come to you and say, by the way, you are going to 

do disability claims, you are going to adjudicate those, and on top 

of that, we are going to ask you to also administer the Medicare 

prescription drug program, we need to give you personnel because 

you can’t ask someone to be doing adjudication and then be pulled 

off of that to go do Medicare prescription drug management of a 

program. When we say to you, you need to verify the work status 

of all people who want to work in this country to make sure that 

they are entitled to be in this country and work and to go through 

the E-Verify system and ask you to handle some of that load, you 

have got to then say, well, then you have got to give me some personnel and resources because, otherwise, I am pulling people away 

from disability claims for Americans who are waiting to hear 

whether they are going to get their assistance or not to do the work 

of verifying individual status to work in this country, which we 

must do. But you have got to shout and say, don’t expect me to do 

all these things without getting the money. 

I think it is unfortunate that we have underfunded you $1.3 billion for close to the last 10 years. It wasn’t until, as I said, 2007 

that you got, in fiscal year 2008, $150 million extra, but your staffing levels by the end of 2007 had dropped to levels not seen since 

1972. And in that time since 1972, the population you are dealing 

with has more than doubled. So we have got to do something. You 

have got to be forceful. 

When we ask you a question, do you need resources, you have 

got to give us a straight answer. And I know you are limited, but 

this is just not right. You have got people who are disabled, who 

are waiting to hear on their claim, and it is frustrating because it 

is not your fault. It is not the good people who work for the Social 

Security Administration’s fault. It is the fault of this Congress and 

the fault of previous administrations for not giving you the resources you needed. We shouldn’t shortchange people because politically here in D.C. the tough decisions are not made. 

I have consumed all of my time, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I 

don’t know if the commissioner wanted to respond to anything. 

But it is just very frustrating because you can’t just nod your 

head one way or the other if we ask you, do you need resources, 

and you know you are crying for more and you say we think we 

can make due or we are going to try to do the best we can with 

what you give us. That is not good enough. 

Mr. ASTRUE. If I can just try to take a minute, Mr. Chairman, 

to respond to that. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

73 

So I understand that you are trying to help me here. My view 

is I have spoken up loud and hard for this agency. I don’t grandstand because—— 

Mr. BECERRA. Have you told us how much you need for this 

year? How much you need, not what you requested. 

Mr. ASTRUE. You are talking about fiscal year 2010? 

Mr. BECERRA. Yes. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Fiscal year 2010, my request, it gets complicated. 

I made two requests. We did one in September, and I wanted to 

go in September so it would be bipartisan so no one would say, it 

is an Obama budget or it is a McCain budget. The world changed 

between September and January. I redid the budget. I asked for 

substantially more money on the basis of the economic conditions 

and submitted it a second time. We have even informally tweaked 

it up a little bit since then. 

And you are right, I am constrained. I will say that we are very 

much in sync with this administration in what we think needs to 

be done in this agency. This is a 10-percent increase in terms of 

what the President has recommended. And I remind you that, 

when I got here, we had 15 straight years where the Congress was 

under the President’s budget. When I started here, there was a furlough warning. There was a continuing resolution the whole year, 

and I spent an enormous amount of time groveling to get money 

from the pool for the emergency release so I wouldn’t have to furlough my people. 

That is the baseline where I started; 2008 had already been submitted. I went back and got informal permission to go for $100 million more, and we ended up with $148 million more, and there was 

no veto threat on that. And I try not to grandstand and take credit. 

And a lot of people deserve credit for improving the situation in the 

agency. In fiscal year 2009, we got a 6.5-percent increase at a time 

when the domestic agencies were almost all at zero or cut. So we 

got a significant increase last year, and this year, we are in sync 

at a 10-percent increase with this administration. So, you know, I 

may not get up and yell at public events about the—I don’t 

think—— 

Mr. BECERRA. What about privately then—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, I have been known to have a temper occasionally. 

Mr. BECERRA. Just defend your people and your mission. We 

want to be there for you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. And I agree with you, and I believe that I have 

tried to do that. And at some point, the question of your effort and 

your competency is the outcome, and I think we have had good outcomes the last 2 years. These are the 2 years that I have had to 

influence the budget. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Mr. Commissioner, I am going to thank you 

for your time and your testimony, and I hope you will be receptive 

if any of the Members have a written follow-up. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Commissioner, thank you. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

74 

We have about an hour left in this room, so I appreciate the panel’s being so patient with us. If they would, please. 

We have the Honorable Patrick O’Carroll, who is the Inspector 

General of the Social Security Administration. We have Mr. Dan 

Bertoni, the Director of Disability Issues, government Accountability Office; Ms. Peggy Hathaway on behalf of Consortium for 

Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force. We have the 

Honorable Ron Bernoski, the Association of Administrative Law 

Judges from Milwaukee; Mr. James Fell, Federal Managers Association Chapter 275; and Mr. Rick Warsinskey, the National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Incorporated, from 

Cleveland. 

What the Chair chooses to do is call on the panel in the order 

in which I have introduced them for their statements. All of you 

will have any statement you wish to submit for the record included 

in its entirety without objection. 

[12:36 p.m.] 

Chairman TANNER. If you could hold your comments to 5 minutes, the panel would very much appreciate that. 

So, with that, Mr. Johnson, do you have an opening statement? 

With that, Mr. O’Carroll, welcome and thank you for being here. 

You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK O’CARROLL, JR., 

INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Good morning, Chairman Tanner. 

Good morning, Mr. Johnson. 

Let me first thank you for this invitation to testify today. It is 

a pleasure to be here in front of both Subcommittees. With so many 

new members, I want to take just a moment to introduce SSA’s Office of the Inspector General. We are 600 auditors, investigators, 

attorneys and other professionals. Our mission is to prevent and 

detect fraud, waste, and abuse. 

In February, Chairman Tanner was gracious enough to meet 

with me to discuss issues of mutual concern. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned a constituent who contacted you 

wanting an assurance that disability benefits are paid only to those 

entitled to them and that the stimulus funds provided to SSA are 

spent well and wisely. My testimony today is directed at that constituent and at the millions of others just like her. 

I would also like to thank Congressman Brady. Last week, Mr. 

Brady was kind enough to visit one of our offices that best illustrates the partnership we have forged with SSA and with State 

and local agencies to combat fraud. 

Our Houston Cooperative Disability Investigative Unit, or CDI, 

is one of 20 such units around the country that we formed in partnership with SSA more than a decade ago. CDI Units detect fraud 

at the initial application stage before any benefits are paid. With 

a return of $14 for every dollar invested, CDI units make sound fiscal sense. I thank Mr. Brady for his interest and his visit, and extend to all of you the same invitation to visit any of our CDI units. 

We will show you firsthand why there should be more. 

Both fraud and improper payments in the Title II and Title XVI 

disability programs are the focus of many of our efforts. Before I 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

75 

address the backlog, I would like to briefly mention some of our 

work in this area. Recent and ongoing audits looking at improper 

payments resulting from unreported wages and assets, unreported 

changes in living arrangements, and recipients residing outside of 

the United States are representative of our integrity work in the 

SSI area. And audits like the current one, reexamining how well 

SSA reacts when earnings are reported on a disability beneficiary’s 

account, are representative of our integrity work in the Title II program. 

Since our inception in 1995, we have worked to ensure that SSA 

strikes an appropriate balance between its world-class service and 

stewardship. For this reason, our work is not only integrity-based, 

but conducted with the full awareness that service is just as important. 

The disability backlog, about which I testified twice last year, is 

currently the IG’s highest priority, just as it is SSA’s. We recently 

published an audit examining the entire disability process from the 

claimant’s perspective and found that, while decisions on initial 

claims are made within 131 days and decisions made on reconsiderations take 279 days, requesting a hearing before an ALJ means, 

on average, a wait of over 800 days. These numbers make it clear 

that much more needs to be done. 

As a result, we are conducting multiple audits aimed at providing SSA and Congress with information and recommendations 

to reduce the disability backlog. For example, at a hearing last 

year, a Subcommittee Member raised valid concerns about the effect of these long waits on disabled claimants. We are now conducting an audit in which we are interviewing 550 disability applicants to learn about their experiences. Another current audit is examining the effects of States’ decisions to furlough DDS employees. 

Five States have already implemented such furloughs, creating further delays in the disability determination process. 

In other ongoing audits, we are looking at optimum staffing ratios and skill sets in hearing offices; SSA’s e-Pulling pilot; reasons 

why four particular types of disabilities create a disproportionate 

number of ALJ reversals; and the effectiveness of video hearings on 

productivity. 

Also, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided SSA with $500 million to process disability and retirement workloads. As soon as SSA presents its plan for its use of these funds, 

my office will begin a series of audits to assess that plan. 

Mr. Chairman, you can tell your constituent we will be very thorough. I thank you again for this invitation to testify today, and I 

will be happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Carroll follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Patrick O’Carroll, Inspector General, 

Social Security Administration 

Good Morning, Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Congressman Johnson, 

and Congressman Linder. Let me first thank you for your invitation to testify today. 

Your committees are staunch supporters of the work of the Office of the Inspector 

General, and I look forward to working with all of you on the many critical issues 

of great concern to us all. 

Of the 27 members of the two subcommittees, I am testifying before 20 of you for 

the first time. While I won’t take up much time with background information, I do 

want to take the opportunity to introduce the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

76 

Office of the Inspector General, or OIG, to those of you new to these committees. 

In business since SSA became an independent agency in 1995, the OIG is currently 

a team of 600 auditors, investigators, attorneys, and other professionals dedicated 

to our statutory mission—preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in SSA’s 

programs and operations. Over the years, our audits and investigations have uncovered billions of dollars in fraud, improper payments, and Federal funds that can be 

put to better use. I’m extraordinarily proud to head an organization that works so 

tirelessly to protect the integrity of these government programs that touch the lives 

of nearly every American. 

In February, Chairman Tanner was gracious enough to meet with me and discuss 

issues of mutual concern. During that meeting, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned a constituent who had contacted you, wanting an assurance that disability benefits are 

paid only to those entitled to them, and that the stimulus funds put to that use are 

spent well and wisely. My testimony today is directed at that constituent, Mr. 

Chairman, and at millions more like her. 

While I’m always pleased to testify before the Social Security Subcommittee, I’m 

particularly pleased to be here before the Subcommittee on Income Security and 

Family Support as well. The Title XVI Supplemental Security Income program has 

been off the Government Accountability Office’s high-risk list for years now, but this 

has not slowed the OIG’s work on SSI issues. In addition to the audits related to 

the disability backlog that I will discuss today—most of which are equally applicable 

to Title II and Title XVI disability applicants—we have conducted several recent audits focused on the integrity of the SSI program. 

Last week, Congressman Brady was kind enough to visit one of the offices that 

best illustrates the partnership we have forged with SSA to combat fraud. Our 

Houston Cooperative Disability Investigation unit, or CDI, is one of 20 such units 

around the country that we formed in partnership with SSA more than a decade 

ago. Each is composed of an OIG Special Agent who acts as team leader, employees 

from SSA and that State’s Disability Determination Service (DDS) who act as programmatic experts, and State or local law enforcement officers. Tapping the skills 

of each member, the CDI units receive benefit applications flagged as suspicious by 

the DDS and, where appropriate, investigate. 

Designed to detect fraud before benefits are ever paid, the CDI units have been 

an overwhelming success. Several years ago, the Government Accountability Office 

recommended expansion of the CDI program to all 50 states, and I share their enthusiasm. With a return of $14 for every dollar invested, CDI units make sound fiscal sense. I want to thank Mr. Brady for his interest and his visit, and extend to 

all of you the same invitation to visit any one of our 20 CDI units. 

The issue we’re discussing today, however, is primarily one of service to the American public. Service is SSA’s hallmark, and for fourteen years, we have urged SSA 

to strike an appropriate balance between that service and the stewardship incumbent upon a program that pays out over half a trillion dollars a year. Over that 

time, the OIG has always been there to help correct the Agency’s path when its 

focus on service has threatened to overtake its commitment to stewardship. While 

the disability backlog is first and foremost a service issue, it also carries important 

integrity issues over which my office keeps a careful watch. 

Therefore, I will address both service and integrity aspects of the backlog in my 

testimony today. I’ll be discussing the work that the OIG has completed, and the 

work we have underway, that is designed to provide information and recommendations to the Agency and to Congress with respect to improving the entire disability 

adjudication process. To do so, I’ll speak first to the overall processing time for disability claims, then to factors related specifically to the hearing process, and finally, 

to a number of related audits in which the focus is on integrity, rather than service 

alone. 

OIG Reviews Involving the Overall Processing Time for Disability Claims 

Our December 2008 report, Disability Claims Overall Processing Times, examined 

for the first time not merely the appeals process—where most of the backlog exists—but the entire process of adjudicating a disability claim. Looking at the process 

from soup to nuts, we sought to determine SSA’s average overall processing time 

for disability claims decided at the initial DDS level, upon reconsideration at the 

DDS, by an Administrative Law Judge, by the Appeals Council, or by a Federal 

Court—all of the stops at which a claim can be decided. This, we felt, would give 

a true claimant’s-eye view of the entire process from when the claimant filed an application until SSA issued benefits or the claimant stopped appealing. 

We found that the average claim adjudicated in 2006, when decided initially by 

a DDS, was concluded in 131 days, but that if a claim was adjudicated upon a request for reconsideration, that time more than doubled, to 279 days. If a claim was 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

77 

appealed to an ALJ, the 279-day wait almost tripled, to 811 days, or 2.2 years. A 

trip to the Appeals Council (the last step under SSA’s control) increased the total 

time to 1,053 days, while a Federal Court appeal stretched the wait to just under 

five years: 1,720 days. 

We recommended that SSA publish this measure to show disability waiting time 

from the claimant’s perspective, to better inform Congress and the public. 

We also have two audits underway that address overall claims processing time. 

The first, Impact of the Claims Process on Disability Applicants, stems from an issue 

raised by the Social Security Subcommittee during my testimony at a September 

2008 hearing. The Subcommittee was concerned about the effect of the arduous disability adjudication process on already-disabled claimants. I share those concerns, 

and to address them, we are conducting a review in the course of which we will 

interview 550 randomly-selected disability beneficiaries. Of the 550, 250 had claims 

adjudicated at the DDS, either at the initial or reconsideration stage, another 250 

were adjudicated by ALJs, and the remaining 50 were decided by the Appeals Council or a Federal Court. Our interviews are designed to elicit from these individuals 

information about their experiences in obtaining benefits and the effect those experiences had on them. We anticipate publication of this report in August of this year. 

Our second ongoing project in this area is a Quick Response Evaluation entitled 

Impact of State Employee Furloughs on SSA’s Disability Programs. As you are 

aware, several States have implemented furloughs of their employees. In some of 

these states, the furloughs include employees of the State’s DDS. The Commissioner 

sent a letter to each of the relevant Governors, reminding them that SSA, not the 

States, pays 100 percent of the costs of processing these disability workloads. In addition, SSA’s Regional Commissioners urged their States to exempt DDSs from hiring restrictions and furloughs. Nevertheless, our preliminary findings indicate that 

of the 52 DDSs, five were experiencing furloughs, three were still under furlough 

consideration, and 44 either were not furloughing employees, or the DDSs had been 

exempted. Unfortunately, the five States that decided to furlough their DDS employees—California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Connecticut—comprise 15 

percent of the national DDS workload each year. 

The impact of these furloughs on beneficiaries is apparent in our report, which 

will be issued shortly. For example, we found that California will encounter a shortfall of capacity of 10 percent due to furloughs. We estimate that this will delay over 

2,300 applications from being processed, of which we estimate 776 would result in 

allowances. Those 776 beneficiaries will be forced to wait to receive their $648,000 

in monthly benefits as a direct result of the furloughs. 

Since January 1, 2009, California’s initial claims pending have increased by 9.7 

percent and its reconsideration claims pending by 16.1 percent as a result of increased applications and the State furloughs. 

OIG Reviews Related to the Hearings and Appeals Process 

While issues surrounding the DDSs and the processing of both initial claims and 

requests for reconsideration are material to the overall backlog, the findings in our 

soup-to-nuts review establish that the real delays begin when an appeal is filed— 

it was at this stage that the processing time jumped from 279 to 811 days. As a 

result, the majority of our work related to the disability process focuses on this 

stage of the claim. 

In recent years, we have conducted a number of reviews in this area, studying 

ALJ productivity, hearing office performance, timeliness of medical evidence, and 

other factors. Our past work in this area can be viewed online at http://www.ssa.gov/ 

oig/office_of_audit/issuesmanage.htm, or I’d be happy to provide any of the Members 

with hard copies of any report. 

Today, however, I’d like to look ahead by sharing some information about the 

work we have in progress in these areas, in addition to the aforementioned audit 

on the impact of the process on disabled beneficiaries, which bridges the initial adjudication and the appeals processes. 

Electronic File Assembly, often referred to as e-Pulling, is a pilot initiated by SSA 

and designed to improve the process by which disability claim files are assembled 

and prepared for an ALJ hearing. Customized software, piloted at seven locations 

in the summer of 2008, is being evaluated by SSA to determine when e-Pulling 

should be implemented nationwide. The OIG is assessing the results of the pilot, 

as well as whether SSA’s assessment procedures are effective with regard to making 

decisions about a nationwide rollout. 

In another review, we are studying the age of pending claims caught in the disability backlog and identifying obstacles that have prevented the oldest claims from 

moving forward. Our review, which includes hearing offices with the most aged 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

78 

cases and those with the fewest, is designed to identify best practices and make recommendations for reducing the number of aged cases. 

Hearing office performance and staffing is an issue we touched upon in our 2008 

audit, ALJ and Hearing Office Performance. In that audit, we found that staff ratios 

and staff performance were ignificant issues in determining a hearing office’s processing time. n an audit now underway, we are delving deeper into these specific 

issues. ur goal, to be accomplished through extensive field work in hearing offices 

across the country, is to identify optimum staffing ratios and staff skill sets to maximize hearing office performance. 

In an earlier analysis of DDS determinations, we determined that there were four 

impairments that, when denied by the DDS, were most likely to be reversed by an 

ALJ: disorders of the back, osteoarthritis and allied disorders, diabetes mellitus, and 

disorders of muscle, ligament, and fascia. A review now underway will, within the 

context of these four impairments, analyze multiple variables to include claimant 

age, the State in which the claimant resides, the hearing office that heard the case, 

whether the claimant was represented, claim processing time, and other factors. 

Our goal is to provide SSA with information that will be useful in considering 

changes that will allow these cases at the initial level, instead of being consistently 

denied and reversed, using limited resources. 

Video hearings are another initiative SSA has employed to reduce the disability 

backlog. By reducing ALJ travel to remote locations, SSA’s intention was to increase 

ALJ productivity. As of fiscal year 2008, SSA had procured and was installing 558 

video teleconferencing units, and was planning to obtain and install another 112 

units in fiscal year 2009. SSA is also installing smaller video units, called Desktop 

Video Units, which will not require a hearing room and will thereby expand the capacity of hearing offices. We have fieldwork underway on an audit designed to assess whether the use of these video units increases hearing office productivity and 

provides claimants with more timely service. 

Finally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $500 million to SSA to process the additional disability and retirement workloads created by 

increased benefit applications brought about by the economic downturn. As stated 

in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference accompanying 

the legislation, ‘‘These additional funds will allow SSA to process a growing workload of claims in a timely manner and to accelerate activities to reduce the backlog 

of disability claims.’’ The OIG is charged with oversight of this and all SSA stimulus 

spending. In early April, as SSA provides the Office of Management and Budget 

with its plan for the use of these stimulus funds, our office will initiate an audit 

that will assess the Agency’s spending plan. 

All of these ongoing audit efforts are designed with a single goal in mind: to help 

SSA and Congress in their efforts to improve service to disability beneficiaries. As 

I stated at the outset, however, service is only one side of the equation, and while 

the disability backlog is first and foremost a service issue, I would be remiss if I 

didn’t also mention our integrity-based efforts in the disability arena. 

Integrity is at the very heart of the OIG’s mission, and our efforts in this area 

take on myriad forms. From criminal investigations to complex audits, and from 

government-wide task forces to the CDI units I mentioned earlier, integrity is our 

bread and butter. The programs administered by SSA pay some half a trillion dollars a year to 50 million beneficiaries and recipients nationwide and around the 

world. That money comes from the Social Security Trust Fund, the solvency of 

which affects every American, and from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury—all 

of it representing taxpayer dollars. We take our role as protectors of those funds 

very seriously, and while our work aimed at service issues, such as reducing the 

disability backlog, is every bit as important, service cannot be administered without 

safeguards adequate to ensure integrity. Thus, our work with regard to SSA’s disability programs is by no means focused solely on service. 

Integrity-Based Work Related to Disability 

Our work with respect to the integrity of the disability programs encompasses 

both improper payments and actual fraud. In both instances, the majority of these 

integrity issues are relevant with regard to both Title II and Title XVI disability, 

but the SSI program has unique characteristics stemming from its nature as a resource-based program that merit separate attention. 

For example, last year, we conducted an audit designed to detect both improper 

payments and fraud due to the failure of SSI recipients to notify SSA that they had 

been married, an event that impacts both eligibility and payment amount under 

SSI. We estimated that about 2,000 recipients were overpaid about $25 million, and 

that by stopping these incorrect payments, SSA could save about $7 million over the 

following 12 months. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

79 

In another 2008 audit of the SSI program, we obtained bank data for a sample 

of SSI recipients to determine if it was cost-effective to use this type of information 

to identify SSI recipients who were no longer eligible by reason of being outside the 

United States. We analyzed the data to identify recipients with Automated Teller 

Machine withdrawals outside the country. Although we estimated a significant 

amount of overpayments—about $226 million—the audit was labor-intensive, as the 

bank provided paper, rather than electronic, records. SSA does not intend to pursue 

the use of this type of data due to resource issues. 

While these audits were SSI-based, we also conduct integrity work that by its nature is limited to Title II disability. In a review currently underway, we are following up on an earlier audit that examined SSA’s treatment of Title II beneficiaries 

who had earnings reported to SSA, an event that is at least indicative that the individual may no longer be eligible for benefits. In 2004, we found that $1.37 billion 

in overpayments resulted from SSA’s failure to identify about 63,000 disabled beneficiaries whose work activity resulted in earnings being posted to the Master Earnings File between 1996 and 2000. In 2004, SSA implemented an automated system 

called eWork to assist in controlling and processing work-related Continuing Disability Reviews, or CDRs. Our current review revisits this issue, and assesses the 

success of SSA’s efforts in this area over the past five years. 

We found that while SSA has made efforts to reduce these overpayments, there 

remains cause for concern. Based upon the sample population we reviewed, we are 

estimating that approximately $3 billion was overpaid to about 170,000 beneficiaries 

who had earnings reported between 2001 and 2006. While SSA identified $1.8 billion and 141,000 of these beneficiaries, the remainder ($1.2 billion to 45,000 beneficiaries) went undetected. We believe that 21,000 of these 45,000 beneficiaries are 

no longer eligible for benefits, and estimate that SSA will pay $346 million to them 

over the next 12 months if corrective action is not taken. Our report is currently 

with SSA for review. 

Finally, much of our integrity work covers both Title II and Title XVI disability. 

Like the Title II work-related CDRs, medical CDRs (Title II) and redeterminations 

(Title XVI) are a critical tool used by SSA to maintain the integrity of disability programs and processes. In recent years, resource limitations and other factors have 

resulted in fewer and fewer medical CDRs being conducted by the Agency. The Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 provided funding for CDRs from 1996 

to 2002, during which time SSA eliminated its entire backlog of CDRs and redeterminations. Since that funding expired, however, medical CDRs have decreased over 

60 percent—from more than 679,000 in 2003 to fewer than 250,000 in 2008. The 

backlog, as of the end of fiscal year 2008, was reported at 1.4 million CDRs, and 

SSA estimates that the backlog will reach 1.6 million by the end of this fiscal year. 

Redeterminations decreased more than 50 percent during the same period. 

We have initiated audits to determine the financial impact to the Social Security 

Trust Fund and the General Treasury as a result of the decrease in the number 

of medical CDRs and redeterminations being conducted, as well as the amount of 

funding that would be needed to eliminate the current backlogs. 

This brings us full circle, to the CDI units I mentioned at the outset. When a DDS 

suspects fraud in the course of conducting a CDR or redetermination, they will frequently refer such a case to the CDI unit for investigation and, where indicated, 

criminal prosecution. Both CDRs and CDIs are invaluable integrity tools and represent wise investments. 

Conclusion 

The work I’ve detailed today, encompassing both integrity and service-related aspects of SSA’s disability processes, is only a brief glimpse of the many ways in which 

our auditors are providing information and recommendations to SSA and keeping 

Congress and the public informed. I look forward to working with your Subcommittees in the coming years in this area, and in all aspects of the OIG’s efforts, both 

audit and investigative, as we join together to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and 

abuse in SSA’s programs and operations. 

Thank you again for the invitation to testify today, and I’d be happy to answer 

any questions. 

f 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you very much for your timely opening statement. 

Mr. Bertoni, we are pleased to recognize you. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

80 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL BERTONI, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE. 

Mr. BERTONI. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, 

good morning. I am pleased to be here to discuss challenges facing 

SSA with respect to disability workloads and field office customer 

service. SSA provides services that touch many lives, including millions who apply for disability benefits each year and those seeking 

retirement benefits and a host of other critical services. 

For years, the agency has faced difficulties managing disability 

workloads and making timely decisions. In fact, over the last decade, the disability backlog grew to over half a million claims, and 

many claimants are waiting years for a final decision. 

In other mission-critical areas, SSA has also experienced service 

declines, with millions of customers waiting longer to be served and 

millions more having their phone calls go unanswered. 

My testimony today is based on our prior work and focuses on 

two areas, factors contributing to SSA’s service delivery challenges 

and actions the agency is taking to better serve those who apply 

for disability benefits and other services. In summary, two key 

drivers have contributed to disability backlogs and other service delivery challenges, rising numbers of claims and staffing shortfalls. 

By the start of fiscal year 2007, backlog claims reached 576,000, 

A growth rate of 120 percent over 1997 levels. And over the years, 

spikes in benefit applications due to economic downturns, aging 

baby boomers, referrals from other benefit programs, changes to 

program eligibility requirements and increased outreach have contributed to the backlog of claims. While backlogs have occurred at 

all stages of the process, they are most concentrated at the hearings level for 7 of the 10 years that we reviewed. 

In concert with the growth of pending claims, processing times 

at most levels also increased. And for claims that were repealed, 

30 percent, it took between 600 and 1,000 days to process. The rise 

in disability backlogs has coincided with high rates of turnover and 

attrition of experienced disability examiners, as well as shortfalls 

in a number of administrative law judges and hearing office support staff, such as decision writers, attorneys, claims technicians 

and others that prepare cases for review. 

Beyond the challenges associated with disability claims, SSA 

field officers face similar pressures driven in part by increasing 

workloads. Last year we reported that field office waiting times increased by 40 percent, and they had 3 million customers waiting 

more than 1 hour to be served. Moreover, 51 percent of those calling SSA’s field offices had at least one earlier call that had gone 

unanswered. 

Over the years, SSA has undertaken several initiatives to improve the disability process and address other challenges. Unfortunately, as we have noted in several prior reports dating back more 

than a decade, some initiatives have faltered for a variety of reasons, including poor planning and execution. Others improved the 

process but were too costly and subsequently abandoned. 

In 2006, SSA introduced a new set of comprehensive reforms to 

improve the accuracy, consistency and timeliness of the claims 

process called the Disability Service Improvement Initiative or DSI. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

81 

However, this also yielded mixed results due to rushed implementation, poor communication and higher-than-anticipated costs, and 

many aspects were ultimately suspended. 

In light of the considerable investment at DSI, we recommended 

that SSA conduct a thorough evaluation to determine what, if any, 

aspects should be continued. We also recommended that, going forward, SSA should develop a systematic planning, risk analysis and 

evaluation framework to increase the likelihood that future initiatives will succeed. 

In 2007, SSA outlined its current plan, which focuses on breaking the hearings-level backlog. Key initiatives include updating 

SSA’s medical criteria, expediting cases for which approval is likely 

and improving hearings office capacity through hiring and other 

means. 

SSA has also received $500 million in stimulus funds to assist in 

processing key workloads. We currently have work underway assessing the plan’s potential to eliminate the hearings backlog by 

2013 as targeted. To address field office customer service challenges, the agency is redistributing work to offices at capacity, 

using managers to perform work typically conducted by lower-graded staff and deferring some program integrity workloads, such as 

continuing eligibility reviews. Unfortunately, this can result in 

some beneficiaries receiving payments who are no longer eligible. 

At present, it is unclear how SSA will meet future service delivery demands given its current organizational configuration and 

business processes. The volume of work conducted at SSA’s field offices has increased markedly over time while staff turnover and 

losses persist. Moreover, projected staff retirements over the next 

several years will further tax the agency. And we have recommended that SSA develop a comprehensive service delivery plan 

to better position itself to serve changing customer demographics 

and service needs. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I am happy to 

answer any questions you or others may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bertoni follows:] 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

82 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.022
83 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.023
84 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.024
85 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.025
86 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.026
87 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.027
88 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.028
89 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.029
90 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.030
91 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.031
92 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.032
93 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.033
94 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.034
95 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.035
96 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.036
97 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.037
98 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.038
99 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.039
100 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.040
101 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.041
102 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.042
103 

f 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Bertoni. 

Ms. Hathaway, we are pleased to recognize you. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.043
104 

STATEMENT OF PEGGY HATHAWAY, CO-CHAIR, SOCIAL SECURITY TASK FORCE, CONSORTIUM FOR CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES 

Ms. HATHAWAY. Thank you for inviting me here to testify 

today on behalf of the Consortium For Citizens With Disabilities. 

We bring the voice of the consumer to this debate, this discussion. 

Social Security Title II and SSI benefits, as well as the accompanying Medicare and Medicaid coverage, are the means of survival for millions of people with severe disabilities. They rely on 

SSA to promptly and fairly decide on their claims for disability 

benefits. Your constituent services staffs have likely reported the 

heartbreaking stories and consequences of intolerable delays in the 

backlogs. 

When a decision is appealed, people often wait years for a hearing, longer for a decision and even longer for actual payment of 

benefits. And as others have pointed out, that is even after they 

have gone through the several-months-long initial procedure. Behind the statistics, people’s lives are unraveling. Families are torn 

apart. Homes are lost. Medical conditions deteriorate. Financial security crumbles, and many individuals die before a decision is 

made. 

This month, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, a CCD Member, conducted a quick survey of 

its Members to update how the backlogs are affecting claimants. 

Our written statement includes stories from a number of states. I 

just want to summarize a few of them briefly here for you. 

Ms. A from Tennessee filed her application for benefits in 2007. 

She was forced to file for bankruptcy and lives on very, very little 

income. No hearing has been scheduled, and there has been no response to her request for an on-the-record decision. 

Mr. D from Georgia has terminal hepatitis C and depends on his 

girlfriend for all of his support. After his March 2007 initial claim 

was denied, he filed for a hearing in October of 2007 and a request 

for an on-the-record decision as a terminal case. A year and a half 

later, there is no hearing scheduled and no decision. 

Mr. A from Texas filed his application in September 2003, was 

denied, and requested a hearing in February of 2004. After several 

additional procedural steps, no decision has been issued 51⁄2 years 

after the initial claim. In the meantime, Mr. A’s house burned 

down, and he had to file for bankruptcy. 

Mr. L from Oklahoma, I am sorry to report, committed suicide 

when his case was denied consideration in May of 2008. His widow 

is awaiting the yet-to-be-scheduled hearing. 

Ms. S from South Carolina illustrates the importance of this determination for health coverage. She had no health coverage and 

no Medicaid because SSA had not yet found her disabled. After 

unhealing sores from diabetes went untreated, she died from complications of diabetes. At a posthumous hearing, the ALJ stated it 

was obvious that Ms. S had been disabled and issued a fully favorable decision. The medical care and Medicaid coverage that Ms. S 

did not receive due to the hearing delay most likely would have 

saved her life. 

Then there is Mr. H from Iowa who has multiple sclerosis and 

has had a claim pending since September of 2007. He sent a letter 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

105 

1 United Spinal Association is an organization with members in all 50 states that has been 

securing equal rights and access for all Americans with spinal cord injuries and disorders since 

1946 when it was formed by veterans paralyzed by World War II injuries. United Spinal Association is also an authorized VA Veterans Service Organization serving veterans with disabilities of all kinds. 

to his attorney, part of which I would like to read to you because 

it is so touching. 

He says, ‘‘I am writing this brief letter to tell you about a few 

of the examples of what this disease has caused. Besides the dayto-day struggle just to live, it has caused my wife and me, along 

with our two children, financial ruin. My mortgage payment is as 

much as my wife makes. I receive no other income and worry day 

to day how to exist . . . as bad as this may sound, I have actually 

tried to end this with a suicide attempt in November of 2008. 

There isn’t any way to describe this except to say it feels hopeless.’’ 

The primary reason for the increasing backlogs and reductions in 

other key services is that, as you have heard, until quite recently, 

SSA has been persistently underfunded over many years. For 

years, the Commissioner’s budget came in at X dollars; the President’s budget came in below that; and Congress appropriated even 

less than the President’s budget, until, that was, fiscal year 2008. 

So on top of the retirement and disability applications from baby 

boomers, along comes the economic crisis with a huge, unexpected 

surge in both retirement and disability applications. We are encouraged and grateful for Congress’s appropriating recent funds for 

SSA in the economic stimulus bill, in the 2009 appropriation, and 

in the President’s 2010 budget, including funds for program integrity. We also appreciate Commissioner Astrue’s commitment to 

what he rightly calls the ‘‘moral imperative’’ to reduce the disability backlog. 

SSA must also find ways to operate more efficiently. Our written 

testimony has a number of recommendations. 

A note of caution: SSA must take care to determine how new initiatives will affect the very people for whom the system exists, people who meet the strict criteria for disability. These people face a 

host of personal, family, and financial circumstances that make it 

difficult or impossible to navigate the complex disability determination system without substantial assistance. SSA must continue to 

ensure that each individual’s claim is fully developed before a decision is made. 

To prevent tragedies similar to those that I have described, CCD 

urges Congress to continuously provide SSA the resources necessary to carry out its mandated responsibilities and substantially 

improve its service to the public. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hathaway follows:] 

Statement of Peggy Hathaway, Vice President, United Spinal Association, 

Silver Spring, Maryland; on behalf of Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force 

Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Johnson, Ranking 

Member Linder, and Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for inviting me to 

testify at today’s hearing on Eliminating the Social Security Disability Backlog. 

I am Vice-President for Public Policy of United Spinal Association.1 I am here in 

my capacity as a Co-Chair of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) 

Social Security Task Force. CCD is a working coalition of national consumer, advocacy, provider, and professional organizations working together with and on behalf 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

106 

2Plan to Eliminate the Hearing Backlog and Prevent Its Recurrence, Annual Report FY 2008, 

SSA Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (‘‘SSA Backlog 08 Report’’). 

of the 54 million children and adults with disabilities and their families living in 

the United States. The CCD Social Security Task Force (hereinafter ‘‘CCD’’) focuses 

on disability policy issues in the Title II disability programs and the Title XVI Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

The focus of this hearing is extremely important to people with disabilities. Title 

II and SSI cash benefits, along with the related Medicare and Medicaid benefits, are 

the means of survival for millions of individuals with severe disabilities. They rely 

on the Social Security Administration (SSA) to promptly and fairly adjudicate their 

applications for disability benefits. They also rely on the agency to handle many 

other actions critical to their well-being including: timely payment of their monthly 

Title II and SSI benefits to which they are entitled; accurate withholding of Medicare Parts B and D premiums; and timely determinations on post-entitlement issues 

that may arise (e.g., overpayments, income issues, prompt recording of earnings). 

We recognize and appreciate that Commissioner Astrue has made reduction and 

elimination of the disability claims backlog a top priority. However, despite increases in productivity, the backlog in disability determinations continues to grow, 

at least in part due to an unexpected increase in the number of appeals.2 People 

with severe disabilities are experiencing increasingly long delays and decreased 

services in accessing these critical benefits to which they are entitled. We believe 

these problems have been caused primarily by persistent under-funding of SSA over 

many years. We are encouraged by recent additional funding for SSA but we caution 

that it will be offset at least in part by the unexpected surge in both disability and 

retirement claims due to the economic crisis. 

THE IMPACT ON PEOPLE WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES OF INSUFFICIENT FUNDING FOR SSA 

We must recognize the real-life impact of the backlog and the ensuing delays for 

individuals with disabilities who must file claims for disability benefits and wait for 

a decision. Behind the numbers are individuals with disabilities whose lives have 

unraveled while waiting for decisions—families are torn apart; homes are lost; medical conditions deteriorate; once stable financial security crumbles; and many individuals die. Numerous recent media reports across the country have also documented the suffering experienced by these individuals. 

The National Organization of Social Security Claims Representatives (NOSSCR), 

a member of the CCD Social Security Task Force, recently conducted a quick survey 

of NOSSCR members for an update on the impact of the backlog on claimants waiting for decisions on their claims. The stories are located at the end of this testimony 

beginning on page 11. Your constituent services staffs are likely to be well aware 

of the situations faced by people living in your districts and provide valuable assistance and help, where possible. An attorney in Jackson, TN, told us: 

We hear on a daily basis how the claimants are struggling to keep their 

homes, obtain their needed medications, and seek proper medical attention. 

When we hear our clients’ stories, the first thing we suggest to them is to 

contact Congressman Tanner’s office. We inform them that his office is 

there to help them. Sometimes our office seeks assistance from Congressman Tanner’s office on behalf of our clients. The staff at [his] office is always willing to assist. . . . However, despite efforts of Congressman Tanner’s office, there is still a long wait time for our clients. Our clients are 

experiencing an average of 18 months from the time we file for their hearings until one is actually scheduled. For some of our clients, it has been 

three (3) years between the date they filed for their benefits and their hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. This delay has put an extreme 

hardship on all of our clients, but some are struggling more than others.’’ 

Many other claimants’ representatives have similar stories about the impact of 

the long waits on their clients. Because many claimants have no access to health 

insurance while they wait for a decision, their health deteriorates because they cannot obtain necessary medical treatment, sometimes as simple as antibiotics. For 

those who can afford COBRA coverage, the lengthy wait goes beyond the period 

when they can extend the coverage. Sadly, many individuals die unnecessarily or 

commit suicide. One attorney in Georgia had at least six clients die over the last 

year while waiting for decisions. Appropriate family members are more frequently 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

107 

3 If a claimant dies while a claim is pending, the SSI rule for payment of past due benefits 

is very different—and far more limited—than the Title II rule. In an SSI case, the payment will 

be made in only two situations: (1) to a surviving spouse who was living with the claimant at 

the time of death or within six months of the death; or (2) to the parents of a minor child, if 

the child resided with the parents at the time of the child’s death or within six months of the 

death. 42 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(1)(A) [Section 1631(b)(1)(A) of the Act]. In Title II, the Act provides 

rules for determining who may continue the claim, which includes: a surviving spouse; parents; 

children; and the legal representative of the estate. 42 U.S.C. § 404(d) [Section 202(d) of the Act]. 

Thus, if an adult SSI claimant (age 18 or older) dies before actually receiving the past due payment and if there is no surviving spouse, the claim dies with the claimant and no one is paid. 4Social Security Administration: Workloads, Resources and Service Delivery, p. 10, Kathleen 

Romig, Congressional Research Service, R40207, 2/6/09 (hereinafter CRS 2/6/09 Rpt), p. 3. 5 Id. p. 4. 6 Id. p. 6–8. 7 Id. p. 11. 8 Id. p. 11 and SSA Major Strategic Accomplishments FY 2008, p. 5. 9 CRS 2/6/09 Rpt., p. 11. 

10 Id. See also OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government: Appendix, FY 1996–FY 2009; SSA 

Budget Justification FY 2002–FY 2009. SSA Major Strategic Accomplishments, FY 2008, p 5. 11 CRS 2/6/09 Rpt, p. 10. 12 Id. p. 9. 13 Id. p. 10. 

substituted as the claims proceed following the deaths of their loved ones.3 Foreclosures have increased with claimants losing their homes and vehicles. 

PERSISTENT UNDER-FUNDING OF SSA Despite Increased Workloads 

In recent years, SSA’s workload has increased dramatically due to an increase in 

the number of retirement and disability claims and addition of new SSA responsibilities. During the 5-year period from FY 2004 to FY 2008, retirement and survivors 

applications grew by 22 percent and Social Security disability claims grew 7 percent.4 During the same period, applications for SSI disability/blindness grew by 11 

percent and SSI aged applications grew by77 percent.5 Additional duties have been 

imposed on SSA, including implementation of new Medicare programs and 

verification for employment eligibility.6

Even though workloads increased from FY 2004 through FY 2008, SSA’s staffing 

level decreased by 4 percent.7 SSA’s staffing level is currently about 61,000 Full 

Time Equivalents (FTE’s) the lowest level since the early 1970’s.8 Moreover, many 

SSA employees have already taken early retirement and many more are eligible to 

retire.9 SSA could soon be deprived of its most experienced and knowledgeable employees. 

Despite the increase in workloads, SSA’s administrative expenses (known as 

LAE—Limitation on Administrative Expenses) have, until recently, been persistently under-funded.10 Every year from 1998 through 2007, the President’s Budget 

requested less than the Commissioner’s requested budget, and Congress appropriated even less than the President’s request.11 Between FY 2000 and 2007 alone, 

the resulting administrative shortfall was more than $4 billion. The dramatic increase in the disability claims backlog coincides with this period of under-funding 

the agency, leaving people with severe disabilities to wait years to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. 

In 2008, the tide finally changed for the first time in a decade, when Congress 

appropriated $148 million over the President’s budget.12 This additional amount allowed the agency to hire some new Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and other 

staff. However, given the many years of under-funding and the need for a $400 million annual increase just to keep up with fixed costs,13 additional funding is required to reduce and eliminate the backlog and to provide essential services to the 

public. 

Building on the FY 2008 appropriation, three recent developments in funding for 

SSA’s administrative expenses are encouraging: 

• Economic Stimulus legislation. Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), SSA received $500 million to handle the unexpected surge in both retirement and disability applications due to the economic 

downturn. SSA also received badly needed funds to replace its aged National 

Computer Center. 

• FY 2009 appropriation. The FY 2009 omnibus appropriations bill, just enacted this month, provides SSA with more than $700 million over the final FY 

2008 appropriation. With this increase and the ARRA funding, SSA expects to 

hire 5,000 to 6,000 new employees. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

108 

14 CRS 2/6/09 Rpt, p. 23 and 24. 15SSA Service Delivery Plan Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges, Government Accountability Office Report GAO–09–24, January 2009, p. 2 and 3 (hereinafter ‘‘GAO 1/ 

09 Report’’). 16 Id. 17 NADE, Statement for the Record Regarding Possible and Previously Imposed Furloughs of 

DDS State & Consideration of the Potential Impact of Hiring Freezes on DDS Services, 1/15/ 

09 (‘‘NADE Stmt 1/15/09’’) 18 CRS 2/6/09 Rpt, p. 13. 19 NADE Stmt 1/15/09. Some or all DDS employees have been furloughed in California, Massachusetts, Maryland and Oregon. Hiring freezing are affecting DDSs in Indiana, Maine, Washington and Wisconsin. Florida is considering a pay cut. 20 Commissioner Astrue Asks Governors to Exempt State DDS Employees from Hiring Restrictions, SSA Press Release 2/3/09. 

• President’s request for FY 2010. President Obama’s Budget Overview for FY 

2010 provides $11.6 billion in administrative expenses for SSA, a 10 percent increase over the FY 2009 appropriation. 

These developments come at a critical moment because the economic downtown 

has led to an unexpected surge in benefit applications. The result has been an increase of 17 percent in retirement claims over one year ago (28 percent over two 

years) and a 10 percent increase in new disability claims through March 13 of this 

fiscal year. Pending initial disability claims are up 12.5 percent so far this year and 

hearings filed are up 9.5 percent, with numbers increasing as the recession deepens. 

We urge support for the full $11.6 billion FY 2010 appropriation for SSA’s LAE. 

These increases will help SSA not only to significantly reduce the backlog, but also 

keep local offices open and better staffed, provide adequate telephone services to the 

public, and maintain the integrity of its programs by performing more continuing 

disability reviews and SSI redeterminations. 

Performing Program Integrity Activities. The processing of continuing disability reviews (CDRs) and SSI redeterminations is necessary to protect program integrity and avert improper payments. Failure to conduct the full complement of 

these activities has adverse consequences for the federal budget and the deficit. According to SSA, every $1 spent on CDRs yields $10 in program savings, and every 

$1 spent on SSI redeterminations yields $7 in program savings.14 However, the 

number of reviews actually conducted is directly related to whether SSA receives 

the necessary funds. 

President Obama’s FY 2010 budget request includes $759 million for SSA program integrity work. We support this request, but it is important to note that there 

is a tradeoff between program integrity efforts and efforts to reduce the disability 

backlog and process new claims, given the limited capacity of the state Disability 

Determination Services (DDSs). DDS workers are trying to keep up with the unexpected surge in applications due to the economic downturn, and some of the same 

DDS personnel process CDRs. An increase in staff attention to one function is likely 

to result in decreased performance in the other, which could lead to more delays 

in the processing of new claims. 

IMPACT OF UNDER-FUNDING ON SSA FIELD OFFICES AND THE STATE 

DDSs 

SSA field offices. In addition to concerns regarding the disability claims backlog, 

SSA field offices are experiencing significant increases in the volume of their work 

and service difficulties. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) study 

found that the number of field office staff fell 4.4 percent from FY 2005 to2008.15

GAO found that at least 51 percent of customers calling field offices had at least 

one previously unanswered call, and in FY 2007, over one million customers waited 

for over an hour to be served.16

State DDSs. The state Disability Determination Services (DDSs), which determine whether a claimant is disabled, experienced a 7 percent increase in disability 

applications for the last quarter of 2008, compared to the last quarter of 2007.17 Yet 

during the 5 year period from FY 2004 through FY 2008, the number of DDS staff 

declined by 8 percent.18 To make the problem worse, even though DDS salaries, offices and overhead are fully funded by SSA, due to severe state budget problems, 

some states are imposing hiring restrictions and furloughs of employees including 

DDS workers.19 Commissioner Astrue has written to Governors asking them to exempt DDS from these hiring freezes and furloughs—which exacerbate staffing shortages and severely affect the processing of disability claims.20

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

109 

21Social Security Disability: Better Planning, Management, and Evaluation Could Help Address Backlogs, GAO–08–40 (Dec. 2007)(‘‘GAO 12/07 Report’’), p. 22. 22Social Security Administration: Fiscal Year 2009 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees (‘‘SSA FY 09 Budget Justification ’’), p. 6. Available at: http://www.ssa.gov/ 

budget/2009cjapp.pdf. 23GAO 12/07 Report, p. 20. 24 ‘‘National Ranking Report by Average Processing Time’’ (Hearing Offices) for the Month 

Ending February 27, 2009. 25GAO 12/07 Report, p. 20. 26GAO 12/07 Report, p. 31. 

THE HEARING LEVEL: PROCESSING TIMES HAVE REACHED INTOLERABLE LEVELS FOR CLAIMANTS 

The most significant delays in SSA’s disability determination process are at the 

hearing level. The average processing time for cases at the hearing level has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average time was 274 days.21 In the current fiscal year, SSA estimates that the average processing time for disability claims 

at the hearing level will be 506 days,22 or nearly 17 months. We appreciate the effort by SSA to reduce the processing time, but an average of 17 months—close to 

one and a half years—is still too long for individuals waiting for a hearing decision. 

In addition, the average processing times at the initial and reconsideration levels 

have grown over the last ten years by about 20 days at each level, with some cases 

taking much longer.23

The current processing times in some hearing offices are striking, and much 

longer than the 506 days targeted by SSA in FY 2009. Through February 2009, SSA 

statistics for 149 hearing offices 24 indicate that the average processing time was 

499 days. It is important to keep in mind that this is an ‘‘average’’ and that many 

claimants will wait longer. However, the average processing time at 61 offices—41 

percent— was above the 499 day February 2009 national average, with 26 offices 

over 600 days and 7 offices over 700 days. 

Hearing offices more than one month over the current national average include: 

Tampa, FL (532 days); Minneapolis, MN (536 days); Nashville, TN (547 days); Los 

Angeles, CA–West (554 days); Bronx, NY (590 days); Milwaukee, WI (594 days); Birmingham, AL (614 days); Detroit, MI (643 days); Columbus, OH (640 days); Atlanta, 

GA–North (668 days); Miami, FL (674 days); and Oak Park, MI (714 days). 

Other hearing office statistics reflect the lengthy waits that claimants must face. 

The ‘‘average age of pending’’ cases at nearly one-third of the offices is above the 

national average of 313 days, with wide variation. Perhaps even more disturbing is 

the extremely large disparity in the average caseload of ALJs—currently ranging 

from around 300 to 1442 cases per ALJ, with an average of 670. 

Is the Hearing Backlog Improving? The number of pending cases has increased dramatically since 1999, reaching an all-time record high of 768,540 cases 

in December 2008. Through February 2009, the number dropped slightly to 765,527, 

but has not dropped below 760,000 since June 2008. In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the hearing level backlog was ‘‘almost 

eliminated’’ from FY 1997 to FY 1999, but then grew ‘‘unabated’’ by FY 2006.25 The 

number of pending cases at the hearing level reached a low in FY 1999 at 311,958 

cases. We remain concerned about the impact of the current economic downturn on the 

backlog. The number of hearing requests has increased 9.5 percent during the first 

5 months of FY 2009, compared to the same period in FY 2008. This hearing level 

increase does not yet reflect the additional and unexpected 9.6 percent increase this 

year in the number of initial applications over the same period last year. As a result, we can expect to see an additional surge of hearing requests when the new 

application cases, attributable to the recession, reach the hearing level. 

The impact of staffing on the hearing backlog. Over the last decade, concurrent with the marked increase in the disability claims backlog, we have noted the 

loss of ALJs and support staff in hearing offices around the country. Former Commissioner Barnhart had planned to hire an additional 100 ALJs in FY 2006 but due 

to cuts in the President’s budget request, she was able to hire only 43. The real impact of the burden on the current ALJ corps can be seen by comparing statistics 

from 1998 and 2006. In FY 1998, there were 1,087 ALJs available to conduct hearings. This number dropped to 1,018 in FY 2006, while the number of pending cases 

more than doubled.26

SSA received funding in FY 2008 to hire approximately 190 new Administrative 

Law Judges and some additional support staff. However, productivity is not related 

solely to the number of ALJs, but also to the number of support staff. According 

to the GAO: ‘‘By the close of fiscal year 2006, SSA saw the highest level of backcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

110 

27GAO 12/07 Report, p. 32. 28 Id. 29 Id.I21In a recent report, the SSA Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that ALJs with 

higher disposition levels were more likely to be in hearing offices with staffing ratios above the 

FY 2007 national average of 4.46 staff members per ALJ. The OIG found that hearing offices 

ranked in the top half for productivity were ‘‘much more likely to exceed the national average 

staff ratio than hearing offices ranked in the lower half for productivity.’’ 30 The quality and composition of staff also must be considered. As the OIG points out: ‘‘[A]n office may have an ideal 

staff ratio, but if it does not have enough writers to prepare decisions or if the writers do not 

prepare quality decisions, the hearing office’s productivity may be impacted negatively.’’ 31 This 

concern may account for the February 2009 statistics that show a mounting number of pending 

cases for decision writers, about 9,000 more pending cases waiting for a decision than one year 

ago, despite a significant increase in the number of decision writers. 

logged claims and the lowest ratio of support staff over this period [FY 1997 to FY 

2006].’’ 27 While SSA senior managers and ALJs recommend a staffing ratio of 

5.25,28 in 2006, the ratio of support staff to ALJs was 4.12. The actual ratio represented nearly a 25 percent decrease from the recommended level, at a time when 

the number of pending cases had increased dramatically. When the support staff to 

ALJ ratio was higher (FY 1999 to FY 2001),29 the number of pending cases older 

than 270 days was much lower. 

IMPROVING THE DISABILITY CLAIMS PROCESS AND ELIMINATING 

THE BACKLOG 

Money alone will not solve SSA’s crisis in meeting its responsibilities. Commissioner Astrue is committed to finding new ways to work better and more efficiently. 

CCD has numerous suggestions for improving the disability claims process for people with disabilities. We believe that these recommendations and agency initiatives, 

which overall are not controversial and which we generally support, can go a long 

way towards reducing, and eventually eliminating, the disability claims backlog. 

Caution Regarding the Search for Efficiencies 

While we generally support the goal of achieving increased efficiency throughout 

the adjudicatory process, we caution that limits must be placed on the goal of administrative efficiency for efficiency’s sake alone. The purposes of the Social Security 

and SSI programs are to provide cash benefits to those who need them and have 

earned them and who meet the eligibility criteria. While there may be ways to improve the decision-making process from the perspective of the adjudicators, the critical measure for assessing initiatives for achieving administrative efficiencies must 

be how they affect the very claimants and beneficiaries for whom the system exists. 

People who find they cannot work at a sustained and substantial level are faced 

with a myriad of personal, family, and financial circumstances that will have an impact on how well or efficiently they can maneuver the complex system for determining eligibility. Many claimants will not be successful in addressing all of SSA’s 

requirements for proving eligibility until they reach a point where they request the 

assistance of an experienced representative. Many face educational barriers and/or 

significant barriers inherent in the disability itself that prevent them from understanding their role in the adjudicatory process and from efficiently and effectively 

assisting in gathering evidence. Still others are faced with having no ‘‘medical 

home’’ to call upon for assistance in submitting evidence, given their lack of health 

insurance over the course of many years. Many are experiencing extreme hardship 

from the loss of earned income, often living through the break-up of their family 

and/or becoming homeless, with few resources—financial, emotional, or otherwise— 

to rely upon. Still others experience all of the above limits on their abilities to participate effectively in the process. 

Proposals for increasing administrative efficiencies must bend to the realities of 

claimants’ lives and accept that people face innumerable obstacles at the time they 

apply for disability benefits and beyond. SSA must continue, and improve, its established role in ensuring that a claim is fully developed before a decision is made and 

must ensure that its rules reflect this administrative responsibility. 

Technological Improvements 

Commissioner Astrue has made a strong commitment to improve and expand the 

technology used in the disability determination process. CCD generally supports 

these efforts to improve the disability claims process, so long as they do not infringe 

on claimants’ rights. Some of the technological improvements that we believe can 

help reduce the backlog include the following: 

1. The electronic disability folder. The initiative to process disability 

claims electronically has the prospect of significantly reducing delays caused by 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

111 

30 Congressional Response Report: Administrative Law Judge and Hearing Office Performance, No. A–07–08–28094 (Aug. 2008) (‘‘OIG 8/08 Report’’) (available at: www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/ 

A-07-08-28094.pdf). This report was requested by the previous Chairman of the Social Security 

Subcommittee, Rep. Michael McNulty, and by Ranking Member Sam Johnson. 31OIG 8/08 Report, p. 6. 32 20 C.F.R. § § 404.936 and 416.1436. 33The interim final rule reinstating the program was published in August 2007 and became 

effective on October 9, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg. 44763 (Aug. 9, 2007). The final rule was published 

at 73 Fed. Reg. 11349 (Mar. 3, 2008). 34 ‘‘National Caseload Analysis Report: ODAR Workload and Performance Summary for the 

the moving and handing-off of folders, allowing for immediate access by different components of SSA or the DDS, and preventing misfiled evidence. 

2. Expanding Internet access for representatives. Electronic Records Express (ERE) is an SSA initiative to increase the use of electronic options for submitting records to the electronic folder for disability claims. Registered claimant 

representatives are able to submit evidence electronically through an SSA secure website or to a dedicated fax number, using a unique barcode assigned to 

the claim. While this initiative holds great promise, significant problems with 

the current process exist. Under the current process, representatives are to be 

provided with a CD of the exhibited or ‘‘pulled’’ file shortly before the hearing 

and earlier in the process after the appeal has been filed. Due to staffing shortages in hearing offices, representatives have frequently had problems obtaining 

the CDs and often find that all of the medical records they have submitted are 

not part of the exhibited list of evidence used at the hearing. This can cause 

significant delay both during and after the hearing. 

We hope that these problems will be resolved in the near future. A group of 

representatives is involved in an SSA pilot that allows them to download the 

contents of electronic folders through the ERE website. Once SSA resolves security and authentication issues, we hope that the agency will begin to rollout this 

initiative. It should make the hearing process more efficient for all parties involved. 

3. Use of video hearings. Video hearings allow ALJs to conduct hearings 

without being at the same geographical site as the claimant and representative 

and have the potential to reduce processing times and increase productivity. We 

support the use of video teleconference hearings so long as the right to a full 

and fair hearing is adequately protected; the quality of video teleconference 

hearings is assured; and the claimant retains the absolute right to have an inperson hearing as provided under current regulations.32 However, we have received complaints from representatives that, in some cases, ALJs are discouraging claimants from exercising their right to an in-person hearing. A new SSA 

pilot allows representatives to participate in video hearings from their own private offices, with their clients present in the representative’s office. The representative must agree to the terms established by SSA. This pilot provides 

claimants with another option for their hearings. 

Other Improvements at the Hearing Level 

1. The Senior Attorney Program. This program allows senior staff attorneys 

in hearing offices to issue fully favorable decisions in cases that can be decided without a hearing (i.e. ‘‘on the record’’). We are pleased that Commissioner Astrue decided to authorize the program for at least the next two years.33 In FY 2008, senior 

attorneys decided 24,575 cases. Through February 2009, the program is on pace to 

exceed last year’s total, with 13,462 cases decided through the first five months of 

this fiscal year.34

2. Informal remands to DDSs. Under this initiative, SSA screens pending hearing level cases according to a profile and remands the cases to the DDSs for possible 

favorable decisions. In FY 2008, hearing offices remanded more than 50,000 cases 

and the DDSs reversed their prior decisions and allowed 16,838 cases, about 32 percent of the remanded cases,35 with the remainder returned to hearing offices for a 

hearing and decision. Claimants do not lose their place in the queue if the remanded 

case is sent back to the hearing office. When the FY 2008 informal remand allowances are combined with the senior attorney allowances, more than 41,400 claimants received favorable decisions—and the benefits to which they are entitled—in 

a more timely way. 

Generally, we support this initiative. However, the procedures used by DDSs have 

not been uniform and vary from state to state, with some representatives reporting 

that they are not notified that a remand has taken place so that they can assist 

with development of evidence. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

112 

36 20 C.F.R. § 405.315(a). 37 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1619 and 416.1019. 38 72 Fed. Reg. 41649 (July 31, 2007). 

3. Findings Integrated Templates (FIT). FIT is used for ALJ decisions and integrates the ALJ’s findings of fact into the body of the decision. While the FIT does 

not dictate the ultimate decision, it requires the ALJ to follow a series of templates 

to support the ultimate decision. Representatives can use the FIT template, which 

is available on the SSA website, to draft proposed favorable decisions. Many representatives are now using the template either when requested by the ALJ or on 

their own initiative. When the draft proposed decision is submitted to the ALJ, it 

can lead to a speedier decision. 

4. Increase time for hearing notice. We have previously recommended that the 

time for providing advance notice of the hearing date be increased from the current 

20 days to 75 days. This increase will allow more time to obtain medical evidence 

before the hearing. The 75-day time period has been in effect in SSA’s Region I 

states since August 2006 36 and, based on reports from representatives, has worked 

well. 

Improvements at the Initial Levels 

CCD supports initiatives to improve the process at the initial levels so that the 

correct decision can be made at the earliest point possible and unnecessary appeals 

can be avoided. Improvements at the front end of the process can have a significant 

beneficial impact on preventing the backlog and delays later in the appeals process. 

1. New Screening Initiatives. We support SSA’s efforts to accelerate decisions 

and develop new mechanisms for expedited eligibility throughout the application 

and review process. We encourage the use of ongoing screening as claimants obtain 

more documentation to support their applications. However, SSA must work to ensure that there is no negative inference when a claim is not selected by the screening tool or allowed at that initial evaluation. There are two initiatives that hold 

promise: 

• Quick Disability Determinations. We have supported the Quick Disability 

Determination (QDD) process since it first began in SSA Region I states in August 2006 and was expanded nationwide by Commissioner Astrue in September 

2007.37 The QDD process has the potential of providing a prompt disability decision to those claimants who are the most severely disabled. Since its inception, the vast majority of QDD cases have been decided favorably in less than 

20 days. • Compassionate Allowances. In July 2007, SSA published an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on a proposed new screening mechanism to 

be known as Compassionate Allowances.38 SSA is ‘‘investigating methods of 

making ‘compassionate allowances’ by quickly identifying individuals with obvious disabilities.’’ While there is no definition of disabilities that are considered 

‘‘obvious,’’ there is emphasis on creating ‘‘an extensive list of impairments that 

we [SSA] can allow quickly with minimal objective medical evidence that is 

based on clinical signs or laboratory findings or a combination of both. . . .’’ 

SSA has published an initial list of 50 conditions on its website, with more to 

be added at a later date. Unlike the QDD screening, which occurs only when 

an application is filed, screening for compassionate allowances can occur at any 

level of the administrative appeals process. 

2. Improve development of evidence earlier in the process. In previous testimony, CCD has made a number of recommendations to ensure that disability 

claims are properly developed at the beginning of the process. Claimants’ representatives are often able to provide evidence that we believe could have been obtained 

by the DDSs earlier in the process. Our recommendations include: 

• Provide more assistance to claimants at the application level. At the beginning of the process, SSA should explain to the claimant what evidence is important and necessary. SSA should also provide applicants with more help completing the application, particularly in light of electronic filings, so that all impairments and sources of information are identified, including non-physician 

and other professional sources. 

• DDSs need to obtain necessary and relevant evidence. Representatives 

often are able to obtain better medical information because they use letters and 

forms that ask questions relevant to the disability determination process. However, DDS forms usually ask for general medical information (diagnoses, findings, etc.) without tailoring questions to the Social Security disability standard. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

113 

39This evidence is often given little or no weight even though SSA’s regulations provide that 

once an impairment is medically established, all types of probative evidence, e.g., medical, nonphysician medical, or lay evidence, will be considered to determine the severity of the limitations 

imposed by the impairment(s). 

SSA should review its own forms and set standards for state-specific forms to 

ensure higher quality. 

• Increase reimbursement rates for providers. To improve provider response 

to requests for records, appropriate reimbursement rates for medical records 

and reports need to be established. Appropriate rates should also be paid for 

consultative examinations and for medical experts. 

• Provide better explanations to medical providers. SSA and DDSs should 

provide better explanations to all providers, in particular to physician and nonphysician treating sources, about the disability standard and ask for evidence 

relevant to the standard. 

• Provide more training and guidance to adjudicators. Many reversals at 

the appeals levels are due to earlier erroneous application of existing SSA policy. Additional training should be provided on important evaluation rules such 

as: weighing medical evidence, including treating source opinions; the role of 

non-physician evidence;39 the evaluation of mental impairments, pain, and 

other subjective symptoms; the evaluation of childhood disability; and the use 

of the Social Security Rulings. 

• Improve the quality of consultative examinations. Steps should be taken 

to improve the quality of the consultative examination (CE) process. There are 

far too many reports of inappropriate referrals, short perfunctory examinations, 

and examinations conducted in languages other than the applicant’s. 

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

In addition to addressing the backlog and SSA’s funding issues, there are several 

other legislative proposals that the Subcommittee may be considering this year. 

• Protecting claimants’ privacy rights. We understand that it can be cumbersome for SSA to obtain medical records, as it is for claimants and their representatives, and that SSA is exploring more efficient ways to secure the necessary evidence. While we support ways to make this process more efficient, we 

believe that claimants’ privacy rights must be protected. We will work with SSA 

to find a way to obtain, as efficiently as possible, a claimant’s authorization for 

release of medical records to SSA, while protecting the individual’s privacy 

rights. 

• Extension of the fee demonstrations in the SSPA. Access to experienced 

and qualified representatives through the lengthy and complex application process is critically important to claimants. To this end, we support allowing claimants to enter into voluntary agreements with representatives for fee withholding and direct payment procedures whether under Title II or Title XVI. The 

Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (SSPA), P.L.108–203, established two 

demonstration projects that we believe should be made permanent because they 

have proven to be effective in increasing claimants’ access to effective representation: (1) Extension of the Title II attorney fee withholding and direct payment 

procedures to claims under Title XVI (SSI); and (2) Allowing non-attorney representatives to qualify for fee withholding and direct payment provided they 

meet certain requirements. Unless they are extended or made permanent, the 

demonstrations will sunset March 1, 2010. 

• Increase and indexing of the fee cap. Rep. John Lewis has introduced H. 

R. 1093, which contains two provisions regarding the current $5,300 fee agreement fee cap: (1) Increase the current fee cap to $6,264.50 (which represents 

the figure if it had been adjusted for inflation since the last increase in 2002); 

and (2) Index the fee cap for future years to the annual COLA. We support 

these changes since they ensure that there will be a knowledgeable, experienced 

pool of representatives available to represent claimants. 

• Work incentives. The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act 

(TWWIAA) was enacted nearly ten years ago and is overdue for evaluation of 

its effectiveness in employment of those receiving Title II and XVI disability 

benefits. We urge renewal and permanent extension of expired/expiring provisions including (1) SSA’s Title II demonstration authority to test promising approaches for work incentives and related provisions; (2) Demonstration to Maintain Independence, set to expire this year, to provide Medicaid buy-in coverage 

to working individuals whose conditions or disabilities are not yet severe 

enough to qualify them for disability benefits; (3) Protection and Advocacy for 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

114 

40GA0 1/09 Report, p. 10. 41GAO 1/09 Report. P. 10–12 

Beneficiaries of Social Security, set to expire this year, to protect the rights of 

beneficiaries as they attempt to return to work; and (4) Work Incentives Planning Assistance, set to expire this year, which provides state grants for outreach 

and education to individuals with disabilities about supports and services regarding employment. • Caution about e-Verify. E-Verify is an automated system for employers to 

verify the name/SSN/citizenship/work authorization of new hires by checking 

against SSA and Department of Homeland Security databases. SSA’s workload 

has expanded rapidly due to demand by employers and new state laws mandating requiring use of this system.40 The problem is that the e-Verify system 

is hampered by inaccuracies in the DHS and SSA records. Mandating large 

numbers of employers to use it would require in an unknown but substantial 

number of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to interact with SSA to verify 

their employment eligibility status and provide documents to prove that they 

are eligible to work. The additional burden of this labor-intensive work could 

divert resources from SSA’s core duties including making disability determinations within a reasonable time. It is essential that any proposal that would increase the use of e-Verify should only be enacted if it fully funds the resulting 

increased administrative burden on SSA and if the databases are accurate regarding employment. • Staffing shortages cause serious post-entitlement problems for beneficiaries. When beneficiaries faithfully notify SSA of earnings or other changes 

that may reduce their benefit payment amounts, due to staffing shortages 41 it 

may be months or years before SSA sends an overpayment notice to the beneficiary, demanding repayment of sometimes tens of thousands of dollars of accrued overpayments. It is shocking to beneficiaries to receive these notices, 

when they reasonably assumed that SSA had processed the information they 

submitted, and it is challenging if not impossible for someone subsisting on benefits alone to repay the overpayments. It would be helpful for SSA to develop 

a better reporting and recording system and promptly adjust benefit payments—thus preventing these overpayments. It is important to note that. in 

and of themselves, overpayments do not indicate fraud or abuse as beneficiaries 

are encouraged to work if they are able. The problems arise when reported 

earnings are not properly recorded and monthly overpayments are not properly 

adjusted. 

CLAIMANT STORIES PROVIDED BY REPRESENTATIVES IN MARCH 2009 

FLORIDA 

• Mr. O was a 53 year old Wal-Mart cashier in Bradenton, Florida. He developed 

HIV in the mid 1980s, and continued to work until 2006 when his condition deteriorated and he was diagnosed with AIDS. He filed his application for Title 

II and SSI disability benefits soon thereafter in early 2006. While waiting for 

his hearing, he suffered a brain aneurysm and died in 2008. An estate was 

opened and the estate representative was substituted on the disability claim. 

The ALJ denied the request for an on-the-record decision, despite the numerous 

medical reports documenting that Mr. O’s condition clearly met the impairment 

listing for HIV. In the meantime, the autopsy report showed that the brain aneurysm was most likely caused by Mr. O’s deterioration due to AIDS and its 

complications. They are still waiting for a hearing date. • Mr. M is a 57 year old man who worked as a Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist for over 20 years in Florida. He developed severe arthritis throughout his 

body, wears bilateral hand splints, knee splints, has developed severe joint degeneration, spinal cord degeneration, is agoraphobic, depressed, and anxious. 

He cannot take care of himself and he has no family to help him. He is about 

to lose his home. Mr. M has exhausted his savings and his attorney writes 

monthly letters to his mortgage company asking for extensions on his payments 

while he is waiting for his hearing. Nevertheless, the company is about to foreclose on his home. 

GEORGIA 

• Mr. C lives in Kennesaw, GA. Despite having only a 9th grade education, he 

has worked all of his adult life. He had back surgery many years ago, but continued working. His back pain became worse and worse until he was unable to 

work. He has degenerative disc disease throughout his back and herniated 

discs, some of which press on nerve roots, and depression. As a result of his 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

115 

back disorders, he has severe back pain, which radiates down into his legs. He 

must walk with a cane and can only obtain relief with narcotic medications. Mr. 

C filed for a hearing in November 2006 and a request for an on-the-record decision was filed by his attorney. Despite numerous attempts to follow-up with the 

hearing office, no decision has been reached and no hearing has been scheduled, 

27 months after the hearing request was filed. Not only is Mr. C’s condition adversely affected by this great delay, but he is unable to support his children. 

• Mr. D lives in Doraville, GA. He was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C with 

cirrhosis. He continued working, but became increasing symptomatic with severe fatigue, bone pain, and numbness and tingling in his legs and feet. He also 

has severe depression and anxiety. As early as June 2007, his doctor stated Mr. 

C was suffering from very advanced and terminal hepatitis C. Mr. C is now bedridden and must depend on his girlfriend for all of his support. Mr. C filed an 

application for Social Security and SSI disability benefits in March 2007. The 

claim was denied and a request for a hearing was filed in October 2007. Mr. 

D’s attorney filed a request for an on—the-record decision as a TERI (terminal) 

case. Despite numerous follow-ups to the hearing office, the only response has 

been to transfer his case to the National Hearing Center. To date, no hearing 

has been scheduled. 

IOWA 

• Mr. H lives in southeast Iowa and has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. 

He has a number of lesions in his brain, has difficulty walking, and suffers from 

debilitating fatigue. He has not been able to work since July 2007, and his 

claim has been pending since September 2007. He sent a letter to his attorney, 

which states: 

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this brief letter to tell you 

about a few of the examples of what this disease has caused. Besides 

the day to day struggle just to live it has caused my wife and me, along 

with our 2 children, financial ruin. My mortgage payment is as much 

as my wife makes. I receive no other income and worry day to day how 

to exist. As far as what this has done to my state of mind, I am finding 

it impossible to keep fighting this and feel like giving up. As bad as 

this may sound, I have actually tried to end this with a suicide attempt 

in November 2008. There isn’t any way to describe this except to say 

it feels hopeless and wonder if there’s any hope. 

MARYLAND 

• Mr. X, is a 57 year old Army veteran. Once his claim was allowed, he still had 

to wait for 120 days to get his retroactive benefits of $50,000. Each time he 

called the local SSA field office in Prince Georges County, Maryland, he was 

told there was ‘‘nothing we can do.’’ On one occasion, they told him ‘‘do not call 

any more.’’ Meanwhile, the veteran was forced to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and almost lost his home. It took 16 months from the reconsideration 

denial to the hearing decision. 

• Ms. Y is 50 years old and only speaks Spanish. She waited 90 days to receive 

her past due benefits and had considerable problems with the field office, which 

could not find a Spanish interpreter. As a result, there was marked confusion 

about the SSI offset against the Title II benefits, and she could not obtain a 

Medicare card. Ms. Y is indigent and homeless and she is currently living with 

a relative. She is in dire need of medical services. From reconsideration to hearing, it took about 20 months. 

• Ms. F is a 43 year old Army veteran. Her case has been pending since 2006. 

Her hearing was just held but no decision has been issued. She filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. She is in dire need of medical care and desperately needs 

Medicare eligibility. She is now homeless. 

MISSOURI 

• Mr. D, from the Trenton, MO, area, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. His 

truck was repossessed and his home was threatened with foreclosure. The local 

chapter of the MS Society advanced him six months of house payments to save 

the home. His hearing was scheduled but then delayed for two months, even 

as an ‘‘expedited hearing’’ because the vocational expert’s copy of the electronic 

record on a CD was corrupted when he received it so he could not prepare to 

testify for the original hearing date. Eventually, Mr. D received a favorable decision and was able to keep his home. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

116 

• Mr. M, in his mid-40s, committed suicide because of his inability to afford medical care and take care of his family while waiting for a hearing. He had suffered horrible burns while pouring asphalt on his former job. 

• Ms. N died while waiting for her hearing. Her attorney had attempted on three 

occasions to get an on-the-record decision but received no response from the 

hearing office. Ms. N died from medical complications related to her disabling 

conditions. At her death, she was virtually homeless, living in dilapidated travel 

trailer. Tragically, both her child and husband also died while she was waiting 

for a hearing. 

NEW JERSEY 

• Ms. W. lives in Newark, NJ. She previously worked as a counselor, laboratory 

technician, and outreach coordinator for various medical facilities. She has been 

diagnosed with major depression, anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress 

disorder. She applied for Social Security disability benefits in December 2007. 

She was denied through the reconsideration level (11 months after she applied) 

and requested a hearing in December 2008. Ms. W. has been sued for foreclosure and cannot afford her mortgage. If she were approved for benefits, she 

could afford to stay in her house, but it is not clear that she will have her hearing before it is too late and she loses her home. 

• Ms. L, a resident of New Jersey, is a 57 year old former junior college instructor 

who has long-standing problems with arthritis and depression. Her case has 

been pending for over three years from the date the application was filed. As 

a result, she has been forced to take out home equity loans of more than 

$70,000 against her home. She can no longer borrow against her home as she 

has no visible means of repaying her obligations. She has borrowed from every 

friend or family member she knows in order to make payments on her loans. 

Currently, she has a payment plan for $400 per month that she is unlikely to 

be able to meet. She can no longer afford to see doctors or pay for her medications. Her case has been pending at the hearing level for ten months. Her attorney has asked that the case be expedited in light of her imminent homelessness 

and he is hopeful that will happen. If it is not expedited, she could wait an additional six months. She calls her attorney every week and cries. 

• While waiting for her hearing, a woman in the Atlantic City, NJ area almost 

lost her apartment because of non-payment of rent. She had such severe mental 

problems that her attorney knew that if the client was forced to relocate to a 

smaller apartment, without her belongings, the client’s mental health would deteriorate further. The attorney has tried to keep the client in her apartment 

while waiting for a hearing, which was requested in August 2007. The hearing 

was not held until February 2009, and they are waiting for a decision. 

OHIO 

• Mr. N is a 55 year old former maintenance supervisor who lives in Chillicothe, 

OH. He has small vessel ischemia, cerebrovascular disease, lumbar scoliosis, degenerative joint disease, vision loss, migraine headaches, depression, anxiety, 

fatigue, memory loss, and partial paralysis to his left side caused from two 

strokes. Mr. N filed his request for hearing in September 2007. While waiting 

for a hearing, he has had five liens put on his home, and does not have medical 

insurance to receive the medical treatment that he needs. His primary care 

physician has discussed his treatment options and has explained that his health 

will continue to decline, and that it is crucial for him to receive treatment as 

soon as possible. 

• Ms. L was a 60 year old woman with a 12th grade education whose past work 

included kitchen helper and clothing folder. She lived in Eaton, OH, and suffered from pain and loss of range of motion due to a 2004 fractured right shoulder and right knee, with three unsuccessful surgeries which prevented her from 

working. Ms. L filed an application for Social Security disability benefits on 

June 15, 2006, alleging onset of disability in 2004 when she suffered the fractures. She developed rectal cancer in late 2006, and died on October 29, 2007, 

at the age of 60. A hearing was held with a substituted party on January 8, 

2009, 14 months after her death, at which time she was found disabled as of 

the 2004 date through the date of her death. 

• Mr. W, a 37 year old fork lift driver from Columbus, OH, has a head injury and 

bipolar disorder, which prevent him from working. He filed his application for 

disability benefits in November 2006. While waiting for a hearing, he and his 

family were evicted from their apartment and his wife left him. He is living in 

a house with a friend and is unable to pay rent. However, when he is awarded 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

117 

benefits, he will owe back payment for the rent and continues to fall further 

into debt. • Mr. P, a 60 year old data entry person who lived in Columbus, OH, had back 

and knee problems, epilepsy, and number of infections that kept occurring 

throughout his body. He filed his application for disability benefits on April 25, 

2006. While waiting for a hearing, Mr. P became increasingly ill due to infection 

and chronic lymphedema. He died on December 11, 2007. An on-the-record favorable decision was made on October 9, 2008, ten months after his death. Mr. 

P was found disabled as of May 1, 2002 (four years before he applied for benefits) through the date of his death. • A 57-year old quality-control inspector in Ohio with severe macular degeneration and uncontrolled high blood pressure applied for disability benefits in February 2008. He has exhausted all of his savings and, out of desperation, had 

to take in a boarder, but that income is not enough to keep the heat and lights 

on. His attorney filed his request for a hearing in November 2008, and told him 

to be prepared for an 18 to 24 month wait in the Cleveland, OH area, unless 

the ALJ issues an on-the-record decision or there is an informal remand to the 

DDS. • Mr. S, who lives in the Cleveland, OH area, has peripheral vascular disease and 

severe arthritis in his right shoulder requiring surgery. While waiting 27 

months for his hearing, he lived with various relatives, including his ex-wife 

and mother. Without any source of funds to purchase prescriptions, he used the 

$25 jury duty pay, after being called for jury duty. This allowed him to afford 

the $5 co-pay on his prescriptions at the county hospital where they have a sliding scale. A fully favorable bench decision was issued by the ALJ on the day 

of his hearing. • Ms. T, from the Cleveland, OH area, waited 29 months for her hearing. She has 

been diagnosed with borderline intellectual functioning and epilepsy. While 

waiting for a hearing, she exhausted her time limit for TANF benefits and nearly lost her home. Her mother used her own income tax refund to save it from 

foreclosure, and then tried to make small payments on the utilities so that Ms. 

S and her children, aged 5 and 7, would have lights and heat. • Mr. C, a 48 year old men’s clothing salesman from the Cleveland, OH area, 

struggled for years with severe rheumatoid arthritis. He had undergone one hip 

replacement and needed another. When his savings ran out while trying to afford COBRA premiums, he would regularly call his attorney to help him. He 

applied for benefits in April 2007. He was fortunate enough to win ‘‘quickly’’ at 

the reconsideration stage, 13 months later, but it was too late to save his house, 

which he lost to foreclosure. • Mr. A, a factory worker, lives in the Cleveland, OH area and is 46 years old. 

He had returned to work for 10 years after a rare but successful kidney/pancreas transplant. But finally, he applied for disability benefits because his gout 

and joint pain, requiring multiple knee and shoulder surgeries, plus weakness 

after a mild stroke, became too much for him to bear. His wife was diagnosed 

with cancer herself while his case was pending and she could no longer work 

or take care of him. Thanks to an expedited hearing, he won his case 19 months 

after he applied in August 2007. 

• Mr. G is a 34 year old graphite factory worker with severe mental illness and 

Hepatitis C. He calls his attorney frequently to let her know that he is at the 

mental health crisis center again or staying with someone he met there. He was 

evicted last summer and has no regular place to live. His attorney worries that 

he may harm himself out of sheer desperation. His attorney filed a request for 

hearing in October 2008, but must continually tell him that he must steel himself for what could be the full 18 to 24 month wait that the Cleveland hearing 

office warns about in its notice. 

• Ms. C is a 50 year old cook who tried to hold onto her part-time job at a tavern, 

but even the 10 hours per week got to be too much. Her back, leg and bladder 

problems finally led the owner to let her to go. She was so ashamed that she 

cried when she resorted to asking the local probate court for a loan against the 

funds being held for her son (based on a court settlement years ago). She did 

this in desperation because she did not know how else to hold onto her house. 

Her 16 year old son agreed that the court should allow her to access the funds, 

because he could not bear to see his mother under the stress. Ms. C was eventually allowed disability benefits and she repaid the money right away after she 

received her past due benefits. 

• Mr. F is a 35 year old factory worker with borderline intellectual functioning. 

He worked for years as a laborer, then stayed home with his children while his 

wife went to school. He fell off a ladder while trying to clean out his father’s 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

118 

gutters and shattered his heel, requiring surgery. He now has an MRI showing 

multiple fractured vertebrae, probably also a result of the fall a year and a half 

ago. The family has already lost their house. When his attorney filed the request for hearing last summer and told him it could be another year or two before his hearing, he and his wife and their three small children were sleeping 

in a tent in his parents’ backyard. They hoped that when the weather got too 

cold, they would be able to move into the living room to sleep on the floor at 

night. 

OKLAHOMA 

• Mr. L lived in Norman, OK, and obtained representation in April 2008, upon 

receiving the initial denial of his Social Security disability claim. His attorney 

immediately requested reconsideration. His attorney explained to him that it 

most likely would be at least two to three months before he would receive a decision on the request for reconsideration; that most reconsideration requests result in another denial; and, if denied on reconsideration, it would be about one 

year before a hearing would be scheduled. The attorney obtained and submitted 

additional hospital records of the claimant’s emergency treatment for acute exacerbation of asthma which occasionally required intubation. 

A mere two weeks after the appeal was filed, Mr. L’s claim was denied at reconsideration in May 2008. Upon learning of the denial, the claimant committed 

suicide. His surviving spouse has been substituted and they are presently 

awaiting a hearing on the request for hearing that was filed in June 2008. In 

late February 2009, the hearing office notified Mr. L’s attorney that the claim 

was ‘‘ready for review.’’ The attorney responded that all evidence has been submitted and that the claim should be scheduled for a hearing. To date, no hearing has been scheduled. The individual’s medical records do not reflect treatment for any mental disorders. 

OREGON 

• An attorney in Eugene, OR, received a call in 2006 from Mr. E who lived in 

a rural Oregon town and was chronically mentally ill. He had heard from a social worker that the attorney coordinated a federally funded project called 

HOPE that helped chronically homeless disabled people apply for benefits. (Unfortunately, this project ended in 2008 and has not been re-funded.) He had 

been living outdoors for at least 10 years. He heard voices that told him to do 

bad things, including stealing from stores, which lead to multiple terms of incarceration. He also was in terrible physical pain. The attorney arranged transportation to her office and assisted him in filing for SSI disability benefits. His 

claim was denied at the initial and reconsideration levels because of a lack of 

evidence. Meanwhile, Mr. E spent another winter in the snow and rain, in terrible pain. He finally had a date set for hearing but a few days before his hearing, his stomach hurt so much that his brother persuaded Mr. E to go to the 

emergency room. He was diagnosed with end-stage pancreatic cancer. He 

brought a letter to the ALJ from the emergency room doctor verifying that he 

had less than 6 months to live. The ALJ immediately approved the claim without a hearing, but the claimant died three days later, before he ever received 

a check. 

PENNSYLVANIA 

• Mr. D lives in Dalmatia, PA. He is a veteran of the Vietnam War and is a victim of Agent Orange and has other war-related health and mental problems. 

He had obtained a favorable decision on his Social Security disability claim. 

However, because of a mix-up at SSA, it was nearly two years until his attorney 

was able to straighten out his payments. He has a son with the same name and 

the SSA system had the two individuals mixed in with each other. While waiting for his payments, Mr. D’s house went up for a Sheriff’s sale, after foreclosure. Two days before the sale, he called his attorney, crying, and said that 

he had no more reason to live. Out of sheer desperation, they called Rep. John 

Kanjorski’s office, which was able to help get the Sheriff’s sale postponed. Further, within two weeks, someone at SSA was trying to straighten out the mixup. Within two months, the payments started. Mr. D’s attorney notes that he 

does not believe this would have been accomplished if Rep. Kanjorski’s office 

had not intervened. 

• Mr. W lives in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and is waiting for an expedited hearing. He 

has Stage III colon cancer, yet his disability benefits claim was denied. He is 

undergoing infusion therapy at home. He called his attorney to say that he has 

no money to pay his rent and does not know where he will be living next month. 

Despite repeated requests for an expedited hearing, no hearing is scheduled. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

119 

• A little girl from Plymouth, PA, was the victim of sexual abuse at the age of 

2 and was left with both mental and physical problems that will stay with her 

for her entire life. She cannot function in school due to anger issues and fear 

of men. She has had to undergo surgery for injuries related to the sexual abuse 

and will probably have additional surgeries throughout her life. Her parents applied, on her behalf, for childhood SSI disability benefits. They received a favorable decision, but it took nearly 17 months. • Ms. L is 50 years old and lives in Pennsylvania. She has been diagnosed with 

cirrhosis of the liver caused by Hepatitis C. Although she has finally received 

a hearing date, the wait has been a struggle for her. She has had her utilities 

shut off, her car repossessed, and her health has worsened. Ms. L’s medical care 

is very costly. She has been non-responsive to certain treatments for her cirrhosis and is now on the liver transplant list. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

• Ms. S was 38 year old woman who had uncontrolled diabetes. Ms. S lived in 

her sister’s home with her own two teenage children. She did not qualify for 

Medicaid under South Carolina guidelines because she had not yet been found 

disabled by SSA. Since she had no treating physician, every time her blood 

sugar went too high or too low, her sister took her to the local emergency room 

(ER) where she was given treatment. She continually complained to the ER 

staff that she had a sore on her right foot that would not heal. No one evaluated 

her for this because they were concerned with getting her blood sugar under 

control. Every ER visit had notations of her unhealing sores but provided no 

treatment. 

Eventually, the unhealing sores on her right foot got so bad that one night 

at the ER, she and her sister insisted that the doctor look at her foot. Once the 

doctor saw her foot, she was immediately admitted and the next day her leg 

was amputated below the knee. However, the surgeon who amputated her leg 

stated he could not remove all of the leg that needed to be removed as it would 

be too much of a shock to her system and he wanted to wait until the following 

week. The sores were so bad that even with the amputation, osteomyelitis had 

set in and before the surgeon could perform the next amputation, Ms. S died. 

The cause of death on the Death Certificate said ‘‘Complications of Diabetes’’. 

Records for every ER visit to that hospital and other hospitals were submitted 

for consideration to the ALJ. By the time the case was set for hearing, Ms. S’s 

sister was the substituted party. By the time all the Exhibits were labeled, 

there were 52 ER visits and 14 inpatient visits in 18 months. Yet no on-therecord decision was granted even though it was requested. At the hearing, Ms. 

S’s sister described the pain and agony her deceased sister had gone through. 

At the hearing, the ALJ stated it was obvious that Ms. S had been disabled as 

of her alleged onset date and he issued a fully favorable decision. However, 

there were no family members who could receive the past due benefits. As a 

result, the family had to find the money for Ms. S’s funeral costs. Neither the 

hospitals nor the surgeon will be paid for their services, because there was no 

Medicaid coverage due to no SSI benefits being paid. 

The hearing delay led to a lack of medical care for Ms. S under the Medicaid 

program (based on SSI eligibility), which most likely would have saved Ms. S’s 

life. 

• Mr. C was 42 years old client with a long history of coronary artery disease and 

morbid obesity. It took 22 months to get a hearing and by the time the hearing 

took place, Mr. C had died from a massive heart attack. Mr. C’s mother was 

substituted. Mr. C’s representative provided records at the hearing level from 

15 ER visits where Mr. C had been taken, unconscious, by ambulance. In addition, the attorney provided over 30 ER and inpatient admissions for coronary 

artery disease with chest pain, shortness of breath, and the inability of the 

medical staff to find pulses in various parts of Mr. C’s body. Mr. C was prescribed 7 cardiac medications for hypertension, chest pain, and 

hypercholesterolemia. At the ALJ hearing, his mother testified there were other 

ER visits that her son had forgotten to mention to anyone, including the attorney, because he could not keep track of all of them. One of the reasons for this 

memory problem was that his hypertension caused such severe headaches that 

sometimes he simply forgot that his family or emergency services had taken 

him to the ER. Despite all of this evidence and Mr. C’s cause of death, the ALJ 

denied the claim. The ALJ denial has been appealed to the Appeals Council. 

• Mr. O has been waiting 19 months for a hearing in South Carolina. He has a 

multitude of orthopedic problems as well as post-traumatic stress disorder. Six 

months ago, Mr. O was bitten by a brown recluse spider and was admitted to 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

120 

the local hospital for 8 days where he was put on IV antibiotics and then told 

to follow up with his regular treating physician. [These spiders have a powerful 

poison in their bite which can cause necrosis of soft tissue and more serious 

symptoms.] Mr. O has no money or insurance and is not eligible for Medicaid. 

Because he cannot obtain medical care, including antibiotics, Mr. O has been 

trying to take care of the wound himself. It is getting worse and he has been 

told that if he does obtain antibiotic treatment soon, he will lose his entire left 

leg as the infected wound is only inches from his left hip. If his hearing had 

been held sooner, he could have obtained the treatment he needed for the bite 

and he could have received treatment for his orthopedic problems and possibly 

returned to work. 

TENNESSEE 

• A 50 year old man who lives in Alamo, TN, has non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, 

advanced hepatic fibrosis, cirrhosis (end stage liver disease), esophagus varices, 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and myeloproligerative disease. He lost 

his TennCare insurance in November 2008. He is not able to obtain his needed 

medication or seek the proper medical treatment needed to monitor his impairments. He was also recently diagnosed with four bulging discs that are impinging on nerves. He filed his application for disability benefits on February 13, 

2007, and his attorney requested a hearing on May 28, 2008. His attorney anticipates that this client will have to wait until the end of 2009 or early 2010 

before his ALJ hearing. 

• A 47 year old woman who lives in Milan, TN, is now in a wheelchair because 

she is unable to obtain the medical testing to determine what is wrong with her 

knees. The biggest roadblock to the necessary testing is that she has no medical 

insurance. She filed for disability benefits in February 2007 and a hearing was 

requested in February 2008. This is an extremely long period of time between 

the application date and the hearing request date. In this case, her attorney requested reconsideration (the first administrative appeal) in June 2007. However, the paperwork was lost. When her attorney’s office called to check the status in October 2007, there was no record that the reconsideration request was 

filed. This caused an additional four months of delay. 

• Mrs. J., from Camden, TN, applied for widow’s disability benefits in October 

2007, when she was 50 years old. She has chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). Before the loss of health insurance, she was able to have oxygen 

at home. At her husband’s death, she had no income, no health insurance, no 

car, and no telephone. She lived far away from her treating source, the Carroll 

County (TN) Health Department. Mrs. J. was denied at reconsideration in June 

2008 and filed a request for an ALJ hearing the same month. In November 

2008, during a very cold period, she had no heat and a neighbor gave her a 

wood stove. However, she put her health at even more risk as her former lung 

specialist did not want her to be around wood smoke, but Mrs. J had no choice. 

She also had no gas money for a trip to the health department. Her attorney 

requested an on-the-record decision, which was granted, and the ALJ issued a 

favorable decision in January 2009. 

• Mrs. B. lives in Dyersburg, TN. She stays with an alcoholic, abusive husband 

because she has little choice for alternative housing. She obtained representation in November 2006. She had a hearing in February 2007. The ALJ denied 

the claim and she appealed in March 2007. The Appeals Council remanded the 

case for a new hearing more than 18 months later in October 2008. Her attorney called the hearing office about the status of the new hearing in February 

2009. The hearing office claimed it did not know about the remand order. Her 

attorney immediately faxed the order to the hearing office. Since then, her attorney has called the hearing office and left two messages to confirm receipt of 

the remand order but no one has returned the calls. 

• Mr. T. is homeless. Relatives and friends in the Dyersburg, TN, area allow him 

to occasionally stay with them. He obtained representation for his disability 

claim in May, 2005. He formerly lived in another state and a hearing request 

was pending in a third state. His attorney was able to request a transfer but 

the claims file was mistakenly sent to the Selmer, TN SSA field office and was 

eventually forwarded to the Memphis hearing office. His first hearing was held 

in October 2005 and denied in December 2005. He filed an appeal to the Appeals Council in December 2005 and the Appeals Council issued a remand order 

in August 2006. The remand hearing was scheduled to be held in Memphis, 

some 90 miles from where Mr. T is living. He had great difficulty collecting 

money for transportation to the hearing. The remand hearing was held in August 2007 and denied once again. Mr. T appealed to the Appeals Council for 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

121 

a second time in September 2007. He is still waiting for a decision from the Appeals Council, 18 months later. • Mrs. X, a 43 year old radiology/CT scan tech, lives in Clarksville, TN. She is 

unable to work due to diabetes, depression, anxiety disorder, fluid and arthritis 

in her knees, spondylothesis, spinal stenosis, degenerative disc disease, broad 

based disc bulges and severe pain and weakness in both legs. She filed her application for disability benefits in June 2007. While waiting for her hearing, 

Mrs. X and her family have been evicted from their home. Both of their vehicles 

have been repossessed, and they are having extreme difficulties paying for their 

day to day living. Her husband is on the verge of being laid off and, if that happens, there will be no income at all for this family. Due to the backlog, this 

claimant and her family may lose everything before she is able to get a hearing 

date and decision. • Ms. A is 61 years old and lives in Milan, TN. She has Major Depressive Disorder, which prevents her from working. She filed her application for benefits 

in 2007. Ms. A’s hearing has not yet been scheduled but her attorney has requested an on-the-record decision. She and her husband, who is currently employed, were forced to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in order to keep their 

house. The majority of her husband’s check is going to the bankruptcy trustee 

each pay period, leaving them with only $4 to $27 per pay period for all of their 

other expenses, such as groceries and utilities 

• Mr. C was a 57 year old man who lived in Big Sandy, TN. He was diagnosed 

with hypertension and renal dysfunction. His application for benefits was filed 

in 2006; however, before a hearing could be scheduled, Mr. C died in June 2007. 

His widow was substituted as the party and was able to obtain a favorable decision without a hearing, but not until August 2008. It took over six months for 

the payment center to process the claim and release the funds to Mr. C’s widow. 

• Mr. S is 36 years old and lives in Madison County, TN. He has musculoskeletal 

impairments and obesity, which prevent him from working. He filed his application for benefits in 2007 and was approved in late 2008, after his attorney requested an on-the-record decision. However, while his claim was pending, he 

lost his home, his wife left him, and his mother has taken him in. 

• Mr. D, a 48 year old man who lives in Gibson County, TN, has musculoskeletal 

impairments. He filed his application for disability benefits in 2007. Mr. D’s 

hearing has not yet been scheduled. He has lost his home and his wife left him. 

He is essentially homeless, living with various family members and friends. 

• Mr. W is 53 years old and currently lives in Haywood County, TN. He has been 

diagnosed with musculoskeletal impairments. He filed his application for disability benefits in late 2004. It was denied and he had to appeal the case to 

federal district court. The court remanded the case, but not until mid to late 

2008. After a remand hearing in 2009, his claim was allowed. However, while 

waiting for the decision, he lost his home and has had to live with various family members. 

• Ms. M, a 58-year old woman who lives in Dyer County, TN, has musculoskeletal 

and mental impairments. She initially filed her application for benefits in 2004. 

A hearing was held in September 2005; however, a decision was not issued until 

January 2007. The decision was unfavorable and was appealed to the Appeals 

Council in February 2007. More than two years later after the appeal was filed, 

and five years after the application was filed, the Appeals Council has not yet 

made a decision on Ms. M’s claim. She is essentially homeless, living with 

friends or family members. 

TEXAS 

• Mr. A is 45 years old and lives with his wife in Mission, TX. He has degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine status post lumbar laminectomy, major depressive disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning, which prevent him 

from working. He filed his application in September 2003. The claim was denied 

initially in November 2003 and at reconsideration in February 2004 and he requested a hearing a few days later. While waiting for a hearing, Mr. A’s house 

burned down in November 2004. His hearing was finally held in June 2006, 

more than two years after he filed his appeal. The hearing was continued in 

order to obtain a psychological consultative examination and a supplemental 

hearing was held in July 2007. The ALJ denied the claim and on appeal, the 

Appeals Council remanded the case back to the ALJ. During this period, Mr. 

A was forced to file for bankruptcy. He had a remand hearing in February 2009 

before the same ALJ who previously denied his case. At the remand hearing, 

the ALJ announced he would be awarding a fully favorable decision, but Mr. 

A has not yet received the decision. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

122 

• Mr. R is 48 years old and lives in San Antonio, TX. He has back pain, joint 

pain, hearing problems, Hepatitis C, and a head injury, which prevent him from 

working. He filed his application for benefits in January 2007. While waiting 

for a hearing, he became homeless and cannot receive proper medical attention. 

Mr. R has to rely on the kindness of friends for his basic necessities. 

WEST VIRGINIA 

• Ms. M is 42 years old from West Virginia. She has several conditions that prevent her from working. She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and neck 

and back problems. She filed her application for benefits in the winter of 2007. 

She struggles daily with worsening of her health and financial needs. Her medical care is costly. She has tried to work several times but is currently on assistance. She has lost her home while waiting for a hearing. 

* * * * * 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. For people with disabilities, it is 

critical that SSA be given enough funding to make disability decisions in a timely 

manner, improve its process for making disability determinations, and carry out its 

other mandated workloads. 

We also support changes to improve the disability claims process so long as those 

changes do not affect the fairness of the procedures used to determine disability and 

the rights of claimants. 

ON BEHALF OF: 

American Association of People with 

Disabilities 

American Council of the Blind 

Association of University Centers on 

Disabilities 

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 

Community AIDS National Network 

(TIICANN) 

Easter Seals 

Epilepsy Foundation 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

National Association of Disability 

Representatives 

National Council for Community 

Behavioral Healthcare 

National Council on Independent Living 

National Disability Rights Network 

National Health Care for the Homeless 

Council 

National Law Center on Homelessness & 

Poverty 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society 

National Organization of Social Security 

Claimants’ Representatives 

NISH 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

The Arc of the United States 

United Cerebral Palsy 

f 

United Spinal Association 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Ms. Hathaway. 

Your testimony reminds me of what I said at the beginning, that 

they are real people. It is just not numbers. So thank you for being 

here. 

Next is the Honorable Ron Bernoski. 

Well, we will go to Mr. Fell then. 

Mr. Fell, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES FELL, IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, 

CHAPTER 275, OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND 

REVIEW, FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION. 

Mr. FELL. Thank you, Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, 

and Ranking Members Johnson and Linder. 

My name is Jim Fell. I am here today representing managers in 

the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudicacprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

123 

tion Review in my current role as Immediate Past President of the 

Federal Managers Association Chapter 275. 

Currently I serve as the Hearing Office Director in the Cincinnati, Ohio, ODAR office and recently accomplished 38 years of 

Federal service, 35 with SSA. Please keep in mind that I am here 

on my own time and my own volition representing the reviews of 

FMA, and I do not speak for SSA. 

Within ODAR, there are over 765,000 pending requests for a 

hearing, an increase of almost 5,000 cases since the beginning of 

the fiscal year. Much of the increase in cases this year can be attributed to the current economic slowdown. It now takes an average of 499 days to process a request for hearing. As managers within ODAR, we are acutely aware of the impact this backlog has on 

our ability to deliver the level of service the American public deserves. 

I appeared before the Subcommittee just 2 years ago, and I am 

here once again to reconfirm that the backlog of cases is the result 

of the ongoing lack of adequate staffing levels and resources. The 

underfunding of the agency by Congress over the last decade has 

worsened the situation. Several years of untimely budgets further 

compound the problem. If these delays and inadequacies continue, 

clearing the disability case backlog will be impossible. 

We at FMA appreciate the attention the Subcommittees and 

Commissioner Astrue are placing on addressing remedies to the 

problem. In my written testimony, I discuss the Commissioner’s 

four-pronged approach to eliminating the backlog. As mentioned, 

there are over 765,000 cases pending. In February, administrative 

law judges averaged 2.2 dispositions per day. With 250 work days 

in a year and 1,142 judges in SSA, ODAR could reasonably dispose 

of 628,000 cases in a year. This is not an unrealistic figure. However, it only allows us to work on the incoming cases, but it has 

little impact on the backlog. It is clear that ALJs will not meet this 

level if they do not have the staff to prepare the cases and write 

the decisions. 

Another troubling problem is the vast imbalances from region to 

region. Average pending cases per ALJ range from a low of 477 in 

the Dallas region to a high of 903 in Seattle. Five regions average 

over 700 pending cases per ALJ. Individual offices range from a 

low of 288 pending cases to a high of 1,442, and nine offices exceed 

1,000 cases per ALJ. 

It is our experience that distribution of judges and staff is often 

based on physical space and not an office’s caseload. We must find 

an efficient way too better balance and redistribute the work if we 

are serious about tackling the backlog. 

Ultimately, this is a numbers game. None of the Commissioner’s 

initiatives, whether alone or combined, is the silver bullet that will 

eliminate the backlog. We either have to slow the cases coming 

from the front end, which would require significant legislative 

changes, or we have to increase the capacity at the back end. The 

challenge is yours. 

To enable SSA to meet its goals, Congress must approve a sufficient level of funding. In the decade prior to fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated far less than the President requested each year. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

124 

Without a doubt, this has had a devastating effect on the services 

provided to the American public. Recognizing the needs of SSA, Congress appropriated $126 million above the President’s fiscal year 2009 request. Unfortunately, 

we operated under a continuing resolution for the first 6 months 

of the year, and as a result, ODAR endured hiring, budget and 

overtime limitations. Continuing resolutions have become the norm 

rather than the exception, and it is significantly hindering our ability to get the job done. In order for funds to be properly spent, 

budgets must be implemented by October 1st. Not doing so ties the 

hands of an already beleaguered organization. 

To remedy the backlog situation, Congress should at a minimum pass President Obama’s 2010 budget request of $11.6 billion before 

the start of the fiscal year. This is a 10-percent increase over the 

current fiscal year. We applaud the President for his commitment 

to eliminating the backlog problem and urge Congress to appropriate his request. 

I would like to close my statement with a personal story. In my 

office, about 5 feet from where I sit, I have a fax machine which 

I call the congressional fax. It is dedicated to the congressional 

staff, your staffs, for your constituents. Every day I receive inquiries, most of which are critical in nature and dire in need. I review 

heart-wrenching letters about homes being lost, crucial medications 

being skipped because they can’t be afforded, college funds which 

are depleted, and overall despair. They do not understand why it 

takes years to receive a hearing. 

With your help, I would like to have no further use for this fax 

machine. Thank you for your time and consideration of our views, 

and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fell follows:] 

Statement of James Fell, Hearing Office Director, Social Security Administration Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Cincinnati, Ohio; 

and Immediate Past President of the Federal Managers Association 

Chapter 275 

Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Johnson, Ranking 

Member Linder and Members of the House Ways and Means Subcommittees on Social Security and Income Security and Family Support: 

My name is Jim Fell and I am here today representing nearly 800 managers in 

the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

(ODAR) in my current role as Vice President of the Federal Managers Association 

(FMA) Chapter 275 and Vice Chairman of FMA’s Social Security Conference. Please 

allow me to take a moment and thank you for this opportunity to present our views 

before your Subcommittees. As federal managers, we are committed to carrying out 

the mission of our agency in the most efficient and cost effective manner while providing necessary services to millions of Americans. 

Currently I serve as the Hearing Office Director in the Cincinnati, Ohio, Office 

of Disability Adjudication and Review and recently accomplished 38 years of federal 

service, 35 of which were with SSA. I have been in SSA management for 29 years, 

the first 12 in SSA Operations in district field offices and the last 17 in ODAR, first 

as a hearing office manager and now as a Hearing Office Director. I was also an 

active member of the Hearing Process Improvement (HPI) Steering Committee created by former Commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel to study the effectiveness of HPI. 

I have held the positions of President and Vice President of FMA Chapter 275, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review Managers Association (ODARMA) for the 

past 15 years. Please keep in mind that I am here on my own time and of my own 

volition representing the views of FMA and do not speak on behalf of SSA. 

Established in 1913, the Federal Managers Association is the largest and oldest 

association of managers and supervisors in the Federal Government. FMA was 

originally organized to represent the interests of civil service managers and supercprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

125 

visors in the Department of Defense and has since branched out to include some 

35 different federal departments and agencies including managers and supervisors 

within the Social Security Administration. We are a nonprofit, professional, membership-based organization dedicated to advocating excellence in public service and 

committed to ensuring an efficient and effective Federal Government. As the ODAR 

Managers Association within FMA, our members and their colleagues are responsible for ensuring the successful administration of the Social Security Administration’s disability determination process and providing needed services to American 

customers. 

As you are keenly aware, the Social Security Administration plays a vital role in 

serving over 160 million American workers and their families. Each month, SSA 

pays out benefits to 48 million beneficiaries, including over seven million low-income 

Americans who depend on the agency’s Supplemental Security Income program to 

stay afloat in a cost-inflating world and nearly 7.2 million disabled Americans who 

receive benefit payments through Social Security Disability Insurance. These programs amount to the agency paying out nearly $650 billion in benefits per year. At 

a February 28, 2008, hearing before the House Appropriations Committee, Commissioner Astrue testified that SSA’s productivity had increased over 15 percent since 

fiscal year 2001. Considering the magnitude of its mission, the Social Security Administration does a remarkable job administering critical programs. 

In the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, however, there are 765,527 

pending requests for a hearing, an increase of 4,714 cases since the beginning of 

the fiscal year. It now takes an average of 499 days to process a typical request for 

a hearing and these delays continue to tarnish SSA’s otherwise strong record of 

service to the American public. At the beginning of 2002, SSA had 468,262 pending 

hearing requests. In seven years, that number increased to over 765,000, despite the 

fact that dispositions are at record levels. The files simply awaiting preparation for 

review by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the close of February 2009 totaled 

456,442 cases, an increase of 25,173 cases since the beginning of the fiscal year. 

As managers and supervisors within ODAR, we are acutely aware of the impact 

these backlogs are having on our ability to deliver the level of service the American 

public deserves. I appeared before the Social Security Subcommittee just two years 

ago and I am here once again to confirm what you’ve heard several times before— 

the ongoing lack of adequate staffing levels and resources have directly contributed 

to the backlog. The lack of resources can be directly contributed to the underfunding 

of the agency by Congress over the last decade. Several years of untimely budgets 

further compound the problem. If these delays and inadequacies continue, clearing 

the disability case backlog will be impossible and service delivery will continue to 

deteriorate. 

BACKGROUND 

By way of background, when a request for a hearing is received at a local Social 

Security office, it is automatically propagated into our computer system by a case 

intake employee in ODAR who adds ODAR-specific coding such as ALJ assignment, 

site of the hearing and the representative involved. Basic screening is done to ensure timeliness of filing, verify procedural issues are met and determine the need 

for critical or expeditious handling. An acknowledgement is prepared and in some 

offices, a CD is burned and bar codes are prepared to send to the claimant or representative. 

If staffing allows, ALJs or attorneys will screen the cases for anything that might 

qualify it as an ‘‘on the record’’ (OTR) decision. This allows for cases to be decided 

favorably and paid without a hearing based on the evidence in file. However, such 

cases are rare and if an OTR is not possible, the electronic record will await preparation for ALJ review. The national average for this period of inactivity is 164 days. 

In the Dallas region, a file will wait only 66 days on average, but in the Chicago 

Region, the wait averages 229 days. In all but 75 offices, the wait for folder preparations exceeds the national average. The files simply awaiting preparation for review 

by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the close of February 2009 totaled 

431,269 cases, a decrease of 22,729 cases since the beginning of the fiscal year. We 

are encouraged by this decrease and the promise it holds. However, these delays 

will continue to exist simply due to the volume of work coming in and the lack of 

staff to tackle it. 

The disproportion of workloads among the regions also continues to be a cause 

for concern and must be addressed. Significant efforts were made to address this 

situation within the last two years but without ongoing attention and fine tuning 

to make the best effort to balance resources and workload, these efforts will not 

yield the desired results. With the promised addition of staff, we will be able to 

begin to address these backlogs; however, once again, we are seeing staffing decicprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

126 

sions being made on the basis of where there is physical room to put the ALJs and 

employees rather than caseload. Continuing to make staffing decisions using these 

criteria only perpetuates the existing staff and workload imbalances. 

Cases are generally worked in hearing request date order. Those cases deemed 

critical or in dire need may be given preference. The ‘‘workup’’ of the file involves 

a support person who reviews and orders the evidence, identifies each exhibit, obtains the jurisdictional documents and provides a brief summary of the evidence in 

file. Once the file is completed and the exhibit list is prepared, it is referred to an 

ALJ for review and scheduling instructions. It is then scheduled for a hearing based 

on the individual ALJ instructions. Scheduling requires coordinating the schedules 

of the ALJ, the claimant, the representative, medical and vocational experts, a reporter and hearing room availability. The claimant and representative must be 

given a Notice of Hearing at least twenty days in advance of the hearing. These 

hearings can be done in person or by video in the local hearing office, a permanent 

remote site or a temporary remote site, such as a hotel or local government office. 

After the case is heard, the ALJ can make a decision or order supplemental 

records and a consultative examination if necessary. Once the ALJ has all the evidence and testimony needed to make a decision, he/she will write instructions for 

the decision writer. At the end of February, there were 32,270 cases nationally in 

which an ALJ had made a decision but was waiting for an attorney or paralegal 

to draft the decision. This number has been growing in part because the Senior Attorney Adjudicator’s availability to address decision writing is reduced by the time 

they spend on their adjudication responsibilities, such as review of existing claims 

and drafting of on the record decisions. 

When the written decision is completed, it is made available for the ALJ to review, edit, return for redraft if necessary and electronically sign. After it is signed, 

an alert is sent to the support staff to print, mail and code the case to completion. 

It is my understanding that this mailing process will be shortly automated to send 

the decision to a central mailing site. Once the decision is mailed and the coding 

is complete, we have a disposition. 

WHERE WE ARE TODAY 

We at FMA appreciate the attention the Subcommittees and Commissioner Astrue 

are placing on examining the reasons for the backlog and addressing remedies to 

the problem. ODAR began fiscal year 2009 with 456,442 pending cases awaiting 

preparation for a hearing. Those cases will wait at least one year before any action 

is even initiated to prepare them for review and hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge. In February, processing times across the nation ranged from a low 

of 346 days in the Boston region to a high of 616 days in the Chicago region. Once 

again, the large difference in regions is disconcerting. The American public deserves 

better service. 

Within ODAR, production is measured by the number of dispositions completed 

per day by an Administrative Law Judge. In FY05 and FY06, this record-level figure 

was 2.2 dispositions per day per ALJ. In FY08, ALJs went even further by averaging 2.3 dispositions per day. Current performance through February is back in the 

2.2 range and likely represents the best achievable level of production. This level 

of performance will allow ODAR to meet the 500 disposition per ALJ figure that was 

requested as a minimum by the Office of the Chief ALJ last October. At the end 

of February 2009, SSA employed 1,142 ALJs, which would allow us to dispose of 

571,000 cases if each ALJ worked 500 cases. The problem with this production level 

is that it’s only good enough to handle the incoming work, not the backlog. For the 

current fiscal year through February, receipts totaled 256,831 (an increase of 22,219 

during the same period last year), while ALJs completed 237,758 dispositions. As 

you can see, without significant increases in the number of ALJs and appropriate 

support staff levels, the best we can do is stay even, which means the number of 

pending hearing requests remains above 765,000. 

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers. Five years ago, SSA leadership determined that a fully productive ALJ could produce a maximum of 2.5 dispositions per 

day, a number we have yet to achieve. With 250 work days, an ALJ should dispose 

of 625 cases in any given year. We currently employ 1,142 judges, which under this 

scenario would mean ODAR could dispose of 713,750 cases in a year. Even if ALJs 

produced only 2.2 dispositions per day, ODAR could dispose of 628,100 cases a year. 

The math is clear. Without holding ALJs to a stronger level of production and supply them with adequate staff to prepare cases, the backlog will never stop being a 

backlog. 

We at FMA believe that it is imperative that both the agency and Congress recognize the reality of the ALJ production level. It is the key to the solution. By acknowledging what has been defined as acceptable and using it to compute the numcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

127 

ber of potential dispositions, we can accurately foresee where we can go in terms 

of working down the backlog. From there, we can compute what we need to achieve 

an appropriate pending case level. With an average disposition level of 2.2 per day, 

we will not be able to reduce the backlog without more judges and staff to support 

them. 

In FY08, SSA hired 190 Administrative Law Judges, which could translate into 

an additional 94,500—132,300 dispositions if each ALJ issued 500—700 dispositions 

per year, as requested by the Chief ALJ. However, 68 judges retired during the 

same period. In FY09, SSA is planning to hire an additional 157 judges, but is projected to lose 60 to retirement. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, 

Administrative Law Judges alone will not solve the problem. Without additional 

staffing, the current level of prepared work would be distributed among more 

judges, essentially resulting in the same dispositional outcome. Without adequate 

support staff to prepare cases for the judges, both existing and new, we will not 

achieve an increase in hearing dispositions. In recent years, however, budgetary 

constraints have forced the agency to hire additional Administrative Law Judges 

without providing adequate support staff to prepare the cases for hearing. We recognize that the Commissioner is trying to address the backlog by adding these judges; 

however, additional ALJs without the supporting clerical staff to prepare cases in 

a timely manner will not solve the problem. 

With the recent increase in funding for SSA from Congress, it is likely ODAR will 

be filling 400—500 staff positions. We are encouraged by this, but in order to maintain an adequate ALJ to staff ratio in each office, several hundred more staff will 

have to be hired. The Commissioner is publicly acknowledging the need for support 

staff and hiring authority is coming our way. Unfortunately, we are already half 

way through the fiscal year and training staff can take upwards of a year. As the 

first six months of FY09 were funded with a continuing resolution (CR), it is unlikely that we will see much impact from the current influx until FY10. The untimely passage of budgets is further tying our hands from getting the job done. 

While we are grateful Congress is beginning to recognize the needs of the agency, 

this feast or famine approach is hindering the agency’s productivity. 

As mentioned, adequate clerical support is necessary to prepare cases for hearing, 

as well as staff to write a disposition after the ALJ has made his/her decision. As 

it currently stands, hearing offices do not even have the staff to accommodate the 

current judges, let alone enough staff to accommodate the new judges and process 

the over 51,366 new cases the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review receives 

each month. If receipts remained flat, over 765,000 cases will remain pending, 36 

percent of which are over 365 days old. At the beginning of FY09, ODAR had 

166,838 cases that would reach 850 days by the close of FY09. As of March 12, 

ODAR had disposed of 100,833, or 61 percent, of the 850 day old cases. We are on 

target to complete the remaining cases by the end of the year and the Commissioner 

and staff should be commended on their dedication to tackling this portion of the 

backlog. 

With the aging Baby Boom population, as well as the current economic downturn, 

it is reasonable to assume that receipts will continue to out-pace dispositions. In 

fact, ODAR received almost five percent more cases than anticipated in FY08 and 

ended the year with 14,069 more cases than at the close of FY07. Additionally, the 

first quarter of FY09 saw receipts higher than expected, mainly due to our ongoing 

economic challenges. When the economy slows, disability claims increase. As the requests for hearings continue to rise, more is demanded from ODAR staff on all levels. The bottom line is that the hearing offices lack sufficient staff to process the 

work on hand, much less even begin to work on new cases. It is evident that under 

the best case scenario, the current staffing levels in ODAR barely maintain the status quo. That means that the backlog stays the same and processing times continue 

at a rate which nears 500 days. 

The accepted staff to ALJ ratio is roughly four and one half production staff per 

ALJ. However, this only ensures productivity necessary to handle incoming work, 

not the backlog. For offices with heavy backlogs, the four and one half to one standard is inadequate. Quality and composition of staff also impacts productivity. Additionally, management and administrative employees should not be included in these 

figures, as they are not the employees performing the production work on hearing 

requests. It is our experience that distribution of judges and staff is often based on 

physical space and not an office’s caseload. This must be addressed if we are serious 

about tackling the backlog in the most efficient manner possible. 

Average pending cases per ALJ range from a low of 477 in the Dallas region to 

a high of 903 in Seattle. Five regions average over 700 pending cases per ALJ. Individual offices range from a low of 288 pending cases to a high of 1,442 and nine 

offices exceed 1,000 cases per ALJ. On a national level, processing times range from 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

128 

346 days in Boston to 616 in Chicago. At the end of February, 32,270 decisions have 

been made by the ALJs but are waiting to be drafted by a decision writer. 

The solutions to the backlog problem start with timely budgets and adequate 

staffing levels which will allow us to address the pending cases. As of last month, 

just over 765,000 requests for a hearing were pending. However, it is worth noting 

that the agency can reasonably process 450,000—550,000 cases during a given fiscal 

year. As such, the actual ‘‘backlog’’ at this point is around 300,000 cases. 

COMMISSIONER’S PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE BACKLOG OF HEARINGS 

SSA has undertaken 37 initiatives to achieve each of the four aspects of Commissioner Astrue’s plan to eliminate the backlog. The Commissioner should be applauded for his commitment to delivering a level of service acceptable to the American public and as managers and supervisors in ODAR, we are dedicated to working 

with the Commissioner to reach his goals. A commitment from Congress is also necessary if we are to succeed in providing a level of service acceptable to the American 

people we serve. 

Compassionate Allowances 

The first point on the Commissioner’s plan is to accelerate the review of cases 

likely or certain to be approved, otherwise know as Compassionate Allowances. This 

concept has been introduced in a variety of iterations over the years. The idea is 

admirable; however, we expect that this will have little impact on ODAR’s pending 

cases, as many of these are issued at the initial and reconsideration levels. 

Improve Hearing Office Performance 

The Commissioner also laid out a number of initiatives designed to Improve Hearing Office Performance, the second of his four-pronged approach. As previously 

noted, there are 166,838 cases that will age to 850 days in FY09 and we are on 

track to tackle this unacceptable level of service by the close of this year. Additionally, giving adjudication powers to attorney advisors has the benefit of adding to dispositions; however, it redirects the work of these very skilled attorneys from reviewing and advising ALJs on the most difficult cases and makes them unavailable for 

decision writing. In many instances, these employees are not replaced with others 

to do their original tasks and those tasks go uncompleted or are redirected to others 

who are already overburdened. Improving Hearing Office Performance will never be 

achieved without additional staff. 

Increase Adjudicative Capacity 

The third aspect of the Commissioner’s plan is to Increase Adjudicative Capacity 

through Streamlined Folder Assembly, which has made additional folders available 

for hearings as evidenced by the 52,533 cases prepared using this method in fiscal 

year 2008. It has been expanded to the electronic folder, but this process was optional for ALJs and requires additional review time on their part because of the 

‘‘rough’’ nature of the preparation. 

The introduction of the National Hearing Center (NHC) has the potential to greatly expand the agency’s capacity to redirect the resources where the cases are. It is 

our understanding that installing video centers in heavily impacted parts of the 

country so that the claimant can go to a video center in order to have his/her case 

heard by the NHC or other Hearing Office via video is the goal. We believe the potential for delivery of service with this process is huge. However, we once again caution that in order to hear these cases, we still need staff to prepare, schedule and 

draft decisions. Without adequate staff support, the NHC will have no cases to hear. 

In FY08, the NHC received 4,650 cases, but was able to make decisions on only 

2,151 of those cases. In order to even begin making a dent in the backlog, several 

thousand more cases will have to be heard at the NHC. 

Along the same lines, additional video equipment has the potential to expand the 

number of video hearings. In fact, in some impacted areas, we understand that 

stand alone video sites are being built that will allow assistance to be provided from 

around the country. However, we must not forget that without adequate staff to prepare cases, additional electronic capacity is a moot point. Furthermore, regulations 

allow the claimants and their representatives to opt out of the process and our business process also allows the ALJs to opt out. The practice only works when you have 

parties that will use it. 

Under this section of the Commissioner’s plan is an expectation in place regarding 

the productivity of ALJs. As mentioned earlier, a productive, trained ALJ should 

reasonably be able to dispose of 500—700 cases a year. Not surprisingly, ALJs conducted 14,733 more cases in FY08 than in FY07. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

129 

Increasing Efficiency with Automation and Business Processes 

Increasing Efficiency with Automation and Business Processes is the final aspect 

of the Commissioner’s plan. There are a large number of initiatives under this goal. 

The greatest percentage of case files are now in the electronic folder format. Increasing our electronic capabilities will allow us to balance workloads more efficiently. 

Although many cultural and training challenges remain, we believe this will ultimately provide for an efficient process. Acquiring new buildings and hiring and 

training staff simply take too long to have any immediate effect on the backlog. In 

fact, by the end of FY08, 655,457 cases were filed electronically representing 86 percent of ODAR’s caseload. 

Much of ODAR’s initial promise of increased efficiency was tied to the success of 

the ePulling initiative; however, the pilot program did not prove successful. We have 

heard that there is a new iteration of this program that holds promise. Our ability 

to pull cases and serve the public may very well rest on this new program. However, 

ePulling is still very much a work in progress and we are unlikely to see any 

progress this fiscal year. Implementation of eScheduling would certainly free up additional individuals whose services could be used to complete other tasks, including 

folder preparation. Given the complicated nature of the scheduling process, which 

takes into account many schedules and many individual scheduling preferences, we 

believe this will be a difficult challenge. 

The temporary service area realignments went a long way to adjusting some of 

the imbalances in the workloads. We believe that the electronic nature of our cases 

provides us with significant opportunities to expand this concept to individual work 

categories. Any office with excess writing or pulling capacity should have that capacity redirected to offices with significant backlogs. No office should be allowed to 

process their work in an average of under 300 days when there are 30 offices with 

processing times of around 400 days and 26 offices with processing times above 600 

days. We must find an efficient way to better balance and redistribute the work. 

The Electronic Records Express (ERE) initiative also has significant promise and 

a pilot project is currently underway. While representatives have the ability to submit records using this process, currently they do not have access to the files via a 

secure Web site. This requires the local office to provide CDs with the evidence and 

we believe results in significant duplicate submissions since they cannot confirm 

what evidence is on file. 

Many reports are available to provide enhanced management information and 

management training has been improved. These initiatives are certainly supported 

by FMA, as management of the workload is enhanced by trained employees and 

adequate tools; however, the critical issue once again is the lack of adequate staff 

to actually do the work. We know what needs to be done; we simply do not have 

enough people to do it. Furthermore, management is not allowed to hold employees 

accountable for production standards, making ongoing performance measures a challenge. 

Ultimately, this is a numbers game. Should Congress define what it considers to 

be an adequate level of service, we believe the agency can define what we need to 

get there. None of the initiatives outlined above, whether alone or combined, is the 

silver bullet that will eliminate the backlog. We either have to slow the cases from 

coming in at the front end, which would require significant changes in legislation, 

or we have to provide more capacity on the back end. The challenge is yours. 

WHERE WE GO FROM HERE—INCREASED FUNDING 

To enable SSA to meet the goals set forth in Commissioner Astrue’s plan to eliminate the hearing backlog, Congress must approve a sufficient level of funding for 

the agency. Between 2001 and 2007, Congress appropriated, on average, $150 million less than the President requested each year. The value of this differential is 

equivalent to processing an additional 177,000 initial claims and 454,000 hearings. 

In the ten years prior to fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated nearly $1.3 billion 

less than the President’s request. Without a doubt, this has had a devastating effect 

on the services provided to the American public, as evidenced by the situation we 

are in today. 

Recognizing the needs of SSA, Congress appropriated $150 million above the 

President’s request for FY08 in an effort to bring down the backlog. Congress should 

be applauded for their commitment to serving the American people in this capacity. 

In fact, it is this increase which allowed the agency to hire the additional 190 ALJs. 

Imagine what we could have accomplished with adequate staff to provide support 

to the additional ALJs. 

Unfortunately, for the first six months of FY09, we operated under a continuing 

resolution (CR) and as a result, ODAR has had to endure hiring and overtime limitations. Continuing resolutions have become the norm rather than the exception and 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

130 

it is significantly hindering our ability to get the job done. With the passage of the 

FY09 Omnibus Appropriations bill (P.L. 111–8), these restrictions have been lifted. 

The bill included $126.5 million above President Bush’s FY09 request, which was 

already six percent over the FY08 appropriation. This will allow the agency to go 

forward in hiring staff. However, hiring and training staff takes time and consequently, we will not see the benefits of this funding increase until FY10 has started. In order for funds to be properly spent, budgets must be implemented by October 

1st every year. We simply can no longer afford to pass budgets halfway through the 

fiscal year, essentially tying the hands of our already beleaguered organization. 

In addition to the increase in FY09 funding, the economic stimulus bill (P.L. 111– 

5) provided necessary and timely funds to SSA in order to improve its service delivery issues. It is crucial SSA allocate these funds to the areas that need them the 

most. Of the $1 billion provided to SSA in the stimulus, it is estimated the agency 

will be able to hire 5,000—6,000 employees with $500 million of the funds. The remaining $500 million will replace the National Computer Center to ensure the new 

facility is functional prior to the time the current center is no longer operational. 

We encourage the agency to ensure the new hires are placed where the agency 

needs them the most—in field offices and as clericals in hearing offices. 

In his first budget to Congress, President Obama requested $11.6 billion for SSA’s 

administrative expense in FY10. This is an increase of $1.1 billion or ten percent 

over the current fiscal year. Without a doubt, these funds would have a direct impact on the service delivery of the agency. We applaud the President for his commitment to solving the backlog problem and urge Congress to appropriate his request. 

To remedy the unprecedented backlog situation, Congress should at a minimum 

pass the President’s 2010 budget request of $11.6 billion for SSA’s Limitation on Administrative Expenses account before the start of the fiscal year. Under his budget, 

the agency would be able to process tens of thousands of more hearings in FY10 

than in FY09. It is estimated that forty percent of SSA’s 65,000 member workforce 

will retire by 2014. In FY06 and FY07, SSA replaced one worker for every three 

that retired. The President’s budget will allow for a 1 to 1 replacement ratio and 

maybe even some additional staff. While this will not allow us to eliminate the backlog immediately, we will be able to make significant strides to reducing it. We must 

reiterate that if we are forced to endure another CR, service delivery will suffer. 

In addition to having an immediate impact on the current backlog, underfunding 

the Social Security Administration will negatively impact every service area of the 

agency. Staffing at SSA will soon reach its lowest level since 1972; however, SSA 

today has nearly twice the number of beneficiaries it had in 1972. Never has hiring 

sufficient staff been more crucial. Reversing this trend is a necessary step to reduce 

the backlog. 

CONCLUSION 

While the President’s budget request for FY10 is a start, it is certainly not a cure 

all solution. Throwing money at the problem will not fully solve it without a welltrained, dedicated staff of federal employees willing to avert a crisis in the coming 

years. We believe this is the workforce we have now, strengthened under the leadership of former-Commissioner Barnhart and Commissioner Astrue. By fully funding 

the President’s request, we can continue this tradition. 

In this era of shrinking budgets, SSA has attempted to maximize its use of scarce 

resources to provide the best possible service to the American public. The challenges 

faced by the managers and supervisors are not short term; they are a demographic 

reality. The same citizens putting stress on the Social Security trust fund because 

they are approaching retirement are also entering their most disability-prone years. 

ODAR is struggling to handle the current workload and will be hard pressed to 

manage the anticipated increase in hearing requests without additional staff. 

We are the men and women who work with disabled Americans everyday. We see 

people of all ages come in and out of our offices seeking the services they depend 

on for survival from the Social Security Administration. We are committed to serving a community of Americans in need, but we need you to provide us with the necessary resources to help them. Thank you for your time and consideration of our 

views and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

f 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Mr. Fell. 

Judge Bernoski, you are recognized. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

131 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RONALD G. BERNOSKI, 

PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES. 

Mr. BERNOSKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us to testify here today. 

As administrative law judges, we are keenly aware of the disability case backlog because we work with it on a daily basis. Administrative law judges continue to work hard at Social Security. 

During the past decade, we have been rendering case dispositions on a record basis. In 2008, we issued dispositions in about 

550,000 cases, which amounts to over 2 cases per day, per judge. 

The only agency study that we know of regarding ALJ production 

was part of a 1994 agency reform plan. This study concluded that 

a judge could efficiently produce about 25 to 55 cases a month. This 

would have the judge devoting between 3 to 7 hours to each case 

on an incremental basis. We don’t believe that this is too much 

time for a case that is worth around $250,000, including Medicare. 

We have prepared a chart, which is part of our statement, which 

shows that our judges, our rendering case dispositions in a bell 

curve manner, with most of the judges of course being in the center 

of the chart. A second chart also shows that the more cases that 

a judge issues, the higher the pay rates become. 

Now, these charts were based on information provided to a newspaper by the agency. This continued increase in case production 

has come in spite of the fact that the electronic files have slowed 

our work process and e-polling is showing signs of failure. E-polling 

is an electronic system to prepare our exhibit files for hearings, and 

it eliminates the need for the manual process. 

The failure of this system proves our past comments to this Committee, that Social Security has a history of overselling benefits of 

technology. For example, last year the agency claimed that e-polling reduced the need for the five-to-one support staff ratio for 

judges. Instead, this failure now shows that we will continue to require this support staff ratio. In fact, at the last hearing before this 

Committee last year, evidence was introduced to support a six-toone staff ratio for judges. 

The GAO and the IG have both concluded that judges would decide more cases if the files were available for hearing. Despite this 

hard work by our judges and other employees of the agencies, we 

continue to fall behind, and the case backlog continues to grow. 

If history remains consistent, the current economic recession will 

add to our backlog. The agency is in need of additional resources 

to address this problem. The resources are needed, as has been indicated, to hire additional administrative law judges and support 

staff. 

Social Security hearings are based on an inquisitorial, rather 

than an adversarial, model. The judge is responsible for ensuring 

that the hearing record is complete and that both the claimant and 

the trust fund receive a fair hearing. This places more responsibility on the judge and the assistance of staff as necessary to allow 

judges to complete their work. We work as a team with our staff, 

and the support staff is needed to set up the file, send a notice of 

hearing, assist during the hearing, monitor post-hearing developments and prepare draft hearing decisions. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

132 

Now, in this time of tight budget, additional support staff could 

be obtained by closing the ODAR regional offices and assigning 

those workers to hearing offices to support the hearing process. 

However, Mr. Chairman, money alone is not enough and substantive reform is also needed to improve the process. Cases that 

meet the standard for disability must be taken out of the system 

before they meet the administrative law judge hearing, before they 

get to that level. This change can be done by adopting a system 

like the Federal that was in the DSI program or by using our attorneys to achieve this result. Vocational rules could also be revised 

to reflect our increased longevity and our changing workplace. 

The initiatives that the commissioner has implemented have had 

little impact on reducing the disability case backlog. Ideas such as 

the streamlined files, the National Hearing Center, centralized 

printing and mailing, and the electronic filing system have done little and, in many cases, have added to our workload and have increased the backlog. 

Now, we have prepared a white paper with our recommendations 

for addressing the Social Security disability program, and we would 

offer into the record with the chairman’s content. And—— 

Chairman TANNER. Without objection. 

Mr. BERNOSKI. Thank you very much. And that concludes my 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bernoski follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ron Bernoski, Administrative Law Judge, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and President, Association of Administrative Law 

Judges 

Thank you for inviting us to testify at this hearing. My name is Ronald G. 

Bernoski. I am an administrative law judge (ALJ) who has been hearing Social Security Disability cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for about 28 years. I also serve as 

President of the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), a position I have 

held for over a decade. ALLJ represents the administrative law judges employed at 

the Social Security Administration (SSA) and some administrative law judges at the 

Department of Health and Human Services. One of the stated purposes of the AALJ 

is to promote and preserve full due process hearings in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act for those individuals who seek adjudication of program entitlement disputes within the SSA and to promote judicial education for administrative law judges. The AALJ represents about 1100 of the approximately 1400 administrative law judges in the entire Federal Government. 

The Association of Administrative Law Judges is most grateful for the oversight 

of the Social Security disability program provided by the Subcommittee. We too find 

it most painful that the American people, who are in the disability hearing process, 

have been disadvantaged by long delays in their cases. 

History of Administrative Law Judges 

The 1946 Administrative Procedure Act was enacted to protect, inter alia, the 

American public by giving administrative law judges decisional independence. ‘‘Congress intended to make hearing examiners (now administrative law judges) ‘a special class of semi-independent subordinate hearing officers’ by vesting control of 

their compensation, promotion and tenure in the Civil Service Commission (now the 

Office of Personnel Management) to a much greater extent than in the case of other 

federal employees’’. [Ramspeck v. Federal Trial Examiners Conference, 345 U.S. 931 

(1953)]. The agencies employing them do not have the authority to withhold the 

powers vested in Federal administrative law judges by the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The Roles of Administrative Law Judges and Support Staff in Hearing Offices 

The Social Security Administration’s adjudication system is in the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), formerly the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). It is one of the largest adjudication systems in the world. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

133 

Since much of the disability problem involves staff shortages it is critical that 

members of Congress understand the role of staff in the disability claims process. 

When case files arrive in a hearing office, they must be ‘‘worked up’’ or ‘‘pulled’’, 

that is prepared for use in the hearing. This is a significant task requiring skill and 

one to three hours of time. The task is done only by Senior Case Technicians. 

Whether the claim is a paper file or electronic file, the contents arrive in random 

sequence, unidentified, unpaginated, with duplications and without any numbered 

exhibits or table of contents to locate the exhibits. The Senior Case Technician identifies and eliminates duplications, identifies exhibits from the same source, labels 

them, arranges them in chronological order, numbers and paginates the exhibits 

and prepares the List of Exhibits. After it is worked up, the file goes to the assigned 

judge for review. 

The judge reviews all the evidence in the file, an average of around 400 pages, 

and many of the administrative pages, then requests the staff obtain such additional 

medical evidence as may be needed. When fully developed the judge then needs to 

determine whether a favorable decision can be made on the record presented, without a hearing. In most cases a hearing is required and the judge then determines 

what expert witnesses will be required for the hearing. After this review, the staff 

secures the expert witnesses and schedules the case for hearing. Once the hearing 

is scheduled, the judge continues to be involved with the case to review newly submitted evidence, to consider and resolve prehearing motions and issues. Typically, 

a day or two before the hearing, the judge will conduct another review of the file 

to insure familiarity with the facts and issues for the hearing. When the hearing 

is concluded the judge must prepare thorough decisional instructions for the writing 

staff, review and edit the draft decision and sign the decision. 

In courts and other agencies, trials and adjudications are conducted under the adversarial process. Under this system the case is developed during trial by evidence 

introduced by opposing counsel. The judge studies and reviews the evidence as the 

trial progresses. However, in Social Security disability hearings, administrative law 

judges preside over an inquisitorial process, in which it is the duty of the judge to 

develop the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting benefits. 

This is in large part required because the Social Security Administration is not represented at the hearing. Therefore, Social Security judges are required to wear the 

so-called three hats (to protect the interest of the claimant, of the trust fund and 

to render a decision based on the evidence in the hearing record). Nearly all the 

evidence is gathered and entered into the record before the hearing begins. After 

reviewing the evidence, the judge often sees a need for additional evidence which 

must be obtained. The inquisitorial system relies more on the administrative law 

judge and places more responsibility on the judge. Hearings based on this model are 

more time consuming and labor intensive for the judge. 

Need for Large Additions to Support Staff 

SSA has the lowest staffing level in decades. SSA acknowledges the need for 

qualified personnel but not in sufficient numbers, apparently believing that automation will replace experienced personnel. GAO, SSA’s OIG and numerous other observers have all noted that ALJs could decide many more cases if only they received 

more processed claim files. This is the specific locus of the backlog, the pileup of 

cases waiting for the senior case technicians to prepare the claim files. The judges 

have not seen these files. 

It is critical to understand that currently, of the 765,000 total pending 

cases, over 455,000 of them, 60% of the total backlog, are waiting in the 

hearing offices to be worked up for a judge to review. This is the precise 

location of the blockage causing the backlog. 

That blockage in the flow, the lack of Senior Case Technicians, is upstream from 

the judges and the hearing process. Adding hundreds of judges downstream from 

this blockage will have no effect on the blockage. It will however actually decrease 

the productivity per judge; the number of cases worked up will not increase and will 

be divided among a larger number of judges 

In 2008, SSA hired about 150 new judges and plans to hire another 150 in 2009. 

Few staff have been added and many of those have gone to various headquarters 

areas. What has been, and is still needed first, is more staff to support the current 

judges and then to provide adequate support to any new judges added. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

134 

1Statement of the Hon. Patrick O’Carroll, Inspector General, SSA, before the Subcommittee 

on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Sep 16 2008., page 5. 2 Better Planning, Management and Evaluation Could Help Address the Backlog, (GA O–08– 

40), Government Accountability Office, December 2007. 3 Congressional Response Report: Administrative Law Judge and Hearing Office Performance, Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Administration, A–07–08–28094. 

As the SSA Inspector General correctly noted in testimony before this Subcommittee, a sufficient number of competent and well trained staff is critically important to the ability of a judge to process his or her caseload.1

The number of cases being pulled each month is less than that requested by the 

judges for their dockets and less than the number of dispositions each month. 

Judges in many, if not most, offices are unable to get the number of pulled cases 

to fill the dockets they have established. 

We would like to discuss support staff to judge ratios as these are occasionally 

quoted by SSA officials. However, the formula is not available. Further, managers 

have informed us that in 2007 SSA changed the formula for calculating the staff 

to judge ratio, adding in administrative and supervisory staff who do not actually 

support the adjudication process. The current staff to judge ratios therefore may 

show a false increase since 2006 and are no longer a valid measure of staff support. 

The Backlog 

Towering over SSA is a backlog of over 765,000 cases claiming disability benefits 

under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. 

SSA has blamed the backlog on insufficient appropriations from Congress, the 

aging of the baby boomers and at times on the ALJs who decide these cases. 

A December 2007 2 GAO report on the Social Security disability case backlog concluded that the increases in the case backlog during the last decade were caused 

by a substantial growth in initial applications, staff losses (including administrative 

law judges), and management weaknesses evidenced by the number of failed reform initiatives [emphasis added]. 

The SSA OIG has confirmed there are a number of factors outside of the control 

of the judge that affect productivity: the ratio of staff to judge, quality and composition of the staff, State Agency Disability Determination Service (DDS) allowance 

rates and quality of case development, and the availability of worked-up cases for 

hearings. Additional factors are continued inadequate funding for Social Security, 

the failure of SSA to hire adequate support staff for judges, the failure of Social Security to manage and forecast the impact of the baby boomers and increased case 

receipts during the mid-1990’s and the failure of the agency to implement a plan 

to address the same and the failure of many of SSA’s reform initiatives. 

Higher staff ratios allow a Judge to be more productive. More cases can be scheduled for hearing in offices where there are sufficient numbers of support staff to prepare the files; there are times when ALJs do not have as many hearings scheduled 

as requested because there is insufficient support staff to prepare the cases. The 

Agency’s failure to hire sufficient support staff should be questioned as this has a 

direct impact on productivity and increased processing times. 

The quality of staff will affect the number of cases a Judge can handle; some decision writers are attorneys and others are former clerical employees. Resources may 

be distributed unequally to the Judges within an office, which will impact the ability 

to issue decisions. 

ALJ Productivity History and Overview of ALJ Productivity 

The Commissioner of Social Security (COSS) has complained to Congressional 

committees that some ALJs are underproductive and a contributing cause of the 

backlog. However SSA’s own statistics show SSA’s ALJs have each year produced 

steadily increasing numbers of decisions with decreasing numbers of staff and of 

judges. There is no evidence to support laying the blame for the backlog on the SSA 

ALJs. 

This was confirmed by a recent SSA OIG report 3 which specifically addressed factors affecting hearing office productivity. From FY 2005 to FY 2007 the average 

number of case dispositions issued per ALJ increased 13%. Because of this progress, 

less room remains to increase the level of ALJ productivity. 

Much is made of Agency ‘‘expectations’’ as if these expectations had any basis in 

fact. They do not. The Agency’s expectation is five hundred to seven hundred dispositions per year. It is not based on any time study of how long it takes for a Judge 

to handle a case. 

SSA’s last study on the matter, Plan for A New Disability Claim Process, conducted in 1994, projected a time line for a disability claim at all levels of the process, including the administrative law judge level. The study, based on an average 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

135 

4See Appendix, Table 2 

5 AALJ v, Heckler, 594 F.Supp 1132, (D.D.C. 1984) 6Total for FY 2008 show still more improvement, but AALJ has not yet obtained 2008 detailed data. 7See Appendix, Table 1 

8See Appendix, Chart 1 

9Statement of the Hon. Patrick O’Carroll, Inspector General, SSA, before the Subcommittee 

on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Sep 16 2008., 

month of 4 and 1⁄3 weeks, concluded that a reasonable disposition rate for a judge 

should be 25 to 55 cases per month. The monthly disposition rate, according to the 

study, should average 40, or 480 per year. The judges are averaging over 500 dispositions per year.4

The study results revealed that a judge would spend 3 to 7 hours of time in processing each case. The Agency allows writers to spend four hours just drafting a favorable decision and eight hours to draft an unfavorable one. 

It is acknowledged that there have been changes in the process since 1994, but, 

at the present time, most of those serve to slow down not speed up the process. The 

average file size grows every year. The review of electronic files (eFiles) at present 

is considerably slower than use of paper files. Even electronic signing (eSign) of decisions takes about four times as long as a ‘‘wet signature’’. 

In considering numerical performance it is important that the Congress understand a judge must carefully review the voluminous documentary evidence in the 

claimant’s file to effectively prepare and conduct the hearing and to issue a correct 

decision. Each case carries an average cost to the trust fund of $250,000. A judge 

hearing 40 cases per month is entrusted to correctly decide on $10,000,000 of cases 

per month, $120,000,000 annually. 

AALJ strongly supported the reform effort known as DSI. We still believe the 

Federal Reviewing Officer (FEDRO), or a similar reform, would provide an unbiased 

method to award benefits earlier in the process and prevent these cases from going 

to an administrative law judge hearing. 

The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) seeks to insulate administrative law 

judges from their agencies’ dictating their decision-making to satisfy a certain goal 

du jour. We saw this in the early 1980’s when SSA wanted to cut people off the 

rolls and we have seen it again in recent years when various measures have been 

taken which create a perverse incentive to pay cases to get them out the door as 

quickly as possible without regard to the effect on the trust fund, known as ‘‘paying 

down the backlog’’. In both periods the judges have been a moderating influence in 

not rigidly adhering to SSA’s policies, but rather trying to judge each case on its 

merits. This has created tension between the judges and SSA management, with 

management complaining that the judges do not follow SSA’s current policies. This 

was precisely the aim of the APA and it is precisely why the APA must not be 

stretched or cut to permit federal agencies to impose policies on their administrative 

law judges which would affect decisional independence and deprive claimants of 

their right to due process under the law. 

These are not isolated incidents. SSA has a long history of interference in the 

functioning of its administrative law judges. In another instance, in the early 1980’s, 

for political reasons, SSA embarked on a review of just allowance decisions of just 

those ALJs who had a high rate of allowances. The program, called Targeted Ongoing Review or Bellmon review, was specifically designed to effect behavioral change 

in the high allowance judges. If no such change occurred the judge’s file was turned 

over to the Office of Special Counsel for ‘‘appropriate action′′.5

ALJs have increased their dispositions thirteen percent from FY 2005 to FY 

2007—this in spite of insufficient resources and an electronic file system that slows 

the processing of cases for the judges. This increased productivity comes on the 

heels of increases in ALJ productivity for the several years prior to 2005 as well. 

Examining the productivity of judges for FY 2007 6 shows this in more detail.7

There is variance in the number of decisions issued by each judge, however, such 

a distribution is normal in all human activities, usually graphed as a ‘‘bell curve’’ 8

and here is further dependent on the numerous factors noted above which are outside of the control of the judges. Note that most of the judges are in the center of 

the curve. Note there are but 12 Judges out of 1,100—1%—who issue a very low 

number of decisions and who are full time judges.9 Some of these judges may have 

had extended illnesses, themselves or in the family, or may need assistance in the 

skills involved. This is discussed further in Standards for Administrative Law 

Judges, below. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

136 

10Statement of the Hon. Patrick O’Carroll, Inspector General, SSA, before the Subcommittee 

on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Sep 16 2008., page 5. 11 Id. 12 Appendix, Chart 2 13Statement of the Hon. Patrick O’Carroll, Inspector General, SSA, before the Subcommittee 

on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Sep 16 2008 

Systemic Problems 

Reports of the GAO and SSA’s OIG show the Social Security disability process is 

plagued with serious systemic problems and that ‘‘silver bullet’’ solutions or attempts to scapegoat one or more classes of employees will not address, let alone 

solve, the problems confronting the agency. 

Over-reliance on future technology. A careful review of SSA’s plans to reduce 

the backlog discloses an over-reliance on future gains from technology. Social Security has consistently over-estimated the benefits of technology and has often implemented the technology before it has been ready for general use. Further, technology 

does little to assist the judge or reduce the time they spend doing their work. They 

still need to review the case before the hearing, conduct the hearing, prepare the 

hearing decision instructions, and edit the draft decision. The Agency has been 

claiming that technology, ePulling and other software, will reduce the number of 

staff employees needed to support administrative law judges. This claim too has 

proved false. The ePulling software, said to be able to do most of the ‘‘pulling’’ of 

claim files, has not succeeded. Meanwhile the refusal to hire new staff has now left 

the Agency with it lowest levels of staff in decades. 

Paying Down the Backlog. Several Agency policies actually work to increase 

the backlog. The Agency’s policies act to encourage ‘‘paying down the backlog’’, that 

is paying cases to get rid of them as quickly as possible. Higher producing judges 

pay a higher percent of claims.10

As one HOCALJ pointed out, If goals are too high the corners get cut and the easiest thing to do is to grant a case.’’ 11

The first result is that some claims are paid which should not be paid. For decades judges have paid an average of 65–70% of claims. The judges doing up to 600 

dispositions per year are still in that range. However the judges doing more than 

600 dispositions per year pay considerably more; 6,500 claims more in 2007 at an 

annual cost to the trust fund of 1.6 billion dollars.12

But it does not stop there. If SSA conducted integrity such cases to cease the benefits, that would add several thousand more cases to the backlog. 

At best, the net result is SSA permits overpaying of claims then adds to its own 

burden by adding cessation claims to its case load. At worst, as in recent years, SSA 

has not reviewed the cases and the benefit hemorrhage continues, even though it 

is well-known that every dollar spent on integrity reviews returns ten dollars.13

Top-Heavy Management. Another major problem and irony in ODAR is that in 

addition to a chronic shortage of clerical support staff, it is ‘‘top heavy’’ with managers. In this time of declining resources, we recommend that the number of managers in the ODAR regional offices be reduced and instead be transferred to the 

hearing offices to work on disability cases. We have further recommended that the 

ODAR regional offices be closed and the staff personnel be transferred to the hearing offices. There is a hearing office in each regional office city and this reform will 

not cause a change of location for any of the employees. In this electronic age, the 

functions of the ODAR regional offices can be more efficiently handled by the Office 

of the Chief Administrative Law Judge who can now easily communicate with all 

hearing offices without delay. 

Other Management Problems. Replacing paper files with electronic files (efiles), begun under former Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart, is an initiative that the 

AALJ endorses and supports. What is unacknowledged is that the system, like virtually all new systems, has difficulties. It needs some additions and it is slower to 

use in reviewing the file and in conducting a hearing. SSA’s expectation is that once 

the system has matured it will require fewer people to do the same work. That may 

be true some day, but it is not yet true. When the system will be fully de-bugged 

and running smoothly is unknown. SSA’s rigid adherence to this doctrine in failing 

to replace lost staff has resulted in serious shortage of staff. 

While we embrace the use of technology in the future, current Agency initiatives 

do little to reduce the disability case backlog. For administrative law judges, electronic files slow down the process because pages take longer to ‘‘load’’ and view. 

Electronic organizing of files has not yet been perfected. Equipment failures cause 

delays, some for long periods, because the system is often not strong enough to handle peak work loads. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

137 

Dial-A-Judge. The use of desktop monitors to conduct hearings and conducting 

video hearings from the offices of attorneys, termed Dial-A-Judge by some commentators, is fraught with dangers. The first is that the claimant can easily be 

prompted by an unscrupulous representative out of sight of the camera. Most important is that the administrative law judge hearing is the first time in the Social Security disability process where the American citizen has a chance to meet face-to-face 

with a high ranking government official and be permitted to explain the elements 

of his/her case. A major part of due process is making the claimant feel that he/ 

she had a day in court and received a full and fair hearing. This basic reassurance 

of fairness is essentially lost if a government official is not present at the hearing 

site. Is it also more difficult to assess credibility using a computer monitor and 

hence more problematic in delivering a full and fair hearing to both the claimant 

and the trust fund. 

‘‘Shortcuts’’ are more often counterproductive. A ‘‘streamlined’’ claim file is 

one which is not worked up, i.e., prepared for hearing. Duplicates of often hundreds 

of pages of exhibits are not removed. Exhibits are not identified, placed in chronological order or even numbered. This allows the clerks to spend less time in preparing a case record. However it requires that the judge, the decision writer, medical experts and the representative, all of whom are at a higher pay grade, to spend 

far more time reviewing the record. There are also serious questions of whether or 

not the ‘‘streamlined’’ file violates due process when the claimant is handed an unorganized mass of evidence and whether or not the ‘‘streamlined’’ file preserves an 

adequate record for subsequent reviews. 

Another Agency initiative, the ‘‘rocket docket’’ changes scheduled hearings to a 

‘‘cattle call’’ in which unrepresented claimants are told to appear at the beginning 

of the day. The purpose is to determine which ones will not appear. Their claims 

are dismissed. Those who appear are told their hearings will be held in the near 

future. This discriminates against unrepresented claimants who may have to travel 

long distances to the hearing office on more than one occasion to have their cases 

heard. 

Smoke and Mirrors 

Many of SSA’s highly publicized ‘‘Initiatives to Reduce the Backlog’’ in fact can 

have little if any effect on actually reducing the backlog. A few examples: 

The National Hearing Center took five judges from several offices and put 

them together in a new office in Falls Church. Moving five judges does nothing 

to reduce the backlog. 

As explained above, hiring 150 new judges without adding adequate staff is 

a hollow gesture. It is equivalent to purchasing 150 new trucks and fuel for 20. 

SSA has expended approximately 50,000 hours of overtime to aid ODAR in 

getting its work done. The faults are that the money was spent on non-ODAR 

personnel who do not know the ODAR work and the overtime was viewed as 

a benefit and thus rotated among field office personnel. The personnel who 

learned the job this week were replaced the following week by new personnel 

who did not know the job. With time lost for on-the-job training plus overtime 

premium, the cost to SSA has been excessive and the production sub-standard. 

Even the initiative to clear out all cases more than 1,000 days old, while very 

commendable, did not reduce the backlog. Dozens of pages in releases and reports have been devoted to hailing this as reducing the backlog when in fact 

it merely shifted the production effort from one group of claims to another. 

SSA’s Public Relations machine is endeavoring to convince Congress and the 

public that it is reducing the backlog but a review of the initiatives discloses 

that, while they may give the appearance of reducing the backlog, in fact most 

do not. 

Standards for Administrative Law Judges 

The judges are not the problem. The judges did not cause the backlog and as a 

group have worked hard, with ever-decreasing resources, to contain the backlog. The 

Commissioner has at times acknowledged that the judges in Social Security are 

‘‘producing at record levels’’ as they have year after year. Nonetheless criticisms are 

being leveled at SSA’s judges. It is undisputed that judges work at different levels 

of efficiency and varying levels of diligence. That is equally true of any group of 

working people including SSA employees generally. 

Accountability. The Commissioner argues that there must be accountability for 

the judges. The judges accept accountability but not simply measured by the number of decisions produced. Judges are accountable to the claimants to ensure they 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

138 

get a full and fair hearing. They are also accountable for the trust fund to ensure 

that it is not abused. 

Pay Rates. Judges must be responsible for the percentage of claims paid as discussed above under Paying Down the Backlog. Although pay rates are subject to external variables such as the regional work ethic, unusually high or low percentages 

of certain types of cases, local unemployment rates, among others, pay rates at the 

very high and low extremes should be suspect. AALJ is unaware of any effort by 

SSA to review this important issue. 

Judges with Lower Dispositions. The Association of Administrative Law 

Judges has repeatedly offered its assistance to the Social Security Administration 

to meet with the judges the agency contends have the lowest case production to attempt to determine the reasons for the work production, and to attempt to address 

any existing problems. SSA has refused to give us the data to identify judges with 

lower dispositions. Recently AALJ was able to obtain the data from the website of 

a newspaper which was given the data by SSA. As a result AALJ initiated a program of contacting those judges with lower dispositions and offering to provide assistance of other judges to help those judges who may be having problems handling 

as many claims as they would like. 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is proposing an amendment of the current and longstanding regulatory practice that authorizes the administrative law 

judge to set the time and place for hearing in an attempt to force administrative 

law judges to hear and decide more cases. Not only do the data show this unnecessary, it is well-established that production quotas not only violate the APA, but also 

are inconsistent with 5 USC 4301& 4302. See Nash v Bowen, 869 F.2d 675 (2d Cir 

1989) which holds that while production goals are a permissible exercise of Agency 

management, dispositional quotas are not permissible. 

Rules of Conduct for Administrative Law Judges. AALJ has long recommended that the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct be 

adopted for administrative law judges. It should be noted that the last American 

Bar Association model judicial code specifically included administrative law judges. 

However, since the 1970’s, the Agency has consistently refused to work with us in 

this effort. 

AALJ is concerned with the lack of appropriate standards of conduct for administrative law judges. Currently some judges are being charged with ‘‘conduct unbecoming an administrative law judge’’ which is nowhere defined and can mean whatever the Agency wishes it to mean in a given case. 

Needs. From SSA and AALJ, communication and cooperation are almost absent 

and both are needed. Carrots and sticks are not needed. 

From the Congress, adequate funding to bring the support staff to a sufficient 

level before more judges are hired, with oversight to ensure it is fully accomplished. 

Additionally AALJ believes more oversight is needed to ensure that the systemic 

changes discussed herein are fully effected including responsibly reducing the number of claims which go to hearing; conducting integrity reviews; reviewing extremely 

high and low pay rates; adoption of the ABA’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct; review of management needs in the Agency, among others. 

Conclusion 

We thank you very much for this opportunity to address you on these issues that 

are literally vital to many Americans. Social Security judges are working hard to 

attempt to address the disability case backlog. The AALJ had an excellent relationship with former Commissioner Barnhart, and worked hard with her to reform the 

hearing process. The AALJ and its members stand ready to do their best to reduce 

the backlog, reduce the hemorrhaging of benefits and to adopt proven new technologies. 

We are not the problem and we are prepared to be part of the solution. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

139 

f 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you, Judge. 

Mr. WARSINSKEY. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. WARSINSKEY, IMMEDIATE PAST 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATIONS, INC. 

Mr. WARSINSKEY. Chairman Tanner and McDermott, Congressmen Johnson and Linder, my name is Rick Warsinskey, and 

I represent the National Council of Social Security Management 

Associations. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.044
140 

Our association represents the Field Office and Teleservice management from over 1,300 offices nationwide. The Field Offices are 

your local Social Security offices that handle walk-in Social Security business such as applications for benefits and replacement Social Security cards. The Teleservice Centers are where the 57 million 1–800–772–1213 calls to SSA are answered throughout the Nation. We are the frontline representatives of the agency. 

I also help coordinate the activities of the SSA Advocacy Group, 

and I have been a manager of the Social Security Office in Downtown Cleveland for 14 years. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here today. We are 

very appreciative of the fact that Congress appropriated $126.5 

million more for SSA in Fiscal Year 2009 than the President recommended. We are also very appreciative of the funding included 

for SSA in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And finally, we are pleased to see the President recommended a funding 

level of $11.6 billion for SSA’s administrative funding for Fiscal 

Year 2010. All of this is a lot of money, but these funding levels 

are absolutely necessary to address the severe challenges facing 

SSA that are growing with the deepening recession. 

Let me outline several of the key challenges SSA faces: 

One, SSA’s hearing backlog is at a near record level of 765,000 

hearings, up from about 300,000 earlier this decade. Hearing processing times have stayed in the 500-day range. 

Two, the number of hearings received this Fiscal Year has increased by about 10 percent. These hearings are related to claims 

filed before the recession started. 

Three, the number of new initial disability claims is increasing 

on a weekly basis and is up nearly 14 percent this calendar year. 

Four, retirement claims being filed are up 28 percent from 2 

years ago. 

Five, the number of customers walking into Field Offices continues to grow and is at record levels, even though Internet claims 

filed have doubled this year. Waiting times are up 61 percent since 

2002, and nearly 80,000 people are leaving our offices without service every week this year due to the long waits. 

Six, the Field Office telephone service is deplorable. I repeat, deplorable. Nearly 50 percent of the over 54 million business-related 

callers who try to contact Social Security Offices receive a busy signal. 

Seven, Field Offices and Teleservice Centers are struggling to 

provide training to their staff to keep them updated because the 

staff needs to be moving workloads. 

Eight, SSA is facing a major retirement wave over the next few 

years. 

And finally, nine, there is a backlog of 1.4 million CDRs and 

700,000 fewer SSI redeterminations that are being done this year 

than earlier this decade. This is costing taxpayers over $10 billion. 

Ideally, it would be wonderful if we could address all of these 

challenges in one year. The reality is that the challenges SSA faces 

cannot be fixed with 1 year’s funding, especially as the recession 

is adding so much more work to SSA. Hard decisions will need to 

be made where to direct agency resources as there is both a strong 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

141 

need to address the growing workloads and backlogs and to address 

workloads such as CDRs and SSI redeterminations. 

But the funding we receive this year and hopefully next year will 

be a major boost to addressing our backlogs and providing improved service. We ask for your continued support for adequate 

funding for SSA. We also ask that you take a hard look at legislative changes that would reduce our administrative costs and improve program fairness. These are outlined in our written statement. We believe that the American public demands and deserves 

to receive good and timely service for the tax dollars they have paid 

to Social Security. We also believe the stewardship of the public’s 

hard-earned tax dollars needs to be at the highest level. 

I thank you for this opportunity to appear today and welcome 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Warsinskey follows:] 

Statement of Rick Warsinskey, District Office Manager, Cleveland, Ohio; 

and Immediate Past President, National Council of Social Security Management Associations, Inc. 

Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Congressman Johnson, Congressman 

Linder, and Members of the Subcommittees, my name is Richard Warsinskey. I represent the National Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA). 

I have been the manager of the Social Security office in Downtown Cleveland, Ohio 

for nearly fourteen years and have worked for the Social Security Administration 

for thirty-three years. 

I also help coordinate the activities of the Social Security Administration (SSA) 

Advocacy Group. This group works to improve SSA’s services at all levels. Members 

include senior citizen organizations and disability support groups from across the 

country, SSA and Disability Determination Services associations, and Federal management associations and employee unions. On behalf of our membership and in 

support of our SSA Advocacy Group, I am pleased to have the opportunity to submit 

this written testimony. 

NCSSMA is a membership organization of about 3,400 Social Security Administration (SSA) managers and supervisors who provide leadership in more than 1,300 

Field Offices and Teleservice Centers throughout the country. We are the frontline 

service providers for SSA in communities all over the nation. We are also the federal 

employees with whom many of your staff members work to resolve problems and 

issues for your constituents who receive Social Security retirement benefits, survivors or disability benefits, or Supplemental Security Income. From the time our 

organization was founded over thirty-eight years ago, NCSSMA has been a strong 

advocate of prompt and efficient locally delivered services nationwide to meet the 

various needs of beneficiaries, claimants, and the general public. One of NCSSMA’s 

top priorities is a strong and stable Social Security Administration, one that delivers 

quality and prompt community based service to the people we serve, your constituents. We also consider it a top priority to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ moneys. 

A New Day for the Social Security Administration 

Let me begin by saying that we are very appreciative of the support that the 

House Ways and Means Committee has provided SSA for so many years. Your leadership in recognizing the critical need for adequate resources at SSA has resulted 

in vital funding that will help bring a ‘‘new day’’ to our agency. We greatly appreciate the support for funding at a level above the President’s proposed budget in FY 

2009 and for the $1.092 billion in funding included for SSA in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We hope you will also support the President’s 

FY 2010 Budget Request of $11.6 billion for SSA’s administrative expenses. 

Our testimony will focus on the current challenges facing SSA and why it is essential that the agency continues to receive the resources it needs from Congress 

to provide assistance that the American public deserves. Many of the challenges we 

will focus on in this testimony were also highlighted in the recently released January 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on SSA entitled: ‘‘Service 

Delivery Plan Needed to Address Baby Boom Retirement Challenges.’’ Please see: 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0924.pdf. We fully support the conclusions of this report. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

142 

Summary of Challenges Facing SSA 

SSA’s Funding Shortfalls 

In FY 2008, Congress appropriated $148 million above the President’s Budget Request for SSA’s administrative funding. This action marked an important milestone 

related to SSA’s administrative funding. From FY 2001 to FY 2005, Congress appropriated significantly less per year for SSA’s administrative funding needs than the 

President requested. It is also important to note that the level of funding requested 

by the President was often significantly less than the level of funding recommended 

by the Commissioner of Social Security. In FY 2006 the final funding level approved 

by Congress was $300 million less than the President’s Budget Request and almost 

$1 billion less than the Commissioner’s Budget Request. In FY 2007 the final level 

approved by Congress was $200 million less than the President’s Budget Request 

and $930 million less than the Commissioner’s Budget Request. The inadequate 

level of resources available to the agency for so many years had a direct and negative effect on SSA’s services in a number of ways. 

Hearing Offices and the Disability Backlogs 

The most visible result of this under funding has been the massive increase in 

the number of pending disability appeals hearings. The annual number of pending 

hearings, as compared to earlier in the decade, has increased by over 400,000. Currently there is a near record level of 765,000 hearings pending, and over 80,000 

have been filed by veterans. The average wait time for a final hearing decision has 

also increased from about 300 days to about 500 days. The long wait to be heard 

by an Administrative Law Judge for many can lead to bankruptcy, homelessness, 

the breakup of families and loss of friends, lack of critical medical care, and sadly, 

some individuals die while waiting for a hearing. This is happening in 

every state and territory in the nation. 

The number of pending hearings has been over 750,000 since December of 2007 

even though the number of available Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) has increased from 943 in June 2008 to 1064 in February 2009. This represents a 12.8% 

increase in available ALJs. Because all of these new ALJs needed to be trained, 

their hearing dispositions are only just now increasing as they gain experience and 

become more efficient and productive. 

At the same time new hearing requests have increased 9.5% since the beginning 

of Fiscal Year 2009. Thus the increased number of hearings has added to the challenges faced by the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). This increase in hearings does not even include a new wave of requests that will start hitting ODAR later this year. 

Beginning in the fall of 2008, disability claims filed in SSA Field Offices have accelerated and the number is increasing daily. This increase in the number of claims 

being filed started just as the major downturn in the economy hit the nation. Since 

the beginning of Fiscal Year 2009 the State Disability Determination Services 

(DDSs) have received 10.0% more initial disability claims than they did during the 

same period last year. The percentage of initial disability claims filed each week has 

increased in every consecutive week of this fiscal year. In fact the increase per week 

for Calendar Year 2009 to date is 13.7% versus the 10.0% for Fiscal Year 2009 to 

date. At the same time the number of pending claims in the DDSs has increased 

from 556,670 to 623,349 (as of March 13). This is a 12.0% increase. There are projections that this workload could climb to 800,000 as the impact of the recession 

deepens. One major challenge the DDSs face is whether they have the ability to expand quickly enough to address this workload. 

It takes on average about 10 months for a new initial disability claim that is not 

approved to become a new hearing. As a result, by late this summer we will see 

the leading edge of this increasing disability claims tsunami hitting ODAR. 

We are also very concerned about how the furloughs of state employees working 

for DDSs will impact the disability backlogs. California has already implemented a 

furlough plan consisting of two days off per month. This is a 10% reduction in the 

number of hours worked in the DDSs. This can only exacerbate the backlogs. 

In Oregon, the state is proposing 177 DDS employees be furloughed a total of 24 

days during the next two years. Reducing the number of disability claims being 

processed could scarcely come at a worse time. What is most perplexing is that the 

DDSs receive their funding from the Federal Government. So there is no financial 

advantage to the states that furlough DDS employees. In fact, SSA will withhold 

funds from a state for DDS employees while they are on furlough. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

143 

Baby Boomer Customers 

As all of this is occurring, SSA Field Offices are facing a tsunami of their own: 

the Baby Boomers. This year applications for Social Security retirement benefits are 

up nearly 28% from two years ago and 17% from this time last year. 

SSA Field Offices are also seeing a record number of customers as more and more 

people are coming to our offices for assistance. The week ending January 9, 2009 

was a record-setting week as 1,067,089 customers came into our offices. Waiting 

times in many offices have increased significantly and the number of people who 

left without service has also increased. SSA Field Offices also had 2.5 million more 

customers in Fiscal Year 2008 as compared to Fiscal Year 2006. 

In Fiscal Year 2008 about 3.5 million customers waited more than 1 hour to be 

served. This fiscal year to date, the waiting times are 61% higher than they were 

in 2002. Some offices such as Houston Southwest and McAllen, Texas; Chicago 

Southeast and Chicago Heights; South Bronx and Brooklyn Flatbush, New York; 

Norfolk, Virginia; Jersey City and New Brunswick, New Jersey; and right here in 

Washington, DC (M Street Office) averaged nearly an hour or more wait for customers from the opening of the office in the morning until the closing at the end 

of the day during FY 2009. These times are certainly excessive, but they are not 

the most extreme. The highest waiting times are in Puerto Rico where some customers must wait nearly 100 minutes. Note, some of this is attributable to the fact 

that Internet applications are not available in Spanish. In addition, the Orlando Social Security Card Center which sees nearly 500 people a day averages approximately 43 minutes waiting time per customer this year. 

SSA Field Offices are also seeing a significant increase in the number of people 

who leave without receiving service. In fact, this calendar year to date we are averaging nearly 80,000 people a week, or 8.4%, that leave our offices without receiving 

service. Many Field Offices have a much higher percentage. Examples of these Field 

Offices are: 

Memphis South, TN: 10.5% 

Seattle Downtown, WA: 12.8% 

Charleston, SC: 14.0% 

Mobile, AL: 14.1% 

Houston Northeast, TX: 14.8% 

Chicago East, IL: 15.2% 

Austin, Texas: 16.0% 

Norfolk, VA: 16.8% 

Oakland, CA: 19.8% 

Brooklyn Flatbush, NY: 20.1% 

Clearwater, FL: 21.7% 

Baltimore NE, MD: 27.0% 

North Las Vegas, NV: 33.7% 

In a Survey of our field management that was conducted in February of 2009, 

about 70% of the respondents indicated they had seen an ‘‘increase’’ or ‘‘significant 

increase’’ in waiting times in the last year. 

What is alarming about this increased number of customers and waiting times is 

that this has occurred while the number of Social Security claims filed on the Internet doubled from the previous year. For Fiscal Year 2008 about 14% of all Social 

Security claims were filed on the Internet; that number is now approaching nearly 

30%. 

Part of our challenge is that Social Security Field Offices offer appointments both 

for in-office customers and by telephone. As a result, most Field Office interviewers 

are often providing assistance to individuals with appointments and cannot accommodate customers who come in without appointments. At the same time, many offices cannot increase the number of available appointments because they do not 

have enough interviewers. Quite simply, there are just not enough staff in SSA 

Field Offices to adequately serve the American public. 

This concern was articulated by a comment we received from an Assistant District 

Manager in our recent NCSSMA Survey of Management Report: 

We can’t do walk-ins because everyone is interviewing appointments, and 

we don’t have enough staff to handle the demands of our service area. We 

simply are not able to stay within twenty-one days on our appointments. 

Another Assistant District Manager voiced these concerns about trying to handle 

all the customers that walk through the doors: 

The waiting time in our Field Office for walk-in traffic is usually anywhere from 1–3 hours. Our waiting room is often times packed full and excprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

144 

tends into the hallway of the building. Our office has a very high volume 

of walk-in traffic and this makes it difficult to anticipate the volume of people who come in and need to see Claims Representatives each day. There 

have been days where we are so busy that we are not able to fully serve all 

of the people who walk through the doors. We must resort to setting up appointments and making them return on another day. The Field Offices really 

need additional staff to be able to handle the volume of walk-in traffic and 

to be able to balance this with providing high quality service. Often times 

the Claims Representatives are so busy interviewing that they rush and 

make careless mistakes which may result in payment errors, missing entitlements, and possible recontacts. 

In order to relieve very overcrowded locations with high waiting times, there is 

a compelling need to open new offices and expand the size of current offices to adequately staff existing locations. This has become an escalating problem as there 

have been significant population changes in certain parts of the country. For example, in 1984 there were 13 million people in the state of Texas. Today there are 23 

million people. This is a 77% increase in population. In 24 years, one new Social 

Security office has opened in Texas (Mid-Cities) and one office (Nacogdoches) has 

closed. The population of Houston alone has doubled in the last 24 years. Yet, there 

are the same six Field Offices with only two-thirds of the staff. The same could also 

be said of the San Antonio area. 

Field Office Telephone Service 

A recent study by SSA’s Office of Quality Performance (OQP) focused on the agency’s Field Office telephone service. It stated that in FY 2007, 45% of the approximately 54 million callers who tried to reach a Field Office by telephone said that 

they had received a busy signal or a recording that all lines were busy. Because 

many of these callers may have called more than once and on multiple 

days, the actual busy rate is likely much higher than the 45% indicated by 

the study. 

In our Survey of Management last month the question was asked: ‘‘What is most 

needed to improve telephone service?’’ 84.6% of respondents indicated they did not 

have sufficient staff to answer their phones and meet other service demands. 

The challenges of our telephone service are evident in the responses received from 

two District Managers to our recent Survey. 

‘‘Most days, we are so short of staff that we don’t even assign a person 

to answer the incoming lines. What we do instead is just pick up the phone 

when it goes to over ring, which is 20 minutes after it goes to hold. Usually 

I am the one who answers it then. Our phone service is deplorable. And we 

are so busy interviewing face-to-face or teleclaims or adjudicating Internet 

claims that we don’t return phone calls left on voicemail promptly either. It’s 

not that we don’t want to provide excellent phone service but that with our 

staffing so low, we just can’t!’’ 

‘‘Field Office telephone service is essentially non-existent in terms of incoming calls. This is due directly to the fact that Field Offices are generally 

understaffed. Field Offices handle more phone calls yearly than does SSA’s 

800 Number system, yet for many years the focus in terms of telephone service has been on the performance of the 800 Number system and has essentially ignored the prime telephone service delivery system in SSA.’’ 

The recently issued GAO report on Field Offices recommended that SSA establish 

standards for Field Office customer wait times and telephone service. However, SSA 

did not agree with this recommendation as it would create problems for SSA by diverting an already thin staff away from processing claims and post-entitlement 

work. This disagreement shows a core challenge facing SSA. The agency simply 

can’t do everything, especially reducing waiting times and improving inadequate 

telephone service, without the necessary resources. Field Offices are struggling now 

to keep up with the large increase in Internet claims. It is a high priority to move 

these claims so hard choices are being made on where to direct resources on an 

hour-by-hour basis. One key challenge of the Internet claims is that most require 

a telephone contact to go over the application with the individual. This is to verify 

proper completion of all questions and to ensure the proper payment is made. This 

often requires pulling Field Office staff from the interviews coming in to make these 

calls. This not only increases waiting times but it also ties up the telephone lines 

resulting in busy signals for other customers who may be trying to reach the office 

by telephone. As a result, Field Office management and staff are forced to make 

service delivery choices that are unsatisfactory to our staff and customers alike. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

145 

Training 

In our most recent Survey less than half the managers agreed or strongly agreed 

that their staffs received adequate training. Of those who believed that employees 

in their offices did not receive adequate training, 63% stated inadequate staffing 

was the primary reason. And about 39% said they had insufficient time to prepare 

and deliver training. 

It is obvious that training is being shortchanged in many Field Offices due to the 

lack of resources. These responses from our recent Survey demonstrate how the lack 

of resources impacts training in our offices: 

‘‘We must use all of our hours that we are not open to the public to get 

the work completed. We are lucky to allow one hour a week for training. This 

is a shame for the employees and the public who will end up with poor service due to this. Lack of training impacts our wait times as well as repeated 

visits to get actions completed if not done properly the first time.’’ 

‘‘The problem in the case of new hires is that we cannot pull anyone full 

time to train continuously due to the interviewing and workloads. In addition, more training could technically be provided to our staff; however, if we 

train multiple times per week before the office opens, the staff does not have 

adequate time to process workloads. We try to maximize the training provided without taking too much ‘‘down time’’ away from the Claims and Service Representatives. It’s an unfortunate choice to have to make.’’ 

It should be noted that the two main public contact positions in the Field Offices 

are both highly technical and the half-life of that technical knowledge spans only 

a 3-year period. Policies and processes change routinely and new software improvements are implemented multiple times per year. When the agency short changes the 

ongoing training of its technicians, it is impossible to take advantage of the resource 

savings that these process improvements can ultimately provide. When it comes to 

training delivery, we are caught in a vicious cycle; we can’t train because we are 

too busy processing workloads and we can’t process workloads in the most efficient 

manner because we have not been trained. 

SSI Program Integrity and Quality 

In Fiscal Year 2008, 1.2 million SSI redeterminations were completed. (An SSI 

redetermination is a review of an SSI recipient’s benefits to ensure that they are 

being paid properly.) Over the five-year period from FY 2004 to FY 2008, the number of SSI redeterminations completed declined by 47%. Over the ten-year period 

from FY 1999 to FY 2008, the number of redeterminations completed declined by 

43%. This reduction in the number of SSI redeterminations completed was directly 

related to the level of appropriated funding received by the agency during those fiscal years. 

The reduction in the number of SSI redeterminations completed was a contributing factor in the increase of the SSI overpayment error rate from 6.4 percent to 

9.1 percent from FY 2005 to FY 2007. The overpayment error rate is currently at 

its highest rate in over 30 years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing error rate and the decline in the number of SSI redeterminations 

completed. In FY 2007 the projected overpayments totaled $3.9 billion. These substantial losses to the Treasury and the trust funds will continue unless the trend 

toward completing fewer redeterminations is reversed. It is very important to 

note that conducting SSI scheduled redeterminations saves $10 for every 

$1 spent in administrative dollars. 

In FY 2009 the increased appropriated funding for SSA will allow the agency to 

increase the number of SSI redeterminations by an additional 500,000 cases, but 

this will still be 700,000 cases below levels completed earlier this decade and results 

in 700,000 missed opportunities to save program dollars. 

In our most recent Survey, responses indicated that while 22.5% of managers felt 

that the quality of work produced in their office had improved in the last two years; 

nearly one-third of managers (33.6%) reported that the quality of work produced in 

their offices was worse or significantly worse. Of those, 65.6% cited two factors as 

the principle reasons for the diminished quality—not enough staff desk time (38.1%) 

and not enough staff (27.6%). 

The responses below from the Survey address the challenges facing SSA related 

to quality of work product: 

‘‘There are a variety of reasons for quality not being as high as in the past. 

Certainly, we need more staffing, but there is so much work and not enough 

staff to do the work. There is not enough time to devote to training to learn 

new policies and procedures.’’ 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

146 

‘‘The constant pressure to meet appointment goals, coupled with our walkin and telephone traffic not only exceed the limits of our ability to monitor 

newer employees but also their capacity to spend thoughtful time researching 

unfamiliar issues. There is always a drumbeat: just get it done; just get it 

done.’’ 

‘‘The fact that we have no staff to check work that goes out is frightening.’’ 

Continuing Disability Reviews 

SSA has also significantly reduced the number of medical Continuing Disability 

Reviews (CDRs) that are completed. (A medical CDR is a review of a Social Security 

or SSI disability beneficiary’s eligibility for benefits based on their medical condition. If their condition has improved enough to show they can work then their benefits will be terminated.) In Fiscal Year 2008, a total of 235,000 full medical CDRs 

were conducted. This is down from 800,000 per fiscal year from earlier this decade. 

The reduction in the number of CDRs was directly due to the level of appropriated 

funding provided for SSA. SSA has a backlog of 1.4 million unworked medical 

CDRs. The savings realized by completing medical CDRs are substantial. As of Fiscal Year 2007, for every $1 spent there is a $11.70 savings in Social Security trust fund 

assets, SSI funds from General Revenues, and Medicare and Medicaid payments. In 

Fiscal Year 2007 the Disability Determination Service offices spent $281 million to 

complete CDRs. The lifetime savings realized by completing these CDRs was an astounding return of $3.3 billion. Clearly from the stewardship standpoint, it is imperative that the agency be provided with the necessary resources to catch up the medical CDR workload and keep it current. 

However, the same DDSs that are also dealing with a large increase in new disability claims would also be called upon to conduct these additional reviews. In 

order to meet both of these challenges and to also assist ODAR in reviewing old disability cases for potential allowances, DDS capacity must be significantly increased. 

Such an increase in capacity may take several years to accomplish, but planning 

for this would need to start immediately to meet these multiple challenges. 

The DDSs are also facing a significant retirement wave. Much like the Field Offices, they did significant hiring in the 1970s when the SSI program started. DDSs 

also have a high attrition rate. In fact in FY 2009, DDS attrition was 8.1% overall 

and 10.1% for examiners. 

Fortunately there is substantial DDS hiring planned for this year utilizing the 

Stimulus Bill resources and through the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations funding. 

But the training of DDS examiners takes up to six months. And it takes about 18 

months before an examiner can do a full range of work. The DDSs also have to pull 

a substantial number of senior examiners to train and mentor the DDS examiners. 

The CDR cases are also handled by the most senior examiners. A concern that 

must be addressed is how can these examiners absorb an increase in completing 

CDRs in FY 2010 while they are also trying to move a large increase in new disability claims, address the additional reconsiderations, assist ODAR with their backlog, and finally mentor all the new hires. 

Realistically SSA may not have any capacity to complete additional CDRs in FY 

2010. Many of the DDSs also have significant space issues and will need to have 

time to expand their space to absorb a large increase in hiring. The President’s FY 

2010 Budget Request calls for an increase of $255 million in program integrity funding. If SSA increases the number of redeterminations to the maximum level, this 

would still leave at least $150 million unspent. If an additional 200,000 or so CDRs 

were completed this could utilize the additional money. With a backlog of 1.4 million 

CDRs it certainly would be desirable to spend this funding as $150 million spent 

on CDRs would save over $1.7 billion. We suggest that there really needs to be a 

multiyear plan to allow the DDSs to ramp up and move the CDR backlog while still 

continuing to handle the additional initial claims, reconsiderations, and assist 

ODAR. This plan will need to take into account all of the additional workloads, in 

addition to the need for increased training and space and equipment for the DDSs. 

New Workloads for SSA 

SSA Field Offices have struggled to keep up with new workloads as Congress continues to add to SSA’s list of responsibilities, such as administering new requirements for Medicare Parts B and D, and conducting Social Security Number 

verifications and other immigration-related activities such as the E-Verify program. 

However, SSA’s administrative funding has not kept pace with the agency’s increased responsibilities. We are especially concerned about additional workloads 

from the E-Verify program that are being discussed. We are also concerned about 

the additional work that could result from increased enforcement of ‘‘no match procprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

147 

visions.’’ It is imperative that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reimburse SSA for these costs. 

SSA’s Retirement Wave 

SSA completed a substantial amount of hiring in the 1970s when the agency 

began to administer the SSI program. SSA reduced staffing levels significantly in 

the 1980s. The agency did little hiring during this period. This has created both a 

doughnut hole and bubble in SSA’s staffing demographics. Additionally, the agency 

hired new employees on a very limited basis during the early 1980s through the late 

1990s. As a result, there are only a limited number of mid-career employees. Over 

53% of SSA staff is eligible to retire by 2017. Not only is there a need to increase 

the number of staff due to rising workloads and large backlogs, there is a need to 

get people hired and trained before we lose so much of our institutional knowledge 

and experience. 

In addition to the issues above, 70% of the SSA management employees will be 

eligible for retirement by 2017. This significant loss of leadership is compounded by 

the fact that many of our current management positions are not being filled because 

of concerns about supervisory ratios. With the challenges of ever-increasing workloads and reduced staffing levels, it is extremely important to have sufficient management to lead SSA employees. Also, a more aggressive and proactive approach is 

needed for succession planning to develop our next generation of leaders. 

How Recent Funding Approved for SSA Will Improve the Agency’s Services 

and Stewardship 

Recent legislation approved by Congress has included additional resources for 

SSA. Both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Bill) and the FY 

2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act include significant funding for SSA. In addition, 

the President has proposed a level of $11.6 billion for SSA’s FY 2010 administrative 

funding. If approved this would result in a $1.1 billion increase in SSA’s appropriated funding from FY 2009 to FY 2010. 

The Stimulus Bill included $1.092 billion for SSA. Roughly half of the funds, $500 

million, provided for SSA in the Stimulus Bill should result in immediate improvements related to SSA’s services and stewardship. Of this amount, $40 million was 

included for health information technology research and activities which should assist in the adoption of electronic medical records in disability claims. This technology could improve the disability claims process by shortening the length of time 

it takes to render a decision on a disability claim and improving the accuracy of initial claims decisions. Additionally, $90 million was included for SSA to administer 

the cost of the $250 economic stimulus payments to Social Security beneficiaries and 

SSI recipients. The remaining funds, $500 million, are allocated for the much-needed replacement of the National Computer Center, the full cost of which is estimated 

to be about $750 million. 

If the President’s Budget Request of $11.6 billion for SSA’s administrative funding 

is approved for Fiscal Year 2010 the agency will be able to continue improving its 

services and stewardship activities. SSA must receive at least a $400 million increase just to address the increased inflationary costs from FY 2009 to FY 2010. 

Any additional resources could then be directed toward other SSA workloads. 

Some recommendations related to where these resources could be appropriately 

and effectively utilized: 

1. Resources are needed for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, 

Disability Determination Services, Program Service Centers, and Field Offices. 

In order to reduce the unconscionable backlog in hearings and to process the 

increased receipts of disability claims and hearings due to the severe recession, 

additional resources are necessary. In ODAR many more Administrative Law 

Judges will be needed along with support staff. For every one Administrative 

Law Judge (ALJ), about 4.5 support staff are needed. If SSA is able to hire 200 

more ALJs, then it would result in the need for about 900 more support staff 

to adequately assist them. To support this additional staff more space and 

equipment will be necessary. 

The Disability Determination Services (DDSs) are currently staffed at about 

900 fewer positions than they were allocated three years ago. The DDSs currently have about 13,600 positions. The DDSs are receiving about 10% more disability claims this year compared to last year, and this number is growing on 

a weekly basis. This indicates the need of at least 1,300 more positions plus the 

necessary costs to support these additional positions. This increase does not include additional positions that would be required to complete additional CDRs 

(see information above and below on CDRs). Additional positions could also be 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

148 

used to perform more remands from ODAR. If more remands could be performed this would reduce the number of hearings. 

2. Field Offices must have additional staff to answer the telephones and provide quality service to the public when they visit community based Field Offices. Additional staff would also assist Field Offices in handling the significant 

increase in Internet workloads. 

Current telephone busy rates and in-office wait times are unacceptable. 

Clearly a busy rate of nearly 50% when you call a Field Office is an unacceptable level of service. The 61% increase in waiting times in Field 

Offices since 2002 is also unacceptable. In our recent Survey, 77.4% of respondents reported having insufficient staff to keep workloads current. Only 

20.1% thought that their offices were adequately staffed. Managers estimated 

that they would need a staffing increase of 13.5% (over 3,600 positions) to 

have sufficient resources to provide adequate levels of service. Managers specifically attributed the effect of inadequate staffing levels on the ability 

of their offices to provide a satisfactory level of public service. 

3. A significant increase in SSI redeterminations and CDRs could be accomplished with additional resources. 

In fact, if an additional 700,000 SSI redeterminations and 470,000 CDRs were 

completed SSA would be at the same level the agency was at earlier this decade. 

The President’s FY 2010 Budget Request calls for spending about 50% more, 

or $255 million, on SSI redeterminations and CDRs in FY 2010 over FY 2009. 

This additional expenditure of administrative resources could save taxpayers over $2.5 billion. If more funds were appropriated to SSA in FY 2010 

this savings could be even higher. As mentioned earlier in this statement, the 

backlog in CDRs is currently 1.4 million. 

In Fiscal Year 2009 the unit cost for completing each CDR was $847. To work 

the entire backlog down in FY 2009 dollars it would cost $1.186 billion. The 

potential savings would be $13.92 billion. 

Obviously there probably isn’t sufficient funding available to eliminate the backlog in SSI redeterminations and CDRs in one year. This is especially true considering the enormous backlog in hearings as well as growing workloads in both Field 

Offices and the Disability Determination Services. However, SSA may not be able 

to increase the number of CDRs completed at all next year with the growing workloads in the DDSs. But this analysis shows that SSA desperately needs all of the 

resources from the Stimulus Bill, the FY 2009 Omnibus, and at least the $11.6 billion proposed in the President’s FY 2010 Budget Request to continue to make 

progress. 

Reducing SSA’s Costs to Oversee the SSI Program 

SSA administers a very complicated Social Security and SSI program. The agency 

has been working to streamline policies to reduce administrative costs. We firmly 

agree this should be done so long as it does not disadvantage the public. 

In addition, there are many areas where administrative costs could be saved 

through legislation. This is especially true of the SSI program which is very labor 

intensive and we therefore urge the Ways and Mean Committee to consider legislative changes that would result in administrative savings. We offer a few key areas 

in the SSI program which are very labor intensive and if modified, could save us 

administrative dollars. These are: 

1. Simplify the rules on Living Arrangements and In-kind support and maintenance. 

2. Eliminate couple’s benefits. 

3. Allow payment of retroactive benefits of either Title II or Title XVI payments first in order to prevent delay of past due benefits. This proposal would 

greatly simply the computation of offset computations. 

4. Eliminate the Dedicated Account Provision and Installments. 

5. Simplify the earned income provisions: Increase earned income disregard 

to reflect inflation and expand what is acceptable proof of wages. 

There is one other area that we urge the Committee to examine thoroughly: That 

is the resource limit of $2,000 for SSI for an individual and $3000 for a couple. This 

limit has been in place for 20 years and severely discourages any savings for an SSI 

individual as well as practically guaranteeing a life of very minimal means and near 

poverty. An increased limit would also reduce a lot of resources development for 

Field Offices. It is important to note that the resource limit for Part D Medicare 

Income assistance is $12,510 and $25,020 for a couple. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

149 

Legislative Change to Assist In Reduction of the Disability Hearings Backlogs 

Current law requires that 50% of all approved initial and reconsideration Title II 

disability cases and Title XVI adult disability and blindness cases be reviewed before a final approval is made. The intent of this was to lead to more consistency 

in approvals in all states as this review is completed by SSA (a Federal review) as 

opposed to being completed by the DDSs. However no more than 5% of the disapproved cases are reviewed. Thus, at least 95% of the denied cases are not reviewed. As a result, there is no early opportunity to prevent some cases from moving 

to the Hearing Offices. With an increased review of denied cases, some of these 

cases will be approved. This will also result in many claimants who have been denied benefits not having to wait nearly two years for a hearing. It will also save 

substantial administrative dollars in ODAR. 

We believe that a truly random review of all initial and reconsideration disability 

cases should be implemented instead. The review would be equally split between approvals and denials. This increased investment in the disability area would reduce 

the hearings backlog, save administrative dollars, and prevent many unnecessary 

hardships for claimants. This revised review method might actually be less expensive in the long run as it could reduce the very high cost that often results from 

a hearing on a case. 

The SSA of the Future 

We firmly believe that SSA cannot stay a static organization. We believe that the 

agency should continue to invest in our systems to process our cases faster and reduce costs. We need to have information technology that is fully supported by an 

up-to-date National Computer Center. Allocating resources to replace the National 

Computer Center, which is nearing its capacity, is a wise investment. 

SSA is also investing resources to improve our Internet product as the public demand for this product grows. We also think this is a wise investment. 

We do believe the public should be given a choice in how they will interact with 

SSA. This can be in person, by phone, or via the Internet. In future years, we do 

anticipate a shift toward the public using online services more and more. SSA will 

need to constantly assess this as the agency considers its expensive infrastructure 

costs and the number and location of SSA offices. In the interim, there is a need 

to have an adequate number of offices in growth areas such as Texas (as cited earlier in this statement). 

Recommendations 

We have these key recommendations to improve services in SSA and stewardship 

of funds: 

1. Approve at least the $11.6 billion funding level proposed by the President 

for FY 2010. 

2. Look at multiyear funding to accelerate the number of SSI redeterminations and CDRs completed to save billions of taxpayer dollars. It will take a 

number of years to work down this backlog. 

3. Exclude SSA’s administrative funding from any cap that sets an arbitrary 

ceiling on discretionary spending. There is a $2.3 trillion trust fund for SSA to 

draw on for most of this funding. 

4. Remove SSA’s administrative funding from discretionary budget caps and 

provide a separate limit in the Budget Resolution. 

5. Pass legislation that withholds funds such as stimulus funds from states 

that furlough DDS employees. 

6. Pass legislation that would streamline labor intensive regulations that 

could save the agency millions of administrative dollars. This is especially true 

in the SSI program. 

7. Pass legislation to ensure a more consistent and thorough review of approved and denied disability cases. 

Conclusion 

The programs SSA administers are vital to our nation. John F. Kennedy said this 

on June 30, 1961: 

‘‘It is with great satisfaction that I have signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1961. They represent an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old-age, disability, or the death 

of the family wage earner. . . . A Nation’s strength lies in the well being of 

its people. The social security program plays an important part in providing 

for families, children, and older persons in time of stress, but it cannot recprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

150 

main static. Changes in our population, in our working habits, and in our 

standard of living require constant revision.’’ 

While we are facing a very severe recession we all want SSA to do its very best 

to continue to serve our nation by ensuring all Americans receive the benefits they 

paid for or deserve on a timely and accurate basis. 

We are very appreciative of your ongoing support for adequate resources for SSA. 

We certainly believe the American public has paid for and deserves to receive good 

and timely service from the Social Security Administration. Consistent and adequate resources for SSA are essential to ensure this. Increased investment in 

SSA is money well spent as the agency has a proven record of effectiveness and efficiency. In fact, from FY 2002 to FY 2008, SSA’s productivity has increased by about 

18.7 percent, which is an average of 2.7 percent per year. We look forward to your 

support for SSA funding in FY 2010 of at least the $11.6 billion proposed by the 

President. 

On behalf of the members of the NCSSMA and in support of the SSA Advocacy 

Group, I thank you again for the opportunity to submit this written testimony to 

the Subcommittees. NCSSMA members are not only dedicated SSA employees, but 

they are also personally committed to the mission of the agency and to providing 

the best service possible to the American public. We respectfully ask that you consider our comments and would appreciate any assistance you can provide in ensuring that the American public receives the necessary service that they deserve from 

the Social Security Administration. 

f 

Chairman TANNER. Well, let me, on behalf of the Members, 

thank all of you for your time and your attention to this matter. 

Let me assure you that your testimony will be gone over by the 

members and our staff in great detail because this Committee intends to be very active this year, and we may be asking you to 

come back in 6 months as we monitor what is happening. 

This is, as I said at the outset, is a national problem that has 

dire consequences for real people, and your devotion to this cause 

is admirable, and the Committee wants to thank you. 

Judge, you said something that struck me. I asked the commissioner when he was here if the error rate on electronic filing, was 

there was any data to support what I have to believe would be a 

higher error rate than if one who is making application can sit 

down and talk with a human being who is knowledgeable in these 

matters about it. His response was, if you were here, that they 

thought the error rate was about the same. My thought, if that is 

true, then maybe I don’t have a concern. 

But if it is not true, it seems to me that that is in itself clogging 

the system with inaccurate or erroneous applications that have to 

be pitched out before one can get to the merits of the case. Do you 

have a comment on that, sir? 

Mr. BERNOSKI. As far as the errors in the application and the 

errors of the type that the commissioner referred to, by the time 

that claim gets to the administrative law judge level, we are at the 

end of the food chain. Those types of corrections have invariably 

been made in the file. So we are not being burdened with that type 

of problem. 

But the electronic file does slow down the process as far as we 

are concerned in the way we handle the file. It takes longer to open 

up an electronic file than it does a paper file. It takes longer for 

the case to boot up when coming to the screen. It takes longer to 

turn a page electronically than it does to turn a page in a file. Also, 

it is more difficult to read electronic files. If you are going to—if 

a judge is sitting there or a clerk or any type of person sitting 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

151 

there, reads from a screen all day long, that has an impact on your 

eyes; it has an impact on the back of your neck. All of these problems have impacted on us and, in fact, has slowed down our ability 

to handle those files. 

Also sometimes the system just breaks down because there is so 

much traffic on the network that it can’t handle it or it slows down 

considerably. All of these things have impacted us. 

Now this e-polling is another problem that is going to have a dramatic effect on us, because that was a system that was implemented to pull the duplicates out of the file. Before, we had to do 

that manually when we had paper files. Clerical people had to go 

through and set up the case and remove the duplicates because we 

have an inquisitorial system. We get the evidence rather than the 

attorneys bringing them in. Now, electronically, if that system fails 

and we have to, in fact, kind of do it manually with an electronic 

system, it takes a much longer, longer period of time. And it takes 

about, I spoke with some of our people in our office before I left 

on Friday because I thought we would be talking about that today, 

And they said it takes about twice as long now with the electronic 

system as it did manually with the broken process. 

Chairman TANNER. Thank you. 

Mr. Warsinskey, do you have a comment? 

Mr. WARSINSKEY. I think part of your question was directed at 

the Internet claims which the Commissioner was referring to. And 

he said that the quality on the Internet claims, what you called 

electronic claims, is really good. The study I think he was referring 

to, indicated a little bit better quality than a claim that is filed in 

the office. And the study that they did, did show that. The Internet 

claims are usually a little cleaner than the average case that we 

get in an office right now. 

But the reason why the accuracy is good is because we review 

the cases very thoroughly. The claims representative reviews them 

before they are actually paid out or adjudicated. So that is why we 

have the good quality. We don’t have any claims going through the 

Internet right now without some kind of review to make sure it is 

paid correctly. 

Chairman TANNER. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have one or two questions. 

Mr. O’Carroll, how much of the work at local offices and hearing 

offices is completed using the Social Security computer system that 

he says doesn’t work? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Mr. Johnson, the vast majority of the work in 

SSA offices is done on computers. We are proponents of electronic 

service. We believe that using the Internet for applications is a 

wise use of technology. We are monitoring it all the time in terms 

of looking at the accuracy rate. We are finding it is very accurate. 

When a person is sitting down and filling out a form, they are putting a lot of thought into it. They think, they complete their application logically, and we find that that works very well. 

To give you an example, years ago, when somebody was applying 

for a Social Security card, they would sit down with a claims rep 

with a paper form and go through it. The SS–5 would be complted, 

and then it would be transcribed to an electronic record. Now, with 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

152 

the electronic SS–5 assistant, ieach step is electronically recorded. 

And then they ask for the applicant’s identification. This is making 

the application process for a Social Security card easier and more 

accurate, and we applaud the system. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the system is, I mean, you have got old 

technology in that computer system. Is that causing a problem, and 

does it ever go down? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Well, to a degree, yes it is causing a problem. 

And that is one of the reasons for modernizing the system. 

A lot of the front-end process, as an example, the SS–5 assistant, 

isn’t being done using the mainframe. It is being done using a server, and then that data is put into the mainframe, which is the old 

technology. This is one of the biggest problems. The front end is 

using the modern technology, while the older COBOL program is 

used at the NCC. If the NCC was updated, the process would be 

much more streamlined and quicker. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How about telling me what would happen in 

your opinion if there were a failure in the system? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Congressman, that is something that is of 

great concern to us. We have been looking at it a lot. We are very 

concerned. Regarding one of the questions earlier in the hearing, 

why has this degradation of the system just recently been identified? And it is quite significant. Our concern is that, if the system 

does go down, it is going to take a long time to bring it back up 

again. Yes, the records are kept. Yes, they are on tapes. Yes, they 

are in other locations. But it is going to be such a long process, and 

I think, as the Commissioner mentioned, if the tapes are brought 

to New Jersey, which is the current location, it takes about a week 

to 2 weeks just to bring in all the equipment, get it loaded, and 

get it running. 

As everybody knows, and one of the reasons we are concerned, 

is that the daily process of SSA, which affects many Americans, 

would be suspended for several weeks. And then, when you think 

about all of these benefit claims, until that system is up, they will 

have to be taken on paper forms. Then all those papers have to be 

uploaded into the system. So I do believe that having redundancy, 

having a second site that is identical to the Baltimore site is necessary for all of us to be able to—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. If it went down at the end of the month, people 

wouldn’t get their checks; is that true? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. No, sir. They would get a check. We have 

looked into that. They would use records forwarded from Treasury 

the previous month. Maybe some deceased people would also receive checks. Maybe some people that needed a check wouldn’t get 

one, but the vast majority would get a check based on the records 

of the month before from the Treasury Department.Mr. Johnson. 

So the Treasury has a second record; is that true? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Dr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t know who to ask, whether it is Mr. Fell or Dr. Bernoski 

or Judge Bernoski or whatever. I am reading these cases that Ms. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

153 

Hathaway brought in here, and I think that if you put two or three 

or four reasonable people around the table reading the cases, even 

these one-paragraph synopses that are given to us, in almost every 

case, we would say, this person is eligible for disability benefits. 

So when you tell me that there are 999 cases pending in Seattle 

for an average of 500 days, I ask myself, why is that happening? 

Explain to me—I mean, I was a witness. So I have been in your 

courts in the administrative law procedure on various cases. And 

what I don’t understand is, are they held up because it is little 

pieces of paper that aren’t there, and therefore, we don’t go ahead 

with them, and we put them off another month? Is that what happens? Or is it that these are such difficult decisions—I mean, if you 

read the case of Ms. T was waiting 29 months for a hearing. She 

had been diagnosed with borderline intellectual functioning and 

epilepsy. While she was waiting for her hearing, she exhausted her 

time limit on TANF benefits, lost her income. Her mother used her 

income tax refund to prevent foreclosure on the house. It doesn’t 

sound to me like there is any doubt that that woman is ultimately 

going to be judged disabled and eligible for benefits. So what is the 

hang-up in this system? 

Mr. FELL. The first part of it, probably Judge Bernoski on the 

disability part of it. 

Some of the hold-up is due to demographics. for instance, the 

Chicago region is so inundated where maybe the Philadelphia region and the San Francisco region are not. The Seattle region is 

heavily inundated. 

Part of the problem is getting to the files. We do have a process 

where claims are looked at when they come in. And if a flag goes 

up, they are given to attorneys to look at to see if there is a possibility of an on-the-record decision. Maybe it only needs one more 

piece of evidence. 

But what happens on a lot of these, I mentioned there are over 

765,000 requests; of those requests, over 400,000 are awaiting 

preparation for the judges to see them. And that—what Judge 

Bernoski talked about the length of time it takes to prepare these 

for the judge, that can be 4 to 6 hours, depending on the size of 

the case. That is where the huge backlog right now is. If they are 

not caught at first through this screening process, where we will 

often look at cases where people are 50 or over, then when they are 

finally discovered is at the point that the file is prepared or from 

offices where we do get something from a congressional liaison stating that, wait a minute, this person has got a problem. Here is 

some updated medical. 

So there are a number of things that can happen and we do have 

things in process to keep it from going that far. But there are so 

many cases in the system. If one gets through, they are not going 

to be discovered until they get to the point of preparation. 

Now, as far as the issue on the type of disability and should that 

be approved, I am going to turn that over to Judge Bernoski, the 

actual medical part. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. We have a thing on welfare claims on Medicare—Medicaid claims, that if they don’t, you know, happen in a 

certain number of days, they get paid anyway and they get money 

on top of it. They get the—the doctors get additional money and incprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

154 

terest because it hasn’t been paid, right? What is the problem with 

just letting these cases through and reviewing them, and then, if 

there is one, you can call them back? Is it that you can’t reclaim 

the money? Is that the problem? I don’t understand. Because somebody set up this Rube Goldberg system to keep from paying benefits. There is no question looking at it, coming in here again and 

again, we hear the same thing we heard last year. Why don’t you 

just—why doesn’t the system let them through? 

Mr. BERNOSKI. Well, I guess one of the process—reasons that 

we don’t have the system that you described is that is not part of 

the regulation or the law. So we couldn’t do it at least now. 

But the fundamental problem is that our system is overloaded at 

this point. We just have more work than we can possibly handle. 

That is why we need more judges. We need more staff. We need 

more money, as has been said repeatedly during the course of this 

hearing. 

Also, this is what we suggested in the course of our testimony, 

is that it would be helpful if we would have a mechanism in the 

system to look at the case more formally before it gets to the administrative law judge hearing. The Federal concept of that was 

part of DSI, where before the case would come to the administrative law judge, a person would have a function within the process 

that would look at that case and review it and determine whether 

it could be paid on the record, maybe a little bit of additional evidence would be needed to pay that case, but to pull all of these 

cases out of the system as early as possible and not allow them to 

move and progress until they get to the administrative law judges. 

We are doing it the slowest and most expensive way, because we 

are hearing all of these cases at the back end of the process, as Mr. 

Lewis said, at the back end of the process, with the employees that 

are making the most money—administrative law judges are probably one of the highest paid people in the system. And so we are— 

that is the type of system that we have put together where we are 

hearing the cases later by the more highly skilled and more highly 

paid people. Where we suggest there should be something earlier 

in the process to pull some of these cases out. That would help. 

That would help, we believe. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So you are saying it needs a total rewrite of 

the regulations of how the system works? The system is dysfunctional? 

Mr. BERNOSKI. It doesn’t take a total rewrite of the regulations. We could do a Federal system like we have now or we could 

build on what we have. We have staff attorneys and attorneys in 

the program right now where we could just expand on what we 

have got and give them that additional function where they would 

be doing this work earlier in the process. 

We have a senior attorney program now which does some of that 

work, but the problem with the senior attorney program that we 

have is that they look at the case and either—they either award 

it or it goes forward. The type of benefit from their expertise to 

help develop the case is not done. So the skill that they have and 

the knowledge that they have acquired and the analysis that they 

have put into that case is not documented to be passed onto the 

administrative law judge to help shorten the administrative law 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

155 

judge’s analysis. In fact, we are doing it twice under this current 

system. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Dr. Linder. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General O’Carroll, you mention in your testimony that they are 

moving to—you said the law units cost about $24,000 each, and the 

video conferencing on the desktop video would be about $8,000 

each? 

Mr. O’CARROLL. Yes, Mr. Linder. We are doing an audit right 

now taking a look at the effectiveness of it, whether the investment 

of putting in the video units is worth it. It is ongoing now. But, yes, 

it is expensive, and we are monitoring the costs. 

Mr. LINDER. A quick check of the Internet finds that a nationwide company offers a video conferencing camera that starts at 

$9.99 along with a free video conferencing calling to other network 

users. 

What do you think of that, Mr. Bertoni? 

Mr. BERTONI. I am not aware of that particular instance, but 

I guess your point is that, to the extent if they can find cheaper 

and as useful tools to get this job done, I think that should be the 

case. I think there are examples in this agency and others where, 

through the procurement and contracting functions, that hasn’t always been the case. But I would—hearing that, I would say if there 

is technology that is similar, does the same job, and it is cheaper, 

that should be looked at closely. 

Mr. LINDER. The last laptop I bought, it came with the laptop 

at no additional cost. Thank you all very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FELL. May I make one comment on that, please? I am actively involved in that. I have a number of video units in my office. 

We are installing a video spoke in Indianapolis, plus I am putting 

a desk top video in Madison, Indiana, shortly. We have a closed net 

IP. We have security issues, privacy issues. 

Also with the administrative law judge, the clarity of this system 

has to be as close as it can to an in-person hearing. So before we 

go on the cheap to put more in, we really have to make sure that 

this is the type of technology that we can use. The technology we 

have now on some of the 58-inch flat screens we are getting in is 

extremely clear. The desktop videos, true they are expensive, but 

the clarity is amazing. My chief judge has one in his office. He 

holds remote hearings with it, and he is very impressed with the 

clarity of it. So I don’t think we want to sacrifice the clarity and 

the ability of the judge to view what he needs and also the privacy, 

in making sure we have a closed net system. It would have to be, 

I think, very careful analysis before we went out and tried to contract outside. That would be my opinion. 

Mr. LINDER. I think if you looked closely, you could buy these 

things pretty secure and very large for a whole lot less than 

$24,000. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman TANNER. Your timing is impeccable. We have three 

votes, and we were supposed to be out of the room at 1:30. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

156 

May I, again, thank all of you very much. Your testimony will 

be carefully read. And if we have follow-up, I assume we may contact you with respect to any question we may have about your testimony. 

Thank you, Ms. Hathaway. 

Thank you all for being here. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

157 

[Questions for the Record follow:] 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.045
158 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.046
159 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.047
160 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.048
161 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.049
162 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.050
163 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.051
164 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.052
165 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.053
166 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.054
167 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.055
168 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.056
169 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.057
170 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.058
171 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.059
172 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.060
173 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING


50764A.061
174 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Statement of Cary L. Bartlow, PhD 

Since 1985 I have been an independent Vocational Expert (VE) providing expert 

witness contract services for the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review (aka ODAR). I am writing to ask for your assistance in 

getting answers to what has been, and continues to be a confusing and seemingly 

disorganized merry-go-round process affecting our compensation for Expert Witness 

services in ODAR Hearings. 

As you may know, the current rate for which we are compensated was set around 

1972. There has not been an increase in the amount the Vocational Experts are paid 

in over thirty-eight years. In 1972 that rate of compensation was very fair. Now 

some thirty-eight years later, inflation has almost completely eliminated any way 

to make a reasonable profit when providing these valuable services. Most of us in 

the Vocational Expert field have other job duties, and the work for Social Security 

is not essential to our practice. However, it remains essential to Social Security. The 

agency requires the use of an Independent Vocational Expert to provide vocational 

expert testimony in Social Security Hearings for many Title II and Title XVI cases. 

Through our work cases are expedited and move toward completion much faster 

than without our services. I fear some experienced Vocational Experts will find it 

necessary to cease their work due to such poor compensation. If this happens the 

SSA disability case backlog will increase ten-fold at a minimum. 

In order to do the Vocational Expert work one must have a College Degree. Most 

VE’s have Master’s Degrees. I have a Doctor’s Degree. I am a Licensed Professional 

Counselor, Certified Rehabilitation Counselor, Certified Vocational Evaluator, and a 

National Board Certified Counselor with over 38 years of experience. Yet we are 

paid at a piece-rate wage based on standards of pay established 38 years ago. The 

compensation paid by Social Security is not worthy of our training, education, work, 

experience, credentials or degrees. We hope you will agree. Undoubtedly many our 

your colleagues and staff would not remain long at a job if your pay was the same 

as 38 years ago. 

A task force headed by two distinguished colleagues, Mr. Scott Stipe of Oregon 

and Mr. Tom Dunleavy of Illinois, have worked hard to bring our request for an 

increase in pay to light. Finally, in August 2008 Vocational Experts were pleased 

and excited to learn in writing by SSA that the VE’s would all receive a long overdue and reasonable pay increase for their vocational expert services. The Vocational 

Experts were finally being recognized for their professionalism, patience and willingness to assist SSA in disability claims. 

The August 2008 contract offered for the SSA Vocational Experts, including myself presented a long overdue increase in compensation. We were asked to complete 

an application under the new BPA contract expeditiously; and VE’s across the nation did just that. The new rates and provisions of the contract were to go into effect 

October 1, 2008. Through our association, the International Association of Rehabilitation Professional, we posted the good news. Medical Doctors who serve as experts 

were also included in the long awaited increase. 

Curiously, some VE’s in other regions did not get the new contract, but were given 

yet another extension to the old contract. Everyone assumed that the new contract 

with pay increases would soon reach everyone across the nation. We patiently waited for the good news to happen in real life. The value of our essential services was 

finally being recognized and appropriately rewarded. 

On September 12, 2008, SSA sent another urgent message to the ODAR offices, 

stating that ‘‘all action should be stopped on the new contract.’’ The message stated 

that the contracts would be placed on hold until further notice, and the agency was 

currently in the process of assessing some possible changes to the BPA package associated with security issues. That was the only explanation we received. Another 

communication came from the ODAR Regional Offices on September 26, 2008 stating the deadlines had been lifted, and all VE contracts were extended through December 31, 2008. Nothing was mentioned about taking away the raises. 

A Status Update from the ODAR ME/VE Contractor Workgroup came on October 

9, 2008. The statement given was, ‘‘We want to reassure you that the new BPA is 

forthcoming. We must issue a new BPA to include PII language and fulfill the security requirements. We are also concerned about the BPA’s expiration date of December 31, 2008. We are speaking with Headquarters’ Executive Management and others regarding this timeline. We anticipate the release of the new BPA by the end 

of the month. Your patience in this matter is greatly appreciated.’’ Nothing was 

mentioned about taking away the pay raise. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

175 

The next communication received was an email on January 7, 2009 which stated, 

‘‘Greetings, attached is the newly updated BPA Contract’’. VE’s were shocked, dismayed, disappointed and angry that the newly updated contract was rescinded to 

the old 1972 rates, and this contract would be in place until September 2010. 

This insult was worse than a slap in the face. There was no explanation other 

than an email that was forwarded from ODAR stating that the August 2008 contract had not been approved. 

One cannot imagine that the contract had not been approved. One would naturally assume that it was PRE-approved prior to being offered to all VE’s across the 

nation. SSA does not just arbitrarily send out blanket contracts without approval 

first. The January 2009 contract made changes in the status of the VE being associated with any particular ODAR office. Changes were made as to how we report a 

monthly contractor invoice and request for travel reimbursement. Still yet other regional offices did not send out the January 2009 contract, but extended the VE contract until March 31, 2009. No reason was given for taking away our pay raise. 

None at all. And, to add to the insult we were told we would not be paid mileage 

for our travel from our office to the local SSA hearing site (unless it was over 50 

miles away??!!!). 

It is disconcerting to VE’s that we find ourselves left to slowly swing and die on 

the limb. Our contract is for a national service program. We were told that the funding did not come through for our contract because the SSA agency was under a Continuing Resolution. SSA knew they were operating on a Continuing Resolution went 

they sent out the original contract, the one that had our pay raise. So, this excuse 

does not hold water. 

Contract hearing monitors and reporters, who take notes and operate the recording machines, renegotiated their contracts during this same time interval, and many 

received substantial increases for this same period our contract was to cover. Many 

of them earn more that the VE’s; and they do not require but a high school diploma 

to do their work. Whereas, VE’s are a group of professional highly skilled people 

who have extensive training, education, certifications and years of job placement 

and job development experience. Most provide forensic testimony in state and federal courts. 

We strive for excellence in our field and take pride in assisting the Social Security 

Administration in carrying out the legal provisions under the Social Security Act. 

It is a genuine and reasonable fear that many VE’s will be less available to do this 

work as the compensation is no longer commensurate with what we deserve and can 

be earned elsewhere. Most VE’s are now angered, saddened, frustrated and disheartened with the recent events. 

To add to our distress, it has been learned Attorneys and Representatives for the 

Disabled Claimant Applicants are going to see their compensation increased!!! They 

do not even have a contract with SSA. 

I returned my BPA application for continuing VE services timely on the last day 

of January 2009. Then, get this, on February 15, 2009 I received a third and NEW 

packet to complete for the THIRD TIME. 

We need your help. I would appreciate any assistance that you can give me and 

my Vocational Expert colleagues concerning what is happening in the Social Security Administration as it relates to Vocational Expert pay and compensation and 

when we can anticipate an increase in compensation. 

Yours truly, 

Cary L. Bartlow, Ph.D. 

Licensed Professional Counselor 

Certified Rehabilitation Counselor 

Certified Vocational Evaluator 

National Board Certified Counselor 

Diplomate-American Board of Vocational Experts 

Certified Counselor for the U.S. Dept. of Labor 

Certified Counselor for Oklahoma Workers Compensation Court 

f 

Statement of Dorothea Bawks 

The Social Security Administration is inundated by Baby Boomers with disabilities. SSA employees can not keep up with the pace. They have not been given the 

resources to. We all need to cut back on many things. But one area which causes 

the SSA system to be continuously back logged has to do with the burden of unnecessary hearings. The ‘‘Back to Work’’ incentives are failing. These incentives have 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

176 

botched people with disabilities and the SSA system in general from a ‘simple to 

solve’ level. It has to do with the monthly amount of money an individual on SSD 

or SSI is allowed to earn in order to keep their benefits. Just to be clear, going back 

to work enhances persons with disabilities lives on too numerous levels to mention. 

However, when all an individual can manage is part time, the following built in failures need to be changed: 

Waive the earned income ceiling during the 3 months every calendar 

year when an employee receives 5 or 3 pay periods a month instead of the 

usual 4 and 2. 

Recognize that controlling one’s income is not always the purogative of the employee, particularly if the employee is new and has not yet earned the time off needed to take a week off from work three times a year to stave off losing their benefits 

by closely monitoring their income. 

Acknowledge that this restriction is more often than not an ‘unknown’ by the person with a disability. Who is telling them in advance? Many people with disabilities 

end up losing their benefits permanently because there was an extra pay period in 

a given month that caused them to supersede the monthly allowed earned income 

and had no idea they were breaking any SSA rules. 

Recognize that many of these people end up requesting hearings due to the fact 

they never received notice of this rule. As a result they did not make an informed 

choice and are miffed as to why their benefits have ceased. 

Recognize that discrimination by employers toward people with disabilities is still 

alive and well and that requesting three unpaid weeks off per year dually jeopardizes an employee with a disability in terms of employment retention. Many people 

avoid going back to work based on the intellectual sophistication of employer/employee agreements that would have to be in place in order to comply with this rule, 

or the fear of what would happen if they failed to acquire such an agreement. 

Choose to accept a third or fifth pay period three times a year without penalty. 

This will free up the Adjudicator’s schedules not only due to the lessening of appeals, but also due to the lessening of re-application for benefits which almost always end up in appeals as well. 

Make it retroactive, for people with intellectual or cognitive disabilities (especially 

mental illness which is loaded with cognitive deficits). This alone would free up 

thousands of people with disabilities to stop fearing and make choices to go back 

to work, ease the SSA burden in processing ‘earned income’ records, and allow the 

appeals courts to steadfastly move ahead. 

Finally, recognize with this one change there will be far less American Families 

who are homeless, or without health coverage, heat, food, electricity, and/or fuel. 

f 

Statement of Earl Tucker 

This is an outline of some of AFGE’s concerns at the Social Security Administration and some suggested recommendations to improve service to the public and reduce the disability backlog. 

Underfunding and Understaffing—— 

SSA is severely underfunded and understaffed. SSA budget is totally inadequate 

to provide the benefits that workers are entitled to receive. SSA budget for FY 2009 

should be at least $11.5 billion to allow SSA the resources it needs to provide timely 

SSA benefits to workers that have paid into the SSA trust funds. With the additional funding, SSA need to hire more staffing in all components (both in headquarters and all non-headquarters components) of the agency nationwide. In addition, we need extra staffing for field offices, DDSs and the Disability Quality 

Branches. SSA will also need to increase the size of the DDS Reconsideration Sections. 

Disability Improvements 

SSA should have dedicated staff specifically trained to handle DIB interviews. 

Specialized staff must be trained to better document and to probe for underlying developmental requirement to correctly complete DIB interviews done by field office 

employees. We need to prevent the grocery shopping attitude that sometimes develop here during the DIB interview. Without in-depth training, some employees 

feel that they are shopping for the cook but would like to specialize and know more 

about what is needed to better help the DDSs to properly adjudicate the DIB claims. 

Screening of ODAR Cases—Until the ODAR backlog is manageable, there should 

be at least one expeditious screening unit set up in each component performing discprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

177 

ability work to reduce the ODAR backlogs. These units should screen targeted cases 

without using ODAR’s templates, written decisions or Staff attorneys to adjudicate 

the medical aspects of the cases. While other components are screening cases for potential disability allowances, it seems premature to apply an ODAR legal standard 

when deciding a case at this juncture using the medical evidence. 

Prototype States—End all prototype states and reinstate reconsiderations in those 

states so that they will be done by the DDS instead of ODAR. We must stem the 

flow of unnecessary cases going to ODAR in the first place. Ending prototype states 

would do this and the DDS would do all reconsiderations. In addition, the DQB 

should sample up to 1⁄2 of all DDS reconsideration denials. 

Administrative Law Judge—Open up the opportunity to get into the ALJ position 

to all SSA employees who are not lawyers but have disability experience. As you 

know, at one time most of SSA employees who adjudicated claims were lawyers but 

SSA found out that they did not need lawyers to adjudicate initial SSA claims. The 

same should be true for appeals. We don’t think you need to be a lawyer to hear 

each and every appeal. Therefore, employees with disability experience should have 

the opportunity to become non-attorney hearing officers. 

The above represents our thinking on ways to help clear some of the disability 

backlog. 

Service Delivery Comments 

SSA’s new unwritten plans to deliver service to the public can only be done at 

the expense of dedicated employees and quality assurance. Quality has disappeared 

mainly because of the so called ’budget constraint’(underfunding and understaffing). 

It appears, SSA thinks they can hide behind budget constraints to reduce employees 

further and hinder premium progress. Now SSA is developing guises and schemes 

to increase production instead of training all employees for one-stop shopping to delivering quality service to the public. 

SSA needs to get back to its mission ‘‘to provide the correct check, to the correct 

person in the correct amount.’’ SSA needs to recognize that we do not provide a commodity to the public. We are providing them with their ‘‘income’’ to survive in this 

turbulent economic time. SSA was at one time a first class agency who recognized 

that we dealt with individuals and their very specific needs and concerns. Social Security applicants and beneficiaries are not just anonymous voices at the end of a 

phone line or internet applications. 

Before we go into the guises and schemes, We need to draw a parallel example. 

Years ago, when you flew you were served food even in economy section of a plane. 

Now you have to buy meals in the economy section, if food is available on your flight 

in the first place. AFGE believes that this is where SSA is headed even though we 

are not in business to make a profit like the airline industry. 

In order to cope while underfunded and understaffed, some of the most recent 

guises and schemes seems to be as follows: 

1. SSA’s total lack of trust for employees when requesting unexpected time 

off—In some components, many employees are not respected and valued by SSA 

especially when they need unforeseen time off work for any personal reason including emergencies. They are requiring employees to bring some type of documentation before final approval of the unexpected leave. If the time is granted, 

SSA has threaten to investigate the authenticity of the document that they required the employee to obtain. 

2. Recording 800# calls—SSA is changing the philosophy and tradition of 

never recording 800# calls. Now SSA wants to shorten the length of calls by recording the calls to maximize production for each 800# agent. In the past, employees were allowed to take the necessary time and get each call right in order 

to provide quality public service. SSA plans to start recording all calls to the 

800# in the near future. For over 20 years, SSA has utilized monitoring and 

observation of 800# employees to rate the service delivered by telephone. As a 

result SSA has the best 800# system in the world with a 96.7% accuracy rate 

for calls affecting payments in answering the concerns of the public. But according to SSA, 96.7% payment accuracy is not good enough because they want to 

utilize the recordings to shorten the length of calls and to discipline employees 

for extended calls. Overall, AFGE sees this as creating a more hostile work environment and an attempt to reduce the number of employees and shortchange 

the public. 

3. Internet On Line Applications—SSA plans to have the public complete 

their own application for SSA benefits without human intervention or a face to 

face interview. The SSA programs are very complicated. Without SSA experience, the public can not answer many of the questions on the application corcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

178 

rectly such as month of election, lag wages, onset date, worker comp, railroad 

earnings, military service credits, resources etc. It takes an employee at least 

three years to learn any one of the three SSA programs. AFGE believes the 

public deserves quality service from experienced employees to get the correct 

benefits upfront. In addition, we believe fraud waste and abuse will run rampant without human intervention in the internet online application process. Identity thieves and hackers are major problems in our society and the limited proof 

requirements built into the system will not detect fraud, waste, and abuse. The 

Agency is ignoring the fact that the general public is extremely reluctant to deal 

with either individuals over the phone or an internet process that they cannot 

trust. There have been too many instances of vulnerable beneficiaries being 

preyed upon by bogus individuals and companies both on the phone and online 

all to ready to divest them of their limited benefits. The Agency is failing to 

realize the value of the frontline Field employees who not only provide a human 

face to Social Security but also provide service, preserve privacy, prevent fraud 

and instill confidence in a program that serves a large part of the general populace. 

3. Virtual Environment—SSA plans to eliminate the 10 distinctive regional 

lines in Office of Quality Performance (OQP) for a virtual environment. This 

means that a beneficiary’s case in Chicago, Illinois can be reviewed by employees in any location. This elimination could do away with the regional validity 

of our quality performance findings. Therefore, the findings would most likely 

be national leaving out regional findings. AFGE believes that SSA wants to manipulate staffing with this virtual environment. In locations that are more productive, SSA will put more staffing in those locations and less in others creating 

a hostile environment everywhere. 

4. Pre-effectuation Reviews (PER)—OQP reviews 50% of all allowances made 

by the Disability Determination Services (DDS) before payments are made. This 

review saves the trust fund over $600 million per year. SSA is looking for way 

to reduce DDS complaints. The DDSs complain about our reversals which in the 

end save money in the trust fund. SSA is now doing a cursory review instead 

of a complete review on some of these cases. SSA is investigating new ways to 

reduce, revise or stop these cost saving reviews even though they are mandated 

by Law. The proposed PER review changes need thorough investigation, and 

should be bargained with AFGE. SSA is now doing a cursory review of some 

PER cases that may be less likely to have a high return rate. They want to put 

the focus on reviewing claims where, in management’s words, they get ‘‘more 

bang for the buck.’’ Namely, cases where younger individuals might collect over 

more years. This is not only discriminatory against younger individuals in a 

program that is supposed to serve all citizens, equally, but it also circumvents 

the intent of PER review established by Congress. PER was intended to be a 

way for the Agency to protect it’s ‘‘integrity’’ and the viability of the funds that 

it was entrusted to distribute. By conducting PER reviews the Agency is able 

to provide a visible savings of Trust Fund monies and able to demonstrate that 

it can do a system of checks and balances on itself. To attempt to ‘‘water down’’ 

PER and it’s proven value over the years by limiting it’s impact is self defeating 

not only for Social Security but also for the dwindling Trust Fund. 

Staff was told that the time savings in the cursory reviews would be used to allow 

OQP to accomplish other agency goals, such as adjudicating ODAR cases at the ALJ 

level. This is not even a part of the OQA mission, and should not be implemented 

unless employees receive adequate compensation for performing work that ODAR 

staff attorneys often do. Management has circumvented the need for bargaining on 

this issue because they claim there is a ‘‘de minimis’’ impact on employees. This is 

a ridiculous argument since it completely changes the focus of our work. 

Recommendations: 

1. SSA’s funding and staffing must be increased dramatically. 

2. We also strongly recommend more training and promotions—To improve 

service delivery to the public, all employees must be trained to provide ‘‘one 

stop’ shopping. One stop shopping means that any employee can process an action to completion without referrals. Currently, one stop shopping does not exist 

for some employees because they have not been fully trained. As a result, many 

employees have to refer the work to someone else to process due to lack of training. To train everyone to provide one stop shopping could be expensive because 

this will require some promotions. However, we don’t think SSA has much of 

a choice in providing one stop shopping if they want to improve service delivery 

to the public in an electronic environment. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

179 

3. Ratio of employees to management—The ratio of employees to management 

is quite high at SSA. It varies from component to component. It is lower than 

3 to 1 ratio in some components and as high as 20 to 1 in others. Even officials 

with such a low number of employees seldom process initial case work, with the 

exception that they evaluate a small sample of the work done by the 5 employees. The ratio should be much higher in all components with proportions less 

than 20 to 1. There should be a standard, across the board, consistent, management/employee ratios in SSA. OQP differs wildly from region to region. There 

should be delayering of this complicated and inconsistent management structure, with fewer middle managers especially program leaders. SSA has about 

200 Program Leaders in the Office of Quality Performance that are suppose to 

function as team Leaders or program technical assistants to other employees. 

If these employees are, in fact, leaders in the program then they should be 

working cases when they are not providing technical assistant where needed. 

Since these employees very seldom work a case from start to finish they are not 

leading anybody in the program or performing the public business as the leaders. These Program Leaders are not in the bargaining unit even though they 

do not perform any supervisory functions. Also, in my opinion they do not perform any other function that would preclude them from being members of the 

bargaining unit. In other components of SSA, program leader type positions are 

called team leaders or technical assistants and they are in the bargaining unit, 

but not in the OQP unit. The OQP program leaders should be in the bargaining 

unit to process the work of the public instead of performing unnecessary management related assignments. Basically, the Program Leaders, rightfully, should 

be processing actual cases and leading the team as members of the bargaining 

unit 

4. Flexiplace/Telework—Since around 2001, SSA’s has allowed a few employees to work at home from 1 to 2 days a week. Up until now, flexiplace had been 

one of the most productive programs at SSA. SSA is denying employees the 

same access to SSA computer systems that they granting to the public and their 

representatives. SSA must expand the number of days to work from home and 

allow employees access to SSA computer systems from home as well. 

The restriction of flexiplace does not follow federal guidelines on federal workforce telecommuting, which were passed in order to allow for fewer commuters, 

contributing to energy savings and greater work productivity 

5. Information Technology—SSA’s cost for information technology is steadily 

rising without any quality reviews to ensure the health of these system expenditures. The OQP in SSA should have certified programmers on staff to perform 

quality reviews in all areas of information technology especially since information technology is requiring more and more of SSA resources. In addition, SSA 

needs more IT resources to get rid of COBOL and other antiquated software. 

Finally, AFGE believes SSA’s management philosophy is that electronic and technological advances should somehow automatically eliminate employees and drastically reduce the amount of time that is needed to process it complex work. AFGE 

disagrees with that philosophy which is not supported by objective evidence from 

the workplace. 

SSA should model its service delivery in a similar fashion to that of those cities 

that have provided pedestrians with a better method to cross busy intersections. In 

those cities walk lights have second counters on them to let pedestrians know when 

they are running out of time to navigate the street crossing. This technology has 

cleared the intersection of pedestrians being caught in the middle of the street after 

the light changes. It is important to realize that cities installed these second timers, 

but did not reduce the amount of time for pedestrian to cross the intersection. I recommend that SSA take advantage of these electronic and technological advances 

without reducing the amount of time needed to deliver services. If employees are 

given the same amount of time to process SSA’s work, the efficiency will become 

self evident. 

It seems to AFGE that SSA is acting like a corporation trying to make a profit 

instead of attempting to deliver world class quality service to the public. To think 

of ourselves as a corporation where reviews are supposed to be tailored to bring 

‘‘more bang for the buck’’, is totally inappropriate. We are a government agency that 

is supposed to deliver to our citizens, applicants, and beneficiaries information, advice, and benefits that they are entitled to. We believe management has lost sight 

of Social Security’s mission to serve the public and administer the program in a fair 

and equitable manner. Without proper planning inclusive of employee/union participation, staffing, training, funding, and management commitment to service of the 

public, Social Security will continue to fail in its attempts to address the problems 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

180 

of rising applications, the backlog of disability related appeals, and addressing the 

information technology needs of the workforce and the public they serve. 

Earl Tucker 

President 

AFGE Council 224 

f 

Statement of Georgina Huskey, 

National Association of Disability Examiners 

Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Congressman Johnson, Congressman 

Linder, Members of the Subcommittee on Social Security and Members of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support: This hearing was called for the 

purpose of reviewing the Social Security Administration’s response in addressing the 

critical issue of the increasing backlogs of disability claims and how additional stimulus funding could improve service. The National Association of Disability Examiners (NADE) appreciates this opportunity to submit comments on this important 

subject. We have had similar opportunities in recent years to address this subject 

before your committees and we commend the Subcommittees, their respective Chairmen, and their Members for their continuing oversight of this important issue. 

Who We Are 

NADE is a professional association whose purpose is to promote the art and 

science of disability evaluation. The majority of our members work in the state Disability Determination Service (DDS) agencies adjudicating claims for Social Security 

and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. As such, our members constitute the ‘‘front lines’’ of disability evaluation. However, our membership 

also includes SSA Central and Regional Office personnel, attorneys, physicians, non 

attorney claimant representatives, and claimant advocates. It is the diversity of our 

membership, combined with our extensive program knowledge and ‘‘hands on’’ experience, which enables NADE to offer a perspective on disability issues that, we believe, is both unique and reflective of a programmatic realism. 

NADE members—throughout the DDSs, SSA Regional Offices, SSA Central Office, ODAR offices and throughout the private sector, are deeply concerned about the 

integrity and efficiency of both the Social Security and the SSI disability programs. 

Simply stated, we believe those who are entitled to disability benefits under the law 

should receive them; those who are not, should not. We believe decisions on disability claims should be reached in a timely, efficient and equitable manner. The 

continuing backlogs in disability claims are an embarrassment to SSA, to DDSs, to 

Field Offices, to ODAR, and they are a nightmare to those waiting for a decision. 

NADE members are very appreciative of the support Members of the House Ways 

and Means Committee have provided to SSA for so many years. Your recognition 

of the critical need for adequate resources at SSA, and your willingness to accept 

a leadership responsibility on this matter, has resulted in vital funding urgently 

needed for SSA. We greatly appreciate the support for funding at a level above the 

President’s proposed FY 2009 budget and for the $1.092 billion in funding included 

for SSA in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We hope you will 

also support the President’s FY 2010 Budget Request of $11.6 billion for SSA’s administrative expenses. 

The Problem 

The Social Security Administration is facing an unprecedented backlog of more 

than 1.3 million claims for Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. The backlog of claims seems to be particularly problematic at the 

hearings stage, where the backlogs have more than doubled since 2000—from about 

310,000 claims to more than 765,000—and the average waiting time per claim has 

soared to nearly 500 days. Even at the DDS level, where few backlogs are publicly 

reported and where the average processing time for an initial claim is nearly 100 

days, the stark reality is that there are tremendous backlogs pending. Just because 

disability claims have been assigned does not mean they are being worked and disability examiners who carry caseloads two, three and even four times the number 

deemed reasonable are, in essence, housing a backlog of claims at their desk. Unfortunately, this backlog of claims can lead to mistakes in case development and contribute to mistakes in judgment, resulting in the potential for erroneous decisions. 

As we have duly noted in our previous testimony, the time required to process 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

181 

claims grows longer at each stage of the claims process and claimants who are denied at the initial level often find themselves waiting years for a final decision from 

the Agency on their appeal. No one within SSA, within the DDSs, within Congress 

and certainly no one among the public will claim this represents good customer 

service. 

Addressing the Backlogs 

Addressing the backlogs in disability claims is a high priority for NADE. However, 

of equal concern is the average time it takes to process a claim, now 89 days for 

an initial claim pending at the DDS and nearly 500 days at the hearing level. Both 

processing times are too long and many people suffer needlessly as a result of these 

backlogs and extended processing times. Individual conditions can worsen during 

these lengthy wait times and can even lead to death. It is critical that answers be 

found to effectively resolve the persistent questions surrounding the backlogs and 

reducing the average processing time at all levels in the disability claims process. 

In April, 2008, Representative Jim McCrery, a former Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee and then its ranking member, offered the observation that constant under-funding of the disability program by the Congress over the past two 

decades had contributed heavily to the current crisis. Other Members of Congress, 

including Members of these Subcommittees, have made similar public comments. 

These comments underscore a primary source for the backlogs while the other primary source has been the hard choices made by SSA during these past two decades 

to deal with the realities of inadequate funding and insufficient staffing levels. 

Faced with the reality of under-funded budgets and frequent staff turnover, 

caused in part by a heavy retirement wave that swept through SSA and the DDSs, 

SSA made some difficult policy and personnel decisions designed to permit the 

Agency to deal with the increasing number of claims with decreasing numbers of 

personnel. Quite frankly, many of these decisions did not produce the desired result 

and the Agency’s ability to deal with the increasing number of claims was diminished even more so. 

The growing complexity of the Social Security and SSI Disability Programs, coupled with the need to produce a huge volume of work, justifies even more the need 

for adequate resources in order to provide the service that the American public has 

come to expect and deserves from SSA. We have noted in the past, and we offer 

this reminder, that it takes at least two years for a newly hired disability examiner 

to become fully trained and proficient to the point they can function independently, 

contributing to the process of making timely and high quality disability decisions. 

Thus, decisions not to replace productive personnel when they leave can take two 

or more years to correct even after new hires are made. NADE has long maintained 

that it is critical for SSA to be provided with the resources needed to hire and train 

new staff that can perform these duties. Low salaries, hiring restrictions and the 

stress of the job have contributed to high turn-over in some DDSs. Given the hiring 

restrictions and inadequate resources placed on the SSA and DDSs, it is surprising 

the disability backlogs are not even higher than they are and that the number of 

claims processed has continued to increase despite inadequate funding and resources. 

SSA over the past decade has made at least three distinct attempts to redesign 

the disability claims process in an effort to create new processes that will result in 

more timely and consistent disability decisions. Our own Association has been consulted on these efforts and we have, in the past, offered public comment on the various attempts. Many of our recommendations, and those of other stakeholders, went 

unheeded and the result was often poorly conceived designs and/or poor implementation with the overall results of these redesign efforts undertaken by SSA being 

that they have not produced the results expected. In fact, in many cases, they have 

only slowed the processing of claims while employees adjusted to the constant 

changes. The impact of these changes has contributed to the inability to manage the 

high workloads experienced in the past decade and contributed to decreased efficiency of operations. We are pleased the current administration at SSA has shown 

an increased willingness to listen to stakeholders and to incorporate their expertise 

in their management and policy decisions. We believe this will have an important 

impact on the Agency’s ability to handle the backlog of claims. 

In FY 2008, Congress appropriated more money for SSA’s administrative budget 

than the President requested. This was the first time in 15 years Congress had 

acted so favorably and we are very grateful for this support. When one realizes the 

President’s budget has traditionally been much less than the Commissioner had requested, it is easy to understand how we arrived at this point and why the backlogs 

exist. The congressional action of FY 2008 is the first step in a long road back to 

management stability for SSA. The action taken by Congress regarding SSA’s FY 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

182 

2009 budget demonstrate the ongoing commitment Congress has made to finding a 

solution to this crisis. It now falls to SSA, and its components, to utilize these funds 

for actions that will produce the desired outcome. On behalf of our members, and 

all who have an interest in the disability program, we thank the Congress for its 

financial commitment. 

We do wish to caution that congressional and public expectations cannot be set 

to high initially. Years of constant under-funding cannot be undone overnight or in 

one or two budget years. However, we firmly believe that the additional funding will 

allow new hiring of staff and, where possible and where needed, payment for overtime for staff to reduce the backlogs. 

State Furloughs 

We also caution further against increased expectations regarding the value of additional funding provided by Congress because such positive action may be negated 

and, in some cases has already been negated, by actions taken in some states in 

their efforts to resolve their own budget issues. NADE has previously pointed out, 

and SSA and other witnesses have also pointed out, that some states have adopted 

hiring freezes and furloughs of state employees to reduce their expenditures. DDS 

employees, who are 100% federally funded and who have no impact on a state’s 

budget problems, have not, in most states, been exempted from these drastic actions 

in spite of heavy lobbying by SSA that the states should exempt DDS employees. 

NADE has previously shared with the Congress our resolution on the matter of furloughs and hiring freezes (resolution adopted by NADE January 15, 2009—available 

for viewing at www.nade.org). 

Recent statistics have shown that applications for initial disability claims have, 

not surprisingly, increased by 10% since the beginning of this fiscal year. Each 

week, the number of initial claim filings has increased from the week before and 

the number of new claims in calendar year 2009 is up 13.7%. The actions, taken 

by many states and being considered by others, have the effect of reducing the size 

of the workforce processing these claims or reducing the hours available for the 

workforce to process these claims. In effect, these actions will reverse the action 

taken by Congress to address the crisis in backlogs and lengthy processing times. 

If these state actions are not abated, then the disabled citizens seeking benefits will 

almost certainly face the prospect of even longer processing times and extended appeal times. We also note that the North Carolina State Treasurer, Ms. Janet Cowell, 

commented on March 24, 2009 that furloughs are not a long term solution and can, 

in fact, harm a state’s financial stability. Actions that can eventually lead to financial instability should require more long term examination and we call upon Congress to intercede on behalf of all state employees who are 100% federally funded. 

We recognize difficult times require difficult decisions but difficult times to not require foolhardy decisions. 

Potential Solutions to the Backlogs 

• NADE strongly believes the Single Decision Maker (SDM) process can help to 

alleviate some of the backlogs at the initial level of case processing. This part 

of the prototype effort has proven to be successful in producing high quality decisions and a time saver when processing claims. SSA should expand the SDM 

initiative to all regions and to all case types, not only to reduce initial backlogs, 

but to lower processing times at the initial level. We believe that, with the 

adoption of national standards for SDM and continued improvements in the 

availability of ongoing training for disability examiners, the SDM can represent 

part of the solution to the crisis of backlogs and lengthy processing times at the 

DDS. 

NADE absolutely supports the need for the expert medical advice in the DDS that 

is provided by DDS Medical and Psychological Consultants. However, such advice 

is best utilized on the more complex cases. Allowing these medical and psychological 

experts to invest their years of training and practical experience on cases where it 

is truly needed, instead of being used simply to sign off on simple decisions, can 

have a truly positive impact on the quality of the decision-making in the DDS which 

can have the positive effect of lowering the processing time for initial claims and 

diminishing the backlogs of cases pending at ODAR. 

• Continued increases in staffing at the Field Office, DDS, and ODAR are a necessity for any rational expectation that the SSA can address the backlogs. It 

is no coincidence the backlogs have occurred after a period of downsizing within 

SSA. Some downsizing occurred as SSA sought to utilize precious financial resources in other areas rather than filling vacant positions. With the expectation 

that new designs in service delivery would allow the Agency to absorb the workcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

183 

load with fewer staff, SSA chose to invest its limited financial resources into 

technology enhancements. The problem became magnified when the new designs for service delivery failed to produce the results forecasted and many of 

the technology improvements equally failed to produce the desired results. The 

Agency was literally caught with no back up plan in place. Recent actions to 

appropriate new and additional funding will likely produce positive results toward reducing the backlogs but these results cannot reasonably be expected 

until new staff has become adequately trained in requisite job skills to produce 

at the level necessary to make an impact. 

• SSA and DDSs will have to initiate the development of a career path for employees and adopt other employee friendly steps to reduce the increasing attrition rates that have robbed the Agency of its program knowledge base. As experienced staff walk out the door, either due to retirement or because of career 

changing decisions, SSA and the DDSs have struggled in many parts of the 

country to attract the kind of new hires that will keep the Agency at a level 

of competence required in its service delivery. Prior to the recent economic 

downturn, DDSs were reporting an annual attrition rate approaching 15% with 

more than 22% of newly hired disability examiners leaving by the end of their 

first year. The result has been an increasing lack of experienced personnel to 

process increasingly more complex disability claims and forcing the DDSs to utilize limited training funds to continually hire new staff, rather than provide ongoing training for existing staff. While anecdotal evidence suggests this level of 

attrition has diminished as a result of the economic downturn, it is reasonable 

to expect that, without proper planning and the development of proper career 

paths, the attrition will resume once the economy rebounds. 

NADE believes additional staff is needed in SSA’s Field Offices and tele-service 

centers. These are the ‘‘Front Doors’’ of SSA and people walking through these 

doors deserve the kind of service one should expect from SSA. Allowing phones to 

go unanswered and/or requiring people to wait so long in SSA’s Field Offices that 

many give up and leave because there are insufficient number of people to answer 

the phones or help them fill out the proper forms, is not the way government should 

serve the people. It is certainly not the level of customer service the Agency desires 

to provide. Field Office personnel also perform a valuable service in maintaining 

program integrity. 

NADE believes additional hiring is needed at the ALJ level, both in terms of support staff as well as the need for additional administrative law judges. We are 

pleased to see SSA has recently announced plans to hire additional staff at this appellate level and we caution that these additional hires, while expected to contribute 

to a reduction in the backlogs, will need time to become sufficiently trained and adequately prepared for the task. 

• SSA’s continued investment in technology enhancements will have an impact on 

the overall quality of the program and can be expected to produce a positive 

impact on reducing the backlogs. New initiatives in the exchange of health information technology (HIT), development of a new national computer data center, and other steps to modernize the Agency’s technology infrastructure will be 

expected to have a positive impact on the Agency’s ability to address the crisis 

of backlogged claims. 

• The increase in applications at the initial level and the increase in appeal filings can be expected to continue as long as the economy is in its current state 

of crisis. However, we believe the actions taken by Congress and this Administration will lead to a revitalization of our national economy and will, in turn, 

lead to a subsequent decline in the number of disability applications to a more 

normal level. 

• Other actions, such as shifting workloads to less busier offices, have been made 

possible by the technological improvements to date and we expect additional 

positive action in this regard. With fewer staff available, SSA has deferred some 

workloads. Although we caution this practice can have future negative consequences, it does enable the limited staff available currently to focus their efforts and concentrate on the backlogged claims. 

One Member of this Subcommittee posed the question, ‘‘We give them the money, 

why can’t they fix it?’’ The obvious answer, which we hope we have addressed, is 

that two decades of under-funding cannot be corrected in one or two fiscal years. 

We appreciate Congress now recognizes it has contributed to the problem and has 

acted to appropriate additional funding to correct past mistakes. We fully believe 

positive change will occur but it will not occur overnight and we ask that Congress 

and the American public to be patient while SSA acts to coordinate new levels of 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

184 

funding with appropriate management decisions regarding how this funding should 

be allocated. We encourage these Subcommittees to continue to provide the necessary oversight needed to insure that these funds are spent appropriately. 

Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) and Program Integrity Issues 

Limited resources in recent years have forced SSA to reduce the number of CDRs 

performed. Of concern to NADE is the past history of these types of actions and the 

resultant impact as the agency falls behind in these critical reviews. When a backlog of CDRs occurred previously it took a great deal of effort by all components of 

SSA to reach a point where CDR reviews were being conducted as scheduled. It took 

a significant number of years of dedicated funding solely for the purpose of conducting CDRs before SSA was current with CDR reviews. With the decrease in the 

number of CDR reviews done in the past few years, there is now a real danger the 

Agency will, once again, find itself in the position of having backlogs of overdue 

CDRs. Thus, it is possible the Agency will work itself out of one backlog into another. 

While there are increased administrative costs (including the purchase of medical 

evidence, claimant transportation costs and increased utilization of contract medical 

consultants) with the performance of CDRs, there is a potential for significant savings in program costs with the elimination of benefits paid to beneficiaries who are 

found to be no longer eligible for disability benefits due to no longer meeting the 

SSA Disability program requirements. The estimate is that for every $1 in administrative cost spent on conducting CDRs, $10 of program funds is saved. This historical ratio of 10–1 was evidenced most recently when, in FY 2008, SSA spent $281 

million to conduct a limited number of CDRs, with eventual cessation of benefits 

for 36,000 individuals, leading to program cost savings of $3.3 billion. While NADE 

agrees that it was necessary to decrease the number of CDRs done over the last 

couple of years given the status of SSA’s budget and the need to utilize staff to process other case types, this decision has repeatedly been described by many, including 

a former SSA commissioner and members of this committee, as ‘‘penny-wise and 

pound-foolish’’. It is essential to program integrity that CDR reviews be conducted 

in a timely manner to ensure that only those who continue to be eligible are receiving disability benefits. Dedicated funding has been shown to be the best means of 

SSA staying current with the CDR workload. NADE encourages this committee to 

recommend appropriating dedicated funding for CDRs to ensure this workload gets 

the attention it deserves. 

Anti-fraud efforts such as the Cooperative Disability Investigative (CDI) units 

which effectively utilize the strengths and talents of OIG, disability examiners, and 

local law enforcement, offer a visible and effective front-line defense for program integrity and serve as a visible and effective deterrent to fraud. SSA’s Inspector General attributed the success of the CDI units to investigate fraud allegations to the 

efforts of, ‘‘. . . those most qualified to detect fraud—DDS adjudicators.’’ NADE supports the continued expansion of the CDI units to combat fraud and abuse in the 

disability program. An experienced disability examiner can be one of the most effective deterrents to fraud and abuse. NADE urges Congress and SSA to take appropriate action to ensure the experience level in the DDSs can be maintained. 

5 Month Cash Benefit Waiting Period and 24 Month Medicare Waiting Period 

It is important to note that in Title II disability claims, persons found disabled 

under the Social Security Disability program must complete a full five month waiting period before they can receive cash benefits. So, a disability allowance decision, 

even when it is processed quickly, will not resolve the issue of having to wait five 

full calendar months before the claimant will be able to receive any cash benefits. 

NADE believes that requiring some individuals (Title II claimants) to serve a waiting period before becoming eligible to receive disability cash benefits while not requiring others (Title XVI claimants) to serve the same waiting period is a gross inequity to American citizens with disabilities. 

We are also deeply concerned about the hardship the 24 month Medicare waiting 

period creates for these disabled individuals, and their families, at one of the most 

vulnerable periods of their lives. Most Social Security disability beneficiaries have 

serious health problems, low incomes and limited access to health insurance. Many 

cannot afford private health insurance due to the high cost secondary to their preexisting health conditions. 

It has been proven time and time again that earlier medical intervention could 

help disabled individuals return to the workforce. Therefore, NADE supports the 

total elimination of, or at least substantial reductions in, the Five Month Waiting 

Period for Cash Benefits and the 24 Month Waiting Period for Medicare eligibility. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

185 

Summary 

The operational challenges facing SSA are substantial and are expected to become 

even more acute in the coming years as our society ages, as baby boomers continue 

to prove the actuaries correct regarding their forecasts of the baby boomers most 

disability prone years, as the economy continues to offer periodic setbacks, etc. Decades of inadequate resources for SSA, combined with increased workloads and less 

than desirable results from multiple redesign efforts, have not only caused backlogs 

in the number of disability claims pending at the initial and hearing levels, but has 

allowed existing backlogs to increase. Processing times, expected to decline with the 

introduction of new technology have, instead, increased due to sufficient resources 

in personnel. 

Recent increases in funding for SSA’s administrative budget can be expected to 

produce reductions in the Agency’s backlogged claims and lead to improvements in 

processing times at all levels. However, this new funding cannot, and will not, overnight, make up for mistakes of the past. The need to hire, train and deploy new 

staff will take several years before any realistic expectation that they will contribute 

significantly toward efforts to reduce the backlogs of claims. A variety of management strategies can be utilized to help diminish the backlogs and produce the desired improvements in processing time but these strategies will have future consequences. 

No amount of planning by SSA can reverse the negative impact on production and 

processing times caused by state hiring freezes and state employee furloughs that 

affect DDS personnel. Congress must support the Commissioner’s efforts to force the 

states to exempt DDS employees, who are 100% federally funded, from state hiring 

freezes and furloughs of state employees. 

The crisis of backlogged disability claims, while a significant problem, cannot be 

used as a reason to abandon program integrity initiatives. It remains critically important that the public’s confidence in the disability program not only be restored 

but maintained. 

A lot of effort has been made to improve the speed at which disability claims are 

processed and to eliminate/reduce the backlogs of claims. NADE agrees improvements are needed. However, we wish to remind the Members the 5 month waiting 

period for cash benefits and the 24 month waiting period for Medicare eligibility will 

negate the positive impact of faster processing times and reduced backlogs. These 

waiting periods should be eliminated or significantly reduced. 

No other agency has a greater impact on the quality of life in this nation and the 

American public will judge the ability of their government to meet their needs almost solely by the quality of service provided by SSA. Social Security can and must 

do better in fulfilling its promise to America and NADE stands ready, willing, and 

able to assist in fulfilling that promise. People with disabilities, already burdened 

by the challenges of their illness/injury, are often in desperate need of benefits to 

replace lost income. They deserve, and should receive, timely and accurate decisions 

through a fair and understandable process. Our challenge, and one which must be 

met, then is to ensure the disability determination and appeals process meets those 

criteria. 

f 

Statement of James F. Allsup, President, CEO and Founder of Allsup 

Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, and Members of the Subcommittees 

meeting in a joint hearing today, thank you for considering my written testimony 

regarding the Social Security Administration’s massive disability claim backlog. 

My name is James Allsup and I am the founder, president and CEO of Allsup, 

the country’s largest non-attorney Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) representation company. We have helped more than 110,000 individuals obtain disability benefits since 1984. 

The focus of today’s hearing is the SSDI system’s immense ‘‘official’’ backlog, 

which to date has been ably chronicled by members of Congress and the nationwide 

media. To get a true handle on the situation, however, much more attention needs 

to be paid to the even bigger problems that are looming. 

A Growing Pre-Backlog Crisis 

One way to think of the SSDI backlog is as a backed-up highway tollbooth plaza. 

Even if you add more lanes or find technological ways—like E–Z Pass—to speed cars 

through the tolls, you won’t break the blockage if too many other drivers are flooding the highway to take their place. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

186 

This is the situation now facing the Social Security Administration. Almost threequarters of a million people with severe disabilities and without jobs are waiting 

for the hearings generally required to receive benefits. Unfortunately, behind that 

group, another half million applicants were already moving into the system’s ‘‘prebacklog’’ of claims last year. The irony is that after a very, very long wait with at 

least one rejection, most eventually will be awarded the benefits they deserve. 

Social Security employees are working as hard as they can to help people who deserve care, but there is simply no way for them to keep up when so many individuals with disabilities are ready to take the place of those who get through the system. 

Recession Increases the Challenge 

The recession is making things even worse. Allsup recently reviewed data from 

recessionary periods during the past 40 years and found that Social Security Disability Insurance claims typically increase when times get tough. 

The 40-year analysis includes the current recession, which began in December 

2007, according to National Bureau of Economic Research data. Applications have 

increased during six of the seven recessions in that timeframe (January 1980 to 

July 1980 being the lone exception). Overall, the number of disabled workers applying for Social Security Disability Insurance grew to 2.3 million from 725,200 in 

1969. 

The current period is following that pattern. Commissioner Michael Astrue stated 

earlier this year that his agency is facing an unanticipated 10 percent increase in 

its disability claims caseload. That’s 250,000 additional cases the SSA needs to review, further bogging down the system. 

At this point, there are those who would write those increases off as simply a 

problem of fraud. They ask, fairly, why someone who was truly disabled did not 

apply for benefits before the job market slowed down and it became much harder 

to find work. 

Unqualified applicants certainly can place a burden on the system, although there 

is a difference between individuals with disabilities who do not understand the technical requirements for eligibility, and out-and-out fraud. This is one way companies 

like Allsup help the SSA. Our system pre-screens applicants to ensure likely eligibility before they submit their claims. 

However, it is not true that the recent application increase is simply an issue of 

fraud. As tough as the disability application process is, it’s no surprise so many people try to avoid it at all costs. A process that involves years of tests, hearings and 

mountains of complicated paperwork—all for an uncertain promise of help that 

could be years away—is not something most people will cheerfully take on. 

But when the economy takes a sharp downturn, new financial strains can force 

some people to realize they can no longer afford to live without the disability benefits they are owed. They may have been struggling to keep working with a progressive health problem and now lost their job. Perhaps the spouse who had been supporting the family suddenly loses his or her job. 

The sad truth is that the current economic downturn will affect the system for 

years to come. Today’s new applicants are tomorrow’s backlog. 

Searching For Solutions 

Over the long run, additional resources for the SSA are needed to meet the backlog challenge. Unfortunately, the ‘‘long run’’ won’t help many of today’s applicants. 

The good news is that a simple, cost-free step could make an immediate difference 

in the problem. 

Because applicants often don’t know help is available, too many initial claims are 

denied for simple mistakes that have nothing to do with the applicant’s disability 

status. In other cases, applicants who don’t meet the standards for disability—but 

might if their conditions worsen over time—bog down the system when a simple 

pre-screening qualification process would let them know they aren’t ready yet. 

Congress and the President should therefore immediately direct the Social Security Administration to notify applicants that they have options for getting help in 

pursuing their claims. This includes ‘‘outside help,’’ from organizations like Allsup 

or attorneys. 

This really isn’t an unusual concept as expert disability representatives work very 

much like professional tax preparers to help guide applicants through a government 

approval process, comply with the rules and laws, and get the benefits they deserve. 

By the time applicants reach the hearing level, about 90 percent are receiving assistance. Disability representatives can help solve the SSA’s growing pre-backlog 

problem by working to ensure more applicants have help from the beginning. The 

Internal Revenue Service has for many years supported the concept that outside ascprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

187 

sistance is valuable to both the individual and the agency. The same approach could 

work well for the SSA. 

In addition, the SSA could attack the backlog directly by increasing the use of onthe-record hearing decisions for qualified claimants, which eliminate the need for 

oral hearings in two-thirds of our cases. Allsup pioneered the use of on-the-record 

hearing decisions for qualified claimants. When an on-the-record hearing decision is 

warranted, we prepare all the evidence, write the legal brief and submit a well developed and accurate claim to a judge for a decision. 

This process has been effective for moving qualified claimants through the process. Approximately 70 percent of Allsup claims that reach the hearing level are approved on the record. Judges are able to make sound, informed decisions and cut 

off months in the processing time of an application. Not only does the individual 

avoid the hearing backlog, the decision is made quickly. 

Collaboration, Not Privatization 

I emphasize that this proposal is not a step toward privatization. It is a way for 

government to leverage the existing capabilities of expert disability representatives 

to immediately and positively affect the disability backlog. 

Literally hundreds of thousands of government worker-hours could be saved if 

every application processed by the Social Security Administration was professionally 

documented before it was submitted. 

Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, and Members of the Subcommittees, I 

commend you for holding this hearing to raise awareness of these issues. Thank you 

again for the opportunity to provide testimony. I look forward to working with you 

to address this growing crisis. 

f 

Statement of John Yent, Louisiana Committee of 

Social Security Vocational Experts 

My name is John Yent. I want to thank the Subcommittee for inviting public comment on the record for the March 24, 2009 hearing on the Social Security Administration’s efforts to address the disability hearings backlog. I am submitting this letter on behalf of the Louisiana Committee of Social Security Vocational Experts 

(LCSSVE). The issues which you will discuss on March 24th are of great importance 

to claimants, to beneficiaries, their representatives, Administrative Law Judges 

(ALJs) and the independent Social Security Vocational Experts (SSVEs or VEs) who 

are an integral part of the disability adjudication process. 

The Louisiana Committee of Social Security Vocational Experts is a group of independent vocational experts who provide vocational evidence in proceedings before 

the Social Security Administration (SSA) Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR). Our current membership of 33 VEs in Louisiana, shares the goals and 

concerns of more than 100 VEs in Region 6 of SSA and approximately 800 VEs nationwide. We are committed to the highest quality vocational expert services in 

these critical proceedings. 

I am the Coordinator of LCSSVE. While recently undertaking this position, I have 

also provided vocational expert services to SSA/ODAR since 1997 and I have provided VE testimony in more than 3,500 Social Security disability hearings. My experience in private practice vocational rehabilitation and expert witness services includes thousands of clients since 1986. I have evaluated and assisted clients with 

the full spectrum of vocational rehabilitation services and job placement in the labor 

markets of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and California. Beyond a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree, I am a Louisiana Licensed Rehabilitation Counselor 

(LRC), nationally board-certified as a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC), and 

Diplomate of the American Board of Disability Analysts. All of the members of 

LCSSVE are similarly qualified and provide services to SSA/ODAR at hearing offices located in Alexandria, Metairie, New Orleans, and Shreveport, LA. We are 

proud partners with SSA. 

VEs are closely following developments at SSA, ODAR, and the budget affecting 

the disability backlog. We understand the enormity of the task facing ODAR adjudicating the disability backlog of over 700,000 claims as well as the pressures on 

Hearing Offices to produce decisions. Increased utilization of VEs is essential to reducing that backlog. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

188 

1 20 CFR § § 404.1566(e), 416.966(e); SSR 00–4p. 

2 1972 is an estimate of its introduction. Official SSA Historian, Mr. Larry DeWitt, has not 

located this schedule’s debut date. 3See Attachment 1: ‘‘Congressional Pay Raises: 1789–2008’’ 

4 National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives website update 

(nosscr.org) February 11, 2009. 5 48 C.F.R. § § 15.402(a)(1), 15.403–1(c)(1), 15.406–2 and 15.406–3. 

6Social Security Acquisition Regulation System, Subpart H2301.102–4(c)(1)(i). 

7See Attachment 3:Inspector General Report A–06–99–51005, ‘‘Vocational Expert and Medical 

Expert Fees,’’ dated 8/21/2001). 8 ‘‘Use of Functional/Vocational Expertise’’ Project report dated 5/11/2007 (SSA Contract 

#SS00–06–60072) submitted to Robert Pfaff, SSA Project Coordinator, by Jennifer Christian, 

MD, MPH, Project Director of the SSDC Webility Project Team. 

As you know, VEs fulfill an important statutory role in the disability adjudication 

process 1 We provide the expert opinion and testimony at disability hearings which 

includes assessment of a claimant’s work history, analysis of claimant’s transferable 

skills to do other potential work, as well as current statistical data on availability 

of other work in the national and regional economy. We offer testimony in response 

to any number of hypothetical questions posed by the Administrative Law Judge, 

the claimant’s attorney/ representative, as well as the claimant. We also provide expertise in the form of interrogatories posed by Administrative Law Judges and Senior Attorneys with ODAR which expedite claims, often making a hearing unnecessary. VEs have a substantial impact on the decision-making process affecting billions 

of dollars in disability benefits and are essential for ODAR to accomplish its mission. In order to do this,. 

Having enough VEs for all of the adult disability hearings ODAR needs to schedule is a function of VE availability and of VE compensation. Examining the rosters, 

VEs are committed to SSA as evidenced by years—often decades—of reliable service 

each. VEs still on the rosters have continued to schedule hearings. The decision to 

be available for ODAR work has grown more difficult each year since 1972 2 when 

the current fee schedule was introduced. In the same time frame of 1970–2008, Congress approved pay increases for itself 21 times.3 SSA employees and beneficiaries 

have received numerous increases in this period as well, deservedly so. SSA has also 

approved compensation increases for claimant representatives several times, with 

another approved for June 2009.4 The only group not receiving a labor market cost 

adjustments as of March 18, 2009 is—ironically—the very labor market experts SSA 

retains to provide vocational testimony. For a VE to be available for ODAR hearings 

(payable at the 1972 compensation rates) means that the VE is turning down VE 

work in other non-SSA venues payable at 2009 market rates. Each year that market 

rates climb further away from SSA rates, highly experienced and exceptionally 

qualified VEs leave. The choice to stay is unsustainable long-term. 

The VE/ME Workgroup examined VE qualifications and market rates for their 

services. VEs have graduate-level degrees, maintain professional continuing education, national board certifications in our field, have state licensure (where required) and are practicing vocational rehabilitation counselors with ample private 

sector work (personal injury litigation, worker’s compensation, etc.). The ODAR disability adjudication process benefits from the knowledge base of VEs both from their 

private sector experience as well as experience in typically thousands of ODAR 

hearings. As with any occupational group, the number of individuals who hold themselves out as experts in the field and can function in a judicial setting to qualify as 

an expert witness is less than 1%. 

Retention of experienced VEs must become a priority. It is our understanding that Federal agencies should establish contract pricing per regulatory 

guidance using a variety of sources and techniques. Selected price methods and reasonableness of contract rates must also be documented.5 Further, we understood 

that the Contracting Officer and Project Officer are responsible for research and obtaining pricing data.6 Having researched the history of VE fees, we identified only 

one report. The Inspector General last produced a report on VE and ME fees in 2001 

referencing FY 1999.7 At that time, ODAR (then Office of Hearings and Appeals, 

‘‘OHA’’) had BPA contracts with 1,337 VEs nationwide. Payments to VEs were $21.6 

million dollars or about 3.1% of OHA’s then budget of $687 million dollars for FY 

1999. ODAR’s administrative budget has expanded vastly since 1999; VE fees are 

unchanged. 

More recently, a consultant report commissioned by SSA in 2006 and presented 

in 2007 suggests that the future direction of the adjudication process by ODAR involves expansion of the vocational expert role in a ‘‘medical-Functional/Vocational’’ 

(mFV) model 8 The authors of that report opined, 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

189 

9Statement of Sylvester J. Schieber, Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board, to the 

Committee on Ways and Means on April 23, 2008 ‘‘Clearing the Disability Backlog—Giving the 

Social Security Administration the Resources It Needs to Provide the Benefits Workers Have 

Earned.’’ 10Statement of Frank A. Cristaudo Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Social Security Administration, testimony before the House Committee on 

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, September 16, 2008 

‘‘To ensure that enough qualified mFV experts are interested in participating, and 

also that a suitable mix of professions is interested, increase the fees paid to be reasonably competitive with open market rates. The project panel believes that if fees 

are set similar to current VE payment rates, SSA is very unlikely to obtain the experts needed. Consider varying rates based on profession, expertise level, tasks 

done, and prevailing regional fee levels.’’ 

In real terms, the number of VEs has been steadily dropping with fewer highly 

experienced VEs choosing to renew their BPA contracts with SSA due to the stagnation of the VE fee schedule. It is clear that VE services are statutorily required and 

are actively sought out by Administrative Law Judges as VE testimony is essential 

at Steps 4 and 5 of the disability sequential evaluation process. However, the disability backlog will continue to grow if fewer experienced VEs are available to be 

scheduled for those hearings. 

We applaud the leadership of Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue to 

bring funding requests to the attention of Congress. The testimony last spring of 

Chairman Sylvester J. Schieber of the Social Security Advisory Board, to the Committee on Ways and Means, provided compelling evidence for greater SSA and 

ODAR funding, and for improvements to be made.9 Also in testimony again before 

Ways and Means in September 2008, ODAR’s Chief Administrative Law Judge, the 

Honorable Frank A. Cristaudo,10 further underscored the point that hearing office 

productivity is critical and staff attrition at all levels must be addressed with adequate funding. 

VE funding has not been mentioned in any testimony records we identified. 

As Chief Judge Cristaudo made clear, despite the best technology, and 175 newly 

hired judges in 2008, hearing offices still require appropriate staffing levels at all 

levels. Adjudication requires Judges to obtain vocational evidence from a VE at sequential evaluation steps 4 and 5, therefore appropriate budgeting for VEs is as important as funding for Judges, Senior Attorneys, Decision Writers, Schedulers, 

Clerks and Hearing Reporters. 

The Louisiana Committee of Social Security Vocational Experts respectfully requests the support and backing of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Social Security Administration 

and the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review to ensure the retention of experienced and qualified VEs to assist with the disability adjudication backlog. VE fees 

commensurate with market rates for VE services would ensure continued and expanded VE availability. 

We enjoy our excellent working relationship with the Social Security Administration, the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, and look forward to continuing that relationship for many years to come. Your response to these concerns 

is much anticipated and greatly appreciated. 

In conclusion, we thank you and all members of this Subcommittee for your interest in these issues. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. 

Sincerely, 

John M. Yent, MA, LRC, CRC, CLCP, ABDA 

Coordinator, LCSSVE 

c.c.: 

The Honorable Michael J. Astrue 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Social Security Administration 

6401 Security Blvd. 

Baltimore, MD 21235–0001 

The Honorable David V. Foster 

Deputy Commissioner, 

Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

Social Security Administration 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

190 

5107 Leesburg Pike 

Falls Church, VA 22041 

The Honorable Robert E. Emrich, Jr. 

Associate Commissioner, 

Office of Medical and Vocational Expertise 

Social Security Administration 

Oak Meadow Building 

6340 Security Blvd. 

Woodlawn, MD 21207 

The Honorable Mary Landrieu 

United States Senate 

328 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510–1803 

The Honorable David Vitter 

United States Senate 

516 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510–1804 

The Honorable Charles W. Boustany, Jr. 

United States House of Representatives 

1117 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515–1807 

The Honorable Steve Scalise 

United States House of Representatives 

429 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515–1801 

The Honorable Joseph Quang Cao 

United States House of Representatives 

2113 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515–1802 

The Honorable Charlie Melancon 

United States House of Representatives 

404 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515–1803 

The Honorable John Fleming 

United States House of Representatives 

1023 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515–1804 

The Honorable Rodney Alexander 

United States House of Representatives 

316 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515–1805 

f 

Statement of Joyce R. Shoop 

I am a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor working under contract to the North 

Dallas Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) to provide Vocational 

Expert testimony in Social Security Disability Hearings. I have worked for SSA/ 

ODAR for the past 17 years and have seen how the expertise of VE’s has helped 

move the cases along toward resolution. I have noticed that in the past few years 

there have been more and more hearings in which the onset dates have been 1995 

to 2000. These cases were still not decided after 8–14 years! In many cases, there 

were no experts on the cases when they were originally heard by the Administrative 

Law Judges, and had been remanded—in some cases, more than once. I understand 

the anguish this causes the applicant for benefits and the high cost associated with 

multiple remands. With the use of Vocational and Medical Experts, these cases can 

be adjudicated much more quickly and efficiently. It is my understanding that your 

committee is now addressing the problem of the enormous backlog of Social Security 

cases in order to decide how to resolve the issue and get the cases moving. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

191 

I would like to suggest that your committee consider how Vocational Experts can 

help in resolving this problem, and would like to call to your attention a situation 

that needs resolution regarding VE fees, which should free up our time to work 

more with the ODAR offices. As our fees are now, none of us can afford to work 

for SSA more than a few days per month because our other work pays two to four 

times more. SSA’s fee schedule for Vocational Experts has remained unchanged 

since 1972. A VE in 2009 is paid the exact same amount for services as a VE was 

paid in 1972. The current fee schedule is so old that even the official SSA Historian, 

Mr. Larry DeWitt, is unable to find the original ‘‘debut’’ date of the schedule. It is 

truly mind-boggling that any fee increase has been postponed for 37 years but it 

remains an undisputed fact. VEs began to organize a collective response to SSA approximately six years ago. SSA formed a VE/ME Workgroup to explore fee issues. 

By mid 2008, a preview of the new fee schedule indicated the increase was approved 

by SSA for the next VE contracting term set to coincide with FY 2009 (10/1/2008). 

In August 2008, the VE contract offer from SSA included the fee increase. I was 

so pleased, and completed my packet and submitted it promptly. Sadly, I was told 

in September that the fee increase had been put on hold and we would be getting 

an extension of our old BPA (Blanket Purchase Agreement). Realizing that SSA was 

operating under a continuing resolution with no approved budget for FY–09, I remained hopeful for the increase to come through when Congress passed a budget. 

I did receive an extension of my BPA for Oct.–Dec., and in December received another extension through March. Then in January, I received a new BPA application 

with the fees back at the old rates from 1972. Before completing the packet, I was 

told to disregard it, and wait for another packet (hope returned!). Then in March 

2009, I received another application packet again reinstating the 1972 rates, and 

taking away mileage and parking reimbursement unless we travel over 50 miles— 

a reduction in our contract! In addition, language was removed requiring a professional degree (Master’s or above) and licensure or national certification, which has 

always been the professional standard for service as a VE. This is further evidence 

of the lack of value that SSA places on the expertise that VE’s possess. Without this 

expertise, judges may make poor decisions based on poor quality testimony of less 

qualified ‘‘experts.’’ With this ‘‘slap in the face’’ for VE’s many are deciding NOT to 

renew their contracts and discontinue working for SSA/ODAR. In view of the landmark appropriation which SSA received for FY 2009 and the further projected 10% 

increase for FY 2010, there is no excuse for VEs to go any longer without the appropriate fee increase. I believe that if this increase is approved, we will see greater 

availability of well qualified VE’s and faster movement of cases through the adjudication system. Thank you for considering this recommendation of the VE/ME fee 

increases as part of your deliberations in your subcommittee hearing. 

Respectfully Submitted: 

Joyce R. Shoop, M.S., LPC, CRC 

Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor/Vocational Expert 

8350 Meadow Rd., Dallas, TX 75231 

joyshoop@sbcglobal.net 

f 

Statement of Linda Fullerton 

My name is Linda Fullerton, President/Co-Founder of the Social Security Disability Coalition, and it is with great sadness, anguish and despair that I submit 

this testimony to you today. I watched this entire hearing on the internet and as 

always, it was a source of major frustration for me. 

Call For Open Congressional/SSA Disability Hearings 

I was forced to watch this hearing on the internet, because my repeated requests 

over the last several years to testify in person, have been blatantly ignored. I have 

made it very clear in previous written testimony submitted for the hearing record, 

through faxes, e-mails and phone calls, to all the Congress people in my district, 

others on this Subcommittee, and many others in both the House and the Senate 

Committees that affect the Social Security Disability Program in any way, that I 

want to testify in person at these important hearings that directly affect me and 

others like myself. For some reason beyond my comprehension, you still will not let 

me do that. I have been following these hearings, for over five years now, and I find 

it deeply disturbing, and glaringly obvious, that not one panelist/witness selected to 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

192 

appear, is an actual disabled American who has tried to get Social Security Disability benefits, and who has experienced this nightmare for themselves. Unfortunately this continues to be the case with this hearing as well. While the witnesses 

you continually rely on may be very reputable in their fields, unless you have personally tried to file a claim for Social Security Disability, you cannot begin to understand how bad this situation really is, and therefore the panelists you continue to 

rely on are not fully qualified to be the only authority on these issues. 

As a result of my repeatedly denied requests to testify, it is my opinion, that you 

don’t want to know what is REALLY going on. I heard references during this hearing to a CBS news report from January 2008 which tried to expose some of the problems you have come here to discuss today. What I am sure you are not aware of, 

is that I personally was the source that initiated that whole investigative report, 

and since due to time constraints my interview air time was so limited, I plan to 

release my own video in the coming weeks on the internet, to alert the American 

people to the ugly realities of what it is like to try and get the SSDI benefits that 

they have been forced to pay for, and may never survive to actually collect. They 

need to know how the Federal Government continually breaks its social contract 

with them on a daily basis. It seems to me that if you do not have to face someone 

such as myself, that has barely lived through this horrible nightmare, and has had 

their whole life permanently devastated as a result of continued neglect of this program, we remain just a bunch of SS numbers whose lives can be destroyed without 

guilt. We are in fact, your mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, grandparents, friends, neighbors, and honorable veterans who have served this country. 

Something is severely wrong with this picture! 

When you question the SSA Commissioner at these hearings, why have you not 

ordered him to provide the data on how many Americans have actually died each 

year, or have been forced to use state provided services, while waiting for their SS 

Disability claims to be processed? Since the SSA also pays out a one time death benefit to a survivor’s family, and contracts out the medical portion of disability claims 

to the states who provide the Social Service programs that disability applicants 

often need to use, this data should be readily available if you bothered to ask for 

it. These are important questions that need to be answered, but it seems to me you 

don’t care enough about the disabled to ask them. How can you get an accurate handle on this situation without all the facts and appropriate witnesses who wish to 

testify? Who better to give feedback at these hearings than those who are actually 

disabled themselves, and directly affected by the program’s inadequacies! It seems 

you have forgotten that WE are the customers, and the SSA and Congress work to 

serve us. I find it hard to believe that these hearings cannot be scheduled in such a way 

that different and more appropriate witnesses could be allowed to testify. If you continue to do the same thing over and over again, as you have for the past several 

years, you will continually get the same poor results, which is exactly what is happening. You ask the same questions, of the same people, and wonder why there is 

little to no, improvement between hearings. There is a major piece of the puzzle 

missing—the customers you have been elected to serve—and until you really commit 

to getting the ALL the information needed to fix the Social Security Disability program, you are making decisions based on a lack of important information, which can 

be very detrimental, and the problems are going to continue to escalate, no matter 

how much money you put toward fixing them. As an actual disabled American, I 

ask again today, as I have in the past, that in future Congressional hearings on 

these matters, that I be allowed to actively participate instead of being forced to always submit testimony in writing, after the main hearing takes place. I often question whether anybody even bothers to read the written testimony that is submitted 

when I see the continued lack of results after previous hearings. I am more than 

willing to risk my very life for the opportunity to testify, should I be permitted to 

do so, since I believe so strongly in the importance of this program. In fact, I ask 

that you call another hearing, and allow me to be the sole witness, since the eye 

opening information I have to share with you would fill the entire 1–2 hours, since 

this program is so badly broken, and filled with corruption at every level. I have 

also come up with solutions to all the problems as well, which I would also be discussing at that time. 

I want a major role in the Social Security Disability reformation process, since 

any changes that occur have a direct major impact on my own wellbeing, and that 

of millions of other disabled Americans just like me. I also propose that Congress 

immediately set up a task force made up of SSDI claimants, such as myself, who 

have actually gone through the claims process, that has major input and influence 

before any final decisions/changes/laws are instituted by the SSA Commissioner or 

members of Congress. This is absolutely necessary, since nobody knows better about 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

193 

the flaws in the system and possible solutions to those problems, then those who 

are forced to go through it and deal with the consequences when it does not function 

properly. 

Social Security Disability Nightmare—It Happened To Me! 

Social Security Disability is an insurance policy which was created to be a safety 

net for millions of disabled Americans, and for many such as myself, it has become 

their only lifeline for survival. I have an inoperable blood clot and tumor in my 

brain, and suffer from several incurable autoimmune disorders that are too numerous to list, which have caused me to become permanently disabled and my condition 

continues to deteriorate by the day. I currently receive Social Security Disability Insurance/SSDI and Medicare. You can get even more detailed information about my 

personal horror stories, which are not for the faint of heart, on my websites: 

‘‘A Bump On The Head’’ http://www.frontiernet.net/lindaf1/bump.html Social Security Disability Nightmare—It Could Happen To You! http:// 

www.frontiernet.net/lindaf1/ 

SOCIALSECURITYDISABILITYNIGHTMARE.html 

I filed an SSDI claim in December 2001, was denied in March 2002 by the NYS 

ODTA (Office Of Temporary And Disability Assistance), filed an appeal, and then 

had to wait until June 2003, due to the severe hearing backlog in the Buffalo NY 

Office Of Hearings & Appeals, before my SSDI claim was finally approved. 

Permanent Devastation Resulting From The SSDI Claims Process 

Unbearable stress, severe depression and suicidal thoughts are very common side 

effects of the disability claims process. I know this not only from my own personal 

experience, but from thousands of others that have contacted me to tell me their 

horror stories. The abuse and worry that applicants are forced to endure, causes 

even further irreparable damage to their already compromised health, and is totally 

unacceptable. Due to the total devastation on their lives and health as a result of 

the SSDI claims process, use of the SS Ticket to Work program, or any future 

chance of possibly getting well enough to return to the workforce, even on a part 

time basis, becomes totally out of the question. Plus there is always the stress of 

having to deal with the SS Continuing Disability Review Process every few years, 

where the threat of having your benefits suddenly cut off constantly hangs over your 

head.Many are under the mistaken notion that once the SSDI benefit checks come, 

if one is finally approved for disability benefits, that everything will be OK. Often 

the devastation caused while waiting for SSDI claims to be processed leaves, permanent scars on one’s health and financial wellbeing as it did for me. Even though I 

won my case, I continually deal with enormous stress and face the continued looming threat of bankruptcy and homelessness, due to the cost of my healthcare and 

basic living expenses, and I do not qualify for any public assistance programs. After 

almost dying, and continuing to battle several incurable diseases, I had to wipe out 

all my life savings/pension money, and will never be able to recover from the financial, physical and emotional devastation that was caused, due to the enormous wait 

for my SSDI claim to be processed. Due to the 24 month waiting period for Medicare, (I didn’t become eligible for it until June 2004) I had to spend over half of my 

SSDI check each month on health insurance premiums and prescriptions, not including the additional co-pay fees on top of it. All the SSDI retro pay is gone now 

as well—used to pay off debts incurred while waiting for 11⁄2 years to get my benefits, and even though I am now receiving my monthly SSDI checks benefits, they 

are no where near enough to live on for the rest of my life. 

It is hard enough to deal with all the illnesses that I have, but then to have my 

entire life destroyed with the stroke of pen by a neglectful government employee, 

to whom I was just an SS number, is more than I can bear. So now, not only will 

I never recover from my illnesses, but now I also will never recover from the permanent financial devastation this has had on my life. I don’t know how I am going 

to survive without some miracle like winning the lottery. My ‘‘American Dream’’ will 

never be realized. I have now been forced to live the ‘‘American Nightmare’’ for the 

rest of my days, because I happened to get sick, and file a claim for Social Security 

Disability benefits, a Federal insurance policy that I paid into for over 30 years. I 

am now doomed to spend what’s left of my days here on earth, living in poverty, 

in addition to all my medical concerns. I will never be able to own a home, or get 

another car. My current vehicle which is on death’s door, is the ONLY method of 

transportation I have for survival. When things break down now, I cannot fix them 

and have to do without. I struggle every day to pay for food, medicines, healthcare, 

gas etc. having to decide which things I can do without till the next check comes, 

since I live strictly on the inadequate, monthly SSDI check I receive, always teecprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

194 

tering on the brink of disaster. This totally unbearable, continuing source of stress 

and frustration, is killing me. I did not ask for this fate and would trade places with 

a healthy person in a minute. I tell you this not for pity or sympathy, but so you 

can get an accurate picture of what is really happening to the most vulnerable citizens of this nation, whom you were elected to serve and protect. 

Social Security Disability Claimants Face Death And Destruction When Applying 

For Benefits 

I must report with great sadness and disgust, that all these hearings have not 

brought about much progress, if any at all, and things continue to worsen by the 

day.In our country you’re required to have auto insurance in order to drive a car, 

you pay for health insurance, life insurance etc. If you filed a claim against any of 

these policies, after making your payments, and the company tried to deny you coverage when you had a legitimate claim, you would be doing whatever it took, even 

suing, to make them honor your policy. Yet the government is denying Americans 

their right to legitimate SSDI benefits everyday and this is an outrage! 

I continually hear you talk about hearing waiting times 200 days vs 600 days, 

like it was nothing but a number. Everyday that a disabled American must wait 

for their benefits, is a day that their life hangs on by a thread, or worse yet, they 

do not survive. The stress from that alone is enough to kill anyone. Since it has 

been proven over the years that the average American has about two weeks worth 

of savings, anything over a 14 day waiting period in any phase of the SSDI process 

is totally unacceptable. Cutting hearing wait times down to even 30 days, is nothing 

to tout as some great accomplishment on your part, as it still puts claimants lives 

in jeopardy. If any other private company/organization operated with as poor customer service, and processing times that the SSA currently does, subjecting people 

to hours, days, weeks, months, and worse yet years, to get their issues resolved, all 

employees would be fired, and they would be shut down within weeks. Nobody 

would even attempt to give them their business, yet Americans are held hostage to 

the SSA since they are required to pay for their services out of their wages, and 

rightfully expect to get what they have paid for. This is outrageous when something 

this serious, and a matter of life and death, could be handled in such a poor manner. Common sense would also lead you to the conclusion, that there is a strong 

correlation between the crisis that disabled Americans face while trying to get their 

benefits, and the housing, and economic meltdown this country is in the midst of. 

I challenge anyone of you to try and live for more than two weeks, not relying on 

your assets (since many SSDI applicants lose all their assets while waiting for a 

decision on their claims), with absolutely no income, and see how well you survive. 

Also keep in mind that you are not disabled on top of it, which adds its own challenges to the problem. Based on my own experience, and the experiences of thousands of others which have been shared with me, and current conditions, I firmly 

believe that the SSDI/SSI program is structured to be very complicated, confusing, 

and with as many obstacles as possible, in order to discourage and suck the life out 

of claimants, hoping that they ‘‘give up or die’’ trying to get their disability benefits! 

The following statistics back up my statement: 

Some Staggering Statistics During 2006 and 2007, at least 16,000 people 

fighting for Social Security Disability benefits died while awaiting a decision 

(CBS News Report—Disabled And Waiting—1/14/08). This is more than 4 times 

the number of Americans killed in the Iraq war since it began. 

During 2007, two-thirds of all applicants that were denied—nearly a million 

people—simply gave up after being turned down the first time (CBS News Report—Failing The Disabled—1/15/08) PLEASE NOTE—I personally was the 

source behind these CBS News reports and was featured in the broadcast of 

‘‘Disabled And Waiting.’’ Two-thirds of those who appeal an initial rejection 

eventually win their cases (New York Times 12/10/07) In 2007 there were 

2,190,196 applications, in 2008 there were 2,320,396 applications (a yearly increase of 130,200 new claims) and as of March 2009 there have already been 

677,553 new applications (an increase of 113,784 claims for the January— 

March 2008 period) for Social Security Disability Insurance/SSDI benefits. 

There are currently over 1 million people waiting for their claims to be processed, over 154,000 of them are veterans, and many have been waiting for 

years! Nationally as of March 2009, about 61% of disability cases were denied 

at the initial stage of the disability claims process and it took from 100.5–106 

days for claimants to receive the initial decision on their claim. If a claimant 

appeals the initial denial asking for reconsideration, in all but 10 test states 

where the reconsideration phase has been removed, 85.4% of cases were denied 

and the waiting time for this phase was an average of 83.7 days. As of March 

2009 there were 761,772 cases waiting for hearings with an average wait time 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

195 

of 501 days. As of March 2009—266,951 hearings (35%) have already been 

pending over a year, and there are only 1042.67 Administrative law judges 

(ALJ’s), to hear all those cases, with an average of 685.70 cases pending per 

judge nationwide. If a claimant appeals an ALJ hearing decision to the Federal 

Appeals Council, the average time from request for AC/Appeals Council Review 

to Appeal Council’s Decision is 8 months. NOTE: It is not unusual to find cases 

pending for up to 24 months for various reasons. Cases pending longer than 24 

months are then considered for expedited processing. In 2006—71% of the 

88,907 cases that were sent to the Appeals Council were denied. In 2007— 

637,686 disabled Americans were forced by law to endure the mandatory 24 

month waiting period for eligibility to receive much needed Medicare benefits. 

Source: Social Security Administration Reports 

An Office of the Inspector General Audit Report ‘‘Disability Claims Overall 

Processing Times’’ (A–01–08–18011) released in December 2008, found that in 

2006, the average overall processing times for disability claims from the date 

of application to the date of denial or date of benefit payment (including any 

back payments), that had to complete all phases of the disability claims process 

(Initial, Reconsideration, ALJ Hearing, Appeals Council and Federal Court) in 

order to be resolved, took a total of 1,720 days to complete. In 2008 due to the 

severe backlogs at the SSA especially at the ALJ Hearing level, this overall 

processing time greatly increased and unless the SSA gets the proper funding 

and staff it needs to resolve the problems it is encountering, this trend will continue. Federal Disability programs have been designated as ‘‘High Risk’’ by the 

GAO every year since 2003 and continue to be on the GAO High Risk list in 

2009. NOTE: GAO’s High Risk list serves to identify and help resolve serious 

weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources and provide critical services to the public. Source: GAO–09–271—High Risk Series—January 2009 According to Health Affairs, The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, 2 February 

2, 2005: Disability causes nearly 50% of all mortgage foreclosures, compared to 

2% caused by death. ‘‘The escalating pace of foreclosures and rising fears among 

some homeowners about keeping up with their mortgages are creating a range 

of emotional problems, mental health specialists say. Those include anxiety disorders, depression, and addictive behaviors such as alcoholism and gambling. 

And, in a few cases suicide. 

‘‘Historically, research shows, rates of depression and suicide tend to climb 

during times of economic tumult.’’ ‘‘Studies show a strong connection between 

financial distress and emotional stress, including anxiety, depression, insomnia 

and migraines.’’ Excerpts from Foreclosures Take Toll On Mental Health—Crisis Hotlines, Therapists See A Surge In Anxiety Over Housing—USA Today— 

Stephanie Armour—5/15/08 AARP/USA Today: Health Care To Get The Hollywood Treatment—5/28/08—‘‘More middle-class people file for bankruptcy because of healthcare related expenses than for any other reason.’’ Market Watch: 

Illness And Injury As Contributors To Bankruptcy—February 2, 2005—found 

that: Over half of all personal U.S. bankruptcies, affecting over 2 million people 

annually, were attributable to illness or medical bills. 15% of all homeowners 

who had taken out a second or third mortgage cited medical expenses as a reason. Dateline NBC—Debt: The Next Big American crisis?—Chris Hanson—3/27/ 

09—Medical bills are a leading cause of debt in America. According to an insurance survey, conducted by the International Communications Research of 

Media, PA from Jan 10–14th 2007, on behalf of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, researchers found 56% of U.S. workers would not be 

able pay their bills or meet expenses if they become disabled and unable to 

work. 71% of the 44% who had insurance, stated it was employer provided, so 

if they lose or change jobs they would no longer have disability coverage. In 

April 2006, Parade Magazine in an article called ‘‘Is The American Dream Still 

Possible?’’—published the results of their survey of more than 2200 Americans 

who earned between $30,000 and $99,000 per year, most stating that they were 

in reasonably good health. 66% say they tend to live from paycheck to paycheck 

and nearly 83% say that there is not much money left to save after they have 

paid their bills. Approximately 54 million Americans, an estimated 20% of the 

total population, have at least one disability, making them the largest minority 

group in the nation, and the only group any of us can become a member of at 

any time. As our baby boomer population ages and more veterans return from 

war, this number will double in the next 20 years. It is a diverse group, crossing 

lines of age, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. 

People with disabilities are nearly twice as likely as people without disabilities to have an annual household income of $15,000 or less. Notwithstanding 

the strides made in disability rights in the past 25 years, the majority of people 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

196 

with disabilities are poor, under-employed and under-educated due largely to 

unequal opportunities. 

The source for these statistics: Disability Stats And Facts—Disability Funders.org 

http://www.disabilityfunders.org/disability-stats-and-facts Disabled Americans Unite 

For Reform Of Social Security Disability Insurance Program The Social Security 

Disability Coalition, of which I am President/Co-Founder, is made up of Social Security Disability claimants and recipients from all over the nation, and our membership increases by the day. It was born out of the frustration of my own experience, 

and the notion that others may be dealing with that same frustration. I was proven 

to be totally correct beyond my wildest imagination. Our group is a very accurate 

reflection and microcosm of what is happening to millions of Social Security Disability applicants all over this nation. We fill a void that is greatly lacking in the 

SSDI/SSI claims process. While we never represent claimants in their individual 

cases, we are still able to provide them with much needed support and resources 

to guide them through the nebulous maze that is put in front of them when applying for SSDI/SSI benefits. In spite of the fact that the current system is not conducive to case worker, client interaction other than the initial claims intake, we continue to encourage claimants to communicate as much as possible with the SSA in 

order to speed up the claims process, making it easier on both the SSA caseworkers 

and the claimants themselves. As a result we are seeing claimants getting their 

cases approved on their own without the need for paid attorneys, and when additional assistance is needed we connect them with FREE resources to represent them 

should their cases advance to the hearing phase. We also provide them with information on how to access available assistance to help them cope with every aspect 

of their lives, that may be affected by the enormous wait time that it currently takes 

to process an SSDI/SSI claim. This includes how get Medicaid and other State/Federal programs, free/low cost healthcare, medicine, food, housing, financial assistance 

and too many other things to mention here. We educate them in the policies and 

regulations which govern the SSDI/SSI process and connects them to the answers 

for the many questions they have about how to access their disability benefits in 

a timely manner, relying heavily on the SSA website to provide this help. If we as 

disabled Americans, who are not able to work because we are so sick ourselves, can 

come together, using absolutely no money and with very little time or effort can accomplish these things, how is it that the SSA which is funded by our taxpayer dollars fails so miserably at this task? 

Social Security Disability Coalition—offering FREE information and support with 

a focus on SSDI reform http://groups.google.com/group/ 

socialsecuritydisabilitycoalition Please visit the Social Security Disability Coalition 

(ARCHIVE) website, or the Social Security Disability Reform petition website: 

>Archive Of Old Social Security Disability Coalition MSN Group Website http:// 

ssdcoalitionarchive.multiply.com Sign the Social Security Disability Reform Petition—read the horror stories from all over the nation: http://www.petitiononline.com/ 

SSDC/petition.html At these two sites you will see thousands of stories and over 

8000 signatures and comments on our petition, from disabled Americans whose lives 

have been harmed by the Social Security Disability program. You cannot leave without seeing the excruciating pain and suffering that these people have been put 

through, just because they happened to become disabled, and went to their government to file a claim for disability insurance that they worked so very hard to pay 

for. There are three main reasons for the disability hearing backlogs: 

• Lack of communication and educating the public 

• States of denial 

• State and private disability companies forcing claimants to file disability claims 

with SSA or risk losing private coverage 

Lack Of Communication Between Claimants, Doctors And SSA, Lack Of Education On What Is Needed For A Claimant To Prove A Disability Claim Currently 

there is little to no communication between the SSDI claimant and the SSA caseworkers handling their claims. More communication is needed and review of records 

by the claimant should be available at any time during all stages of the disability 

determination process. Before a denial is issued at any stage, the applicant should 

be contacted as to ALL the sources being used to make the judgment. It must be 

accompanied by a detailed report as to why a denial might be imminent, who made 

the determination and a phone number or address where they could be contacted. 

Also many times medical records submitted are lost or totally ignored. In case info 

is missing, or the SSA was given inaccurate information, the applicant can provide 

the corrected or missing information, before an actual determination at any level is 

made. This would eliminate many cases from having to advance to the hearing or 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

197 

appeals phase. Also many times doctors, hospitals etc often do not respond to SSA 

requests for medical information in a timely manner, or sometimes ignore these requests entirely. ALL doctors, and medical professionals including those at the VA 

should be required by Federal or State law, to fill out any medical forms and submit 

documents requested by the SSA within strict timelines or they will not be allowed 

to practice medicine in this country. Also as part of their continuing education program in order to keep their licenses, doctors should also be required to attend seminars provided free of charge by the SSA, in proper procedures for writing medical 

reports and filling out forms for Social Security Disability and SSI claimants. The 

major criteria used by the SSA to decide a disability claim, is residual functionality 

and the ‘‘Blue Book Of Listings,’’ yet this is not usually information that the general 

public is privy to when filing a disability claim. In fact it is a pretty well kept secret 

unless you know enough to do some research. In other words since the process is 

so nebulous from beginning to end, the deck is purposely stacked against a claimant 

from the very start. When the average person files a claim they seem to think that 

all they have to do is mention what is wrong with them, get their doctors to back 

up their medical claims, say they are disabled and cannot work, fill out a few forms 

and the checks will start coming in the mail. While in a ideal world the process 

should be that simple, nothing could be further from the truth. They do not realize, 

and are never told, that they must not only list their illnesses, but more importantly 

describe HOW their illnesses prevent them from doing work and daily activities. 

They are not told to list EVERYTHING that is wrong with them, and often only 

file a claim for one condition, that in itself may not be disabling, when they have 

several of them, that in combination, may in fact render them totally disabled. 

Many file claims because they cannot perform the job they have been doing for 

years, or cannot work as many hours that used to before they get sick. They do not 

fully understand that they have to not be able to work ANY job in the national economy, and that the SSA does not pay for partial disability. The SSA needs to do a 

much better job of educating the public at the onset of filing a disability claim to 

avoid confusion. 

States Of Denial—The REAL Reason Behind The Social Security Disability Hearing 

Backlogs 

Since Social Security Disability is a Federal program, where you live should not 

affect your ability to obtain benefits. Sadly this is not the case. While funding is 

a major problem that SSA faces, the other primary reason for these hearing backlogs, continues to be ignored during these proceedings, and that is the initial phase 

of the disability qualification process which is handled by the individual state DDS/ 

Disability Determination Services offices. There, the most crucial part of your disability claim, the medical portion, is reviewed by a caseworker/adjudicator and medical doctor on their staff who never sees you, and in most cases never even communicates with you at all. Too much weight at the initial time of filing, is put on the 

SS caseworker’s opinion of a claim. There needs to be more oversight that disability 

decisions be based with controlling weight given to the claimant’s own treating physicians opinions and medical records in accordance with (DI 24515.004) SSR 96–2p: 

Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II And XVI: Giving Controlling Weight To Treating Source Medical Opinions. Even though this policy ruling is in place, this is very 

often not happening. Excerpts from GAO–09–511T—Further Actions Needed to Address Disability Claims and Service Delivery Challenges—3/24/09—which can be 

found at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09511t.pdf Although SSA is responsible for 

the program, the law calls for initial determinations of disability to be made by state 

DDS agencies. The work performed at DDS offices is federally financed and carried 

out under SSA disability program regulations, policies, and guidelines. See 

42.U.S.C. § 421(a)(1). From September 1998 to January 2006, over 20 percent of disability examiners hired during that period left or were terminated within their first 

year. DDS officials said the loss of experienced staff affects DDS’ ability to process 

disability claims workloads because it generally takes newly hired examiners about 

2 years to become proficient in their role. For example in March 2009: Ohio had the 

lowest percentage of approvals at the initial level of 27.2% >Alaska and Wyoming 

had the lowest percentage of approvals at the reconsideration level of 0%. 

Puerto Rico had the highest percentage of approvals at the initial level of 64.1% 

Puerto Rico had the highest percentage of approvals at the reconsideration level of 

40.3% >Source: Social Security Administration—March 2009 

That is a major fluctuation depending on what state you happen to apply for benefits in. Something is extremely wrong with this picture and proves the inconsistency of decision making by the state DDS offices in handing Federal disability 

claims. What would be an incentive for states to deny Federal claims? Since many 

Social Security Disability claims are SSI or both SSI/SSDI combined claims and 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

198 

many states offer to supplement SSI payments at a higher benefit amount, therefore 

they want to keep as many off the rolls as possible so they do not have to pay out 

this supplement. Also since there is a different pay scale for government vs state 

employees who are often underpaid, lack training, are overworked, and must meet 

quotas of cases processed, the tendency is greater to rubber stamp denials to move 

claims off their desk when a case needs too much development. Thus the explanation for the fluctuation in denial/approval/backlog rates by state. Unfortunately 

there is very little if any training or oversight on the state DDS offices to make sure 

they are making the proper decisions on disability claims. This is why so many 

claimants appeal to the hearing level where a huge percentage of bad claims decisions are overturned and cases are finally approved. Anyone who doesn’t see that 

a ‘‘Culture Of Denial’’ has become a pervasive part of an SSDI claimants encounter 

with the SSA, is either totally out of touch with reality or is reacting evasively to 

the subject. Excerpts from GAO Report GAO–04–656—SSA Disability Decisions: 

More Effort Needed To Assess Consistency of Disability Decisions—Washington— 

July 2004 which can be found at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04656.pdf 

‘‘Each year, about 2.5 million people file claims with SSA for disability benefits 

. . . About one-third of disability claims denied at the state level were appealed to 

the hearings level; of these, SSA’s ALJ’s have allowed over one-half, with annual 

allowance rates fluctuating between 58 percent and 72 percent since 1985. While it 

is appropriate that some appealed claims, such as those in which a claimant’s impairment has worsened and prohibits work, be allowed benefits, representatives 

from SSA, the Congress, and interest groups have long been concerned that the high 

rate of claims allowed at the hearing level may indicate that the decision makers 

at the two levels are interpreting and applying SSA’s criteria differently. If this is 

the case, adjudicators at the two levels may be making inconsistent decisions that 

result in similar cases receiving dissimilar decisions.’’ ‘‘Inconsistency in decisions 

may create several problems . . . If deserving claimants must appeal to the hearings level for benefits, this situation increases the burden on claimants, who must 

wait on average, almost a year for a hearing decision and frequently incur extra 

costs to pay for legal representation . . . SSA has good cause to focus on the consistency of decisions between adjudication levels. Incorrect denials at the initial level 

that are appealed increase both the time claimants must wait for decision and the 

cost of deciding cases. Incorrect denials that are not appealed may leave needy individuals without a financial or medical safety net . . . An appeal adds significantly 

to costs associated with making a decision. According to SSA’s Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2001, the average cost per claim for an initial 

DDS disability decision was about $583, while the average cost per claim of an ALJ 

decision was estimated at $2,157 . . . An appeal also significantly increases the 

time required to reach a decision. According to SSA’s Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2003, the average number of days that claimants waited for an initial decision was 97 days, while the number of days they waited for 

an appealed decision was 344 days . . . In addition, claimant lawsuits against three 

state DDS’s have alleged that DDS adjudicators were not following SSA’s rulings 

or other decision making guidance . . . However, according to DDS stakeholder 

groups, SSA has not ensured that states have sufficient resources to meet ruling requirements, which they believe may lead to inconsistency in decisions among states. 

Furthermore, SSA’s quality assurance process does not help ensure compliance because reviewers of DDS decisions are not required to identify and return to the 

DDS’s cases that are not fully documented in accordance with the rulings. SSA procedures require only that the reviewers return cases that have a deficiency that 

could result in an incorrect decision.’’ 

Excerpts from: Statement For The Record Of The National Association Of Disability Examiners—Georgina Huskey, President—Prepared For Subcommittee on 

Social Security/Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support Of the Committee on Ways and Means Joint Hearing on Eliminating the Social Security Disability Backlog—March 24, 2009 ‘‘Even at the DDS level, where few backlogs are 

publicly reported and where the average processing time for an initial claim is nearly 100 days, the stark reality is that there are tremendous backlogs pending. Just 

because disability claims have been assigned does not mean they are being worked 

and disability examiners who carry caseloads two, three and even four times the 

number deemed reasonable are, in essence, housing a backlog of claims at their 

desk. Unfortunately, this backlog of claims can lead to mistakes in case development 

and contribute to mistakes in judgment, resulting in the potential for erroneous decisions.’’ 

‘‘As experienced staff walk out the door, either due to retirement or because of 

career changing decisions, SSA and the DDSs have struggled in many parts of the 

country to attract the kind of new hires that will keep the Agency at a level of comcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

199 

petence required in its service delivery. Prior to the recent economic downturn, 

DDSs were reporting an annual attrition rate approaching 15% with more than 22% 

of newly hired disability examiners leaving by the end of their first year. The result 

has been an increasing lack of experienced personnel to process increasingly more 

complex disability claims and forcing the DDSs to utilize limited training funds to 

continually hire new staff, rather than provide ongoing training for existing staff.’’ 

All phases of disability claims processing should be moved to and handled out of 

the Social Security individual field offices, including the DDS phase which is the 

medical determination phase currently handled by the states, and all hearing 

phases of the disability process. All people who process Social Security disability 

claims should be employees of the Federal Government to ensure accuracy and uniform processing of disability claims under Federal regulations and Social Security 

policies which is currently not the case. If the states are to continue to handle the 

DDS phase of the disability process, then all state employees handling Social Security claims should be required to receive a minimum of 3 months standardized 

training by the Social Security Administration, in SSA policies and Federal regulations governing SSDI/SSI claims processing. If more time and effort were put forth 

to communicate with claimants, and to make the proper decision at the onset, there 

would be no need for all these cases to be appealed to the hearings level in the first 

place. That in itself would be a huge factor in reducing the hearing backlogs, but 

this fact has been greatly ignored. Until you properly devote the time and energy 

to look into and reform this crucial part of the problem, the hearing backlogs will 

continue to grow at an uncontrollable rate, no matter how much money you give 

to the SSA. Social Security Disability Program Problems—Contributing Burden Factor on Medicaid/Social Service Programs For States There seems to be a relationship, between SSDI claims processing issues/backlogs, and the need for claimants 

to also apply for state funded Medicaid/Social Service programs. Many are forced 

to file for Medicaid, food stamps and cash assistance, another horrendous process. 

For example in New York State, about half the 38,000 people now waiting on disability appeals, for an average of 21 months, are receiving cash assistance from the 

state (New York Times 12/10/07). Those who file for these programs while waiting 

to get SSDI benefits, in many states, have to pay back the state out of their meager 

benefit checks once approved. As a result they’re often kept below the poverty level, 

almost never able to better themselves since they can’t work, and now are forced 

to rely on both state and federally funded programs instead of just one of them. This 

practice should be eliminated. Regulation Is Necessary To Avoid Improper Social Security Disability Claim Filings Due To State And Private Insurance Company Policies There is a growing number of claims being filed by people who may not actually 

qualify for disability benefits under Social Security guidelines, but who are being 

forced to file Social Security Disability/SSI claims by their private disability and 

state disability carriers or risk not being eligible for benefits under those programs. 

Recently there has been media coverage on this issue which can be found here: Trial 

Against Unum Over Handling of Disability Insurance Claims Opens Today—Market 

Watch—PRNewswire via COMTEX—Boston—9/22/08 http://www.prnewswire.com/ 

cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/09-22-2008/0004890097&EDATE= 

Insurers Faulted As Overloading Social Security—NY Times—Mary Williams 

Walsh—4/1/08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/business/01disabled.html Grassley Works To Strengthen Social Security Disability Program—3/27/09 http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19961 Exhibit A—Private Insurers Policies And Practices http://grassley.senate.gov/private/upload/EXHIBIT-A.pdf Exhibit D—Letter To Senator Charles Grassley From Disability Claimant Who Was Required By Private Insurer To File Claim For Social Security Disability Regardless Of Eligibility Or Risk Loss Of Private Disability Insurance Benefits—1/21/09 http://grassley.senate.gov/private/upload/Exhibit-D.pdf Exhibit E—Letter From SSA Commissioner To FTC Chairman Regarding Private Disability Companies Requiring Their Claimants To File For Social Security Disability Benefits— 

11/26/08 http://grassley.senate.gov/private/upload/Exhibit-E.pdf Congress and the 

SSA needs to look into this issue and this practice needs to be stopped immediately 

as this too greatly adds to the disability backlog problem. In this case the claimants 

should not be penalized but the insurance companies should be. 

Improper CE/IME Medical Exams Ordered By Social Security Result In Higher Rate 

Of Denials, Hearings And Appeals 

Too much weight at the initial time of filing, is put on the independent medical 

examiner’s opinion of a claim. CE/IME examiners are paid a fee by Social Security 

for each person they see, so the more claimants they process, the more money they 

make. Often times they are caught saying they performed exams that they in fact 

never performed, make mistakes, or make false, misleading statements about claimcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

200 

ants. Many times the DDS offices or ALJ’s are sending claimants to doctors that 

have very limited knowledge of their specific health conditions, who are not specialists, or even the proper type of doctor, to be examining a claimant for the type of 

medical conditions that they have. These doctors have no real idea how a patient’s 

medical problems affect their lives after only a brief visit with them, and yet their 

opinion is given greater authority than a claimant’s own treating physician who sees 

them in a much greater capacity? Something is way out of line with that reasoning, 

yet it happens every day. Even though a claimant’s treating physicians are supposed 

to be given greater weight in decision making, this is often not the case. Whenever 

SSA required medical exams are necessary, they should only be performed by board 

certified independent doctors who are specialists in the disabling condition that a 

claimant has (example—Rheumatologists for autoimmune disorders, Psychologists 

and Psychiatrists for mental disorders). Common sense dictates that these poorly 

executed, and often unnecessary, medical exams result in a waste of time, money 

and energy, for both the claimants and the SSA, especially when the claimant ends 

up appealing a denial based on these improper SSA ordered examinations. 

Utilize Hearing On The Record/Pre-Hearing Review Option To Reduce Backlogs 

More emphasis and support staff need to be devoted to the pre-hearing review 

process which could greatly reduce the current hearing backlog. This would obviously and should require more communication between hearing office staff and 

claimants or their representatives to update case files. Once the files have been updated, many would be able to be decided solely on the records in the file without 

having a full hearing in front of an ALJ. 

Changes/Proper Funding Necessary For SSA To Accomplish It’s Goals And Properly 

Serve Disabled Americans 

I continually hear talk at these hearings about increasing the funding for the 

SSA, and you asking witnesses for answers, on how much the SSA will need to fix 

the current problems, and prevent new ones from arising in the future. One thing 

is said at the hearings, but when push comes to shove to vote for the SSA budget 

money, other programs or projects become higher priority, even though properly 

funding the SSA is literally a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. 

Nothing is more important than the health and wellbeing of the American people, 

and as elected officials it is crucial that you never lose sight of that priority! Still 

I see that the SSA is under funded almost every year, and there is a continued challenge to get the money that the SSA requests. SSA should not have to compete each 

year for funding with the Departments of Labor, HHS and Education which are 

highly publicized and therefore, often more popular programs. All money that is 

taken out of American’s paychecks for Social Security should not be allowed to be 

used for anything else other than to administer the program and pay out benefits 

to the American people. As stated in the previous testimony provided by Witlold 

Skierwczynski—President—National Council Of Social Security Administration 

Field Operation Locals to the House Ways And Means Committee on 4/23/08 it is 

recommended that: Congress should enact off budget legislation including SSA administrative expenses with benefits which are already off budget. Congress should 

retain appropriations and oversight authority albeit unencumbered by artificial 

budget caps and scoring restrictions. Congress should enact legislation requiring the 

Commissioner to submit the SSA appropriation request directly to Congress. Congress should support the House Budget Committee recommendation to increase the 

SSA administrative budget by $240 million over the President’s budget request. 

Oversight is Crucial! 

In an editorial letter from SSA Commissioner Astrue dated 8/21/08 to the Atlanta 

Journal Constitution in regards to the severe hearing backlogs it was stated that 

‘‘We have taken a big step toward resolving that problem by bringing onboard 175 

additional administrative law judges and additional staff to support them..’’ In reality: At of the end of fiscal year 2007 the amount of ALJ’s available to hear cases 

was at 1006, and at the end of fiscal year 2008 the amount of ALJ’s available to 

hear cases dropped to 960.13. As of March 2009 there were in fact only 1042.67 

ALJ’s currently available to hear cases. Source: Social Security Administration Reports The 175 new ALJ’s that the SSA Commissioner has hired, may actually already be factored into the March 2009—1042.67 number—the report does not distinguish. So even with the so called 175 new ALJ’s we are still not much above the 

2007 level. Basically this is still inadequate amount of ALJ’s, since it does not account for the fact that more judges may continue to leave for various reasons (retirement etc), and that the level of disability claims continues to increase instead of decrease, based on past history. The Commissioner has failed to publicly account for 

this fact, so he makes it sound like there is going to be several additional ALJ’s 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

201 

above and beyond previous years, when he is in reality replacing judges who are 

leaving and not actually increasing by any substantial amounts, the number of the 

additional staff he truly needs. Also very often these judges have not even been allocated to the areas that have the largest hearing backlogs and there is no oversight 

on the SSA Commissioner to make sure they go where they are needed most. So 

the likelihood of the claims backlog being resolved with this so called ‘‘fix’’ is slim 

to none. In other words ‘‘this is like putting a band aid on a gushing wound.’’ More 

investigation of this problem by Congress, the Inspector General and GAO needs to 

happen immediately! 

Horrendous Customer Service 

In a January 2007 Harris poll designed to evaluate the services provided by 13 

federal agencies, the public rated SSA at the bottom of the public acceptance list 

and it was the only agency that received an overall negative evaluation. SSA Field 

Offices have lost over 2,500 positions since September 2005 and nearly 1,400 positions since September 2006. In 2007 SSA Field Offices saw about 43 million visitors 

a week, and that number is expected to increase by over a million more in 2008. 

Constituents visiting these local Field Offices continue to experience lengthy waiting 

times and the inability to obtain assistance via the telephone. Here is just a small 

sampling of some of the major problems with the current Social Security Disability 

program and State Disability (DDS) offices who process the initial phase/medical 

portion of disability claims: Severe under staffing of SSA workers at all levels of the 

program Claimants waiting for weeks or months to get appointments, and hours to 

be seen by caseworkers at Social Security field offices Extraordinary wait times between the different phases of the disability claims process Very little or no communication between caseworkers and claimants throughout the disability claims process before decisions are made. Employees being rude/insensitive, not returning calls, 

not willing to provide information to claimants or not having the knowledge to do 

so Complaints of lost files and in some states, case files being purposely thrown in 

the trash rather than processed properly Security Breaches—Complaints of having 

other claimants information improperly filed/mixed in where it doesn’t belong and 

other even worse breaches Fraud on the part of DDS/OHA offices, ALJ’s, IME’s— 

purposely manipulating or ignoring information provided to deny claims, or doctors 

stating that they gave medical exams to claimants that they never did. Claimants 

being sent to doctors that are not trained properly, or have the proper credentials 

in the medical field for the illnesses which claimants are being sent to them for. 

Complaints of lack of attention/ignoring—medical records provided and claimants 

concerns by Field Officers, IME doctors and ALJ’s. Employees greatly lacking in 

knowledge of and in some cases purposely violating Social Security and Federal Regulations (including Freedom of Information Act and SSD Pre-Hearing review process). Claimants cannot get through on the phone to the local SS office or 800 number (trying for hours even days) Claimants getting conflicting/erroneous information 

depending on whom they happen to talk to at Social Security—causing confusion for 

claimants and in some cases major problems including improper payments Proper 

weight not being given to claimants treating physicians according to SSA Federal 

Regulations when making medical disability determinations on claims. Complaints 

of ALJ’s ‘‘bribing’’ claimants to give up part of their retro pay (agreeing to manipulation of disability eligibility dates) or they will not approve their claims Poor/little 

coordination of information between the different departments and phases of the 

disability process Complaints of backlogs at payment processing centers once claim 

is approved Federal Quality Review process adding even more wait time to claims 

processing, increasing backlogs, no ability to follow up on claim in this phase NOTE: 

These complaints refer to all phases of the SSDI claims process including local field 

offices, state Disability Determinations offices, CE/IME physicians, Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Social Security main office in MD (800 number). 

Fraud/Program Integrity—The Stigma Encountered By Social Security Disability 

Claimants 

SSDI is not welfare, a hand out, reward, golden parachute or jackpot by any 

means, and most people would be hard pressed to survive on it. Yet, often claimants 

are treated like criminals—viewed as frauds trying to scam the system, and that 

the SSA must ‘‘weed out’’ them out by making it as hard as possible to get benefits. 

Yes, I’m well aware as I write this, that there’s some who’ve abused the system and 

that’s a shame, because it casts a bad light on those who really need this help. The 

percentage of claims that in fact, aren’t legitimate is very miniscule. In March 2009, 

the average monthly Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefit was only 

$1061.86. Nobody in their right mind would want to go through this process, and 

end up living in poverty on top of their illnesses, if they could in fact work. I have 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

202 

heard nothing in these hearings or this hearing today that addresses the fraud on 

the part of the Federal Government used to deny deserving claimants their benefits. 

I have heard nothing about the rubber stamping of denials, the tossing out of claimant files, the security breaches of highly sensitive data, the total disregard of overwhelming evidence by claimants treating physicians, subjecting claimants to unnecessary fraudulent CE/IME exams, and the cases of ALJ’s ‘‘bribing’’ claimants to give 

up years of back benefits or they will not approve them. All these things are criminal at best. Most Americans do not know their rights under the law, that they are 

allowed to get copies of their SSA claim files. If more people exercised this right, 

they would be horrified to know what was happening behind their backs, and the 

true perpetrators of fraud would come to light. in a major way. The SSA currently 

spends way more resources to evaluate cases (Federal Quality Review Process) that 

are approved, more than any that are denied unjustly. 

Electronic/Internet VS In Person/Paper Filing Of Disability Claims 

If a person files a claim online rather than filing in person, the claimant is not 

allowed to submit crucial medical records and documentation that is necessary to 

speed up and adequately process a claim in a timely manner. We always encourage 

claimants to submit as much information as possible at the onset of filing, so that 

SSA workers do not have to spend extra time hunting down medical records etc and 

can get their claims resolved faster. We believe it is important to help SSA workers 

to help us in order to streamline the process, and for the hearing backlog problem 

to be resolved. Online/internet filing does not give claimants the opportunity to do 

this. In closing, in spite of my own horrible experience, I have vowed to do everything humanly possible to get total reform of the Social Security Disability program 

so that nobody else will ever have to endure the hell that I have had to. Since my 

time is quickly running out, I hope you will join me soon in my quest to accomplish 

this final lifetime goal, to make our country a better place for our most vulnerable 

citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Fullerton—President/Co-Founder—Social Security Disability Coalition 

ssdcoalition@hotmail.com Please introduce/support—Fullerton—Edwards Social Security Disability Reform Act: http://groups.google.com/group/socialsecuritydisability 

coalition/web/fullerton-edwards-social-security-disability-reform-act 

f 

Statement of National Association of Disability Representatives 

The National Association of Disability Representatives is a professional organization comprised of non-attorneys and attorneys who assist people in applying for disability income assistance from the Social Security Administration. Our members 

help individuals and their families navigate an often complex and lengthy process 

to demonstrate their eligibility for disability benefits. As advocates for claimants, we 

want to commend Chairman Tanner, Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Johnson, Ranking Member Linder, and all of the Members of both Subcommittees who 

have demonstrated a keen interest in pushing for improvements in the SSA disability determination process, and especially in the unconscionable delays that are 

part of the current system. 

NADR members are on the ‘‘front lines’’ helping persons with disabilities complete 

applications, gather and submit evidence, and attend Administrative Law hearings 

with applicants. We see first-hand the serious toll that the long wait for decisions 

can take on people, most of whom are already experiencing significant life changes, 

traumas, and hardships. Last year, the average processing time for cases at the 

hearing level nationwide was 535 days. This year, SSA estimates that the average 

processing time will be 506 days. While this indicates that things are moving in the 

right direction, an average waiting time of almost one-and-a-half years is still much 

too long for claimants to wait for benefits to which they are entitled. 

Beyond this unconscionable hearing delay, claimants must again wait for a decision, and if successful, must wait still longer for actual payment of their claims. 

Those facing grave or terminal illnesses may not live to see the fiduciary promise 

they paid for each week in their paycheck from their Social Security taxes. Families 

who need care-givers or other assistance to provide necessary relief and support in 

helping their loved ones may be burdened for years, trying to balance family needs 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

203 

without any help. This strains marriages, parent/child relationships, and impoverishes people at a time when their need is greatest. 

As an illustration of the hardship real people have suffered as a result of the 

hearing backlog, following are stories of claimants represented by NADR members: 

• Stella, age 52, was in a motor vehicle accident and suffered severe trauma to 

the left side, including her arm, leg and foot. She had no real useful ability on 

that side, and also had COPD, PTSD and severe depression. She applied for 

benefits in August 2006 and was finally approved after a hearing on June 31, 

2008, but not before she was forced out of her home and robbed of all her possessions while living on the street. • Marie, age 46, suffered from seizures and cirrhosis. She filed for benefits in 

June of 2006. She was in a coma in the hospital for almost a month before she 

died of liver failure on February 27, 2009. Her favorable on-the-record decision 

was dated March 4, 2009, too late to help Marie. • David filed concurrent claims for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits 

and Supplemental Security Income disability benefits on November 9, 2004, alleging onset of disability on June 15, 2004. Medical records indicated David suffered from diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypotension, chronic anemia, arterial calcification of his left lower extremity and chronic diarrhea. The initial 

claim was denied on February 25, 2005. Upon reconsideration, the claim again 

was denied on June 24, 2005. An ALJ hearing was requested July 22, 2005. On 

March 13, 2008, nearly 31⁄2 years after David filed his initial claim, a fully favorable decision was issued. Unfortunately, at that point David had been dead 

for almost a year and a half. • Charlene, age 45, had previously been in SSDI payment status. After trying unsuccessfully to return to work, she reapplied and currently is waiting for a hearing that is not expected to be scheduled for at least a year. After being denied 

initially and awaiting Reconsideration (her second level of appeal), she had a 

serious suicide attempt. No state transitional assistance is available to her and 

she is losing her home due to nonpayment of rent. Recently she was in a motor 

vehicle accident that caused severe brain injury. Charlene’s only option at this 

point is to enter a nursing home as she can’t afford to live at home with help. 

Amazingly, these stories are happening to individuals who are ‘‘insured’’ for disability, having paid their Social Security taxes, including those that fund SSA disability benefits. Most assume that these benefits will only be needed at retirement. 

Yet, when accidents or illness strike, people reasonably expect to receive the critical 

support that disability payments can offer. And, they most certainly expect to get 

it within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, many Americans are not finding 

their government reliable in this arena. 

We applaud Congress’ recent efforts to address the backlog. For FY 2008, Con- gress appropriated—for the first time in 15 years—$148 million more than the 

President’s budget request for SSA administrative expenses. The FY 2009 omnibus 

appropriations bill provided SSA with more than $700 million over the FY 2008 

level. And the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided SSA with 

an additional $500 million to handle the increase in retirement and disability applications due to the economic downturn, as well as funds to replace its old and outdated National Computer Center. 

While these are important steps, sustained increases in funding over several years are needed to get the backlog under control. The President has requested $11.6 billion for SSA’s administrative expenses for FY 2010, a 10 percent increase over FY 

2009. NADR strongly supports the President’s request. We believe this level of funding is necessary in order for SSA to truly have an impact on the disability backlog, 

while continuing to carry on other related administrative functions to serve beneficiaries and applicants. 

That said, it will take more than additional funding to address the issues SSA 

faces as a result of the dwindling resources and increased workload it has sustained 

over the past decade. As a member of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities’ 

Social Security Task Force, NADR was a signatory on testimony presented to the 

Subcommittees by Task Force Co-Chair Peggy Hathaway, and supports the recommendations for improving the disability-claims process and eliminating the backlog included in that testimony. 

In particular, we want to bring to the Subcommittees’ attention the need to make 

permanent the fee demonstrations in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 

(SSPA), P.L. 108–203. These programs were designed to improve access to representation for claimants applying for Social Security disability and Supplemental Security disability benefits, and have proven effective over time. Section 303 of the Act 

established a demonstration project to allow withholding and direct payment of fees 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

204 

to eligible non-attorney representatives. Section 302 authorized the withholding and 

direct payment of fees in Supplemental Security Income cases. Both programs are 

scheduled to sunset on March 1, 2010. 

Fee Withholding for Qualified Non-Attorney Representatives 

Section 303 of the SSPA established a demonstration program to examine the effectiveness of non-attorney representatives who qualify for fee withholding. To qualify for the program, non-attorney representatives must possess a bachelor’s degree 

(or equivalent experience); prove they carry up-to-date malpractice insurance coverage at all times; undergo a criminal background check; and pass an exam developed by Administrative Law Judges that tests their knowledge of the Social Security 

disability system. Participants also must complete a minimum of 12 hours of qualifying continuing education courses dealing specifically with Social Security disability 

matters during the initial 18-month period and complete 24 hours of instruction in 

each subsequent 2-year period. Pursuant to Title III of the Act, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in October 2007 analyzing the performance of non-attorney representatives in disability cases before the SSA (GAO–08– 

05). 

As part of its study, GAO surveyed both claimants and Administrative Law 

Judges on representatives’ expertise, and examined available SSA records to analyze representatives’ caseloads. The study results indicated that non-attorney representatives who met the criteria for fee withholding demonstrated levels of knowledge and success rates at least equal to that of practicing attorneys. 

Key points in the GAO study include the following: 

• Non-attorneys eligible for fee withholding have the most experience representing disability claimants and are most likely to specialize in disability representation; 

• Most eligible non-attorneys had at least a college degree; approximately onequarter had prior experience as an SSA employee, and another quarter had experience working as a paralegal or in a legal setting; 

• Administrative law judges expressed equal satisfaction with the performance of 

attorneys and eligible non-attorneys on key elements of disability representation, including submission of all relevant evidence, knowledge of applicable laws 

and regulations, and case knowledge; 

• Judges expressed satisfaction with the implementation of the demonstration 

project, and some went on to say that ‘‘non-attorneys tend to be better prepared 

and more familiar with the details of their cases than attorneys’’; 

• The judges surveyed did not view lack of legal experience as an obstacle, as long 

as the non-attorney representative had a demonstrated competence of the disability claims process: ‘‘Many of these judges expressed the view that experience 

in disability representation rather than formal legal training is the key to effective representation, or that it is not necessary to have a law degree to effectively represent disability claimants.’’ 

The positive responses GAO received from judges and claimants alike about the 

effectiveness of eligible non-attorney representatives demonstrate that lack of a law 

degree is not an obstacle to successful representation of disability claimants—and 

should not be an obstacle to fee withholding. 

Disability representatives can only receive a fee when the claim results in a favorable determination. The demonstration program to provide fee withholding for nonattorney representatives has been extremely effective in improving access to qualified representatives for claimants. Just as important, many NADR members work 

with claimants from the time of filing the initial application. This serves not only 

to expedite valid claims, but also to provide counseling that can weed out inappropriate cases before they enter the system. Once a claimant does enter the system, 

qualified representatives who understand the requisite objective documentary needs 

can assist the claims examiner and adjudicators to gather this critical information 

in a timely manner. All this leads to savings of time and resources. 

The demonstration program to provide fee withholding for non-attorney representatives has been extremely effective in improving access to qualified representatives 

for claimants while saving administrative costs, and most importantly, time. 

Withholding and Direct Payment of Fees in SSI Cases 

Section 302 of the SSPA amended Section 1631(d)(2) of the Act to extend the Title 

II attorney fee withholding and direct payment procedures to claims under Title XVI 

of the Act. This authority will not apply to claims for benefits with respect to which 

the claimant and the representative enter into an agreement for representation 

after February 28, 2010. Because this provision has increased opportunities for SSI 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

205 

claimants to obtain representation, NADR supports making this provision permanent. 

Increasing and Indexing the Fee Cap 

Finally, NADR supports H.R. 1093, legislation introduced by Rep. John Lewis (D– GA) to raise the current fee cap from $5,300 to $6,264.50—which is what it would 

have been had it been adjusted for inflation since the last increase in 2002. We also 

vigorously support the bill’s provision calling for ongoing annual COLA adjustments 

to the cap. If enacted, these changes will help to assure that there is a knowledgeable, experienced pool of representatives available to represent claimants. 

Conclusion 

For all these reasons, NADR urges Congress to act this year to make permanent 

both demonstration programs. They have demonstrated their effectiveness in improving access to qualified representation for claimants while saving the system tax 

dollars and time, and helping in a small, but very meaningful, way to reduce the 

backlog. We also urge swift congressional action to enact H.R. 1093, legislation to 

increase and index the fee cap. 

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on ways to reduce the social 

security backlog. Our goal is to help our clients get the assistance they need in the 

most efficient way possible. We have a long way to go in transforming SSA’s disability program into a more timely and responsive safety net, but your leadership 

and attention gives many of us reason to hope for improvements. We look forward 

to continuing to work with Congress and with SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue 

to assure that SSA is able to provide people with disabilities the benefits to which 

they are entitled in a timely fashion. 

f 

Statement of National Council on Disability 

I am pleased to write to you on behalf of the National Council on Disability 

(NCD), an independent federal agency, to submit for the record the executive summary of our 2005 report entitled ‘‘The Social Security Administration’s Efforts to 

Promote Employment for People with Disabilities: New Solutions for Old Problems.’’ 

We are making this submission in order to be considered part of the testimony for 

the March 24, 2009 joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support and the Subcommittee on Social Security entitled ‘‘Eliminating the Social Security Disability Backlog.’’ 

NCD is composed of 15 members, appointed by the President with the consent of 

the U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, 

and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, and that empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and integration into all aspects of society. To accomplish 

this, we gather stakeholder input, review federal programs and legislation, and provide advice to the President, Congress and governmental agencies. Much of this advice comes in the form of timely reports and papers NCD releases throughout each 

year. 

In light of the subject matter of Tuesday’s hearing on the disability application 

backlogs, we respectfully submit a summary of our 2005 report on Social Security 

Administration programs to assist in providing greater context to the topic at hand. 

The executive summary of that report is attached. The Council believes that the severity of the backlogs continues to negatively influence individuals who may otherwise consider leaving the Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) rolls in pursuit 

of employment. With the knowledge that they will once again have to face lengthy 

wait periods to access financial assistance should their attempts to work be unsuccessful, many likely believe that the risks outweigh the benefits of making the attempt in the first place. While a correlation between the two is difficult to prove, 

the sad fact that less than 1% of the individuals living on SSDI ever return to gainful employment is indicative of the value they place on this program of support. 

We applaud the Social Security Administration for the progress it has made in 

addressing the backlog that has impacted thousands of qualified individuals with 

disabilities each year who depend on the system when their lives are disrupted due 

to disability. However, we also recognize that there is much more to be done before 

the system will operate as Congress intended. 

If you have any questions about this submission or any matter related to disability policy, please contact NCD Executive Director Michael Collins by phone at 

(202) 272–2004, or email at mcollins@ncd.gov. On behalf of NCD, thank you for your 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

206 

leadership in focusing attention on this important topic. I also thank you for the 

opportunity to submit this statement for the record. 

Respectfully, 

John R. Vaughn 

Chairperson 

The Social Security Administration’s Efforts to Promote Employment for People 

with Disabilities: New Solutions for Old Problems 

National Council on Disability 

November 30, 2005 

National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004 

Read the full report at: 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2005/ssa-promoteemployment.htm#exec 

Executive Summary 

Americans with disabilities remain underemployed, despite the fact that many are 

willing and able to work. Although the Social Security Administration (SSA) has instituted a number of incentives to reduce the numerous obstacles to employment 

faced by its Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries, such efforts have had little impact because few beneficiaries are aware of these incentives and how they affect benefits and access to 

healthcare. 

Introduction to the Problem 

Social Security beneficiaries with disabilities must spend months or even years 

convincing SSA that they are unable to work as a condition of eligibility. Yet, upon 

their receipt of benefits, SSA begins to communicate to beneficiaries that work is 

an expectation for them. Congress and SSA have developed a variety of work incentives and special programs designed to encourage beneficiaries to attempt to obtain 

and sustain employment. Yet SSA’s efforts to eliminate work disincentives have 

often added to the complexity of the entire program, confusing beneficiaries and 

making them leery of any actions that might unknowingly jeopardize their benefits. 

Current SSA benefit amounts are quite small and merely allow beneficiaries to 

live at a basic subsistence level. SSI resource limits make it very difficult to accumulate the financial resources necessary to move toward economic self-sufficiency. 

Tying eligibility for Medicaid or Medicare to eligibility for SSA benefits forces individuals with high-cost medical needs who could otherwise work to choose between 

pursuing a career and retaining the medical insurance that sustains their very lives. 

The fear of losing benefits and medical insurance through an unsuccessful employment attempt starts well before adulthood with SSI beneficiaries. Many SSI recipients first apply for benefits as children while enrolled in public schools. These individuals often remain on the rolls well into adulthood, with very few transitioning 

from high school into substantial employment after graduation (GAO, 1996b; GAO, 

1998b). Failure to focus on Social Security and other public benefits during transition is not only a missed opportunity, but harm may be caused when students and 

family members are not educated or prepared for the effect of earnings on cash benefits and medical insurance (Miller and O’Mara, 2003). 

There is also the problem with poor educational attainment of DI beneficiaries 

who enter the disability system later in life. Efforts to help this population return 

to work are stymied by their lack of education and marketable job skills—particularly in today’s highly competitive information economy. It is now more important 

than ever that people of all ages have access to higher education and the financial 

means with which to pay for training and education (Moore, 2003). 

Response of Congress and the Social Security Administration to the Problem 

Well aware of the enormity and seeming intractability of this problem, Congress 

and SSA have initiated multiple efforts to promote employment and return to work 

among SSA beneficiaries. In recent years, a number of work incentives for SSI and 

DI beneficiaries have been implemented, allowing individuals to keep more of their 

earnings while retaining their benefits. Work incentives are aimed at reducing the 

risks and costs associated with the loss of benefit support and medical services as 

a result of returning to work. Some of the most commonly used incentives are Section 1619(a) and (b) provisions; impairment-related work expenses (IRWE); trial 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

207 

work period (TWP); Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS); extended period of eligibility (EPE); and continued payment under a vocational rehabilitation program. 

However, despite efforts by SSA and the Federal Government that have led to 

more favorable conditions for returning to work, most SSI and DI beneficiaries continue to stay on the disability rolls. The work incentives offered by SSA remain 

largely underutilized; in March 2000, of the total number of eligible working beneficiaries, only 0.3 percent were using PASS, 2.8 percent were using IRWEs, 7.5 percent were receiving Section 1619(a) cash benefits, and 20.4 percent were receiving 

Section 1619(b) extended Medicare coverage (SSA, 2000). The major reasons cited 

for the extreme underutilization of these work incentives by beneficiaries were (1) 

few beneficiaries knew that the work incentives existed, and (2) those who were 

aware of the incentives thought they were complex, difficult to understand, and of 

limited use when entering low-paying employment (GAO, 1999). 

The Office of Program Development and Research (OPDR) and the Office of Employment Support Programs (OESP) under the Deputy Commissioner for Disability 

and Income Security Programs are primarily responsible for the implementation of 

multiple components of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act 

of 1999 (TWWIIA). The TWWIIA provides a number of new program opportunities 

and work incentives for both SSI and DI beneficiaries, including the Ticket to Work 

(TTW) and Self-Sufficiency Program; development of a work-incentives support plan 

through the creation of national network of Benefits Planning, Assistance, and Outreach (BPAO) programs; and new work incentives, including expedited reinstatement (EXR) of benefits and postponement of continuing disability reviews. 

The National Council on Disability’s Study of the Problem 

It is not known whether the new TWWIIA programs will have any more success 

than past attempts by SSA to impact the employment rate and earnings of beneficiaries. What is clear is that there has not been, in recent times, a comprehensive, 

research-based examination of the practices that are most likely to support the employment of SSI and DI beneficiaries. This study has been undertaken in response 

to the need for such a comprehensive analysis. The study was designed to address 

four research questions: 

• What are the evidence-based practices that promote the return to work of working-age beneficiaries of DI and SSI programs? 

• What policy changes are needed, given recent trends in program participation 

and employment? 

• Are there proven and documented practices that work better for some populations of people with disabilities and not others? 

• Which factors ensure that documented and evidence-based practices could be 

adapted/ adopted by SSA and other entities that seek to ensure the employment 

of people with disabilities? Which factors prevent adaptation/adoption? 

A four-step approach was taken to implement the study. First, a comprehensive 

literature synthesis was completed through a review of published and unpublished 

literature. Second, detailed structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, including SSA beneficiaries, federal SSA officials, representatives of other 

federal agencies, consumer and advocacy organizations, service organizations, community service providers, and business representatives. Third, a preliminary list of 

findings, evidence-based practices, and recommendations based on the literature review and structured interviews was used to develop seven topic papers. These papers were used to facilitate discussion and obtain reaction from participants who 

were invited to a consensus-building conference at the end of January 2005. Individuals with disabilities (including current and former SSI and DI beneficiaries), advocacy organizations, service providers, and policymakers who attended the conference 

had the opportunity to further develop the recommendations that appear throughout 

the report. 

Major Findings of the Study 

Purpose and Mission of SSA’s Disability Benefit Programs 

Our nation’s current disability benefit programs are based on a policy principle 

that assumes that the presence of a significant disability and lack of substantial 

earnings equates to a complete inability to work. The current SSA eligibility determination process thwarts return-to-work efforts, because applicants are required to 

demonstrate a complete inability to engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) in 

order to qualify for benefits. The definition fails to recognize that, for many consumers, disability is a dynamic condition. The length of the application process in 

our current programs actually contributes to the ineffectiveness of our return-towork efforts and our inability to intervene early in the disability process. 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

208 

For DI individuals, lack of a gradual reduction in benefits as earnings increase 

and lack of attachment to the DI and Medicare programs after an individual has 

maintained employment for an extended period of time make return to work 

unfeasible. For SSI beneficiaries, the program’s stringent asset limitations thwart 

efforts toward asset development and economic self-sufficiency. Inconsistencies in 

program provisions lead to confusion and inequities for beneficiaries of both programs. 

Beneficiary Perspective and Self-Direction 

To receive benefits, applicants must characterize their situation as an inability to 

work long-term. They must demonstrate that they are unable to work in any significant way. Once they are determined to be eligible for disability benefits, beneficiaries face a host of complex program rules and policies related to continuing eligibility for cash benefits and access to healthcare. Many beneficiaries are confused 

or uninformed about the impact of return to work on their life situation and have 

shied away from opportunities to become self-sufficient through work. 

Beneficiaries report that their experience with SSA is often unfavorable. Insufficient staffing has led to long lines and poor services. Misinformation is frequent, 

and mistrust common. Local SSA field office staff members are overburdened with 

accurate and timely processing of post-entitlement earnings reporting, which often 

leads to overpayments to beneficiaries. Beneficiaries do not trust SSA to make appropriate and timely decisions. There is prevalent fear that work attempts would 

result in either a determination that the disability had ended or the need to repay 

benefits. 

SSA has implemented many legislative changes, program modifications, training 

initiatives, and automation efforts in the past 15 years to improve its customer service. Although efforts to streamline processing and improve customer service should 

be lauded, they have not significantly improved beneficiaries’ ability to direct and 

control their own careers. 

Income Issues and Incentives 

A multitude of rules regarding employment income, continued eligibility for disability benefits, waiting periods, earnings reporting, management of benefit payments, and management of assets (among many others) come into play once an individual is determined to be eligible for DI or SSI. SSA rules regarding employment 

and income are such that many beneficiaries will actually be worse off financially 

if they work full time. Disincentives to employment in the current benefits programs 

include a sudden loss of cash benefits as a result of earnings above the SGA level 

for DI beneficiaries. Despite a number of programs that are designed to encourage 

asset building among SSI beneficiaries, it remains very difficult for beneficiaries to 

save and accumulate resources under SSI, which contributes to long-term impoverishment and dependence on public benefits. 

Over the past decade, SSA has devoted considerable resources to promoting employment and return to work among SSI and DI beneficiaries. The agency has aggressively implemented a number of new initiatives authorized under the TWWIIA, 

such as the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program, the BPAO program, area 

work incentive coordinators, and Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social 

Security. It has modified program rules to provide increased work incentives to 

beneficiaries, such as the EXR and protection from continuing disability review provisions of TWWIIA, indexing the SGA threshold, and increasing the level of earnings allowed during the Trial Work Period (TWP). The agency has also launched or 

is planning to initiate a number of demonstrations that will test the efficacy of new 

modifications to work incentives within the DI program and services targeted toward youth with disabilities. Yet, while SSA has taken steps to improve its returnto-work services through the provision of work incentives, these efforts are hampered by the underlying program rules that were designed for individuals assumed 

to be permanently retired from the workforce and individuals who were viewed as 

unable or unlikely to work in the future. 

Coordination and Collaboration Among Systems 

Expansion of the disability programs and the poor employment rates of adults 

with disabilities have become major concerns for SSA and disability policymakers 

across the country. Too often, the alarming growth of the Social Security disability 

rolls has been represented and perceived as SSA’s problem to solve in isolation, 

when in fact it is a larger societal problem with myriad complex causes. Receipt of 

Social Security disability benefits is merely the last stop on a long journey that 

many people with disabilities make from the point of disability onset to the point 

at which disability is so severe that work is not possible. All along this journey, individuals encounter the policies and practices of the other systems involved in discprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

209 

ability and employment issues. When these systems fail to stem the progression of 

disability or work at cross-purposes with one another to prevent successful employment retention or return to work, it is the Social Security disability system that 

bears the eventual brunt of this failure. Any meaningful effort to slow down or reverse this relentless march toward federal disability benefits will require significant 

and sustained collaboration and coordination among SSA and the other federal 

agencies with a stake in developing disability and employment policy. 

The complex obstacles to employment faced by SSA beneficiaries require a comprehensive set of solutions. New approaches must be identified that emphasize beneficiary control of career planning and the ability to access self-selected services and 

supports. Public and private healthcare providers must develop new collaborations 

and new approaches to combining coverage from multiple sources to improve program efficiencies. SSA must continue to work with the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) to improve implementation 

of the TTW program and identify new approaches that will overcome the traditional 

inability of SSA beneficiaries to benefit from services provided by the nation’s employment and training programs. Secondary and postsecondary educational institutions must emphasize benefits counseling and financial management training as the 

foundation for beneficiary self-direction and economic self-sufficiency. Federal agencies and the business community must realize that collaborative approaches to incorporating beneficiaries into the workforce are needed as a way to reduce dependence on federal benefits while simultaneously enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of large and small business. 

Recommendations 

A total of 38 specific recommendations have been developed in the areas of Beneficiary Perspective and Self-Direction, Income Issues and Incentives, and Coordination and Collaboration Among Multiple Public and Private Systems. The recommendations are presented and justified in Chapters III, IV, and V of the report, 

and a complete list is provided in Chapter VI. The key recommendations resulting 

from the study are summarized below. 

Beneficiary Perspective and Self-Direction 

Customer Service—SSA should take immediate steps to improve the services provided to beneficiaries by improving the accessibility of SSA field offices and Web 

sites; redesigning field office personnel roles, staffing patterns and work assignments; continuing efforts to automate work reporting procedures; and enhancing 

outreach efforts to beneficiaries. 

Ticket to Work Program—Congress and SSA should address current shortcomings 

in the TTW program by (1) expanding Ticket eligibility to include beneficiaries 

whose conditions are expected to improve and who have not had at least one continuing disability review (CDR), childhood SSI beneficiaries who have attained age 

18 but who have not had a redetermination under the adult disability standard, and 

beneficiaries who have not attained age 18; (2) modifying the TTW regulations to 

ensure that Ticket assignment practices do not violate the voluntary nature of the 

program and beneficiary rights to grant informed consent; and (3) implementing a 

strong national marketing program to inform beneficiaries about TTW and other 

SSA programs. 

Facilitate Beneficiary Choice—Congress should authorize and direct SSA, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and 

the Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration (DOLETA) to 

develop and implement an integrated benefits planning and assistance program that 

coordinates resources and oversight across several agencies that enables beneficiaries to access benefit planning services within multiple federal systems. Congress should also authorize and direct these agencies to consider changes to the existing BPAO initiative to improve the accuracy and quality of services provided to 

individual beneficiaries. 

Reduce SSA Overpayments to Beneficiaries—Congress and SSA should implement 

a series of procedural reforms to reduce overpayment to beneficiaries by increasing 

the use of electronic quarterly earnings data and automated improvements to expedite the processing of work activity and earnings; piloting the creation of centralized 

work CDR processing in cadres similar to PASS and Special Disability Workload 

Cadres; and enhancing efforts to educate beneficiaries on reporting requirements, 

the impact of wages on benefits, and available work incentives. 

Eliminate the Marriage Penalty—Congress and SSA should undertake a complete 

review of the SSI program and make program modifications that eliminate the financial disincentive to marriage inherent in the present program, including amendcprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

210 

ing the current Title XVI disability legislation to modify the manner in which 

1619(b) eligibility is applied to eligible couples. 

Income Issues and Incentives 

Ease the SGA Cash Cliff for DI Beneficiaries—Congress should modify the current 

Title II disability legislation to eliminate SGA as a post-entitlement consideration 

for continued eligibility for Title II disability benefits and provide for a gradual reduction in DI cash benefits based on increases in earned income. 

Reduce Restrictions on Assets for SSI Beneficiaries—Congress should direct SSA 

to (1) develop and test program additions and regulatory modifications that will enable SSI beneficiaries to accumulate assets beyond existing limits through protected 

accounts and other savings programs, and (2) change current program rules and 

work with other federal agencies to modify and expand the value of individual development account (IDA) programs to SSA beneficiaries. 

Decrease the Complexity of the DI/SSI Program Rules Governing Income and Resources—Congress should direct SSA to (1) simplify regulatory earnings definitions 

and wage verification processes so that they are consistent across the SSI and DI 

programs, and (2) direct SSA to modify regulations related to the treatment of earnings in the DI program by applying the same rules currently applied in the SSI program. 

Coordination and Collaboration Among Multiple Public and Private Systems 

Health Care Systems—Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and 

SSA should work together closely to (1) modify existing program regulations in 

order to uncouple Medicare and Medicaid coverage from DI/SSI cash payments; (2) 

identify and eliminate the many employment disincentives currently built into the 

Medicaid waiver, Medicaid buy-in, and Health Insurance Premium Payment (HIPP) 

programs; (3) expand benefits counseling services to include the full range of financial education and advisement services; and (4) work collaboratively with public and 

private insurance providers and business representatives to design public-private insurance partnerships that will expand access to healthcare for individuals with disabilities. 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) System—SSA should modify TTW program regulations to allow the SSA’s traditional VR cost reimbursement program to carry on as 

a parallel program to the Employment Network (EN) outcome or outcome-milestone 

payment mechanisms, and ensure that an EN is able to accept Ticket assignment 

from a beneficiary, refer that individual to the VR agency for needed services, and 

not be required to reimburse the VR agency for those services. 

Federal Employment and Training System—Congress, SSA, and the Department 

of Labor should undertake an analysis of the impact of allowing DOL One-Stop Career Centers to receive cost reimbursement payments for successfully serving beneficiaries under the TTW program, evaluate the impact of the Workforce Investment 

Act (WIA) performance standards on beneficiary participation in WIA programs, and 

design and test a set of waivers that will assist beneficiaries in accessing and benefiting from WIA core and intensive services, as well as individual training accounts. 

Educational System—Congress should direct SSA to work with the Department 

of Education (ED) to (1) ensure that benefits planning and financial management 

services are available to the transition-aged population; (2) expand the current student earned income exclusion (SEIE) and the Plan for Achieving Self-Support 

(PASS) to encourage involvement of SSA beneficiaries in postsecondary education 

and training; and (3) implement a policy change that would disregard all earned income and asset accumulation limits for beneficiaries who are transitioning from secondary education to postsecondary education or employment for at least one year 

after education or training is completed. 

Employers, Business Community, and Private Insurance Industry—Congress 

should direct SSA and the Department of the Treasury to (1) evaluate the possible 

effects of a disabled person tax credit as a means of increasing the use of disability 

management programs in business to prevent progression of injured and disabled 

workers onto the public disability rolls, and (2) collaborate with Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (DOLETA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) to develop 

and implement an employer outreach program targeted toward small and mid-size 

businesses. 

f 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

211 

Statement of Rene ́e B. Jubrey 

I am writing to you with great concern regarding the matter of the Social Security 

Vocational Expert Rate Raise. As a Vocational Expert I have provided testimony in 

court for the Office of Disability, Adjudication and Review (ODAR) specific to individual documented limitations, past relevant work and numbers of jobs in the local 

economy as well as the nation. The judges I work for continue to use my services 

as it helps them make an informed decision and fewer cases are remanded. They 

have told me my participation in these hearings is invaluable, assisting in clearing 

the much touted backlog and I could be scheduled more than I am now. 

Vocational Experts working for ODAR have not had a raise in our rates since 

1972 and therefore the current rate of pay is substantially below what we are paid 

in the private sector. Although we continue to work for this amount, it is only with 

the thought that a sense of fair play and justice will prevail. The new rates were 

provided to us, and some of us even had contracts mailed to us, only to be rescinded. 

We had been told that the language of the contract needed to be altered and they 

would be redistributed and ‘‘up and running’’ by 1/1/09. Since then we have waited 

patiently for the continuing resolution to play out, and now that we have seen the 

budget approved for Social Security we remain hopeful. If the purpose of increasing 

the Social Security budget in 2009 as well as 2010 is to reduce the backlog, then 

Vocational Experts will play a crucial role in this endeavor. 

The Social Security Commission funded a panel a few years back to conduct a 

needs assessment related to current administration needs. The panel report (found 

at) made clear the need for Vocational Experts as well as Medical Experts to receive 

an increase in fees. I feel that we Vocational Experts have been more than patient 

and beseech you to address this on our behalf. I am a member of the International 

Association of Rehabilitation Professionals (IARP) and we hope for your support in 

this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Rene ́e B. Jubrey, MS, CVE 

RBJ Vocational Experts 

674 Prospect Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Æ 

cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING